Replies

I have a degree in History from the University of Nebraska. I studied American History in particular quite extensively.

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?

The Republican Party in 1860 was opposed to >the spread< of slavery into more American Territory. Lincoln himself formed the new Republican party in 1850’s in direct response to Popular Sovereignty.

But even with Popular Sovereignty, the Slave states were starting to lose out. Up to that time, two states would often come in to the Union at a time - one slave, one free. The balance was starting to go in favor of the Free side.

Slave states were terrified that slavery would be banned, despite Lincoln repeatedly saying he simply opposed to the spread of slavery. (The Abolitionists already had a candidate.)

Despite this - Lincoln was left off the ballot in several states mostly because of the slave issue. But Lincoln was always considered one of the front runners.

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?

John Brown attempted to lead a slave rebellion. If I remember correctly, Brown wanted a lot of violence and blood.

Most people in the south were terrified of slave uprising. There had been uprisings in the past, and they were always bloody even when they were put down. Also remember that John Brown reveled in “Bleeding Kansas”.

Brown was hoping that others both white and black would follow his example. In the slave states, this became hysteria. Southerners believed that many in the North agreed with Brown. Actually a lot of people in the North were just as shocked as people in the south.

All this aside - I believe Brown’s uprising had less to do with the Civil War than other things (like the Dred Scott Decision.)

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?

England didn’t want war with the US. They had plenty of cotton anyway. There were a lot of diplomatic and trade ties to the northern states. Moreover, England was in the middle of stamping out slavery in it’s own empire. It would have been a mess politically in Britain. France had similiar reasons.

Note that this did not prevent Britain from selling arms and equipment to both sides.

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.

Probably just cultural preferences.

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?

For starters most of the population was in the East. So were most of the political structures. There was also the style of warfare at the time.

By the end of the war both sides had the same goal: make the other side tired of fighting. They did this by destroying each other’s armies, capturing each other’s capitals and making each other’s civilian populations suffer.

None of these targets were in the sparsely populated west. Moreover, it would take a lot of time, energy and resources to march west. You also have to remember that Native indian tribes would probably have greeted both sides with hostility.

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?

Douglas was a hero of the abolitionist movement. He traveled the north showing his wounds and telling his story. His efforts won over neutrals to anti slave sentiment. Odds are his efforts probably influenced people like Lincoln, but it’s hard to say.

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?

West Virginia was a mountainous area that was sparsely populated. By the time WV broke away both sides had quite a bit on their minds. Remember most of the battles of the Civil War were in Virginia and Tennessee.

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?

Hard to say. Hindsight is always 20/20. Lee was at his apex when he invaded the north. He had a big, well supplied army at the time. He was probably trying to bring fear to the border states so as they would pressure the Union to end the war.

Maryland was under martial law at the time. I don’t know if he could have freed it even if he tried.

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?

McClellan was a pompous ass. There are stories of Lincoln going to his house to talk to him and when McClellan wasn’t home Lincoln would wait. When the General did get home, he’d go to bed rather than talk to Lincoln.

McClellan fought in a “Napoleanic” style. Basically he defended territory. He also wanted to minimize his losses (which made him very popular with his troops). Lincoln wanted a general who would go get Lee and Lee’s army. He thought if Lee were defeated soundly, the war would be over and Lincoln was right.

After Lincoln fired McClellan, McClellan went on to run against Lincoln in 1864 on the “we give up” ticket that Dems still use today.

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.?)

When Lee went in to Pa, he gave explicit orders to his men not to rough up the civilian population. I believe Lee would have continued with these orders had they won.

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?

Lincoln thought he was going to lose. He was blessed with Sherman’s capture of Atlanta in Sept, which probably turned the tide of the election.

Would the Dems have won if they nominated someone else? Probably not.

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?

First question is hard to say. I myself would argue that Gettysburg was the end. It was popularly thought (by the south) that a victory at Gettysburg would seal the victory for their side. That’s why it was so hard fought.

Jackson was a huge loss. The thing about him was that he didn’t give up. Would he have turned the tide of the war? Probably not. Nathan Bedford Forrest was also a great general but in the end, didn’t help.

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?

Lincoln tended to throw people sympathetic to the south in jail. He suspended habeas corpus to keep people on his side. (I had to giggle when I saw left wing college professors praising Lincoln in some recent interviews.) This kind of intimidation did keep some of the peaceniks down, although one of the biggest riots in American history occured in New York in 1863 over the draft.

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?

...I’m not as familiar with Andersonville. That said, I do know that POW camps in the Civil War were awful places no matter where they were located. Men tended to starve and freeze to death or die of disease. But this happened on both sides.

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?

Acting is about passion. It attracts people who are passionate about things. *shrugs*

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?

Hard to say. The original northern idea was to win the war bloodlessly. When this became apparent it wouldn’t happen, they took the gloves off. That said - early Northern generals tended to hold back, but this was probably due more to their incompetence than any larger design.

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?

Nathan Bedford Forrest was a slave trader before the war. When the war started, Forrest created his own company using his own money. He included several blacks amongst his men (only one ran away.)

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?

Very possible. But just as unlikely, so who knows?