The Civil War

[Suvorov]

Shame to say but I don't know much about the ACW except that the union won, I'm quite interested in funding this project but before I do I want to learn a bit more about the ACW so I can feel much more immersed.

Can anyone give me any pointers on where to start and any good books that are worth a read?

[A. P. Hill]

I doubt that the time left on the kickstarter is sufficient for you to develop any kind of knowledge base to be comfortable. I suggest you support the effort first. This support will then give you greater incentives.

In the mean time welcome, and know there are plenty of informative threads on this site. That invitation is put forward with the caution that the internet (and some threads here) that may be misguided and that either side will accuse those not in agreement of being misguided.

[Suvorov]

I doubt that the time left on the kickstarter is sufficient for you to develop any kind of knowledge base to be comfortable. I suggest you support the effort first. This support will then give you greater incentives.

In the mean time welcome, and know there are plenty of informative threads on this site. That invitation is put forward with the caution that the internet (and some threads here) that may be misguided and that either side will accuse those not in agreement of being misguided.

I think I still have time, half way funded already with 14 days left, don't worry my money will be thrown at the devs with hopefully no regrets. As for the threads I would be grateful if you could start me off somewhere and then I will find my own way later, baby steps first.

[Leifr]

I think the best way for you to gain a relatively good understanding of the Civil War would be to watch Ken Burns' "The Civil War" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civil_War_%28TV_series%29) series. You can thank me later... :p

[TrustyJam]

I think the best way for you to gain a relatively good understanding of the Civil War would be to watch Ken Burns' "The Civil War" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civil_War_%28TV_series%29) series. You can thank me later... :p

It's just been restored to celebrate its 25th anniversary too!

- Trusty

[Suvorov]

I think the best way for you to gain a relatively good understanding of the Civil War would be to watch Ken Burns' "The Civil War" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civil_War_%28TV_series%29) series. You can thank me later... :p

Interestingly enough I still cannot find a definite answer as to what the south fought for, the documentary and a few people say it was because they were FOR slavery yet others say it had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[TrustyJam]

Interestingly enough I still cannot find a definite answer as to what the south fought for, the documentary and a few people say it was because they were FOR slavery yet others say it had absolutely nothing to do with it.

There are several views of that and it's still a hot topic. One of those things that'll always be debated I guess.

- Trusty

[Suvorov]

There are several views of that and it's still a hot topic. One of those things that'll always be debated I guess.

- Trusty

I see, the victors do write the history books it seems.

[TrustyJam]

I see, the victors do write the history books it seems.

I'm not going to get into a discussion based on the subject. It's a can of worms.

- Trusty

[A. P. Hill]

Interestingly enough I still cannot find a definite answer as to what the south fought for, the documentary and a few people say it was because they were FOR slavery yet others say it had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I provided a brief synapses here. (www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?680-Alternate-History&p=12341&viewfull=1#post12341) The honest truth of the matter is one really needs to be a student of complete American history, as what took place in the 1860s was fermenting from the 1700s. There is no one "it happened over night" simple answer.

It can be compared to what caused ww1. No, the assignation of Ferdinand wasn't the sole reason, therefore the simplistic answer that slavery was the cause cannot be applied to the ACW. The unfortunate truth about slavery is that it existed in northern states as well.

As I said earlier I do not think there is enough time for you to educate yourself sufficiently in this subject before the end of the Kickstarter.

I've been studying this subject for going on 50 years. And as my friend Trusty said it is still an unresolved issue. And just as hot now as it was when events at the time gave us the history the developers are trying to portray.

[Suvorov]

I'm not going to get into a discussion based on the subject. It's a can of worms.

- Trusty
No worries, I didn't want discuss the subject with you in particular (no offense ofc) but you were the quickest to reply.

[A. P. Hill]

Sorry, but replying on a device other than a computer takes more time than I can to provide a quick turn around answer.

[Suvorov]

I provided a brief synapses here. (www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?680-Alternate-History&p=12341&viewfull=1#post12341) The honest truth of the matter is one really needs to be a student of complete American history, as what took place in the 1860s was fermenting from the 1700s. There is no one "it happened over night" simple answer.

It can be compared to what caused ww1. No, the assignation of Ferdinand wasn't the sole reason, therefore the simplistic answer that slavery was the cause cannot be applied to the ACW. The unfortunate truth about slavery is that it existed in northern states as well.

As I said earlier I do not think there is enough time for you to educate yourself sufficiently in this subject before the end of the Kickstarter.

I've been studying this subject for going on 50 years. And as my friend Trusty said it is still an unresolved issue. And just as hot now as it was when events at the time gave us the history the developers are trying to portray.

I see, it is in fact "a can of worms."

[Suvorov]

Sorry, but replying on a device other than a computer takes more time than I can to provide a quick turn around answer.

No worries, I'm not expecting you to be my butler and cater to my every needs heh.

[A. P. Hill]

I see, it is in fact "a can of worms."

And indeed you would be doing yourself a disservice thinking it is or was anything but. I wish you luck in your education.

[Suvorov]

And indeed you would be doing yourself a disservice thinking it is or was anything but. I wish you luck in your education.

Thank you kindly. :)

[A. P. Hill]

Thank you kindly. :)

Indeed Sir.

One of my favorite books on this topic is The American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War (www.amazon.com/American-Heritage-Picture-History-Civil/dp/0517385562) 631 pages on just about every topic involved on the ACW.

It is way more than the title alludes. Its narrative was written by Mr. Bruce Cotton, one of the most knowledgeable historians. A very informative read, and if you can find it highly recommended.

[CjkCJkCjk]

I suggest if you want to learn about what the civil war soldier felt during battle's and just overall i suggest Sam R. Watkins "Company Aytch - A side show on the big show" great book, great read.

[Leifr]

Interestingly enough I still cannot find a definite answer as to what the south fought for, the documentary and a few people say it was because they were FOR slavery yet others say it had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'd love to know how you managed to watch a twelve hour documentary in less than two hours. ;)
The documentary does not explicitly state that.

[thomas aagaard]

Read this:
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

It explain perfectly well why the south wanted to leave the union... try count the number of times the word "slave" is used...
Then count "Tarrif"
Then "Tax"
or "states rights"

The south left to preserve slavery.
The union fought to preserve the union. (until 1st January 1863, then destroying slavery was added as a war goal)


I see, the victors do write the history books it seems.
Wrong. The acw is one of the cases where the losers very effectively was able to control how the history books was written.
A number of former confederates did a fantastic job with the hole "lost cause" myth.

They succeed to moved the focus from slavery to states rights and tarrifs... despite the fact that the "declaration of causes" are clear about why they left the union.

Or look at "Grant the butcher" compared to marble man Lee. When Lee suffered more killed and wounded men than Grant and did so during a shorter period of time....
Why is he a butcher and Lee is not?

[Suvorov]

I'd love to know how you managed to watch a twelve hour documentary in less than two hours. ;)
The documentary does not explicitly state that.

I didn't, in the first episode it talks about how the South had growing worries over the abolishment of slavery and losing their "property."

[Leifr]

Do you not see the problem therein?
You've read the first four pages of a two hundred page book and assumed how it all ends already. :p

[Rithal]

Honestly, just to develop a basic understanding of the ACW, I would just check out and skim through the Wikipedia page first. XD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

[A. P. Hill]

Do you not see the problem therein?
You've read the first four pages of a two hundred page book and assumed how it all ends already. :p

Sadly many approach this topic with preconceived notions and ideas. They're looking for some magic gem of information that will change those preconceptions. It sadly is a mental thing the individual must make.

And of course the failure to realize that not every white family in the south had slaves. For the record, there were also some wealthier black families who had slaves as well. Lets not forget that slavery started and existed in the home land of these "poor oppressed" people. Whites were not the sole perpetrators of black indenturement.

[Patrick Kurtz]

I believe that the south seceded because of the issue over slavery, however, I don't believe the war started for the reason, as said previously barely any of the families in the South owned slaves, and it was very hard economically on the families who didn't, the main reason for most of the South fighting was to protect their state and home.

[FanaticDK]

I believe that the south seceded because of the issue over slavery, however, I don't believe the war started for the reason, as said previously barely any of the families in the South owned slaves, and it was very hard economically on the families who didn't, the main reason for most of the South fighting was to protect their state and home.
Really hot topic to talk about, but yes I agree, it was truely the war of the northern aggression.

The Union imperialism knew no bounds at the time, they weren't content with their territory and wanted it all.

Freeing slaves as a goal was a nice way to gather the common man though.

[FruitofDoom]

Ken Burns: The Civil War is in my opinion the best place to start with a basic understanding of the Civil War, if you listen to everything they say, I know it word for word, (may need subtitles) you can really learn a whole lot of important details and get a general grasp of the winding sequence of events, having watched it literally hundreds of times, I can comfortably say it is the greatest of Civil War television series'. Civil War Journal is also a personal favorite, you can find many episodes on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmYu3JCaBvPYhEFjzwIsPwWW9YdjaJw7m). For those who seek the ultimate Civil War read I must refer you to Shelby Foote's Civil War: a narrative, in my opinion the greatest volume of books ever written on the war. There is a very good C-span interview done in 1994 with Mr. Foote found here (http://www.c-span.org/video/?60099-1/book-discussion-stars-courses) where he talks about another book he had written at the time, but includes much interesting talk about the narrative, his own input on the war, and his own interest in the subject.

[A. P. Hill]

IF, you want an indepth read on the eastern theater confederate command structure over the course of the war then you need Douglas Southal Freeman's "Lee's Lieutenants".

[Suvorov]

Do you not see the problem therein?
You've read the first four pages of a two hundred page book and assumed how it all ends already. :p

Clearly not, all I asked was what did the south fight for as I was TAUGHT that they fought for the right to own slaves, then you come in here throwing around your own assumptions putting words in my mouth I never said.

[thomas aagaard]

Really hot topic to talk about, but yes I agree, it was truely the war of the northern aggression.

The Union imperialism knew no bounds at the time, they weren't content with their territory and wanted it all.

Freeing slaves as a goal was a nice way to gather the common man though.

You really need to do some reading.
More or less everything you just wrote don't have anything to do with historical fact.

Aggresion
The lower south Seceded unilaterally... something that was in no way legal.
(It is possible to leave the union, but that would be done true congress... just like when admitting new states. Or alternatively by an amendment to the Constitution)
The action of secession it self might not be illegal... but the moment you use force or do a lot of other actions you are doing illegal actions.

They then took over federal property (mail officers, mints, armories and forts) by force.
Took US soldiers was prisoners of war (in Texas)
Fired at US ships.

All of it before Lincoln even took officer. All of it was Southern aggression against the union.

Their (CSA) congress than authorized an army of 100.000 men and started to make it.

They then opened fire on a US fort... And just so we are clear. The location of Fort Sumter was sold by South Carolina to the Federal government back in the 1830 ties...
Even if we accept that SC left the union that fort was still US soil. And if we accept the existence of the CSA then that was a direct attack on another country...
Otherwise it was a rebellion/an insurrection...

Only then did Lincoln used his authority under the militia act of 1792 to raise an army of state militia.

Slavery:
also your comment about the slaves show a clear lack of understanding about the war. In the early part of the war, slaves that ran away was returned to their owners.
Not until half way true the war did the destruction of slavery become a wargoal. Until then Lincoln and the union was very clear about the goal. The preservation of the union.

The south lost a democratic election and then as an reaction decided to leave to preserve slavery.
This is made very clear in the deceleration of causes
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

And we can go on the Imperialism.
It was the south who pushed for the war against mexico so they could expand slavery.
It was a southern president who pushed for it.
The south wanted the US to buy Cuba from spain... and when the Spanish said no.. they wanted a war with Spain so they could take it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto

[A. P. Hill]

Clearly not, all I asked was what did the south fight for as I was TAUGHT that they fought for the right to own slaves, then you come in here throwing around your own assumptions putting words in my mouth I never said.

And because of your short sighted efforts at "educating" yourself, you missed the point there were many slave holders in the north as well. And if you're comfortable with thinking that over 600,000 Americans lost their lives over a singular institutional construct, you are sadly mistaken. 98 percent of the southern population were not slave holders, do you honestly think millions of people would try to kill each other for the right of a few to own another person?

Check your thought process.

[thomas aagaard]

You got some facts wrong.
According the the 1860 census:
The % of slave owning families across the country was 8%. (not 2%)

The number of slaves in the North was very few. There was 18 in New Jersey.
(as apprenticed for life)

Borderstates like Maryland, Delaware and Missouri had some.
(87,189 + 1,798 + 114,931)


In all states that joined the CSA the % of slaveowning families was at minimum 20 %.
(ARKANSAS)

I all the CSA states it was about 1 for every 3 families that owned slaves. (32%)
(when only counting the 11 states and not Kentucky and Missouri)

http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/start.php?year=V1860
and
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html


And yes, 650.000+ people was killed because the slave owners (who had the political power in the south) was willing to fight a war to protect their property and way of life...

[Josy_Wales]

The war was not about slavery - R. E. Lee

1333

[thomas aagaard]

The war was not about slavery - R. E. Lee


Source?

What letter did he write that in? or Who did he say it to?

[A. P. Hill]

Oddly Lee didn't own slaves, however the woman he married had a couple.

[Suvorov]

And because of your short sighted efforts at "educating" yourself, you missed the point there were many slave holders in the north as well. And if you're comfortable with thinking that over 600,000 Americans lost their lives over a singular institutional construct, you are sadly mistaken. 98 percent of the southern population were not slave holders, do you honestly think millions of people would try to kill each other for the right of a few to own another person?

Check your thought process.

Wonderful assumption, sadly for you it's false, you're repeating his same mistake.

[LTC Philip A. Work]

Here is a good discussion on what civil war combat was really like. People, even civil war buffs, forgot how absolutely horrifying combat was during the Civil War.


http://youtu.be/zRulfEITvWc

Starts at 11:00

[A. P. Hill]

Wonderful assumption, sadly for you it's false, you're repeating his same mistake.

On the contrary Sir. I am completely grounded, you are the one living the fantasy. Thinking millions of white Americans fought and killed each other to the tune of 600,000 plus lives, over the single issue of another person's servitude.

[thomas aagaard]

On the contrary Sir. I am completely grounded, you are the one living the fantasy. Thinking millions of white Americans fought and killed each other to the tune of 600,000 plus lives, over the single issue of another person's servitude.

The reason why the private soldier signed up is irrelevant. The war goals, that is the political goals, of the state is what you fight for.

Also two sides in a war can fight for very different reasons.

The south fought to protect the institution of slavery... as is clear if you read what they wrote as reasons for leaving the union.

Had the south not been willing to fight, die and kill to protect that institution there would have been no war.


From the start the Union fought to keep the union together. By 1863 the destruction of slavery was added as a wargoal. (and as a mean to win the war)

[Josy_Wales]

This discussion is very much up to everyones personal view, so unless everyone in the discussion are completly open minded, its just going to be a mess og facts and claims. What I know is that real few in the union army fought to prevent slavery and some regiments even had to be forced and threatened just to fight next to a black regiment, even tho regiments was race seperated (as was not the case in the southern armies where they fought mixed). Im not saying that slavery wasnt a factor in the conflict (it was), but I dont see it as a factor where one side is wrong and one right.

[thomas aagaard]

No, facts is not up to any ones view... the interpretation is.

Fact is the south left to protect slavery... they wrote so themself.
Fact is the south then took over federal property by force
They then fired at a ship flying the US flag.
They then fired on a US fort on US soil.
That is facts.

Was it justified? that is up to your interpretation.

Similar fact is that the Union fought to defend and preserve the union. That was the declared wargoal.

Should congress just have accepted that the south left? well that is a political question...
but not that relevant since the south started the war more then 6 month before congress was to start in 1861.
So the decision was up to Lincoln, and his presidential oath of office don't allow him to do nothing when there is an insurrection. And the president have no authority in allowing states into the union or to leave it.


also
There is zero real evidence that blacks legally fought in the CSA armies. It is a myth created by the Lost cause movement after the war.

The CSA law very clearly did not allow black soldiers.(it was copied word for word from the US law...)

Cleburne suggested it and that suggestion made him very unpopular.
There was a huge debate about it in the CSA congress in the spring of 65... if it was already legal, why the debate?


There where a few who could pass as white men who did fight. But that don't make it legal.
There where some slaves who was taken by their masters to war that did pick up arms... that don't make them soldiers.. and it don't make it legal.

There where also some "indians" who fought for the south... but they where not blacks from a legal point

It is very likely that more females fought during the was than the number of blacks who fought for the south.(a few hundred) Female soldiers is well documented.

The enlistment of black soldiers in the south is not. (not counting the two companies raised in april 65 that never saw action)

[Josy_Wales]

Every state had the constitutional right to leave the union, and you say preserve the union? Why preserve a union who don't want to be together with invading which involved the burning of entire cities, killing and raping white and black civilians alike, and fight a war claiming over 600000 lives just to deny the south its right?

Fort Sumter was not on US soil, it was on South Carolina soil which was was a part of the Confederate states. I have compared it better in another thread like this, but its just like the Ukraine/Russia conflict today.

You can come with all the facts you have read about, but if you don't think the conflict is as complicated that you need to use your personal view, I really don't give a crap discussing this with you. I can read facts all day, but it does not get me anywhere if I don't have a sense of personal view. Its also going to lead to a boring pointless discussion, with Wikipedia talking against Wikipedia.

1337

[Suvorov]

On the contrary Sir. I am completely grounded, you are the one living the fantasy. Thinking millions of white Americans fought and killed each other to the tune of 600,000 plus lives, over the single issue of another person's servitude.

More Strawman nonsense, keep your speculations to yourself and fuck off if you have nothing to discuss, Ok? Thanks.

[TrustyJam]

Aaaand locked. Going to keep locking these as long as you can't keep a civilized tone.

- Trusty