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.
I’m considering heading down to New Orleans in October and I’ve been contemplating taking a day or two to check out a few Civil War sites (I’ve wanted to go to Shiloh for a while since I have had relatives of many generations ago that lived in TN, but that’s probably a bit of a drive from the Big Easy). Vicksburg isn’t that far of a drive from New Orleans, is it?
I do have to apologize to N-S, as his first comment in the thread started off with "Wow". My hope is that it wasn't in a pejorative context. :-/
BTW, thanks for the responses Non-Sequitur, I genuinely appreciate them.
Shelby Foote, one of several fine writers from Greenville, Mississippi.
Absolutely right - until Antietam. After Antietam, Lord John Russell was the only man in the ministry vocally agitating for recognition. The rest of the Palmerston ministry was decidedly cool after that.
and that the British did supply arms and naval vessels to the rebels.
Purely on a private basis, with the Confederates resorting to deception. The UK did not officially permit the building of CSA vessels in the UK nor did they fund them. The ministry looked the other way while Confederate agents lied and said they were independent contractors for French or Dutch interests.
And as for No. 13, I don't think you can omit a mention of the NYC draft riots, fueled by Democratic politicians and mobs of Irish immigrants. Classic “identity” politics, no so different from today.
Well put, but it was obvious to both Washington and Richmond that these riots were the work of an unorganized rabble.
Lorenzo Wood was a bigger threat to the Union's integrity than the rioters.
Also, there were food riots in the South, draft resistance from northern Alabama to western North Carolina, and veiled threats of declarations of neutrality from Georgia and North Carolina, as well as an armed Unionist movement in eastern Tennessee. Internal dissent in the Union was nothing compared to the internal dissent in the Confederacy.
Beats me, but I was mainly going by the description of that campaign in the film. After reading your response it makes more sense to me what the whole point of Lee's army going into PA.
Besides Foote's trilogy, this is one I'm going to get. Anymore I'm about 3 or 4 books behind on a regular basis so I think with those that'll put me about 7 or 8 behind. :)
Vicksburg’s about 4 hours from N. O. Directly east of Jackson, MS on I-20. Two things about Vicksburg you should keep in mind: the Battle of Champion’s Hill (the key battle of the campaign) and Grierson’s Raid (immortalized in John Wayne’s “The Horse Soldiers”).
You’ll need to set aside an entire day for Vicksburg, imo.
When the Confederates failed to bottle up the Union at Chattanooga for the whole winter of 1863-64 they lost their big chance to present a Georgia stalemate to the electorate for the 1864 election. McClellan might have had a shot against Lincoln had Sherman still been bogged down in the rugged terrain of north Georgia.
No insult intended; Hopefully none taken.
Thanks. I actually never read after “Guns of the South.” I got the gist from the fly leaves of the books. I did enjoy his World at War series.
I wish I could remember the name of the book. It was really interesting and was pretty well supported by accounts from Confederate officers other than Lee. There was documentary evidence to support the idea that Stuart was a part of the attack that failed.
Good point.
I fully agree. Lee did have a third option also and that would have been to do as you suggest, bide his time in Gettysburg, while he allowed his troops some rest, strengthened his lines of supply and sent small foraging parties out to wreak what havoc they could in say a 20-30 mile radius of Gettysburg.
19. How did Lincoln handle Helen Thomas?
Foote’s trilogy in soft-cover is the way to go. It’s considerably less expensive than the hard-cover version. My McPherson copy is also soft-cover.
If anything, these two historical references will give you all the knowledge you need for a good, in-depth understanding of the times and the conflict.
And don’t worry about being behind. Reading is something you can never catch up on. There’s always more... :)
Well, yes and no. I can't claim any originality to the idea that Lee would have holed up around Gettysburg -- I got the idea from Shaara's book on Gettyburg, where Gen. Bufordis depicted as considering the possibility as part of his decision to stand where he did. He saw that if the Confederates were able to establish themselves in the area, the Union faced an expensive campaign of attacking uphill against entrenched forces to evict them -- the same problem that resulted in such bloodshed at Fredricksburg (and Pickett's charge, and elsewhere).
But beyond that, we need to look at the undoubted supply issues faced by the Confederates -- shoes, horses, and so on were in chronically short supply, for example. It clearly obviated the possibility of a long campaign against determined resistance; after all, the only reason they got as far as Gettysburg in the first place was because they had no opposition -- the Union wasn't even sure where they were.
On the other hand, I think the Confederate army would have been vulnerable to a seige had they remained in the Gettysburg area. They'd have had to fight their way out, eventually, or starve.
The Confederates, under Braxton Bragg, HAD the Union bottled up in Chattanooga (with Union general William Rosecrans in charge). It took the War Department moving Grant to Chattanooga, his replacing Rosecrans with General George Thomas, their opening up a supply line to the city, and two well-fought (though not so well managed) battles to relieve the siege.
Sherman's ability to move beyond North Georgia was helped in part by an indecisive Joseph E. Johnston (who had replaced Bragg). Johnston was never a favorite of President jefferson Davis, who eventually replaced him with John Bell Hood (just prior to the Battle of Peachtree Creek). Hood soon retreated from Atlanta moving North-West, and opened the door for Sherman's subsequent March to the Sea.
You may be thinking of Stuart’s cavalry engagement East of Gettysburg on July 3rd. It was part of a three-pronged attack planned by Lee on the Union defenses. Longstreet (which included Pickett) was to lead the main attack on Cemetery Ridge, with Ewell attacking Cemetery and Culps Hills. Stuart was to sweep around the Union flank East of Gettysburg.
Stuart engaged Gregg’s and Custer’s cavalry about 3 miles East of town and was routed. It was not a major action of the day, nor of the entire 3 days. His cavalry had only arrived the day before, having been cut off from communication with Lee’s main army for a considerable period, thereby giving Lee no actionable intelligence during his march into Pennsylvania.
I am sure that was it.
It was essentially a sidelight to the battle; having no measurable affect one way or the other. And it wasn’t coordinated within Longstreet’s attack. It was a separate engagement although it was meant to distract Union forces during the attack on Cemetery Ridge.
It’s mentioned both by Foote and McPherson in their volumes on the war.
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.