Foote did a 3 vol series that I have been saving for when I have more time to enjoy them, which will hopefully be next winter (and the new house will even have a fireplace!)
Posted on 07/15/2008 1:45:31 PM PDT by GOP_Raider
This past weekend I watched Ken Burns' PBS documentary "The Civil War", and naturally I was left with far more questions than answers. (With the exception of the fact that I was unbelievably impressed with the commentary of the late Shelby Foote) So I compiled a series of them that are probably too wide in scope for one thread, but I will go ahead and ask them anyway.
(Note: I'm going to admit a general ignorance on many of the subjects I present here, so if any of you responding find a "well, no $#@$@# Sherlock" question, I apologize in advance. Thanks.)
1. Did the Southern states "have it in" for Lincoln from the beginning? In the election of 1860, Lincoln was not on the ballot in about 10 states. Was this due primarily to the Republican party being a very new political party or did many Southern states see something about Lincoln that the rest of the country didn't?
2. The eventual hanging of John Brown is seen as the spark that set off the war--at least as conventional wisdom presented by Burns is. Why is this event thought of as the catalyst for the war as opposed to the actual secession of the Confederate states?
3. When the Confederacy was formed, why didn't European nations (England, France, Spain, etc.) recognize the Confederacy diplomatically? What prevented them from doing so as the South had early success militarily?
4. (With apologies to Paleo Conservative) Why were the names of specific battles different between the Union and Confederates? e.g.: The first and second battles of Bull Run/Mannassas, the South referring to names of towns, the North to creeks, rivers and bodies of water.
5. Why wasn't the Confederacy able to march further west, towards the Pacific Coast (with the Battle of Glorieta Pass in New Mexico and Battle of Pichaco Peak in Arizona as two examples). Was the South stretched too thin to make this possible?
6. Throughout the film, the name of Frederick Douglass keeps surfacing, again keeping with the theme of the war being exclusively over slavery in the minds of many. Was Douglass anything more than a mere activist or was his impact much more significant?
7. West Virginia became a state during the war, which as we know were 63 counties of "Old" Virginia that left the Confederacy to join (or more accurately re-join) the Union. As a rank amateur historian, I would think this would have been a very significant point in the war, where one half of a southern state breaks away and forms its own state and that state joins the Union, but it isn't. Why?
8. Around this time was Lee's campaign to march north, which would lead to the eventual battle at Gettysburg. Would it have been much effective for the Rebels to take Maryland, making sure they fall to the Rebels rather than to go that far north?
9. What are we to make of George McClellan (sic)? I've seen on previous threads that Hood and Bragg weren't the most competent on the Rebel side, can that assertion also be made of McClellan?
10. Assume for a moment that Pickett's charge at Gettysburg works and the Rebels win there. Would it be entirely possible to have seen a major battle and possible bloodbath in Philadelphia or Baltimore? (Something that would have possibly dwarfed the casualties and deaths at Shiloh, Antietam, etc.?)
11. Was Lincoln in actual danger of losing the 1864 election? Could the Democrats have nominated a candidate other than McClelland that would have given them a chance to win?
12. For the Rebels, what point did the wheels come off of their campaign? (Assuming that it was a point other than Gettysburg.) Would the South had more success later on had Stonewall Jackson not died at Chancellorsville?
13. What kind of "anti-war" sentiment was going on in the North (beyond the notorious "Copperheads")? Did the South make any mistakes in not taking advantage of this?
14. The prison camp at Andersonville, GA is an intriguing and horrific story as "The Civil War" presents. Did Henry Wirz deserve to be charged, convicted and later hanged for war crimes or did this occur due to the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination?
15. John Wilkes Booth, the murderer of Lincoln, was an actor. Anyone else think this was an interesting precursor to the acting community of today to get that involved in politics?
(Sorry, that one kind of got away from me)
16. Shelby Foote mentions that "The North fought that war with one arm behind its back." He would go on to say that "if there had been more Confederate success that the North's 'other arm' would have come around and that the South had little chance to win." Is Foote accurate here in this regard or were there enough chances for the Rebels to win given the battles that they were able to win?
17. Lee had a small number of blacks fighting in his army later on in the war, but as Burns asserts, it was due to Lee running out of men. Is there anything to suggest that blacks fought on the Rebel side before this point?
18. Had the Rebels secured a victory--and in this particular context, with Washington having fallen and Lincoln being forced to recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, would it have been at all possible to have had a second war, going on possibly into the 20th Century?
Thanks again to everyone who responded to my previous thread.
The South failed to take advantage of its military victories and fought a defensive war. Had the Confederate forces taken advantage of their victory at First Manassas, they could have easily captured Washington while the Union forces were in disarray. From there, they could well have taken Baltimore and central and southern Maryland, where pro-secessionists were better organized. At that point, the Confederates would have been an imminent threat to the rich industrial and agricultural areas of southeastern Pennsylvania. President Lincoln might then have been forced to end hostilities. Recognition by Britain and France would have soon followed. Remember that the only two powers to establish official diplomatic ties were the Papal States and the German Duchy of Saxe-Coburg, which was ruled by the brother of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's husband. Saxe-Coburg was no doubt a "stalking horse" for Britain.
There is a lesson here, which should have been heeded in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. You cannot ensure victory with half measures. You can suffer via overextension, as both Germany and Japan did in World War II. However, the failure of the South to invade the North until well over one year after Fort Sumter was a major error and fortuitous for Lincoln's goal of preserving the Union.
Foote did a 3 vol series that I have been saving for when I have more time to enjoy them, which will hopefully be next winter (and the new house will even have a fireplace!)
Pa made more sense as he got to eat off their land, get their shoes and other useful things all without pissing off a border/sympathetic state like Maryland.
McClellan would have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia at the Battle of Antietam -- if he had only had good intelligence as to its actual size.
Even if you have no intention of becoming a follower of Civil War history, this is a book that will serve you well historically.
McClellan DID have good information at Antietam.
He had Lee’s “Lost Order” - which detailed out who was in command of how many troops and where they were supposed to be.
He assumed it to be a fake and decided to do nothing - convinced of the fact that Lee dramatically outnumbered him.
A quick reconnaisance by Union cavalry could have proven that the Lost Order was in fact, accurate.
Bookmark for later
Culturally, economically and geographically, the people in WV have a lot more in common with the populations of western PA and southern OH than they do with those in Richmond, Norfolk or Arlington. It was to their advantage to align with the north, and I would guess too much trouble for the south to occupy and defend the area.
Is that the battle where McClellan had the South's battle plan(the plans had been found wrapped around some cigars) but refused to believe them?
I may be on my third tour by then. I try to re-read them every year. There's always something to revisit or understand better.
Never mind. Mpls Steve aswered my question.
Which was his personal tag line if they had had the internet then.
Great thread. Im not in authority enough to answer any of your questions but I do know that Ken Burns Civil War was about the best series that’s ever been put on TV.
My God! “Non sequitur” as yet to chime in. Amazing.
Self-Ping for later answering.
Both sides saw the "theater of war" as being along the Eastern Seaboard, mostly. This is where both seats of government resided. It was also where the majority of rail traffic existed at the time. Keep in mind, this was the first "transportation war".
But, beyond that, the far West was too far away, too inaccessible, to be considered a theater. And the South was too stretched as far as personnel, equipment, foodstuffs, manufacturing and transportation to extend themselves beyond their controlled area of interest.
I'm guessing you are a) retired and b) not a wife :)
You're very astute :)
If I have nothing to read I'm virtually lost. And since I've nothing at this time, I've decided to re-read the book I mentioned above; "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson. It's the best single volume history of the war I'm aware of.
There would definitely have been a second war.
There were several "sectional crises" that eventually led up to the war, all of which had to do with western expansion and the status of slaves in the new states.
Had the South won, westward expansion would still have been an issue, and now there would have been two nations involved, with pre-existing bad blood between them. The war would definitely have begun anew, in the west -- probably within 5 years of the end of the previous one.
This war would NOT have lasted into the 20th Century, because the preponderance of Northern industrial might (which effectively won the first time) would still be relevant.
The Union badly defeated the Confederacy in the western war almost from the very beginning. I think the primary reason is that the western war spanned a huge territory, and depended much more on logistics. The Union had much better logistical capacity ... and they also had Gen. Thomas to figure out how to use it. Logistics would have defeated the South in a subsequent western war as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.