The Official Civil War Thread

[creekster]

I am skeptical about any one Civil War work volume being definitive.

Don't be such a lawyer. It is abotu as close as you will ever get, so just enjoy it for what it is.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I forgot about the works by Foote. My parents have the series; I will "borrow" them next time I am in SLC.

Considering my children are still "babies" relative to most of you on this thread and spend their days trying to kill one another in fantastically diabliocal ways, I am lucky to get 20-30 minutes at a time to read books. I will put these books on the nightstand and pick away at them.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That is a good question. I have to wonder if he would have been impeached for some of his actions if the South won and he survived.

<snip>

I agree with much of what you say, NWUF. But in fairness, it must be pointed out that Lincoln and those fighting for the North sincerely believed that they were fighting to preserve the constitution, freedom, democracy, etc. For the vast majority it had nothing to do with a exerting the influence of a tyrannical federal government.

Furthermore, it helps to step back and consider the origin of the war in the absence of historical hindsight. First of all, the speed at which things progressed to war once the states seceded is remarkable and seemed to catch everyone off-guard, considering how small the armies were on both sides at the time Sumter was attacked. And I don't think anybody anticipated the massive amount of blood and treasure that would be lost of both sides. One senator predicted that it would be over quickly and you would be able to mop up all of the blood that would be spilled with one handkerchief. Had they foreseen four years of destruction and 600,000 lives being lost I suspect they would have worked things out differently.

[happyone]

I agree with much of what you say, NWUF. But in fairness, it must be pointed out that Lincoln and those fighting for the North sincerely believed that they were fighting to preserve the constitution, freedom, democracy, etc. For the vast majority it had nothing to do with a exerting the influence of a tyrannical federal government.

Furthermore, it helps to step back and consider the origin of the war in the absence of historical hindsight. First of all, the speed at which things progressed to war once the states seceded is remarkable and seemed to catch everyone off-guard, considering how small the armies were on both sides at the time Sumter was attacked. And I don't think anybody anticipated the massive amount of blood and treasure that would be lost of both sides. One senator predicted that it would be over quickly and you would be able to mop up all of the blood that would be spilled with one handkerchief. Had they foreseen four years of destruction and 600,000 lives being lost I suspect they would have worked things out differently.

IIRC that is correct. Lincoln's first call for volunteers was for 90 days and these are the troops that fought the First Battle of Bull Run. Almost nobody on either side expected the war to last past the summer. Both sides felt that we can whip the other guys with one hand tied behind our back.

In some ways it was like the war frenzy that accompanied the start of WW I.

[creekster]

IIRC that is correct. Lincoln's first call for volunteers was for 90 days and these are the troops that fought the First Battle of Bull Run. Almost nobody on either side expected the war to last past the summer. Both sides felt that we can whip the other guys with one hand tied behind our back.

In some ways it was like the war frenzy that accompanied the start of WW I.

Indeed, at the first battle of bull run many of the genteel folks from D.C. rode in their carriages to the battle filed and took up prominent positions on high ground in order to watch the proceedings, expecting it to be a little kerfuffle that would allow them to see the victory, then make it home for dinner or at least for a cigar and Cognac.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I agree with much of what you say, NWUF. But in fairness, it must be pointed out that Lincoln and those fighting for the North sincerely believed that they were fighting to preserve the constitution, freedom, democracy, etc. For the vast majority it had nothing to do with a exerting the influence of a tyrannical federal government.

I agree, and didn't mean to sound such a contrarian. Your original post suggested that both sides believed they were "on the side of God". I suggest they both thought they were on the side of the Constitution as well.

Were I in the same shoes I have no idea what I would have done differently than Lincoln, or if I would be smart enought to do some of the things he did. The cushion of historical perspective affords us the opportunity to criticize, analyze, and theorize their actions, while the events in real-time were difficult beyond modern comprehension.

Their choices may have been unavoidable but nothing is wrong with talking about their lasting effects today.

IIRC that is correct. Lincoln's first call for volunteers was for 90 days and these are the troops that fought the First Battle of Bull Run. Almost nobody on either side expected the war to last past the summer. Both sides felt that we can whip the other guys with one hand tied behind our back.

In some ways it was like the war frenzy that accompanied the start of WW I.

You mentioned volunteers, and that is something I forgot. Lincoln blockaded the Southern ports, instituted the tariffs, and requested volunteers to invade the South. Those three events chased off the remaining Southern states.

I have to wonder what would have happened if somehow Lincoln was able to keep North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas to remain in the Union (or at least remain neutral) as he did with Deleware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Those final border states left specifically after his request for troops. Were they to stay put, would the Union have been better able to squash the rebellion? It certainly would have been convenient to keep the very large populations of those states, not to mention their militias, out of the war.

The speed with which the events proceeded is indeed mind boggling.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You mentioned volunteers, and that is something I forgot. Lincoln blockaded the Southern ports, instituted the tariffs, and requested volunteers to invade the South. Those three events chased off the remaining Southern states.

I have to wonder what would have happened if somehow Lincoln was able to keep North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas to remain in the Union (or at least remain neutral) as he did with Deleware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Those final border states left specifically after his request for troops. Were they to stay put, would the Union have been better able to squash the rebellion? It certainly would have been convenient to keep the very large populations of those states, not to mention their militias, out of the war.

The speed with which the events proceeded is indeed mind boggling.

I think your chronology is off. Lincoln did not call for volunteers until after Sumter. And a primary objective was to protect DC since secessionists in Virginia and Maryland and cut off rail access to DC and were threatening to invade the capital. Furthermore, the first call for volunteers (a request for 100,000) was from the South, not the North.

Also, the blockade occurred after Sumter.

[Coach McGuirk]

I think your chronology is off. Lincoln did not call for volunteers until after Sumter. And a primary objective was to protect DC since secessionists in Virginia and Maryland and cut off rail access to DC and were threatening to invade the capital. Furthermore, the first call for volunteers (a request for 100,000) was from the South, not the North.

Also, the blockade occurred after Sumter.

This was my understanding from my knowledge as well, but I am no expert on the matter. I believe lincoln called for 75,000 vols and 200,000 applied.

[happyone]

I think the call for volunteers was the final straw that drove the remaining 4 states to join the Confederacy.

As far as 1st Manassas, a nod to our Southern friends, IRRC McDowell really didn't think his troops were ready for a big fight, but it was a case of use 'm or lose 'm. Plus he was under a lot of political pressure to do something with the army before it went home.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I will need to verify my dates, but again it was a course of very rapid events.

The first states (including SC) seceded after the election in November. It is fair to say the overwhelming cause of this initial move was their determination to keep slavery status-quo.

Lincoln was inaugurated Mar 4 and Ft Sumter was April 12-13. The blockade was one of Lincoln's first actions as President. But then again, things were moving with excruciating rapidity.

Arkansas immediately left when pushed for volunteers (as did NC and Tennessee)

Virginia seceded in mid June (simultaneously West Virginia was trying to secede from Virginia to remain Union).

Kentucky left in December of 1861. All summer Unionists were requesting volunteers.

Missouri was November.

Interesting to me is the degree of infighting within the individual states. Eastern Tennessee, for instance, was strongly pro-Union. Same with Western Virginia (who split to become a state in 1863).

I have to wonder if it was like the 13 Colonies during John Adams' time, where "a third are timid, a third are Tory, and a third are true blue..."

[LA Ute]

This Washington Post op-ed seems appropriate for this thread:

Five myths about why the South seceded

According to the author, the myths are:

1. The South seceded over states’ rights.

2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.

3. Most white Southerners didn’t own slaves, so they wouldn’t secede for slavery.

4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.

5. The South couldn’t have made it long as a slave society.

[Surfah]

This Washington Post op-ed seems appropriate for this thread:

Five myths about why the South seceded

According to the author, the myths are:

1. The South seceded over states’ rights.

2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.

3. Most white Southerners didn’t own slaves, so they wouldn’t secede for slavery.

4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.

5. The South couldn’t have made it long as a slave society.

I am not buying myth #5.

[LA Ute]

I am not buying myth #5.

To me the key questions are first, how long would it have taken for slavery to die off on its own? Second, would any period of time have been acceptable?

[creekster]

To me the key questions are first, how long would it have taken for slavery to die off on its own? Second, would any period of time have been acceptable?

whether it was acceotpabe really doesnt address whether it was a myth at that time. So I guess we have to define 'long' and then see if we agree.


The interesting thing about the list is that it suggest by implication that the north was the side most worried about political philospohy and the south the most conc erned about slavery compared to now where most people see it the other way around. No matter how you slice it, though, the fight was about slavery.

[LA Ute]

whether it was acceotpabe really doesnt address whether it was a myth at that time. So I guess we have to define 'long' and then see if we agree.


The interesting thing about the list is that it suggest by implication that the north was the side most worried about political philospohy and the south the most conc erned about slavery compared to now where most people see it the other way around. No matter how you slice it, though, the fight was about slavery.

I agree that slavery was the sine qua non of the Civil War and have little patience for the contrary view (which I am sure surprises you, in light of my legendary patience and placidity. )

What he is describing as a myth is that slavery was on its last legs and the South could not have sustained "the peculiar institution" for long. I don't know enough about the economics of the time to know whether or not that is true.

My response to the notion that slavery was going to die anyway is "So, what?" If slavery really was on its last legs, what does that tell us about what should have been done about it in 1861? Not much, in my opinion. Those with an economic interest in preserving and extending slavery certainly wanted to do so as long as they could, and I don't think there were any significant voices in the South calling for it to be phased out. How do you phase out an evil like slavery on a mass scale, anyway?