Posted on 02/17/2005 1:55:46 PM PST by quidnunc
Starting a war seems to be not so hard. Keeping it going, and escalating it takes skill. Pushing it to the point where it takes on a life of it's own is real talent.
Muslims have real talent---their war against Infidels will never end.
The reasons for fighting are as as numerous as the individuals themselves. That having been said, there are a couple of general concepts that I believe motivated many southerners and northerners (at least initially).
The concepts of "State's Rights" and "Country" may have motivated some idealists but when reading primary sources (letters) of the period, that is rarely mentioned overall.
Slavery and Abolition were a motivating force for many but still by far, it was a minority of those who actively participated in the war.
The concept of fighting "big government" has been touted by some but the Confederate Government in many ways, mirrored the US Government and in some ways exceeded it in control over its people and business. In reality for most southerners, it was just trading one big government for another.
I think that the widening cultural divide between North and South was a bigger contributing factor. Many writings of the time (both southern and northern) treat the opposition almost like a completely foreign entity. The divide was especially wide between those in the deep south and New England. There was less of a divide between Mid Atlantic (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware & Maryland) peoples and southeastern (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina Georgia and Florida) peoples. Commerce, schooling and history had made them much more familiar with each other and you see less general animosity. Maryland, Delaware and technically New Jersey were also still slave states to some extent.
For many young men of the time (both North & South), going to war was an adventure that most felt would last a few months at most. I don't ascribe greater motivations than that to a large number of them. Period writings are full of homesick soldiers speaking about how tired they were of the army and war and how they regretted enlisting. After drafts were implemented, then we had a whole crop of soldiers who had absolutely no reason for going to war other than their number came up.
I'm a traditionalist. I prefer the old War of Southern Rebellion.
I have always been partial to 'The Late Unpleasantness'
WANT TO SAY THANKS FOR THE WEBSITE-
This man is VERY informative.
I have always liked Sherman a great deal. The more I have read about him the more likeable he has become to me.
Yet I think without Grant the outcome would have been entirely different. He had the knowledge, personality and temperament to tie it all together. I think Grant is one of the best soldiers the United States has ever produced.
The Union had a number of excellent generals. Obviously, men like Sherman and Sheridan have records that speak for themselves. I think neither could have done what Grant did. Sherman never would have survived the politics long enough to succeed.
I think if Sheridan were old enough to put in Grant's place he might have been fragged. I always sensed he didn't work and play well with others. In fact I think he needed Grant to run enough interference for him so he could accomplish the things he did.
Sherman's actions were far less destructive to civilian lives, as opposed to property, than American actions in WWII. Are you also opposed to those?
It is not possible to justify American bombing of cities and civilians in WWII and denounce the (far less bloody) actions of Sherman's men.
Unless you think it's fine to kill Germans and Japs and destroy their homes but somehow immoral to kill southerners.
Finally!
I think Stonewall Jackson was the best General of the War, and William T. Sherman was the best Union General. Hanson is arguing that Lee and Davis lacked the "strategic" vision of Grant and Lincoln and in that sense he may be right, but if Grant and Sherman had not risen through the ranks, Lincoln's strategic vision would never have had a chance to be applied against the Lee, Jackson, Longstreet juggernaut.
And if you believe that I've got some Confederate money for you.
Ironically, "Sheriden Square" featuring a statue of Bill Sheriden, is the heart of the gay community of NYC. I wonder what ol' Bill would think of that?
You're right, he was a drunk.
I would expect nothing less from a Jersey native.
Nah, my pick for the best is Stonewall Jackson. Most of Lee's Virginia victories were as a result of Jackson. If Jackson was in full command of southern armies from the beginning, history would be very different now. Thank God Jefferson Davis was an idiot.
That was a joke in case your sense of humor was left at home.
I'm not positive the North had the moral ''high ground'' until the Emancipation Proclamation.
The North could have been said to have the moral high ground before the Emancipation Proclamation but not after. EP did not 'free' slaves in the North. It theoretically freed only the slaves in areas/ states under Rebel control and Lincoln had no control. Slaves in the Union were still slaves.
One of the things we need to remember now is that much of the history of the war (both general and personal) was recorded long after the last shot was fired. As life's twilight approaches, people tend to ascribe far nobler justifications for their actions earlier in their lives.
As a military historian, I have always tended to weigh post war accounts less than I would "real time" documents. War dated personal letters are especially revealing and give insight into a persons soul that often directly contradicts what is written years or decades later.
The South lost the war the day they started it. They had almost NO industry. The North was already in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. They also had more people.
No matter how much heart and honor you may have, you cannot beat a larger industrial powrehouse in a war. Nor can you win a war of attrition against a larger population.
The Civil war was the first modern and mechanized war. The south still had these visions of glory on the classic old model of the battlefield, not totaler krieg, where everyone including the civilians was targeted.
Even as recently as 1940, some military minds understood that its production and population that wins wars, even if their superiors didn't listen to them.
"I have lived and traveled widely in America, Chiuchi. Their industrial might is awesome. If the General Staff insists on a war with America, she will be the most formidable foe we have ever faced, and I fear for our chances."
-Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto
One other side note. As Shelby Foote writes..."Before the war, this nation was always spoken of as 'the United States are...', after the war it became 'the United States is."
Mark Twain wrote about his experience with this. He quickly decided it would be better to sit the whole thing out in the West.
This also ties in with a glorification of war, especially in the South but also to a lesser degree in the North. It was the era of Sir Walter Scott and a lot of young men saw themselves as noble knights. Perhaps more importantly, a lot of the young women saw them the same way, and young men will do a lot to impress young women.
BTW, very similar things happened in Europe when WWI started. All sides were convinced they'd win by Christmas. Largely because their experience fighting in recent decades had been primarily against natives armed with spears, when they had machine guns. Very easy to think of yourself as an invincible warrior under those conditions. What they didn't think thru was what happens when you run up against equally well-armed opponents.
Of course it didn't. It was a military measure issued under Lincoln's power as CinC. The Constitution gave him no power to interfere with slavery inside a state. All the EP did was put pre-existing congressional measure of confiscation into a more formal and extensive format.
BTW, all the Union slave states except KY and DE (which had at most a couple hundred slaves left by then) had abolished slavery thru state action before the federal measures took effect after the War.
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.