"Thus ended the great American Civil War, which must upon the whole be considered the noblest and least avoidable of all the great mass conflicts of which till then there was record." -A History of English Speaking Peoples

Indeed, the great American Civil War. Someone asked to make a civil war thread to discuss in depth once more and here we are.

This thread is open for talk of the war, tactics, history, technology, leaders, international affairs, politics, economics, morals, and effects of the civil war.

what if the South win the war? why did they lose? what were the pros and cons of each side? what effect did this have on America in the long run? What about slaves? What about states rights? what about cotton and industry? what about Lincoln, his policies, works, and assassination?

Good luck in your discussion, it goes wherever you lead it seeing as how this is a very open thread. :)

they say there are two Americas--
the one before the War, and the one after.

Nothing else has so affected our history. Nothing!

Let me pull out some of my old books and brush up on some half remembered facts. It does seem there are dozens of new books about this topic every year, and more coming. We can all learn from them, but beware of some slant. A good historian studies both sides, I have always believed. How else do we learn? The South did have their reasons, odd as this may seem to us today. Many felt they were fighting a second Revolution.

The greatest CW buff I have ever known was my grandpa. He studied this war most of his life--self-taught. I suppose he came by his interest because both of his own grandpas fought in this conflict. (Union) He must have heard some very interesting tales from them both. Grandpa had great sympathy for the soldiers--on both sides, tho one of his grandpas lost both an arm and a leg during the final last days of the war, and he admired Lee greatly--"First Gentleman of Virginia."

But he admired Lincoln more.

I will never have the depth of knowledge my grandpa had on this subject but am hoping to learn new things from this thread.

Why did the South lose?
Because they ran out of food, arms, and men. If it weren't for that, they'd STILL be fighting.
Most southerners considered northerners hopeless barbarians. Maybe they were correct?
For example, and I don't need to pull out a book for this one--look at how Grant was dressed for the surrender at Appamatox, dirty, dusty, muddy, cigar hanging out of his mouth. Compare him to Lee, who was dressed in his finest for this momentous occasion. When Grant saw Lee standing there with his sword, he looked abashed, As well he should. Not a very good general either--overrated, and wasteful of his men.

The first time I saw the Civil War documentary, I came away from it thinking that LEE was the overrated one.

Ken Burns had a great quote in the documentary. "Before the war, people thought the United States of America ARE great. After the war they thought the United States of America IS great."

One thing I never understood. The south didn't have to win, they just had to not lose. Why travel north at all. Especially as far as Gettysburg?

Or something to that effect.

If I remember this rightly--

Lee wanted to press the attack far into northern territory to divert Union troops away from the seige of Vicksburg. It was vital to the South's interests that Vicksburg not fall as any side who controlled that sight would control the Mississippi. He marched into Pennsylvania not fully knowing where the Army of the Potomac really was--Jeb Stuart and his cavalry failed to report back to Lee, thus leaving Lee's Army of Northern Virginia blind. The Federals under new general Meade were also marching blind, practically unaware that an army of that size (70, 000 men) was anywhere near that area. They 2 sides met at Gettysburg in an accidental meeting, neither side expecting a battle there. Lee and Davis pinned all their hopes on this and Lee even carried a letter prepared by Davis, to give to Lincoln, offering peace, if they won. They knew, rightly, that there were many in the North who did not support the war or its tremendous casualties, and thought that one final crippling blow(which they were fairly successful at up to this time) in the Union's own territory would totally demoralize the North.

Thanks. That makes sense.

you're good

thank you, Brooks. I had a good teacher!

what if ....

the south had just agreed to free the slaves and had agreed to pay them (however low or insufficient the wages - how much different would that have been from many workers in the north who lived in economic slavery more or less).

Would there still have been a war?

In my opinion, yes, there still would have been a War. This conflict, worst in our history (Antietam remains the worst single day in American history in terms of casualties, and total war dead was over 634, 000), was not fought over slavery, but rather the issue of state's rights and the rise of the Federal government, as Lincoln, following the teachings of Henry Clay, wanted the US to take its place as a world power. The only way to do this was to subjugate the South.
Interesting note about the northern factory workers. They lived and worked in the most appalling conditions imaginable. I have often wondered why no war was fought over THIS.

Originally posted by rendova
Why did the South lose?
Because they ran out of food, arms, and men. If it weren't for that, they'd STILL be fighting.

Not likely . . . they'd see the north's industrialization and progress and wonder what they were fighting for.

Most southerners considered northerners hopeless barbarians. Maybe they were correct?
For example, and I don't need to pull out a book for this one--look at how Grant was dressed for the surrender at Appamatox, dirty, dusty, muddy, cigar hanging out of his mouth. Compare him to Lee, who was dressed in his finest for this momentous occasion. When Grant saw Lee standing there with his sword, he looked abashed, As well he should.

You're right, what counts are surface appearances.
The fact that the Confederates crucified American POWs and ran one of the worst prison camps ever doesn't matter.
And I'm not sure about 'most southerners' considering the northerners 'barbarians'. Every southern state but one was plagued by loyalist guerillas, and only one northern state suffered confederate insurgents.

Not a very good general either--overrated, and wasteful of his men.

Yet he won . . .

Grant once captured a confederate fort without taking a single casualty. He ordered an ironclad to travel by a fort, taking barrage after barrage of everything they could throw at it, to no avail. The confederates couldn't damage it, and they actually threw in the towel! :hitout:

Interesting note about the northern factory workers. They lived and worked in the most appalling conditions imaginable. I have often wondered why no war was fought over THIS.

Industrial factory workers fighting a war for their liberation is called communism. :cool:

Originally posted by Deepest Red
Not likely . . . they'd see the north's industrialization and progress and wonder what they were fighting for.



You're right, what counts are surface appearances.
The fact that the Confederates crucified American POWs and ran one of the worst prison camps ever doesn't matter.
And I'm not sure about 'most southerners' considering the northerners 'barbarians'. Every southern state but one was plagued by loyalist guerillas, and only one northern state suffered confederate insurgents.



Yet he won . . .

Grant once captured a confederate fort without taking a single casualty. He ordered an ironclad to travel by a fort, taking barrage after barrage of everything they could throw at it, to no avail. The confederates couldn't damage it, and they actually threw in the towel! :hitout:



Industrial factory workers fighting a war for their liberation is called communism. :cool:

Hello Red,
You bring up some interesting points, which I will address.

1. Barbarities by Union soldiers:
The raid by Federals on peacable citizens of Missouri. They were so appalling that they gave rise to even further bloodshed by Quantrills' Raiders and later, Frank and Jesse James. Sherman's March through Georgia. Surely nothing further needs to be said about that--civilians slaughtered, women and children starved and frozen to death.

2. POW camps:
Yes, Andersonville was one of the worst prisons ever. The South could not afford to feed even her own soldiers, much less Federal POWs. Let us not forget, however, Rock Island in Illionois, surely as bad, or Point Lookout, Maryland, where Rebel priosners were forced to eat rats. Little is written about THESE camps, as, and I'm sure you're aware, history is always rewritten by the victors. It should also be noted that it was Mr. Lincoln's idea to not exchange prisoners, as he believed this would only prolong the war.

3. Grant as overrated General:

Cold Harbor, June 1864. Lee was dug in at a crossroads. Grant did little to prepare for this battle--he was probably off on a toot. Besides his slovenly appearance, he was also a drunkard. Grant's generals were left to figure out for themselves how to prepare to break thru Lee's lines. The lack of a real plan made an impression on Federal soldiers. They were seen calmly writing their names and addresses on slips of paper, then pinning these to their coats, in order to make identification possible.....at dawn, Grant's men, more than 60, 000, advanced towards the Rebel lines. When they got within rifle range, the Rebs opened fire. The result--absolute slaughter, at the rate of 1, 000 men per minute. This was a war of attrition... Grant could AFFORD to lose these men. The South could not.

I will not address your final statement, save to say to please read the final line of the Gettysburg Address. There are other ways to ensure decent treatment of workers besides a communist overthrow of this government. This will never happen here, as long as Shiloh, Second Manassas, Antietam are remembered. And they are. But perhaps that is a topic for another thread.

Rendova Scott Hancock

Thanks for your response, I'll look into your points when I have the chance, hopefully soon because I like to learn more about the civil war.

I will not address your final statement, save to say to please read the final line of the Gettysburg Address. There are other ways to ensure decent treatment of workers besides a communist overthrow of this government. This will never happen here, as long as Shiloh, Second Manassas, Antietam are remembered. And they are. But perhaps that is a topic for another thread.

Whether you agree or disagree, fair enough, I'm just pointing out that's what a war to liberate workers from their conditions is by definition, communism.

Whether you agree or disagree, fair enough, I'm just pointing out that's what a war to liberate workers from their conditions is by definition, communism.

Erm, that may be one of the points of communism, but it is not the whole meaning behind the system.

Communism may look good on paper, but because of who humans are and how they act, it will never work in practice.

Anyway, keep it open for civil war discussion ;)