(Vanity) 18 Questions on The Civil War

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?

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?

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

My point was that the author I read thought it was much more than a side light and that it was coordinated. In particular the author noted how Stuart fired a cannon before Pickett's charge to indicate he was in position and that after action reports made reference to Stuart's part of the attack as sweeping down a road to attack the Union forces (who were being attacked by Pickett)from the rear. However, it failed because Custer intervened.

Stuart's action was definitely coordinated. If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg,_Third_Day_cavalry_battles you see that Stuart's mission was to both protect Lee's left flank and create disruption in the Federal rear if possible. As for the firing of guns, that's covered here. I stand with my evaluation of it being a sidelight. It in no way came to a point where it impacted the Union line holding against Longstreet's charge against Cemetery Ridge. Also, with a total loss of 435 casualties, it doesn't measure up to a large cavalry engagement. Could it have become significant? Sure. Did it? No.

Those who supported Brown and his actions were similar to those who support people who kill abortionists or blow up abortion clinics. They come from the fringe.

This is not true.

Brown's supporters after-the-fact included the cream of New England's intellectuals and upper society. Thoreau, Emerson, Bryant -- all supported Brown, Thoreau in particularly bloodthirsty language. Walt Whitman was almost alone in his denunciation of Brown.

The South noticed. And that was the end of the Union.

What followed has been a sectional Empire founded on blood, money, and violence.

Southern States still can't hold an election, 43 years later, without "pre-clearance" from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. How is that anything but abjection and humiliation? It certainly isn't the Union of Washington and Jefferson.

There is a lot of misinformation about West Virginia out there, I can think of only a few books which can tell you a true account of what happened there. I have spent several years reading on the subject. Basically, West Virginia was created by a Unionist junta in Wheeling, with the backing of the Federal government. While many in Western Virginia opposed secession, once Virginia seceded, they went with their state government. This is very little understood by historians. I will quote Gen. Jacob Cox (U.S.), who occupied Charleston, WV in 1861: "Before the secession of Virginia a very large majority of the inhabitants of the Kanawha valley were Unionists; but the attachment to the state oranization had become so exaggerated in all slave-holding communities, that most of the well-to-do people yielded to the plea that they must "go with their State." The same state pride led this class of people to oppose the division of Virginia and the forming of the new State on the west of the mountains. The better class of society in Charleston, therefore, as in other towns, was found to be disloyal, and in sympathy with the rebellion. The young men were very generally in the Confederate army; the young women were full of the most romantic devotion to their absent brothers and friends, and made it a point of honor to avow their sentiments. The older people were less demonstrative, and the men who had a stake in the country generally professed acquiescence in the position of West Virginia within the Union, and a desire to bring back their sons from the Confederate service." Similarly, at the battle of Gettysburg, the largest contingent of cavalry available to Gen. Lee was Jenkins Brigade, 1300 men, composed mostly from two counties (Cabell & Wayne), in West Virginia, which had heavily voted against secession. Here is a map of West Virginia showing the counties (in gray, of course) that voted for secession, which is about two-thirds of the state. [IMG]http://i22.tinypic.com/10h7evc.jpg[/IMG] If the above link doesn't work try this one:

In the final tally, most of the territory of West Virginia, and half of the soldiers, were Confederate, which makes West Virginia the most Confederate of all the border states.

"very unedenic elements"?

For some people, everything was wonderful before Lincoln and horrible afterwards.

The "Old Republic" certainly had its virtues, but it also had its weaknesses and its ugly side. I'm not attacking it, just saying that people shouldn't build up antebellum America to put later periods down.

In any event, if the Old Republic died, secession and the division of the country into two hostile blocs had a lot to do with it. After 1860 our history was going to be different, however things played out.

"The "Old Republic" certainly had its virtues, but it also had its weaknesses and its ugly side."

I was mainly interested in your word "unedenic," since neither my Websters' nor a google search produced a definition. The only reference to it I could find was something out of Tennessee Williams(!).

Then, slow witted as I am, I thought, well what about "edenic"? But "edenic" was also not there, however a shorter root, "Eden" was, and then slowly the light bulb comes on: Eden -> edenic -> unedenic. Oh, my...

OK...

If by "ugly side" you mean slavery, then of course. That problem was acknowledged by Thomas Jefferson in a draft of the Declaration of Independence, but was later removed to satisfy southerners.

It was again addressed with a compromise in the Constitution, and then with many other compromises before the Republican Revolution of 1860.

Jefferson and others had calculated how much it would cost the government just to buy up and free all the South's slaves. That number always seemed too astronomical, though turned out to be less than the cost in blood & treasure of the Civil War.

But I think Jefferson's exercise was pointless anyway, since the Old South was not going to give up her slaves without a fight, regardless.

It was a problem the "Old Republic" simply could not deal with, though I understand some have argued that in due time the Old South, on its own accord, would have abolished slavery. Somehow I doubt it.

So, how else was the "Old Republic" unedenic? No universal health care? No social security or unemployment insurance? Somehow I don't remember reading about those in "Old Eden." ;-)

Well, I have given your considerable problem considerable thought. You haven’t told me where in the state you will be so I will offer suggestions. If you are in the eastern panhandle, Berkeley County would be your best bet. Berkeley voted against secession, yet gave most of its men to the Confederacy, so there is something for everyone there. If you are in the southwest, you can try Cabell, Wayne and Kanawha counties. Cabell & Wayne voted against secession, but were home to Jenkins Brigade, the largest CSA cavalry unit at Gettysburg, and the boys who burned Chambersburg, PA, in 1864. Kanawha County also voted against secessionn, but was home to Wise’s Legion, CSA, over 4000 men who were later sent to defend South Carolina. If you are in the southeast, you are inevitably in Confederate territory. If you are in the northwest, you are in Union territory. Though it should be said that even Wheeling gave a small band of Confederates, Shriver’s Grays. No matter where you are, I’m sure you’ll have a great time. Best wishes.

"No matter where you are, I’m sure you’ll have a great time. Best wishes."

Anywhere along I-64, just two nights. Thanks.

You mentioned the burning of Chambersburg PA in 1964, not something I knew of.

It's a matter of interest -- in this day and age when civil wars typically produce 100 civilian deaths for every soldier killed -- to note that in burning Chambersburg, there was just one civilian death, plus five confederate soldiers.

Here is the report from Geneal Early to General Lee (all emphases added):

Early's report to Lee

[TO:]"General Lee, Petersburg:

"On the 30th of July McCausland entered Chambersburg and, by my orders, demanded $100,000 in gold or $500,000 in Northern money as compensation for several houses of citizens of Jefferson County burned by order of Hunter, with directions, in default of payment, to burn the town.

The money was not paid, and the town was burned.
I alone am responsible for this act....

J. A. Early, Lieut. Gen."

This link has an interesting description, including:
Burning Chambersburg

"Not all Confederates participated in the sacking of Chambersburg.
The Masonic Temple was spared when an officer who was also a Mason posted guards to prevent its burning.
When the colonel of the 21st Virginia Cavalry refused to obey the burning order, he was arrested and his entire unit sent out of town.
Other Confederates tried to help frantic citizens retrieve household goods before their homes were burned.

"In the end, perhaps 550 buildings went up in flames.

"In spite of the widespread arson and looting, the Rebels killed only one civilian, an elderly African American.

"Angry citizens killed at least five Confederates by the time the raiders had withdrawn."

So, how else was the "Old Republic" unedenic? No universal health care? No social security or unemployment insurance? Somehow I don't remember reading about those in "Old Eden." ;-)

It wasn't always a picnic for the Indians.

I'm not saying that the country was awful then or that it's always been horrible, just that you have to give the present its due.

A century ago, a lot of people took lentulus's view that the Civil War marked the fall from an agricultural paradise into an industrialized hell. That view picked up supporters when the Great Depression struck.

But from today's point of view, just how realistic is that nostalgia? We're certainly better off than our ancestors were during the Industrial Revolution. I'd argue that people's lives now are better than they were in the rural era that preceded it -- certainly when slavery's taken into account, maybe even without it.

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.