The American Civil War - Writers Forum

Malone · 06-26-2008, 04:09 PM

Anyone else here enjoy reading and discussing our Civil War? I put the topic here instead of the debate to hopefully avoid a full on slavery debate, but if it comes to that I'm sure the mods can move it.

Anyway...I can talk for hours on the subject, but I'll just go ahead and start by saying that I think the collection of Southern leaders was one of those times in history when the most talented men are able to rise up. They had their natural talents, their new West Point training, and experience in Mexico. I believe the Confederate Army may have had the most diverse range of highly skilled leaders in Jackson, Longstreet, and Lee since Marc Antony and Caesar took the field together. Hill, Picket, Stuart, and all the way down the line, they were seasoned, unbelievably competent fighting men. The actual foot soldiers on both sides were equal, but I think the Southern leaders is what makes their army really stand out in history. The north had Hancock, Couch, Chamberlain, Buford, but they had too many political appointed commanders, or just bad commanders, who consistently held their troops back. I have no doubt that if Hancock or Couch had been in McClean or Hooker's position, the North would have won the war after a year or two. This is based simply on the numbers. The north generally had two to three times more men on the field in any given battle (I think Gettysburg one of the more even fights, with the North only having about 15,000 more men).
Lee was able to predict and react perfectly to almost everything the North threw at him up to Gettysburg, but he still would have been defeated if the North had had a more competent leader. At Gettysburg, Lee made what is probably the only significant mistake of his career, in sending the brunt of the attack toward the middle of the field.
Jackson is, in my opinion, the greatest soldier to ever live. I feel that if he had been at Gettysburg, the outcome would have been different. His replacement was hesitant on the first day, and put the South in a disadvantageous position. Jackson would not have done this, by all accounts of his previous command decisions. Also, when Lee ordered the troops to attack the middle, it would have taken a leader like Jackson to pull such a bold attack off. He either would have taken the field, or died trying.
I also feel that Chamberlain holding the Little Round Top could have been one of the single biggest factors in the outcome of not only Gettysburg, but the war. Had he let that hill fall, the Confederates would have been able to take a more advantageous position and would not have been forced to resort to their doomed attack the next day. If they had won Gettysburg, they would have been in position to seriously threaten DC, and President Davis already had a letter of peace drafted to send to Lincoln in the event that the Confederates took Gettysburg. This is one of those amazing instances in history when so much depended on the actions of a small group of men, specifically Chamberlain, and it just blows my mind to think about it.

I also think the war came about because of a disagreement on federal power, not slavery. Slavery was an issue at the time, but Lincoln had never said he would free the slaves before the war began. I loathe Lincoln to the very pit of my heart. He won the presidency, and his tyrannical views cause the South to break away. This was not Lincoln's fault. His invasion of the south, his war, and his unwillingness to let people live free cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and this is unforgivable. The South did not want a war, they did not form armies to attack the North. Lincoln threatened them and invaded their homes, and they were forced to react. So many men died due to Lincoln that it makes me want to cry. I'm against federal powers, though, so keep that in mind. I think Lincoln set the way for the bloated, inefficient, and oppressive (as oppressive as they can get away with) government we currently have. The fight to preserve the Union is respectable, as it was of his opinion and belief for long running success, but I will never accept that it was worth the number of lives lost in his war.

And, yes, I realize the hypocrisy in our fighting with one hand for freedoms, while holding down slaves with the others. Slavery was already on the decline, though (except in the deep south where production would have halted without them), and I honestly believe it would have given away within a few more decades. This is no excuse for the practice, however.

alanmt · 06-26-2008, 04:24 PM

I agree with you about Chamberlain's hold of Little Round Top. The Union flank could have collapsed, the Confederacy would have had a cannon emplacement that could fire along the Union line, it could have been a devastating tactical loss. When I was watching the movie and Chamberlain, having run out of ammo, ordered the bayonet charge, my eyes got a bit wet, i have to say.

I have to think that Jackson may have come up with a better plan that Pickett's charge. It seemed ill-conceived, though valiant.

Some of the northern generals were excellent brigade or corps commanders; for some reason they just couldn't command an entire army effectively. I htought Mead did a tolerable job at Gettysberg, and didn't deserve the criticism he received for not exploiting it enough, although I would have liked to see Reynolds in that position - he was a great general (killed by a southern sharpshooter on the opening day of gettysberg, sadly), but I have to agree that the quality of command was generally better amongst the confederate generals.

Of course, I am the rogue who thinks that Sickles' advance to the peach orchard was actually a good decision, and enable the cemetary hill/round top line to be better established and made more defensible while Longstreet was pushing Sickles back from his salient position.

Malone · 06-26-2008, 04:34 PM

After Fredericksburg, I believe they offered Reynolds the position and he turned it down because he wouldn't deal with the politicians. I know Lee and Longstreet both expected him to be the new commander.
Fredericksburg is the perfect example of the capabilities of the mid ranking officers being destroyed by the actions of the army's commander. I know Hooker was the general in the spring when Jackson flanked the Army. I can't remember who was in charge before him, but he sent the men over the river to be slaughtered. Hancock, Couch, Meagher, and the others could have taken Lee at several key moments throughout the months long standoff there. Hancock tried to get the men across the river before Lee could set himself, but the commander refused him. And even after Jackson had flanked the yankees and was charging up their side, Couch could have pushed Lee's men from the trees. And another general with some long name beginning with S was at the foot of the hills the confederates were holding, and he could have taken the hills as well. Hooker called them all back. I believe that incident cause Couch and Meagher both to resign their commands in disgust. Hancock's diaries reveal that watching his men retreat when they all knew they could have taken the enemy was the saddest day of his life.

Malone · 06-26-2008, 04:36 PM

And I get teary eyed during the bayonet charge scene as well. Chamberlain was one of the few intellectual geniuses capable of performing as well in academia as in the real world, and on the battle field. I believe he spoke around seven languages. And the speech he gave (I think it's in the movie) is a much stronger argument for the north's fight than I've ever heard from Lincoln.

mi is happy · 06-26-2008, 06:36 PM

Well someone's from the south.

An other reason the south didn't win was because General Lee's hart wasn't in the war. He honestly would have rather fought for the North, but all of his family and friends were with the good ol' South.
Also, England stopped buying cotton from the Confederates because they were against slavery. This made it so there wasn't enough income to make grand weapons like the Yankees.

Malone · 06-26-2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

An other reason the south didn't win was because General Lee's hart wasn't in the war. He honestly would have rather fought for the North, but all of his family and friends were with the good ol' South.

No, that's not true. That's one of those things they teach you in high school history. Lee's heart was very much in the war.

Writ-with-Hand · 06-26-2008, 07:37 PM

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems to me that Southern people are much more often interested in the U.S. Civil War than Northerns, in general that is, I'm not talking about every individual.

What I find so interesting about the U.S. Civil War is just the cultural times of that period. There were of course interesting people but I suppose you could say there are interesting people today, nonetheless, Lee and Hooker were interesting characters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malone

I also think the war came about because of a disagreement on federal power, not slavery. Slavery was an issue at the time, but Lincoln had never said he would free the slaves before the war began. I loathe Lincoln to the very pit of my heart. He won the presidency, and his tyrannical views cause the South to break away. This was not Lincoln's fault. His invasion of the south, his war, and his unwillingness to let people live free cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and this is unforgivable. The South did not want a war, they did not form armies to attack the North. Lincoln threatened them and invaded their homes, and they were forced to react. So many men died due to Lincoln that it makes me want to cry. I'm against federal powers, though, so keep that in mind. I think Lincoln set the way for the bloated, inefficient, and oppressive (as oppressive as they can get away with) government we currently have. The fight to preserve the Union is respectable, as it was of his opinion and belief for long running success, but I will never accept that it was worth the number of lives lost in his war.

And, yes, I realize the hypocrisy in our fighting with one hand for freedoms, while holding down slaves with the others. Slavery was already on the decline, though (except in the deep south where production would have halted without them), and I honestly believe it would have given away within a few more decades. This is no excuse for the practice, however.

The war was not fought solely over slavery but slavery was perhaps the major issue. The issue of course being the expansion of slavery westward.

Lincoln did not cause the war in so much as he intended on preserving the Union. To the extent Lincoln did not just allow the Southern states to secede yes, he caused the war.

In my opinion though, had the Confederacy been left to be an independent nation, the South would look like little more than Latin America, and I presume it would be even lesser a power than Brazil. The North might not be as powerful as the totality of the United States of America is today.

The South had its charm and its male class was more chivalrous and spartan than the North but the South was essentially an aristocratic culture that was pretty much neo-feudal. And the lower-class Protestants were an especially rowdy and violent bunch especially going towards Kentucky and Arkansas.

A-L · 06-26-2008, 07:55 PM

I must agree with Writ. Slavery was not the issue, but its expansion. Lincoln viewed the souths secession from the Union as unconstitutional, and it was. And I also believe that it was someone (maybe washington) who said that two countries should never inhabit the same continent, or something of that nature. I don't believe slavery would have ended in the south without the north's involvement. The south was largely aguarian (sp?) unlike the north which had become largely industrial, so the south relied on cash crops to maintain is economy, cotton, tobacco, etc. Slavery was not just a source of income, but a part of family culture. It ran in their blood, slaves and land passed from father to son. So, no, I don't think anything short of violence would have ended slavery. Though I must say that as necessary as it was, the Civil War was terribly brutal. And I'm shocked no one mentioned Tecumseh Sherman, if the North hadn't had him, beating the south would have been difficult.

Writ-with-Hand · 06-26-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A-L

And I'm shocked no one mentioned Tecumseh Sherman, if the North hadn't had him, beating the south would have been difficult.

Yeah, wasn't it Sherman that torched his way through Atlanta? The South don't like that part of the story and prefers to wax eloquently on the gentleman nature of General Lee. But I think Sherman was right to up the scale of total war and hit the rich men in the pocket books. The poor Southern white soldier didn't owning any slave plantations and businesses. (some of his Indian allies did though)

Malone · 06-26-2008, 08:20 PM

Sherman was a total piece of shit. Anyone who has studied the subject, though, has to admit that he was equal to Jackson in his ability to lead and inspire his troops. The terrain he moved through down here was very harsh, and he went through it at an almost miraculous speed. That's definitely not something we gloss over. Sherman is probably the most hated man in history down here. My town was one of the few that were spared, as our hospital was used to treat his troops. The hospital is about half a mile down the road from me.
He was also Grant's closest friend, and there were several times Grant was sure he would lose and was going to resign, but Sherman convinced him to stay on.
I've also read that after the war, when veterans who had served under Sherman would be near his house, he would also invite them and give them a meal and even money if they were on hard times. That further shows the kind of leader he was, and the connection he had with his troops.

And, yes, we southerners do seem to be more interested in the war in general.

You guys make a good point about the expansion of slavery. I know Kansas was going nuts about it at the time, with lots of violence arising. And I agree the South probably wouldn't be as prosperous as we are today, but after the war we were pretty godawful. It's taken a hundred years to reach the economy we're at today.

And I'm pretty sure industrialization of farm equipment would have pretty much wiped out the demand for slaves. Many land owners were already beginning to free their slaves by the time the Civil War was started. I know Lee had freed his a few years before.

A-L · 06-26-2008, 08:21 PM

Yup, he believed that war shouldn't be taken lightly and so he torched the south. If he saw a dog that would bring comfort, he killed it. If he saw a farm, he burned it. Actually he burned Savannah, Georgia to the ground. Then the Georgians told him to "give it to South Carolina worse".

Malone · 06-26-2008, 08:24 PM

No, actually I believe he made a deal with the Savannah leaders so that he wouldn't burn the town. I'm almost positive. Maybe I'm confusing it with Charleston?

A-L · 06-26-2008, 08:39 PM

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace." -Tecumseh Sherman.

I think we were both wrong Malone, I just checked it out and it said that he burned Atlanta to the ground. Reading about him, I can see why he is the most hated man in the South.

Malone · 06-26-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.

So that would be Lincoln.

And just to nitpick, I don't think I was wrong. I live just outside Atlanta, so I know he burned it. I was saying he didn't burn Savannah, and making a guess at what you were referring to by naming Charleston.

lin · 06-26-2008, 08:53 PM

Actually, it wasn't all that civil.