Read up on the Nat Turner Rebellion & the Fugitive Slave Act. This will show the stark differences about how the sections of the country viewed the John Brown & the Raid on Harper's Ferry.
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.
European military tradition typically refered to battles by the nearest major geographical feature -- usually a river or stream. Military Departments & the Armies that operated from them were typically named after major rivers (Army of the Tennessee, Army of the Potomac, Army of the Ohio, etc.)
The Confederacy turned this bit of military tradition on its head. After a brief period as the Army of the Potomac (yep, same name as the opposing army), it became the Army of Northern Virgina. Similarly the South referred to battles by the nearest town. Frequently these towns were not much more than a few farms and a road junction.
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?
The Potomac River was a major obstacle that could only be forded fairly far upstream. You do not want to put your forces in front of such a river that could flood behind you. The Union Army could cross at a place of its choosing using its riverine forces & cut you off from your supplies. Lee almost lost a good chunk of the ANV after Gettyburg when the Potomac flooded & his army was temporarily trapped in Williamsport, MD.
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.?) Personal opinion: York(PA) would have been evacuated and a new union defensive line would have been thrown up along the Lower Susquehanna River. It would have been thinly held since the bulk of the AoP would have withdrawn toward DC. Harrisburg may have fallen. The B&O Railroad would have been cut, isolating Pittsburgh & the Ohio Valley.
Depending on the activity of the AoP, Lee might have crossed the Susquehanna to threaten Lancaster & Philadelphia, but I doubt it. I think instead the ANV would have Summered in PA and withdrawn to Winter quarters in Virgina & the Shennendoah Valley.
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?
Gettysburg/Vicksburg was a double-loss that was equivalent to the twin German (WW2) defeats at Stalingrad & Tunisia. In addition to losing ground entire field armies were lost (or in the case of the ANV severly mauled).
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?
Go rent "Gangs of New York". Part of the backdrop is the NYC draft riots during which immigrants lynched freed black men. After mid-1863 the Union came to rely on the Draft to replace manpower (also Black Volunteers). It was VERY unpopular, and a factor that might have been responsible for a Lincoln defeat in 1864.
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?
I think if the South had attempted to actually sieze Union territory, then the Union would have been inspired to greater efforts. I think if the South had managed to stabilize things in 1863 (not losing at Gettysburg/Vicksburg) then a kind of Truce might have been possible, probably with European mediation. This was one of Lee's strategic objectives during the Invasion of Pennsylvania.
Sure. And all Five Point hookers looked like Cameron Diaz, too.
The Northern draft was a failure and didn't provide more than 5 or 6 precent of the Union army. Conscripts made up almost a third of the confederate army by the end, and one can make the case that the percentage should be close to 100% since in 1862 Davis extended all enlistments for the duration of the war. Lincoln never did that, and the Union army could have melted away in 1864 and 1865 as enlistments ran out. The fact that it didn't says a lot about those fighting for the Northern cause. Start to finish, the Union army was overwhelmingly a volunteer outfit.
I'll have to see what I can find specifically on it that's not Wikipedia--as I can only trust that site to a certain point.
Go rent "Gangs of New York". Part of the backdrop is the NYC draft riots during which immigrants lynched freed black men. After mid-1863 the Union came to rely on the Draft to replace manpower (also Black Volunteers).
Back in the reign of terror that was my publick skool edumuhcation, we watched the movie "Glory" which as you know features black soldiers for the Union side in the War (I remember watching this a few times, at first in the 8th grade and I think I was truant for some of it later on in high school). I also noticed that Leonardo DiCaprio stars in "Gangs of New York" so I'll check it out in spite of that error in casting. ;)
Thanks for responding, I appreciate it.