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 confederacy started losing the war April 12, 1861. It just took 4 years for the inevitable surrender to take place.
Wirz and his superiors deserved to be hung for the way he treated the prisoners under their control. So did the Union officers running Elmira and Camp Douglas, and their superiors. Both sides could have cared for their POWS but didn't. They could have provided decent food but didn't. They could have provided adequate shelter but didn't. Neither side has any moral high-ground in this area.
The South had tens of thousands of slaves and free blacks supporting their army as laborers, cooks, servants, teamsters, and the like. It was illegal for blacks to serve in combat roles until March 1865. By then it was far too late. It should be noted that the idea of armed blacks fighting in their ranks was repugnant to virtually all confederate officers and enlisted.
Most definitely. A lot of people think that an independent confederacy and the United States would have gotten along like the U.S. and Canada do today. I believe it would be more like East and West Germany of the Cold War.
I’ve never heard that about J.E.B. Stuart. It would make more sense than Lee inexplicably sending his men up that grade/hill to die. Lee wasn’t known for sending men into a meat grinder. If so, it sounds like it was an intelligence issue, not knowing where Custer’s (7th Cav?) were.
He held diplomatic posts in both Haiti and the Dominican Republic but neither of those had ambassador status. The first full fledged black Ambassador from the U.S. to a foreign country is considered to be Edward Dudley, appointed Ambassador to Liberia by Harry Truman.
Sure. And all Five Point hookers looked like Cameron Diaz, too.
The Northern draft was a failure and didn't provide more than 5 or 6 precent of the Union army. Conscripts made up almost a third of the confederate army by the end, and one can make the case that the percentage should be close to 100% since in 1862 Davis extended all enlistments for the duration of the war. Lincoln never did that, and the Union army could have melted away in 1864 and 1865 as enlistments ran out. The fact that it didn't says a lot about those fighting for the Northern cause. Start to finish, the Union army was overwhelmingly a volunteer outfit.
LOL, I’m certain I should have gone to the store for more popcorn, but what can you do? :)
I had that book recommended to me in a previous thread and that might be one of the tomes I get along with Foote’s trilogy.
My next reading adventure after I’m done with Daniel Flynn’s “A Conservative History of the American Left” is Foote’s “Civil War” volumes. I’ve found some good prices for the paperback version on Amazon.
After watching “The Civil War” in which Foote was prominently featured, I was flat out amazed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-szx8DJinBk
If Foote writes as well as he comments and speaks, I can’t wait to read it.
I can't believe I missed Dred Scott in all of this. That's like running a marathon and forgetting to tie your shoes. Thanks for catching that.
Actually, Guns of the South is a stand alone book and not part of the Alt. Hist. series.
That series actually starts with a Confederate victory at Antietam in “How Few Remain”, with no Science Fiction thrown in.
I'll confirm what N-S vaguely recalls. The whole concept of the ballot as we know it today--all the candidates listed, selection made in secret and dropped in a sealed box--was essentially unknown to 1860 America. Known as the "Australian Ballot", those innovations came to US elections in the late 1880s. Prior to that, each party printed up it's own ballots and passed them out to its members to hand in on election day. This is the "ticket" that we still talk about today.
No problemo. :)
That's true, I was kind of going for brevity rather than detail on a few of these, but I did remember this from reading the late William Rehnquist's book "Centennial Crisis: the Disputed Election of 1876". Even the way candidates were nominated was entirely different, since there wasn't anything that resembled primary elections back then either.
Where did you get 5 or 6 percent? I found the following reference:
"Under the Union draft act men faced the possibility of conscription in July 1863 and in Mar., July, and Dec. 1864. Draft riots ensued, notably in New York in 1863. Of the 249,259 18-to-35-year-old men whose names were drawn, only about 6% served, the rest paying commutation or hiring a substitute."
A quarter million men were raised on the Union side due to the Draft. Some were draftees, most were so-called "substitutes", and undoubtedly some never reported. A quarter million men that you wouldn't have had without the Draft. Considerably more than 6 percent of the total standing force of the combined Union Armies at any given instant in 1864/5 wouldn't you agree?
Sure. And all Five Point hookers looked like Cameron Diaz, too.
Cute. Do you have any hard stats, or are you just blowing smoke?
Well, that about covers it. Good post.
From Wiki:
“The United States first employed national conscription during the American Civil War. The vast majority of troops were volunteers, however: of the 2,100,000 Union soldiers, about 2% were draftees, and another 6% were paid substitutes.
If you consider the combined total of 8% (draftees & paid substitutes) of a 2.1 million combined force over the entire war, the total percentage of draft-related serviceman was pretty high of the force serving over the last year of the War. Again, the established force of the combined armies at any given instant would have been lower, much lower, than the 2.1 million total that served.
Not quite. In a Union army of 2.5 million, 6% would be 150,000 men or about 60% of those you site says were called up. Your site mentions commutations and substitutes as ways of avoiding service. Commutation was simply paying a specific amount of money, usually several hundred dollars, and the draftee is released from their obligation. Such a practice resulted in no soldier at all. Also your site doesn't mention the fact that conscripts could be release for hardship or because of disability. This site mentions that in 1863 some 65% of all conscripts were released due to physical disability or hardship. Between commutation and other forms of discharge it's not hard to see how the draft actually produced comparatively few soldiers.
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.