Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Civil War was as inevitable as anything in history could have been. It was protected, if not reinforced, by the US Constitution and, as America expanded, no political compromise was ever good enough.
At the start of 1860, Lincoln didn't want a war. He didn't want to free the slaves. He wanted the Union to stay whole, but past events were not on his side.
It is interesting to read histories of the Civil War that focus on the words of soldiers, mothers and wives on both sides. There was no turning back!
What is most interesting to me about the Civil War-other than the fact that my great-great grandfather was a Union general and his brother a Confederate general - was a conversation Lincoln had with one of his ex-Whig buddies in the Republican party, who, after the passage of the 14th Amendment, said something like: "We've solved the slavery problem, but not the Negro problem". And after the war, as David Blight suggests in his book, Race and Reunion, both the north and the south spent over 40-years after the Civil War trying to forget that the war was about slavery.
Compared to most victorious, conquoring armies down through the ages, the Union Army was downright gentle and respectful toward the South. Understandably Southerners did not see things this way, but the South had never been invaded before and had nothing to compare it to. I lived in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania for a time and learned the town had been burned to the ground in 1864 on order of Confederate General Jubal Early. This was in revenge for ravages by Union General Hunter in the Valley of Virginia (Shennandoaha Valley). But it turns out Union General Hunter was a Southerner from that part of Virginia and many of his victims were people he had a personal grudge with. About 270 rapes were committed by Sherman's men as they marched across Georgia and the Carolinas. Considering the number of men involved, the distance covered, and the understandable hostility of Southern women Sherman's men were downright choir boys. One of the reasons General Lee gave at Appomattox to see what kind of terms General Grant would offer was that by surrenedering he could spare wide areas of the South from the ravages of war, and most of the South did indeed remain untouched.
After the war the United States Army was cut to only 25,000 men and most of these were needed out West to fight the Indians so the Union Occupation of the South was a relatively toothless affair, more symbolic than anything else. The true Occupation was the Southern sense that they had given their Word of Honor upon surrendering and in any case they knew the Futility of fighting another war. Those who didn't like it could go out West. A number of former Confederate soldiers joined the Federal Army and requested duty in the West. Most of what Southerners found objectionable under Occupation were policies enacted by civilian politicians in Washington, DC who had never served and vowed to make the South pay. When local Army commanders recieved these policies they would often advise local Southerners of what they were going to have to do so they could give everybody a heads up, then the new rules would be posted for all to see then after several days in which folks had time to prepare a tour of inspection would begin so that a report could be sent to Washington that the district was in compliance. What stuck in Southerners' craws was not the near-farce of enforcing these policies but rather the idea that such policies were enacted at all.
Somewhat congruent with the northern sympathizers.......
...but we all know that history is written by the winners.
Not always and simplistic (as most one-line forum comments usually are)...Off-topic. I was just thinking about this the other week in relation to the Napoleonic Wars. All these books about Napoleon and France. It's like, wait a second, Napolean LOST (eventually...after 20 years or so). How many books do you see about the Napoleonic Wars from Russia's viewpoint (i.e. the victor)? I just read one of the few.
Likewise there is no shortage of books about the Civil War from the southern viewpoint, and/or about Southern generals.
we all know that history is written by the winners.
I lived in the South for three years. The American Civil War is only one of many, many topics I have studied over the years. But after reading about the dumb mistakes Union generals made I have considered writing a book entitled: "You Know, the North Could Have Won That War".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
