The Civil War: Everything You Wanted to Know but Were too Afraid to Ask!

[Keepbro]

Ok - here's another super serious "what if" question for the intellectuals to ponder.

 

WHAT IF - the Union colour had been pink instead of blue and the confederates green instead of grey? How would a differing colour scheme have affected the outcome of the war? 

As ever treat the question with all seriousness. Links to articles and recommended reading to back up claims is the part that I'm really actually interested in so please do throw in some of those. Anything on uniform and camouflage would be great. As a professional costumier Im always interested in looks.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Keepbro
Forgot to add something - Im dumb like that sometimes.

[Lumpy]

Here's another one:

Was slavery the main cause for the secession of the Southern states? If so, in how far? What other reasons could be argued for, and were there any that had no connection to the issue of slavery at all?

I am by no means an expert and lack any cultural connection to the ACW era (I'm European), but the primary sources I consulted so far (several states' declarations of secession) all state slavery, or fear of imminent abolishing of slavery rather, as the central reason for secession. Yet, many people tend to bring up the much cited "States' rights" when it comes to discussing the reasons for secession. What, if any, is the connection between those two issues? Are they not to be understood to be synonymous in this context? 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Lumpy

[Corporal Bridge]

45 minutes ago, Hannibalbarca said:

The reason was the US Black wrote a legal opinion that advised POTUS he had no leegal authority to use the militia act to coerce any state. Fired by lincoln when he took office. Insurection Act is clear, there was no insurection that POTUS can act on, Just as in nullification he needs a force bill, which is mathamaticly unlikly in the extreme to be obtained. POTUS was willing to break any law to save the Union. In Madison day he required a courts notification, and the permission of the Governor of  state to be entered, he had neither.

The plan to leave the union was already in motion before Lincoln won the election. And in the end of the day the war was fought over slavery. The Radical Republicans themselves as more of a minority within the Republican Party. You got to remember Lincoln was a moderate Republican. Legality of the situation was put the bed by Jackson with how he handle the notification crisis. When's the South fired on Fort Sumter they kicked off the war. Since no Nation recognize the Confederacy as being a country, it gave Lincoln a lot of leeway and how to manipulate the presidential powers and his position as being commander-in-chief. I don't think gradual emancipation would have happened peacefully. The southern Planters are far too heavily invested in the system. And their past actions of both funding filibuster campaigns in the Caribbean and South America, as well as pushing Border Ruffians into Kansas, and they're constantly threatening to leave the union over slavery and then finally did. I did not think it was going to happen peacefully.

[Mr. Mercanto]

14 hours ago, Hannibalbarca said:

Sherman wrote acording to the laws he was taught he should be executed for his actions in the war, Miss where he destoyed the crops or confiscated them had the result of making Miss a food importing state at end of war and for the next few years, congress sent ex SC justice  Sharky to find out why, his report showed miss slaves had reduced in number by a third, having died, we know Miss had a 20%+ birth rate every census till 60, by 1870 census Miss was in negative population growth of former slaves. counties where Sherman went had the highest loss. US records show Shermans army executted more men for rape than the rest of the unions armies  combined. When Sherman cut loose from supply from base he said, where a million live my army will not starve, which is true, in a 2 crop system its a known number of how much cerial crops are cultivated, and census gives livestock numbers, livestock numbers in Miss dramaticly fell in the war, so did other States but where large armies went, more so, la lost 30% for instance

So yes Sherman did not starve in his  march, but the food he cunsummed or conficated, arriving with more cattle than he set out by 5 thousand, more cerial than he set out, and destruction on the way  meny someone would, that was the poorest in society whose whole means of sustaing themslves was destroyed, no mills to grind corn as every mill gone, no mules or horses to plow with. Sherman told hisArmy that as agent of the government he gave them full authrity to take anything the qm dept could not take or want, he also gave orders to execute at random civilians in retaliation for bushwaking in threir county.

In Europe commenators described his march as a return to the 30 years warr.

Mark Grimsly's "Hard Hand of War"  would take some pretty serious issues with this interpretation. Using census records, Grimsly actually proves that Sherman directed the severity of his campaign against wealthy slave owners and public property, with non-slave owning poor let alone or attacked very little.

 

I also need a citation for this rape statistic, since last I checked there were actually relatively low.At least, rape cases officially recorded. Rape in the Civil War has been heavily re-examined in recent historioraphy, so it is quite possible that this is incorrect, however I must ask for some evidence. 
 

[Friedrich]

On 7/21/2017 at 5:35 AM, Hannibalbarca said:

article 1 sec 10 is where the sovereign states delegated authority to representatives to act for them, i.e. No states entry into treaty with native Americans, but must do so through congress who appoints representatives. Each state allowed as large a state militia as it wants, the federal government otoh is limited to how big the states decide it will be. Since the FF explained they were forming a compact of states in a federal union and not a country, its clear by the provisions in the constitution that it's only states with citizens who have rights given to them in other member states. there was no uniform currency, and each state could adopt any legal tender it wanted. states issued passports, there being no such legal entity as a citizen of the USA who was not first a citizen of a state, if they moved to a new state and applied for naturalisation that state could allow or not allow it. Naturilzation law made it for free whites only.

Article 1 sec 8  gives to Congress the authority to engage in war against forgiven enemies, and  be read in with its parallel clause giving congress the authority to call forth the militia, the purpose of which is limited to executing the laws of the union, to suppress domestic insurrection, but must conform to the constitution article 4 sec 4 which requires the state itself to ask for such intervention, and lastly to repeal invasion of the state by forgien invasion.

Congress creates the militia acts that govern the calling of the militia, but are inferior to the constitution. The word nation is not in the constitution,.To preserve the union is not the same as no one can enter or leave membership, it's not a prison and inmate constitution, history shows the union was dissolved and reformed many times, its membership both grew and shrank.

Every insurrection in the US conformed to the laws, no entry into a state without being asked in when a part of it was in insurrection and federal aid requested, troops being held on state lines till obtained. it's worth noting Madison flat out tells us the union has no authority to coerce, such a power was denied in the debates as only storey proposed such a measure and no one seconded it, and that what was crafted was a voluntry compact of soveriegn states bound only by their people's consent, and could be seceded from.  Slavery existed over the entire union, legally, protected by the constitution which protects contracts, slavery is a labour contract, and for the first time a party would not accept the constitution or the SC rulings that slavery was over the whole Union, so the Slave States had there legal breach, Miss went South over this, asking for a gaurentee from congress that slavery would remain protected in the constitution or it would secede, Lincoln refused to compromise. 

revolution as in the peaceful secession from one crown to another as per U.K. glorious revolution was indeed what the right of revolution was based on in the constitution, abe Lincoln was all for it for Texas and anyone else who wanted to do it. A breach of the compact allows any state to secede as a last measure of redress.

USSC justice chase ruled from the bench that the states in the union were separate sovereign state, who created the union giving it delegated authority from them,  bound to it, only by their consent to accede or secede,  in ware v Hylton 1798, the Ff madison on creating the constitution, each state in ratifying is a sovereign body independent of all others and bound only by its voluntary act, Hamilton, agreed argued that there was no creation of a single nation, and that secession was allowed went undelegated authority was asserted,  mass representative Gerry, if 9 of the 13 can dissolve the AoC,  then 6 of 9 can dissolve the new compact. Morris on signing the new constitution, who can imagine 100 years from now this union of ours will be one nation.

Va and RI both ratified withe the express provision of secession, this gave it to all present and future member states.

 

Lincoln legal arguments are historically incorrect and legally wrong.

 

You left out the part where the confederacy launched an attack on Fort Sumter, solidifying its status as the aggressor in domestic insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States. Whatever arguments exist for the legal succession of states is made void by this fact.

[Friedrich]

On 8/5/2017 at 4:03 AM, Hannibalbarca said:

[stuff about the definition of insurrection and other such things]

I think James 'Father of the Constitution' Madison is a serviceable authority for the illegitimacy of unilateral succession. I am tired right now and overall just sick of arguing with lost causers and other such negationists, so I think I can just leave it at that. If you don't think that James Madison himself is an overriding authority on the legality of succession and the usage of force in response you are clearly beyond all hope of reaching anyways.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

@Mr. Mercanto

I summon thee to the Stone of Erech!

Read the text above; what say you? You have seen this hand before?

How does a teacher handle plagarism? 

[Mr. Mercanto]

On 2017-06-02 at 2:12 AM, Corporal Bridge said:

I'm still very new to the subject even though I took an entire class on it I have only the most basic understanding. Academically in my mind I set the baseline or the gold standard when it comes to scholarly works with McPherson. I know some of you may disagree but I feel he's the most encompassing. My other readings have been letters of the New Jersey 14th regiment I read about 80 letters for the course of the class or six different individuals serving in the same regiment.  my teacher pick that one because they're literally from the college is county I was attending. And then I read about Frank Murphy and his experience in the 13th New Jersey regiment. And it's kind of wild How many different perspectives are going on just in a local Northern State. Some were fighting for the Union and thought the Emancipation Proclamation was suicide, and others if they were products of the Great Awakening how to deep abolitionist streak and then every flavor of individuals and their convictions.

 

So my question is where are some other great Scholars I can do for personal research of the war.

I'm personally a huge fan of social history so I love to know about the individual experiences.

Hi Corporal Bridge. I'm sorry to be responding so late, I kind of took a break from this forum.

Some excellent scholars on the Civil War, focusing on individual experiences...

Drew Giplin Faust, Ried Mitchell, Chandra Manning, and Victoria Bynum are great scholars to start with. Manning and Mitchell have wonderful work on soldering and motivation of service "What this Cruel War was Over" (Manning, 2007); "Civil War Soldiers" (Mitchell, 1988). Bynum and Faust have done great work on the homefront. Bynum specializes in work that focuses on the Antebellum and Southern resistance to the Confederacy and white supremacy; "Unruly Women: The Sexual and Racial Politics of the Antebellum South" (1993) and "The Free State of Jones" (2011?). Faust has specialized in the cultural impact of the war, most notably in "This Republic of Suffering" (2008).

If you want to get into the nitty gritty, Stephen Berry's edited collection of essays "Weirding the War: Stories from the Fringes of the American Civil War" (2011) is thought provoking and challenges many of our perceptions of the conflict.

 

Sorry it took me two months to respond lol. I hope it was worth the wait .

[Mr. Mercanto]

38 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

@Mr. Mercanto

I summon thee to the Stone of Erech!

Read the text above; what say you? You have seen this hand before?

How does a teacher handle plagarism? 

While I suppose that plagiarism is the norm at the University of Secession Bias (or USB for short), we usually tend to give a warning, then a suspension or a failing grade. 

I think 1st Vermon-err "Hannibalbarca" deserves both.

 

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

While I suppose that plagiarism is the norm at the University of Secession Bias (or USB for short), we usually tend to give a warning, then a suspension or a failing grade. 

I think 1st Vermon-err "Hannibalbarca" deserves both.

 

 

A very disreputable university, the scum of the internet. 

[Mr. Mercanto]

On 2017-07-18 at 8:25 AM, Lumpy said:

Here's another one:

Was slavery the main cause for the secession of the Southern states? If so, in how far? What other reasons could be argued for, and were there any that had no connection to the issue of slavery at all?

I am by no means an expert and lack any cultural connection to the ACW era (I'm European), but the primary sources I consulted so far (several states' declarations of secession) all state slavery, or fear of imminent abolishing of slavery rather, as the central reason for secession. Yet, many people tend to bring up the much cited "States' rights" when it comes to discussing the reasons for secession. What, if any, is the connection between those two issues? Are they not to be understood to be synonymous in this context? 

This is a solid question, though if you dig into this forum I've answered it a few times. I don't mind answering again, but it'll be the abridged version ;). 

 

Basically the question that caused secession was the extension of slavery to new Western States. The slave states feared that restriction of this extension would lead to the economic collapse of slavery (and it was indeed meant to). Pro-slavery partisans argued that the Federal government must protect the property rights of each State citizen based upon the state laws of their origins. Erego, if a slave owner brought their slaves into a new territory, not yet made a State, then the US government must protect their right to that slave (the Federal government was the government of territories until they organized into Stares).

 Furthermore, all new territories must be open to slavery, and by protecting slave property in them, effectively become slave states. With respect to slave property in Free States like Massachusetts; the Federal government must strictly enforce the Fugitive Slave Act over the interests of Free States harbouring run away slaves, because it was the "State Right" of slave states to demand protection of the property of their state citizens, even if it violated the laws of Free States. 

 

So in essence, slavery and "States Rights" were indissoluble; mutually inclusive and in the Confederate cause not distinguished from one another. Today's use of "State's Rights" is often vague and anti-intellectual. It is usually an attempt to obfuscate the role of slavery in the Confederate cause, and fails to stand up to scrutiny. Fortunately, the founders of the Confederacy made no secret of the cause, so researchers interested in learning about the subject can ascertain the role of slavery quite easily. 

[Mr. Mercanto]

4 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

A very disreputable university, the scum of the internet. 

It's basically the YouTube comment section of universities.

[The Soldier]

Lee marched onto Gettysburg and met the Yankees on their own turf.  We all know how that story ends.  And so, 1stVermont slinks back to the USB as Lee did over the Rappahannock River.

Though, despite defeat, just as happened then, 1stVermont did not give up.  We'll see to that this time around, as Grant did - put a final end to the nuisance.

[Friedrich]

On 8/30/2017 at 11:08 PM, Friedrich said:

I think James 'Father of the Constitution' Madison is a serviceable authority for the illegitimacy of unilateral succession. I am tired right now and overall just sick of arguing with lost causers and other such negationists, so I think I can just leave it at that. If you don't think that James Madison himself is an overriding authority on the legality of succession and the usage of force in response you are clearly beyond all hope of reaching anyways.

Wait, where did the post I was responding to go? Did, I suppose we are calling him 1stVermont now, chicken out after seeing my, evidently superior, argumentation skills? I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or scratch my head.

[Mr. Mercanto]

On 9/2/2017 at 8:16 PM, Friedrich said:

Wait, where did the post I was responding to go? Did, I suppose we are calling him 1stVermont now, chicken out after seeing my, evidently superior, argumentation skills? I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or scratch my head.

Basically 1st Vermont barged into the forum last year to spread a bunch of Neo-Confederate nonsense using methods that were focused tested to be as pedantic as possible. I put him down...a lot; and he became a bit obssessed with me. It was weird, it was hilarious, and all of us except 1st Vermont learned a lot . Eventually @Koro just banned him, closing out the epic saga.

One of the results was this thread. I wanted to create a thread where people could ask (mostly) serious questions about the war, and those of us who with the knowledge could share our answers, or ask one another follow up questions. For the most part, it was awesome :). I'm glad to see its still getting some traction, though I didn't particularly enjoy that 1st Vermont interlude. 

[Mr. Mercanto]

1 minute ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

On 9/2/2017 at 8:16 PM, Friedrich said:

 

 

 

On 9/2/2017 at 8:16 PM, Friedrich said:

Wait, where did the post I was responding to go? Did, I suppose we are calling him 1stVermont now, chicken out after seeing my, evidently superior, argumentation skills? I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or scratch my head.

Oh, and thanks for shutting one of his posts down. I don't really indulge him anymore, but it was refreshing to see another voice telling him how silly his arguments are.

[Friedrich]

15 minutes ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

 

Oh, and thanks for shutting one of his posts down. I don't really indulge him anymore, but it was refreshing to see another voice telling him how silly his arguments are.

No problem. Honestly I was just fascinated by the whole affair. He was one of the few Lost Causers I have seen who manages to simultaneously come off as both smart and insane. Plus I never pass on an opportunity to shut down someones entire argument with a single citation. Didn't actually expect it to work though. 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Friedrich

[Andre Bolkonsky]

With all due respect, the South does not want, nor need, such a champion. Please do not lump him in with us. The SS was not a military unit of the Confederate States, and we'd like to keep it that way. 

[The Soldier]

Begone.

[Nick Thomadis]

"Hannibalbarca" was banned as spammer (There were multiple reports leading to case that he is our old spammer "1st Vermont").

[Mr. Mercanto]

4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

"Hannibalbarca" was banned as spammer (There were multiple reports leading to case that he is our old spammer "1st Vermont").

Thanks, Nick. 

[thedauphin]

Hi there, just found this forum and this thread, which both seem to more civilized and informed than the usual steam posts. And this thread seems to be really fun in scope and execution.

Anyways, being European my knowledge to the ACW is limited to some TV shows, Mr. Burns documentary and McPhersons 'Battlecry of Freedom'.

I noticed having a soft spot for General McClellan. Unlike so many generals throughout history, he seemed to value the integrity of army and the health of his men above acquiring laurels. I do not doubt he is duely critcised for not being active enough, and also has these strange streaks of megalomia in his letters, but... well, the question being: Is newest historiography kinder on him than it used to be the case?

[Andre Bolkonsky]

10 hours ago, thedauphin said:

Hi there, just found this forum and this thread, which both seem to more civilized and informed than the usual steam posts. And this thread seems to be really fun in scope and execution.

Anyways, being European my knowledge to the ACW is limited to some TV shows, Mr. Burns documentary and McPhersons 'Battlecry of Freedom'.

I noticed having a soft spot for General McClellan. Unlike so many generals throughout history, he seemed to value the integrity of army and the health of his men above acquiring laurels. I do not doubt he is duely critcised for not being active enough, and also has these strange streaks of megalomia in his letters, but... well, the question being: Is newest historiography kinder on him than it used to be the case?

Welcome! 

McClellan loved his army so much he never wanted to see it hurt. RE Lee had nothing but respect for him.  I would like to share a clip from a movie, "In Harm's Way" in which the greatest compare & contrast of McClellan and Grant is made. 

BTW, the entire movie is awesome!

 

[GRIT]

5 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Welcome! 

McClellan loved his army so much he never wanted to see it hurt. RE Lee had nothing but respect for him.  I would like to share a clip from a movie, "In Harm's Way" in which the greatest compare & contrast of McClellan and Grant is made. 

BTW, the entire movie is awesome!

 

One of my favorite movies of all time. I guess I've seen it 15-20 times.

Talking about movies. I'm surprised no one has talked about the recent revelation that Mr. Lincoln was a Vampire Hunter and seemed very familiar with Asian martial arts. This adds an entirely new twist to the whole war and Mr. Lincoln's presidency. We have to wonder too why Doris Kearns Goodwin never mentioned this in her book.

[Mr. Mercanto]

On 9/18/2017 at 11:53 AM, thedauphin said:

Hi there, just found this forum and this thread, which both seem to more civilized and informed than the usual steam posts. And this thread seems to be really fun in scope and execution.

Anyways, being European my knowledge to the ACW is limited to some TV shows, Mr. Burns documentary and McPhersons 'Battlecry of Freedom'.

I noticed having a soft spot for General McClellan. Unlike so many generals throughout history, he seemed to value the integrity of army and the health of his men above acquiring laurels. I do not doubt he is duely critcised for not being active enough, and also has these strange streaks of megalomia in his letters, but... well, the question being: Is newest historiography kinder on him than it used to be the case?

Hiya! Welcome to the thread and thanks for your kind words! This is a really cool question

New historiography has not been much kinder to McClellan, though some scholars have moved away from the answer provided by @Andre Bolkonsky, that being that Little Mac loved his army to much to risk its harm. Military historian John Keegan (A Military History of the American Civil War) and military historian/McClellan biographer Stephen W. Sears (Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam, and To the Gates of Richmond), suggest that McClellan was so afraid to lose, that he did not risk victory. They charge that McClellan, ahving never failed anything in his life, was petrified of failure. This, by extension, plays into recent historiography concerning Ulysses S. Grant, which has at time argued that Grant's success was in part duie to his boldness, which in turn may have been caused by his many failures in life. Having failed in so many ventures, Grant understood that failure was an option, and could be recovered from. 

However, I think new and fascinating light has been shone on McClellan in Richard Slotkin's newest book Long Road to Antietam: How the Civil War Became a Revolution. The book dissects the political crisis facing the US government in the wake of the 2nd Mannassas,  the challenges posed by the threat of a McClellan coup, and Lincoln's efforts to radically change the direction of the political and military strategy of the war. In the process, Slotkin does much to advance McClellan historiography. 

In essense, Slotkin argues that McClellan viewed the Radical Left Republicans to be as a great a threat, or even a greater threat, to the Union then the Reactionary Secession Right. McClellan was politically a Conservative Northern War Democratic, and believed that the Union must be preserved through a compromise that would maintain the pre-war institutions and power-structures (ie Slavery). He considered Abolitionism politically suicidal, detrimental to the country, and destructive to a restoration of the Union. McClellan could observe that the administration was taking on a more radical policy, and viewed himself as the saviour of the Republic. He felt he must influence the President towards what he considered a wiser conciliation, and bring both parties together with as little conquest as possible. In his Harrison Landing Letter, he reffered to this as fighting the war "on the highest Christian virtues" urging the President to protect property in slavery. 

Slotkin argues that McClellan's belief in himself manifested into a conviction that he was the only man that could save the Union; coupled with a the highly theological school of history that he and his wife subscribed to, McClellan began to view himself as the Divine Instrument of the Union. Were he to lose a battle, then he would be removed from his command, and thus the Union itself would perish. It became imperative that he be retained. No risk could be balanced against his dismissal, which would open the floodgates of Red Republican Radicalism. At Antietam, McClellan sought a limited victory, committing his troops piecemeal in order to guard against total defeat. When the Rebels withdrew, McClellan saw no need to pursue; by winning victory and ensuring his tenure as commander, he had already saved the Republic from the true enemy, Lincoln. 

Slotkin also briefly addresses the Young Napoleon's love of his army. He argues that while Little Mac certainly loved his army, it was ultimately because that army worshiped and adored him, serving as a constant source of validation. It was the belief that he was invaluable to re-uniting the Union and preventing Abolitionist Radicalism, rather then simple love of his men, that prevented him from taking risks on the battlefield. 

Personally, I find Slotkin's argument extremely convincing, and I think it does much to advance the strange historiography of that unusual General, George B. McClellan.