The American Civil War

In my view, one of the biggest core issues was the very different interpretations the two sides had of the US Constitution. The Southern view of states being foremost in power, joined by a relatively weak central government contrasted sharply with the Northern view of the states being secondary to a strong central Federal government. And this, IMHO, was what was arguably *the* central issue that caused the war: political power. The Southern political leadership feared that Southern power and influence at the Federal level was in danger of being reduced or even eliminated by an influx of non-slave states. They found the idea unacceptable, so they opted for secession upon Mr. Lincoln's election in 1860.

While it can be argued that the abolition of slavery might have sufficed to end the crisis, there was much debate on not only whether or not slavery should end, but by what method. Most abolitionists favored total and immediate freedom for the slaves, which, historically speaking, would have been disastrous for both slaves and slaveowners. Gradual emancipation would have been much better for all concerned.

 

But the states right view was intended to preserve the power of the slave states. As you point out yourself, it was fear of loss of political power to non-slave states (and the eventual end of slavery) that led to the "recent unpleasantness". The question of slavery was behind it all.

 

This particular issue does tend to get complicated, as you may have noticed. I can say this, however: The average Confederate soldier did not own slaves, nor was he particularly interested in the issue. The same, interestingly enough, also applied to most of the Federal soldiers, too.

 

Complicated indeed! No wonder there was a war. :lol:

Just like people are taught to believe the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. Not true. It was a "proclamation" and it refered to the slaves in the States of rebellion. A slave in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri was a slave until the war was over. The EP was basically a way to give moral grounds to the Union cause as the UK and France had already outlawed slavery but had a keen interest in the CSA.

Most Confederate troops were ordinary folks who joined up out of patroitism, just like most Union soldiers.

There was a Union officer that asked a Confederate POW what they were fighting for. The Confederate said "'cause y'all are down here."

Actually, I think the real cause of the war was money. Some rich folks in the North and some rich folks in the South had a grudge with each other. Ain't most wars about money or power?

 

Slave holders were a small minority in the South and the average Union soldier had little use or respect for the "contrabrand" they "confiscated" from the plantations. Most Southeners fought because they felt a stronger allegiance to their state than the federal government and a universally American distaste for "outsiders" telling them what to do.
The war was fought to preserve the Union, not destroy slavery. Lincoln said something like, I would free all the slaves if it would preserve the Union, I would free none of the slaves if it waould preserve the Union.
The war had many causes, but slavery was the basic underlying reason.

 

True, but many in this country hold to the cliche that slavery was the one and only cause of the war.

 

Once you get beyond the age of a single all powerful rulers there is never one single reason for any war.

 

Oh, but now you've neglected the New Monarchs! they fought wars for all sorts of reasons, political, economic and personal, and they fought a bunch.

 

Some historians hold that the Civil War was won, not by Mr. Lincoln's army, but his navy. To a large extent, I agree with that. The first Federal victories in 1861 were won by the Union Navy, defeating Confederate forts at Hatteras Island, NC and Port Royal, SC, after which these areas were occupied by Federal troops. The Federals could send troops by water to just about any place they wanted to go, usually in complete safety; this was handiest in the West, where roads were few and far between (good roads were even scarcer) beyond the limits of cities and towns, but extremely useful in any of the theaters of the war. The Confederate Navy never was able to match Federal firepower afloat, although they did the best that they could.

 

The main theater of the war, which was northern Virginia (namely, the stretch between Washington, DC and Richmond, VA), was in actuality not the truly decisive one. It gets most of the attention from historians, largely because of General Robert E. Lee's masterful defense of the Confederate capital. But the West (the Mississippi River and its tributaries and the territory around them) was where the war was, for all intents and purposes, won by the Federals. Their campaign downriver in the first two years of the war split the Confederacy in two and severed Texas and Arkansas from the other nine states.

 

You might say this corp, but the American forces in WW1 didn't do much better than the Europeans and died in horrible numbers. So you can't just accuse the European tacticians of ignoring the lessons of the American Civil War


That's an easy statement to refute..because US cassualties in WW1 were rather low. at that...The U.S. Military did learn a lesson from the Civil War, where U.S. Grant fought a war of atrittion, and a succesfull one at that.. the lesson? to be as stingy with the blood of its soldiers as possible while inflicting the greatest possible number of cassualties upon the enemy..by greater attention to tactics and equipment..The Europeans, on the other hand seemed to have ignored those lessons...and the battles of atrittion of WW1 prove this out..Heck, l remember a book about British generals of the First World War, by a a British author (Allan Moorehead???) ..it was called " The Donkeys"...

 

Ah, but keep in mind that the US wasn't part of the major fighting until the end of the war, so their casualties figures might have been falsely lowered. If you look at the casualties at Muese-Argon (Pershing's 1st and last major operation), they were still quite high. Also, By 1918 both sides have learned their bloody lessons and slaughters like the Somme were less common.

 

I did bear that in mind, but the number of cassualties was still low-in comparison wth the mindless batles of atrition fought by the major European powers for which they nothing to show but gains of a few hundred yards...

 

Despite its declared neutrality in the US Civil War, the United Kingdom did not prevent British Southern agents from using british ports and shipyards to outfit ships and equip shipos for the Navy of the Confederate States of America (CSA) and a number of raiders built in British yards for the CSA wreaked havoc amoing US merchant ships. The most succesful of theraider ship known as the "Alabama" which was believed to have sunk over 60 Union ships before it was finally sunk. After the defeat of the CSA, the US govt held the UK accountable for what was widely perceived to be a very serious violation of the international law of war and peace.

Evenualy, England idicated its willigness to submit the Alabama claims to international arbitration and eventually paid US $15 million.. This was not done for altruistic reasons..There was a new war scare with Russia over the Dardanelles-and the Russians approached a number of US shipyards, as they desired to have 40-50 raiders of a type similar to the CSA "Alabama". Now, during the Civil War, when it appeared for a while as though England and France would support the south, two Russian squadrons sailed for the United Syates, on for each coast, and this was widely believed in the U.S. to have been a show of strength in the part of the Czar, and was deemed a friendly gesture, whereas the so-called neutrality of England, whose merhants turned a profit by selling arms, ships and supplies to the South had the opposit effect upon public opinion.
The US governmet notified st. Petesburg that it would llow previate shipyards to undertake construction of the required number of ships..Now, it does not take much imagination to envision what 40-50 well-armed "Alabamas" could do to English merchant shipping, so the British agreed to settle the Alabama claims. There was a scholarly article in the "Journal of History " of the University of Chcago on the subject-which apparently l no longer have in my posession-but that was my source..

 

When Johnny Comes Marching Home

I know this is not exactly "on topic" but I just want to tell this little story:
I've been looking for the name for a certain song, which I've heard in many movies (Die Hard 3, Dr. Strangelove, Stalag 17 etc). Yesterday I had a friend visiting here and we watch Dr. Strangelove and Stalag 17. This friend of mine knew that song and also knew it had something to do with American Civil War. Today he sent me an email and gave me the name of that song. It was "When Johnny Comes Marching Home". Finally my five years of uncertainty was over. I also managed to find this song in mp3-format and I just love it althought that version wasn't as good as I hoped.
You can find lyrics from here:
http://www.civilwarmusic.net/display_song.php?song=johnny

 

"When Johnny Comes Marching Home" is actually a more upbeat version of an Irish song, "Johnny I Hardly knew Ye".

http://www.ireland-information.com/iris ... ewye.shtml

 

Wow, Notmi, thank you! I've always been wondering just which marching song that melody was from.

 

Indeed! but then again, what American music, down from "The Gary Owen", ' (favorite marching song of Custer's 7th Cavalry) or "The Bonnie Blue Flag" to "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" isn't ither Irish in origin or in inspiration?
Up the rebels!

 

Actually I've preferred "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" which I think is pretty much stright from a Presbyterian hymn book. Guess it just shows my politcal leanings.

"The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" is by the Canadian performer Gordon Lightfoot, but I am not surprised to hear it was Irish inspired.

 

I think I have that "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" somewhere here. I also have "Russian National Anthem", performed by Red Army Choir and also several other songs and marches from Russia. And also I have some marches from Third Reich too. My girlfriend doesn't appreciate the fact that I can sing along "Horst Wessel Lied"

And by the way, about "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", Navweaps has a certain article about the cause of that sinking.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-080.htm