Gettysburg, the Extended Edition

[Eoraptor1]

Last year, I think it was, I was trying to locate the Extended version of Turner's Gettysburg and brought the issue to the SOH membership. I own the Theatrical cut on DVD, and the Director's cut on Blu-Ray, but I was looking for the four and a half hour cut that aired on TNT back in 1993. I found it this week on YouTube.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTcaRk0ZRJ4

My little Circle is deeply divided on this movie. There's my camp, which loves it, and the other camp, who think it's a colossal bore and think I'm insane for wanting to see even more. I really continue to enjoy it, although I still think you get more from the book upon which it was based, Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels. Anyway, for all those so inclined, enjoy.

JAMES

[glh]

I have a copy of it and it does get involved in a lot of minute detail of the 3 days of battle. But some people do not want to sit through how events developed in that detail.

If you would like to read a DETAILED book about the battle, I recommend Noah Andre Trudeau's "Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage". Probably tells you everything you ever wanted to know about what and why.

You might also like the NBC mini-series "Centennial", adapted from James Michener's book. It is on DVD also.

[beana51]

That seems to be the problem with teaching History. American history has become a BORE!...Even more serous,is now the alteration of the facts of history. for certain considerations they alter history.Facts get flavored,and colored to accommodate a currant mode. Factual re en actors ,with factual locales,,with historic accurate arms,armor do a great service.
One can almost pick a historical time,and its been re-enacted.This world over.Who would not want to march with the 12th legion invading Briton,or Crossing the Delaware ,with George Washington. Save for a relative small part of our overall population ,its not even known this exisits..Praise for those who do this,more so for those who adhere to the Facts and the truth.

When its on Film,and done honestly,carefully,it becomes a treasure to to have.Like our friends the books on our shelves! To re review share,educate. film and Pictures are worth a Million words....as A kid I was enthralled on Classic Comics...Those Paper Comic books brought me to appreciate history more than some old boring teacher ever could.

'Those who do Not Know history Are Doomed to Relieve it

[TeaSea]

I think I've opined on this before but certain really good books simply do not translate to screen without a significant amount of cutting. "The Killer Angels" which this movie is based upon, is one of those. Anyone approaching the subject would have to deal with the fact that a good chunk of the story most be unmercifully chopped to keep the movie going.

Also, "The Killer Angels" is a fictional account of the battle, not factual....so while the movie follows the general conduct of the battle and deals with certain factual events very well, always bear in mind that it's still fiction. There are scenes that are just out and out made up (one of my favorites is the confrontation between Lee and Stuart -- which did not occur).

There are other historical movies that have this problem of what to cut, and what to include....."A Bridge Too Far" (which is non-fiction) is one of these....just too long. We'd make it a mini-series on HBO now.

I also agree with beana51. History is presented very poorly in most schools. First off, we call it "Social Studies" now and dumb it down. Then we adjust our presentation to meet the standards of the day. As an example, George Custer is either a villain, a hero, a martyr, or an idiot depending on the political climate of the day you first hear his name in an historical context. In truth he was none of these things, and all of these things (being a human being).

[Eoraptor1]

In truth he was none of these things, and all of these things (being a human being).

Oh, TeaSea. You know I'm going to be stealing that one and saying I made it up, don't you?

JAMES

[beana51]

Custer? This may interest you....

http://custer.over-blog.com/article-14106587.html

And this Custers NFL connection

http://orgs.usd.edu/nmm/vinatieri.html

[Rami]

Hey guys,

Being a history teacher in the imperfect American public school system, I have paid careful attention to this thread.

Instead of dumping on your comments, I'd like to turn things around. Since all of you (beana51, TeaSea, and glh) have pretty definite opinions on history being taught in American classrooms, what type of specific improvements can you recommend to me as I design my curriculum for 2013-2014? Any specific focus, concept, or perspective I should build my lessons around?

[beana51]

Mr. Rami,I for one am not qualified for such an important endeavor as you ask.Nor would I ever try...However I have Children,History was important at home,We made games of it..The Sources for our History Games came from books.books written by Historians ,historians who relied on the truth and the facts.My kids now,middle aged,still carry those impressions.I get alarmed tho ,at my grand kids.What they came home with is not what I believed history to be. The same People and places the dates OK but with flavor and color.That reflecting our ever changing US make up....Its gets worse!..My two Great Grand sons now are getting not history but Social Studies.With not so subtle things like Columbus is a war criminal,Santa Anna was just protecting his country, 5th of may is like 4th of July,Tom Jefferson was a racist,so to George Washington..And On and On That American Indians were just simple,peaceful people like depicted in Dance With Wolves.. Gen Custer practicing genocide,.That John Wayne s West was Aggression and murder,..this along with some guilt feeling we are to have about all this!.This is reenforced from the top down...My son is a school teacher,we have four school teaches in the family.All are frustrated with the new revised history coming down. They walk the party line now,Restrained and follow orders Two already are training for better bucks,in the health industry..They leave with heavy heart ,they loved teaching!.Now you or others may not see it like this However,if so find out The US standing in the world in education today....All the money will not change it....America once had One Room School houses..From them came the Greatest of generations,who saved the world,and walked on the moon...OK my friend Just a few thoughts...Getting in Trouble again, This is not the place.But at my age ?HA! HA! HA!.Thanx..Vin

"TO DESTROY A NATION,DESTROY ITS MYTHS AND HERO'S"

[PRB]

This is one of my all time favorite movies. My favorite scene is when General Lee gives that most impressive butt-chewing to his cavalry general. I've had a couple of those... Usually they are delivered in a calm voice, but one filled with "weight", much like Mr. Sheen did, except for when he lost it for just a second ("I have told you there is no time!!") Which may not have occurred, after all (see above posts.) And Jeff Daniels as the 20th Maine CO is great too. Great movie.

As for the real history, has anyone here read anything by William W. Freehling? Specifically The Road to Disunion? It's pretty good...

[Skyhawk_310R]

I have read so many books about the American Civil War that I've long lost count. However, it was not until I personally went to Gettysburg with my father and two sons and walked all over that battlefield that it hit home so squarely. Standing on the face of Little Round Top and staring at the strewn boulders later named The Devil's Den, I immediately looked to my dad and said, "Lee was out of his mind to think any group of men could have taken this position."

For me, it wasn't that the assault on day two of the battle failed, it was how on earth could the CSA forces have gone so far. The thing is that the Army of the Potomac had reserve forces behind Little Round Top ready to deploy. In truth, despite the obvious heroism of Chamberlain's forces, there were other units behind them should the Confederates advanced beyond them. I have read so many books that tried to put the prime blame on Longstreet, all of them part of the Virginia "Lost Cause" cabal. However, in reading more objective narratives, I think this book "Killer Angels" and the movie made from it, got the essential facts very correct.

There was a scene in the movie that summed it all up so well. Longstreet said to Lee that the Union forces enjoyed tight interior lines with excellent lines of communication and vantage points that dominated the entire Confederate deployment. Lee's forces could not move without being observed even in the stage of assembly. By the time the Confederates could get a quarter of the way to their intended line of deployment, the Union could mass forces to resist them.

Day two relied upon one of the most complicated battle maneuver schemes ever attempted in this war. A simultaneous two-pronged offensive on both flanks. On day three, it was worse with a demonstration at Culp's Hill with a cavalry sortie into the enemy's rear designed to come at the center of the Union line from its rear, to oppose the center maneuver later called Pickett's Charge (which ignored the reality that Pickett's division only supplied a third of the forces!). To prove the hopelessness of trying to maneuver without observation, the best chance to do that on Culp's Hill was the first time that day the Union initiated offensive action to thwart a Confederate attack before it even began. The Union artillery initiated action that shocked and angered Lee, who initially concluded that Hill's forces failed to coordinate their attack on day three but in truth it was the Union shooting first based upon observations of Confederate force massing.

George Custer's cavalry was not asleep as presumably Lee must have thought they would be as they most certainly observed Stuart's sortie into the Union rear and attacked it, jamming it up magnificently, and ruining that part of day three's plan. The forces the reached the stone wall had no cavalry relief as long before then Stuart had to withdraw or else get surrounded and annihilated. For more proof that the Union was not incompetent as apparently Lee believed they were, the previous night, the Union commander placed his finger on the map where he anticipated Lee's day three action would take place and he pointed to a grove of trees precisely at the point Lee's plan called for the wide march to concentrate on! As you might guess, based upon that guess, the Union reinforced that area that very morning before the charge!

That doesn't even mention much the reliance upon artillery that never demonstrated the kinds of accuracy that Lee's plan hinged upon. Lee's plan was to take over 100 artillery pieces and mass fires on one spot of the Union front to annihilate it so that the frontal assault would succeed. Even if it had worked, it ignored the Union artillery on both flanks that had sufficient vantage points to mass fires on the frontal assault from both its flanks! It also ignored the known results of the smoke created by all those guns on a July battlefield where the heat acted as a temperature inversion to lock in what was one of the most dense smoke screens ever seen in the war. After only a few minutes of sustained fires, the Confederate gunners no longer could even ID where their volleys were impacting! For technical reasons, Confederate artillery never enjoyed the range accuracy of Union artillery -- their fuses were so much worse than Union fusings. Truth is most of the Confederate fires fell in the Union's rear, not touching the front line forces they were supposed to neutralize!

Longstreet warned Lee of all of this and was repeatedly rebuffed by his commander. How stupid was Lee's expectations? In recent times it was learned through forensic analysis of the battlefield that about half of all Confederate forces on the day three center assault went no further than the Emmitsburg Road! These veteran soldiers knew it was hopeless and when the time was deemed safe enough, emerged from a prone position and returned to their own lines. These men individually determined that the plan was foolish and they voted with their feet!

Like I said, it was not until I saw the place with my own eyes that I was able to appreciate all this. Reading in books and seeing movies just wasn't enough.

Ken

[Skyhawk_310R]

Hey guys,

Being a history teacher in the imperfect American public school system, I have paid careful attention to this thread.

Instead of dumping on your comments, I'd like to turn things around. Since all of you (beana51, TeaSea, and glh) have pretty definite opinions on history being taught in American classrooms, what type of specific improvements can you recommend to me as I design my curriculum for 2013-2014? Any specific focus, concept, or perspective I should build my lessons around?

Teach kids to be civic minded! Teach them about how our government must function upon a bedrock of public duty and a sense of always holding government accountable. Teach them that they can destroy America by putting personal desires ahead of defense of the Constitution, liberty and balance of powers and checks and balances.

Ken

[beana51]

<abbr data-timestamp="1375231913000" class="time recent_time" title="Tue Jul 30 2013 20:51:53 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time)"></abbr>OLD FRIENDS,my books! Books are like that.Some I have are on shelves for many years!..finally finding time re acquainting my self with My Country's Early History.the Revolutionary War...In essence it was about British who lived in England and The New world.Same people,same culture ,same language.Family's on both side of the pond.Included were all British subjects,Irish Scots Welsh and all. The French were in the new world also.Before the Revolution,there was a World War...Way before WW1..French,English,Indians!
My ancestors ,were not involved,after all They found the Place,and even named it..but that's It! http://images.proboards.com/v5/images/smiley/wink.png..If it got screwed up??not their fault! http://images.proboards.com/v5/images/smiley/wink.png

Yet All Americans who love our country identify with this..With these men..all were young guys,in their 20s,30s, then..So called Foundling Fathers were Young Men.The king was not crazy,he was a sharp guy.The British Generals,all honorable talented men.The Red Coats all professional Solders...the German Hessian s Highly Feared Mercenaries,..the greatest Power then meets ragga muffins,ill equipped,no discipline,losing battles, starving, dirty,drunk,deserting, and down and out. The Loyalists strong, the Summer of 1776,in NY, it was all over ,or was it?.Yet it Seems the Crown decides to leave, long years,lose of lots of men,money, Yorktown? Washington won no battles,but he lost none either Then and a new nation born.To me and most others ,George Washington,overcame his own short comings.This Son of England Lead all thru adversity...One quality he had, trumped all...his Judgment.....now like a school boy I pour over this story..and truly its inspiring! recommended reading for all,before it gets changed!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqMgjqViB5c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqMgjqViB5c)


http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l609/beana51/257450_zps976ee73d.jpg (http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/beana51/media/257450_zps976ee73d.jpg.html)

[SPman]

'Those who do Not Know history Are Doomed to Relieve it That may be the modern thinking amongst some....however I think the expression is 'Those who do Not Know history Are Doomed to Relive it'

Amazing the subtle change in meaning one letter can make.....

[TeaSea]

Hey guys,

Being a history teacher in the imperfect American public school system, I have paid careful attention to this thread.

Instead of dumping on your comments, I'd like to turn things around. Since all of you (beana51, TeaSea, and glh) have pretty definite opinions on history being taught in American classrooms, what type of specific improvements can you recommend to me as I design my curriculum for 2013-2014? Any specific focus, concept, or perspective I should build my lessons around?

Rami,

Well I do have some thoughts...and the first of these is that I do not think the American public school system is imperfect. Actually, I think quite the opposite. I do think there are areas that get short shrift and need some additional reinforcement and believe History is one of these (First off, let's kill the lawyers....and eliminate any reference to "Social Studies"). Let me add that I do not know which grade levels you teach, but by High School there are things students should just know without thinking about. Yes, those good old fashioned, dry as sawdust, DATES....you have to know when things happened, and what your relationship in time and place is to those events. No more or less than which way you go to get to the Mississippi River (Yes, I happen to know a young lady here in Florida that doesn't know which way the Mississippi is from Tampa).

I would also prefer that we get away from the idea that people who actually witnessed events are somehow not good sources. There is a disturbing trend to mitigate the views of people who actually witnessed events on the ground because it may not fit into a particular popular narrative. Finally, history is PEOPLE and EVENTS....not one or the other. I think students generally respond well to thinking both in terms of the grand historical idea and the implication on the individual. You know, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia crossed the Potomac River to threaten Harrisburg and potentially draw the UK into the war on the side of the CSA. That's true, but a more basic motivation was to take the war OUT OF VIRGINIA....where it had been waged for the last two years. And once out of Virginia that same Army needed (wait for it) SHOES. So, take the big ideas and break them down to the personal. Kids understand no shoes.

My idea anyway.

Oh Skyhawk_310R, not to poke fun at you but your comment on the Devil's Den brought back something that actually occurred with me. During my last visit to Gettysburg I too stood on Little Round Top and looked down into the Devil's Den. A commissioned U.S. Army Officer of some repute (who will remain forever nameless) turned to me and said "I can't believe Lee thought they could make this assault. Just standing up here you can see how impossible it would be!" I looked at him and replied "No Confederate ever stood up here." Sort of shut him up.

If you go back down to the Emmittsburg Road, and stay on the West side of Plum Run, you will see that you cannot make out the Devil's Den, or the full approach to Little Round Top. That was the vantage point you would have started your approach to that objective and would have seen nothing more until well after they were committed to the assault. I know it's a popular thing to walk the field for Pickett's Charge....but you need to walk the distance and terrain from the Emmittsburg Road to the Devil's Den to understand why that assault was made. These were not stupid people....and by 1863 they knew their craft very, very well. I'm convinced that the Army of Northern
Virginia was perhaps the single hardest fighting force ever produced in the Western Hemisphere.

Eoraptor1 you may have free copyright to my quote...I was rather proud of it myself. Sometimes, I feel the muse.

[Skyhawk_310R]

I think this linked to battle map shows what I was conveying in writing. You are right, the line of advance on day three could not be observed from Little Round Top due primarily to the way the southern portion of the so-called "fish hook" bent slightly to the east. However, the area of Cemetery Ridge provided a southern flank from which artillery did fire on the advancing Confederate forces (on their right flank). Additionally, the northern portion of Cemetery Ridge as it looped at the top of the Union line to the east, provided an excellent sight line for Union artillery to fire from a position of height as that portion of the line wiggled some to the west just before it looped to the east. It was an excellent position from which artillery fired down the advancing Confederate's left flank.

http://www.wall-maps.com/Classroom/HISTORY/US-History/a15_CivilWar_Gettysburg-186.gif

Day one was the classic lost opportunity when Ewell's forces failed to occupy Culp's Hill as clearly in hindsight they could have done. Of all the risks taken on day two and three as a comparison, that risk not taken by Ewell on day one was cataclysmic. His most advanced forces actually maneuvered to within a few hundred yards of the road leading southeast out the town and with the entirety of Culp's Hill taken, would have placed Confederate forces on both sides of Meade's northern flank. It would have forced Meade to abandon the entire southern line down Cemetery Ridge through Little Round Top and Big Round Top. Or, Meade could have been easily attacked on two converging sides of tightly compacted Confederate corps on day two. But, the difference would have been that these two movements would have been connected vice split. It would have been a more compacted repeat of day one where the Confederates engaged from the west and then Ewell's corps slammed in from the north and sent the Union forces in retreat to the southeast. Unfortunately for Lee, the Union retreated to a vastly superior line with perhaps the finest ground the Army of the Potomac ever enjoyed.

Ken

[TeaSea]

Ken,

Please understand, I do not disagree with what you're saying. But that excellent map was not available to anyone on the field. Longstreet and Hood did not have the advantage of completely understanding the situation before they began their attack. They had a significant advantage that Ewell did not have on his approach to Culp's Hill the the previous day though....they at least understood their commander's intent.

Regards Ewell, he does get criticism for not taking Culps Hill the first day...justifiably so given the benefit of hindsight, however often overlooked is that the morning of 1 July 1863 day he was not supposed to be in Gettysburg. No one was supposed to be in Gettysburg. He literally marched his Corps to the sound of the guns, commited it to action, suffered 3000 casualties within 2 -3 hours, had almost no coordination with the rest of the AoNV, did not understand Lee's intent here (Lee was still not on the field) and as far as he knew he was fighting in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Further, his two lead divisions became badly disorganized in the pursuit of the Federals to Cemetery Ridge and needed time to re-organize. In hindsight perhaps, he should have pressed his pursuit, but at the time and place he was his decision to re consolidate was one that almost any commander would have made. Especially given that he really didn't have any other orders.

That was the point I was trying to make to my brother officer on Little Round Top. Everything is clear after the event. Nothing is clear when you're in it, and all you have to go by is what you know at that point in time....Rami....take a note...that's why you teach history.

For the Europeans on the forum....this is what Americans do....we re-fight "the" Civil War.....it's kind of our thing.

No roundheads or cavaliers though....so sorry.:guinness:

[Skyhawk_310R]

I agree.

One thing I take sharp exception to are the claims of the so-called Lost Cause historians that Lee was a "southern gentleman" predisposed to avoid telling his generals in plain terms what to do. This is in my view so much revisionist nonsense. Longstreet at the time reviewed the written order given to Ewell on that fateful late afternoon and he concluded that they were discretionary orders pure and simple. Ewell chose to not take Culp's Hill. Without question, had the hill already been occupied with an entrenched force, such an assault could have been a disaster.

My point behind saying that was to simply say that was the best chance, not that Ewell was incompetent.

Lee got plenty of cautionary inputs from his corps and division commanders. . Longstreet had his best division commander in Hood inspect the ground on day two prior to launching his assault and be compelled to issue a formal protest to the order to proceed. I actually think the generals had a good grasp of what lay before them. What they tended to lack was an idea of what was before them prior to them getting into position, and the prime reason is lack of opportunity to scout the ground on day one followed by the unrelenting truth that the Union had perfect interior lines where they could counter any Confederate move prior to the Confederates reaching their position.

Longstreet was criticized for taking presumably too long to maneuver to the southern Union flank on day two. But, he noticed that a rise on his route of march exposed his units to Union observation. He reversed march to another road behind him that was further west and out of observation. The ground was soft off the original road and his artillery would have gotten stuck had he used the lower field west of his first road. But, the same Lost Cause historians have always taken Longstreet to task laying the cause to loafing, which is really unfair.

I actually reserve my harsh criticism for Lee and I guess that makes me a southern pariah. I actually agree with Longstreet's book where he committed the cardinal sin among southerners saying that Lee was "off his balance." Which was a polite way at the time to say a man was insane. George Pickett visited Lee after the war ended and the atmosphere was tense and without much said. As he left Lee's home, Pickett remarked to his friend, "that man destroyed my division!" As a fellow Virginian even Pickett held Lee to blame. Lee's Lost Cause apologists say he could not have maneuvered his forces to a position of superior ground south of Gettysburg but in fact, that's precisely what he did on day four after his forces were mauled, but by the point it was to escape. Tragically, one of the division commanders to survive Pickett's charge, Johnston Pettigrew, was killed leading a delaying rear guard action during that withdrawal. Longstreet thought it could have been done on day two, and I think he was right.

Then, there is the avenue to blame Stuart, which even Killer Angels and this movie did. Longstreet wanted Stuart court martialed. And certainly the Lost Cause folks excoriated him. But, an objective read of Stuart's orders, issued by Lee, which as a fellow corps commander Longstreet never read, show Stuart did precisely what Lee ordered him to do while Lee took his forces north across the Potomac. Further, Lee had significant cavalry directly assigned to his unit on march. Stuart's purpose to chop these forces to Lee was to facilitate scouting. Yet, Lee chose not to use it for the very scouting duty that so many historians attempted to blame as Stuart's failure. I consider "Lee Reconsidered" a valuable work in this regard as I do Longstreet's autobiography.

Ken

[Eoraptor1]

I am DEEPLY skeptical of the idea that there was some golden age when people were absolutely and objectively factual about history. Take Das Boot, 20 Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, Run Silent Run Deep, Crimson Tide, The Enemy Below and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, add them all together, then go even deeper, and you'll still be no where near the depth of my skepticism. Feel free to throw in Journey to the Center of the Earth for flavor. Call it evolutionary heritage or Original Sin, human beings are flawed. I encounter people all the time who claim to have a great and abiding love of history, but the minute they hear something they don't like, they start revising like mad. In my personal experience, primary source research - that would be historical figures writing in their own words - does NOT dissuade them. I'm no deep ideologue. I'm more a Fear and Desire type of guy. IMO, people have certain things they like to believe about the world and their place in it, and are capable of visceral outrage when someone tells them the world may not be exactly what they say it is. In the case of Gettysburg especially, the revisionism began immediately. I'm talking before The Army of Northern Virginia got back across the Potomac; before the bodies were cold. Historian Carol Reardon did a lecture on this very topic on C-SPAN, but I don't have time just now to search C-SPAN.org for the video, but here's her video page there for anyone who's interested. Go HERE: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/search/?keywords=Carol+Reardon

JAMES

[PRB]

History is a never ending quest. Primary sources are invaluable, but even then one be cautious. Sometimes primary sources were too close to the events and may not have had the benefit of data revealed years later. That doesn't diminish the value of it, it's just an example of why researchers must be vigilante and thoughtful. If we are to take the position that anything asserted by anyone on history must be rejected on the grounds that all humans are biased, then that must logically include the assertion that everything asserted by anyone must be rejected, and that's irrational, at best. There is truth to be learned, both from primary sources, and from later research, and usually by a combination of both.

[TeaSea]

History is a never ending quest. Primary sources are invaluable, but even then one be cautious. Sometimes primary sources were too close to the events and may not have had the benefit of data revealed years later. That doesn't diminish the value of it, it's just an example of why researchers must be vigilante and thoughtful. If we are to take the position that anything asserted by anyone on history must be rejected on the grounds that all humans are biased, then that must logically include the assertion that everything asserted by anyone must be rejected, and that's irrational, at best. There is truth to be learned, both from primary sources, and from later research, and usually by a combination of both.

I wouldn't disagree with that statement, but there are two disturbing trends that bother me. The first is what I mentioned before, to take an eyewitness account and somehow discredit it in favor of a more "acceptable" account. We should reject that outright. The second is an increasing tendency to view past events through modern perceptions. The past through the prism of the now. That's more than just hindsight, that's applying your own more's and standards to people and events of the past. You see this all the time.

And Ken, I do not hold you as a pariah because of your views on Lee...I tend to agree with you. I've also felt that both Stuart and Longstreet get attacked unfairly for events at Gettysburg. Stuart was doing what he was told (Shelby Foote is the most recent historian who points that out) and Lee actually had the predominance of the Cavalry with him...Stuart had only a detachment. At least Stuart had the sense to get killed before the end of the war before his reputation could be permanently sullied. Longstreet had the temerity to survive and "gasp" BECOME A REPUBLICAN!!! He absorbs an awful lot of criticism for the rest of his life and I think a lot of it's because of his post war career. He shares that with Robert Mosby by the way....the last Confederate officer to surrender--eventually becomes Ambassador to China and is the motivating character in the revamping of the U.S. Civil Service system in the latter part of the 19th Century.

Goodness...we can go on forever can't we?

[Eoraptor1]

If we are to take the position that anything asserted by anyone on history must be rejected on the grounds that all humans are biased

Someone at SOH took this position?

JAMES

[Skyhawk_310R]

TeaSea,

No doubt that Longstreet was openly called a turncoat by many Southerners after the war because his friendship with Grant resumed in earnest after the war, and as you said, he became a Republican.

I have within the last eight years become somewhat of a Longstreet champion because I think he had the tactical brilliance to fight what he termed a defensive war of maneuver. The man exercised many examples of battlefield genius with perhaps his greatest achievement being his deployment of six brigades of forces in a series of independent skirmish units employed in depth in the Wilderness. Longstreet's units were on the verge of a very significant victory when, just as happened to Thomas Jackson, Longstreet was severely wounded by his own men and the tide lost its momentum.

His opposing Union general, Winfield Scott Hancock, said succinctly of the maneuvers, "He rolled us up like a wet blanket!" What Longstreet did was take the better part of an entire corps of troops and deployed them in large numbers of independently maneuvering skirmish units. It was a perfect ad hoc tactical decision that leveraged the tangle of woods within the Wilderness and used the few narrow roads to their maximum benefit. General Michah Jenkins was killed in the same friendly fire event that seriously wounded Longstreet. That took two of the best field generals of the campaign out of the battle and gave Hancock's forces a brief enough reprieve to avoid being forced into retreat across the Rapidan River.

The thing is that Longstreet, far more than any other corps general in the Confederate Army, understood that the south could only have prevailed fighting what is today called defensive maneuver warfare. It was finally done to a degree in the Petersburg campaign, but by then the Confederates lacked the forces and material to even fill and equip its own trench lines! Take those divisions destroyed at Gettysburg and I think it might have been a whole different outcome for Grant.

As it is, I believe the two best corps level (and higher) commanders in the war were Longstreet and Grant. Grant never lost a strategic campaign during the war. I also think Grant's autobiography remains among the best written after the war. A lot like Longstreet's book, it emphasizes facts over emotion, and serves as a must read work. I certainly rank Jackson favorably also, but he died not halfway through the war.

I have often wondered what would have been had Longstreet replaced Lee and used his strategy against Grant.

Ken

[Eoraptor1]

If I have him right, Longstreet "got it" earlier than the majority of general officers. The advent of the mineball had switched the tactical advantage heavily toward whoever entrenched first on "good" ground. Note at the beginning of the war, when both sides thought the conflict would last 90 days and assumed their side would win, this was not the prevalent opinion. W.T. Sherman said it would take 200,000 troops to win the war in the West and was thought certifiable. In his book None Died in Vain, Robert Leckie quotes Longstreet as having predicted, at the war's outset, mind you, that hostilities would last "four to six years. If it goes past four, look for a Dictator." I can definitely see Longstreet being reticent about Pickett's Charge, because it was his corps at Fredricksburg that had butchered the Yankee attack under very similar circumstances. I can also see Lee's frustration with Longstreet. From Longstreet's POV, he's trying to set up the engagement to preserve the army. From Lee's perspective, you offset Yankee material superiority by quick decisive adjustments, and Longstreet has a chronic case of "the slows" when carrying out his directives. After the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg, you see the Virginia press immediately begin to look for scapegoats, and Longstreet was conveniently not a Virginian. This really goes into high gear after the war, when a group of Virginian officers, led by Jubal Early, begin to throw in behind the cultic worship of Robert E. Lee, something General Lee, to his credit, never did himself. This view portrays Lee as the epitome of Christian virtue, basically infallible on a battlefield, and his defeats, such as they were, to be the product of overwhelming Yankee manpower and material strength, and the failure of subordinates to carry out his orders. As has already been mentioned, by this time, Longstreet was already being viewed in the South as a turncoat.

I highly recommend Grant's memoirs. I have Gore Vidal on tape calling Grant America's finest prose writer, surpassing even Mark Twain, who was instrumental in getting Grant's publishing deal. Grant had been swindled out of his money by a financial scam, and was dying of throat cancer (probably from all those cigars) when he wrote his book. Near the end, he couldn't take solid food. The prose is very clear and spare, which I connect to the need to relay orders clearly. IMO, "easy to read" is a good thing. Some interesting things Grant says: 1) The Mexican War was a naked land grab; a big nation beating up a smaller one, but "[Grant] considered my first duty to be to my flag." 2) The South should not have been immediately readmitted into the Union as states, but as a Territory pending a probationary period. 3) Union victory was NOT a foregone conclusion, even when Grant started his 1864 campaign against Lee. Grant explains why in some detail. 4) Grant only admits to having done one thing wrong in the field, the last charge at Cold Harbor. It goes on. I thought the entire read very interesting, as Grant clearly did not subscribe to a lot of Civil War mythology. It was very successful when published, and saved the Grant family fortunes.

JAMES

[pfflyers]

This has been a very interesting and informative thread. I'd like to thank Ken and TeaSea for taking the time to write out their insights (you too James). I've read a little about the war, but nothing beyond a few dry history books. It's refreshing to hear some more knowledgable folks exchange views in a calm and rational conversation. I'm a member of a couple other boards where this would have devolved into a Yankee-vs-Rebel slapfest almost immediately, with polite discourse being the first casualty.

[Eoraptor1]

This has been a very interesting and informative thread. I'd like to thank Ken and TeaSea for taking the time to write out their insights (you too James). I've read a little about the war, but nothing beyond a few dry history books. It's refreshing to hear some more knowledgable folks exchange views in a calm and rational conversation. I'm a member of a couple other boards where this would have devolved into a Yankee-vs-Rebel slapfest almost immediately, with polite discourse being the first casualty.

I'm familiar with the slapfest. I mean it when I say SOH is a cut above.

JAMES

[Rami]

Mr. Rami,I for one am not qualified for such an important endeavor as you ask.Nor would I ever try...However I have Children, History was important at home, We made games of it..The Sources for our History Games came from books. Books written by Historians, historians who relied on the truth and the facts. My kids now, middle aged, still carry those impressions. I get alarmed though, at my grandkids. What they came home with is not what I believed history to be. The same People and places the dates OK but with flavor and color.

That reflecting our ever changing US make up....Its gets worse!..My two Great Grand sons now are getting not history but Social Studies. With not so subtle things like Columbus is a war criminal, Santa Anna was just protecting his country, 5th of may is like 4th of July, Tom Jefferson was a racist, so to George Washington..And On and On That American Indians were just simple, peaceful people like depicted in Dance With Wolves.. Gen Custer practicing genocide,.That John Wayne s West was Aggression and murder,..this along with some guilt feeling we are to have about all this!. This is reenforced from the top down...My son is a school teacher, we have four school teaches in the family. All are frustrated with the new revised history coming down. They walk the party line now, Restrained and follow orders Two already are training for better bucks, in the health industry..They leave with heavy heart, they loved teaching! Now you or others may not see it like this. However, if so find out The US standing in the world in education today....All the money will not change it....America once had One Room School houses..From them came the Greatest of generations, who saved the world, and walked on the moon...OK my friend Just a few thoughts...Getting in Trouble again, This is not the place. But at my age ?HA! HA! HA!. Thanx..Vin

"TO DESTROY A NATION,DESTROY ITS MYTHS AND HERO'S"

Vin,

Sorry I haven't responded, my wife and daughter have been ill with e-coli poisoning, and I spent about thirty=six hours with them at the hospital, making sure both of them were okay. (They're home now) I agree about the revised history, but each generation always looks at history differently than the generation before it. Where I believe a lot of this stems from is this two-decade emphasis on "political correctness." It has spoiled American classrooms and reinforced certain people's ideas that they are "owed" something by society, rather than believing that all citizens need to pay their dues and perform their civic duty. I also agree that you have to be VERY careful passing modern ethics standards on previous generations, where society was totally different. In the context of their times, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and even Theodore Roosevelt would have not been considered racist.

I have really taken some of your suggestions to heart, and I strongly believe in civic duty and teaching responsibility. I make sure that is emphasized and integrated into my curriculum.

[Rami]

Teach kids to be civic minded! Teach them about how our government must function upon a bedrock of public duty and a sense of always holding government accountable. Teach them that they can destroy America by putting personal desires ahead of defense of the Constitution, liberty and balance of powers and checks and balances.

Ken

Ken,

Thank you, I completely agree and will take this suggestion to heart. I will also emphasize that the government can, if left unchecked, use any "crisis" to expand the scope of its power. That's why we're now in this mess with incognito spying on American citizens without warrants.

[Rami]

Rami,

Well I do have some thoughts...and the first of these is that I do not think the American public school system is imperfect. Actually, I think quite the opposite. I do think there are areas that get short shrift and need some additional reinforcement and believe History is one of these (First off, let's kill the lawyers....and eliminate any reference to "Social Studies"). Let me add that I do not know which grade levels you teach, but by High School there are things students should just know without thinking about. Yes, those good old fashioned, dry as sawdust, DATES....you have to know when things happened, and what your relationship in time and place is to those events. No more or less than which way you go to get to the Mississippi River (Yes, I happen to know a young lady here in Florida that doesn't know which way the Mississippi is from Tampa).

I would also prefer that we get away from the idea that people who actually witnessed events are somehow not good sources. There is a disturbing trend to mitigate the views of people who actually witnessed events on the ground because it may not fit into a particular popular narrative. Finally, history is PEOPLE and EVENTS....not one or the other. I think students generally respond well to thinking both in terms of the grand historical idea and the implication on the individual. You know, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia crossed the Potomac River to threaten Harrisburg and potentially draw the UK into the war on the side of the CSA. That's true, but a more basic motivation was to take the war OUT OF VIRGINIA....where it had been waged for the last two years. And once out of Virginia that same Army needed (wait for it) SHOES. So, take the big ideas and break them down to the personal. Kids understand no shoes.

My idea anyway.

Oh Skyhawk_310R, not to poke fun at you but your comment on the Devil's Den brought back something that actually occurred with me. During my last visit to Gettysburg I too stood on Little Round Top and looked down into the Devil's Den. A commissioned U.S. Army Officer of some repute (who will remain forever nameless) turned to me and said "I can't believe Lee thought they could make this assault. Just standing up here you can see how impossible it would be!" I looked at him and replied "No Confederate ever stood up here." Sort of shut him up.

If you go back down to the Emmittsburg Road, and stay on the West side of Plum Run, you will see that you cannot make out the Devil's Den, or the full approach to Little Round Top. That was the vantage point you would have started your approach to that objective and would have seen nothing more until well after they were committed to the assault. I know it's a popular thing to walk the field for Pickett's Charge....but you need to walk the distance and terrain from the Emmittsburg Road to the Devil's Den to understand why that assault was made. These were not stupid people....and by 1863 they knew their craft very, very well. I'm convinced that the Army of Northern
Virginia was perhaps the single hardest fighting force ever produced in the Western Hemisphere.

Eoraptor1 you may have free copyright to my quote...I was rather proud of it myself. Sometimes, I feel the muse.

TeaSea,

I couldn't agree more. I am always posing that question to my students. "Why?" If you were Lee, would you make the decision...or something like that. I want them thinking. I want them discussing and debating. I want them engaged. I figure the less they have to listen to me talk as a teacher, the better off the classroom is!

Thanks again for the direct feedback.

[TeaSea]

As long as you never, ever, ever say in class....

"the civil war was fought to end slavery"

That's the only thing that would send me through the roof, and one of my kids teachers stood in a classroom and actually said this. No doubt there are quite a few folks out there that actually think this is true.

Pretty much everything else is fair game.

Glad everyone's feeling better.

[Rami]

As long as you never, ever, ever say in class....

"the civil war was fought to end slavery"

That's the only thing that would send me through the roof, and one of my kids teachers stood in a classroom and actually said this. No doubt there are quite a few folks out there that actually think this is true.

Pretty much everything else is fair game.

Glad everyone's feeling better.

TeaSea,

God, no! Slavery was barely a "blip" on the screen when the Civil War began. It was originally (from a Yankee perspective) a war to suppress insurrection and recover the Union as a whole. I still contend that the decision to end slavery was primarily for economic reasons...they wanted to make sure the economic "engine" of the South could no longer function.

I get in trouble for taking that perspective, but I have always seen Lincoln as a pragmatist, not the true "hero emancipator" that the textbooks now claim of him.

[PRB]

We still, more than a hundred years later, cannot, somehow, come to grips with the fact that the war was primary about slavery. I think current political "PC-ness" is responsible for this. Yes, it was about economics, and the economics at issue was the economics of slavery. If the economy of the south suddenly had to start paying the "farm workers", it would represent a huge and devastating impact to the economy of the south. The north, in general, wanted slavery repealed. The south, realizing what that would mean, economically, resisted. So yes, it was about economics, the economics of slavery. And yes, it was about freedom. The "freedom", of the southern governments, to continue slavery. We ought to be able to face that now, in 2013. Every issue upon which the north and south disagreed, came down, in the end, to slavery. The founding fathers knew the issue, left unresolved in the 1700s, would inevitably result in big problems. They were right.

[Rami]

We still, more than a hundred years later, cannot, somehow, come to grips with the fact that the war was primary about slavery. I think current political "PC-ness" is responsible for this. Yes, it was about economics, and the economics at issue was the economics of slavery. If the economy of the south suddenly had to start paying the "farm workers", it would represent a huge and devastating impact to the economy of the south. The north, in general, wanted slavery repealed. The south, realizing what that would mean, economically, resisted. So yes, it was about economics, the economics of slavery. And yes, it was about freedom. The "freedom", of the southern governments, to continue slavery. We ought to be able to face that now, in 2013. Every issue upon which the north and south disagreed, came down, in the end, to slavery. The founding fathers knew the issue, left unresolved in the 1700s, would inevitably result in big problems. They were right.

PRB,

With that perspective, you would agree with James M McPherson:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGQeEKeBkZ8

Part II...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYR3I1nXuGs

[PRB]

Watching it now. I would also suggest this book, by William Freehling. It's very good:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Disunion-Vol-Secessionists/dp/0195072596/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375569181&sr=8-1&keywords=the+road+to+disunion

It's a fascinating study of the cultural and econimoc differences between the north and south in the hundred years leading up to the epic disaster that was the Civil War.

[Skyhawk_310R]

We still, more than a hundred years later, cannot, somehow, come to grips with the fact that the war was primary about slavery. I think current political "PC-ness" is responsible for this. Yes, it was about economics, and the economics at issue was the economics of slavery. If the economy of the south suddenly had to start paying the "farm workers", it would represent a huge and devastating impact to the economy of the south. The north, in general, wanted slavery repealed. The south, realizing what that would mean, economically, resisted. So yes, it was about economics, the economics of slavery. And yes, it was about freedom. The "freedom", of the southern governments, to continue slavery. We ought to be able to face that now, in 2013. Every issue upon which the north and south disagreed, came down, in the end, to slavery. The founding fathers knew the issue, left unresolved in the 1700s, would inevitably result in big problems. They were right.

I agree. The war was entirely about slavery. There is really no denying this in my view because all of the other reasons offered are still centered in preservation of slavery. The entire root cause was a fear among rich slave owners in the south believing that if future states were admitted to the Union as so-called "free" states, then the power of the vote would eventually wither away the political environment which the south enjoyed to perpetuate the slave industry. If there is truly an angle where slavery was not at least initially a cornerstone of the war, it was in the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln whereby he would have ended the war if the south agreed to discontinue hostilities with the agreement slavery would not be ended -- a somewhat generous political offer that was of course withdrawn once the Emancipation Proclamation was formally issued.

Ultimately, the shots fired on Fort Sumter were entirely about states wanting to separate from the union to ensure that future outcomes under the Constitution would not threaten their slavery institution. There are only two state for whom I have much sympathy and those are Virginia and North Carolina. Virginia voted to leave the union only after Lincoln advised them to raise troops to put down the rebellion. It was a tight vote witnessed by the split of West Virginia during the war. North Carolina was the last to vote to leave and they had no choice being surrounded by states that had already voted to secede.

The situation that North Carolina faced was illustrated in two interesting ways. First, the western part of North Carolina combined with eastern Tennessee to form a sort of underground movement sympathetic with the union. Second, having allowed his troops "liberal foraging" in South Carolina, Sherman ordered his troops to show North Carolina extreme courtesy reminding his troops how reluctantly North Carolina joined the CSA. Of course, it is unfair and dishonest to pass along euphemisms without context. As such, "liberal foraging" was truly a case of ordained and pre-meditated confiscation of civilian property, theft of private food stocks, and wanton destruction of civilian centers in a manner that today would be called war crimes. That doesn't even mention the outright murders of civilians carried out by union troops on a scale seldom mentioned in post-war history and wholly kept from the public's knowledge during the war. These murders were not undertaken during hostilities, but rather were carried out long after confederate forces had retreated from the area. So, it's all the more sinister and frankly a moral low point for American military forces truth be told.

Ken

[pfflyers]

Seems like I got a double tap, oops.

[Skyhawk_310R]

As long as you never, ever, ever say in class....

"the civil war was fought to end slavery"

That's the only thing that would send me through the roof, and one of my kids teachers stood in a classroom and actually said this. No doubt there are quite a few folks out there that actually think this is true.

Pretty much everything else is fair game.

Glad everyone's feeling better.

I am sorry my friend, but on this one we must disagree. In my review I cannot find any substantive narrative in the history justifying southern secession except for the presumption of continuing slavery. Tragically, it is my view that in another two decades slavery would have withered away due to the advent of agricultural automation. But, whenever I say that a part of me cringes as I am forced to say it's rather weak and easy for me to presume that a group of people should have had to spend another generation in bondage simply to avoid a war.

My prime ammunition to assert all this is that the south missed two golden opportunities presented to them in very real terms, unmistakable offers, that would have won them the war on the condition of freeing their slaves. First, Great Britain would have allied itself with the CSA and with their navy likely broken the union blockade. Second, on the urgings of many confederate officers, including Lee himself, the south could have freed their slaves and recruited the manpower for military duty. It was a huge manpower reserve and would have given the south near equality with the union.

Overall, freeing the slaves would have denied the union near all moral high ground and likely undermined the resolve of the union to withstand the initial setbacks they suffered on the battlefield.

All of this was made plainly known to the CSA government and yet slavery was retained until the bitter end and not until it was far too late was the idea of even enlisting a handful of former slaves into the army adopted. This confirms for me not only the objective facts but moreover the ideals and goals of those in power.

Ken

[Skyhawk_310R]

Someone please correct me if I've got this wrong. I was led to believe that the election of Abraham Lincoln, a known supporter of abolition, was what caused the southern states to secede as they believed his election would lead to a federal effort to abolish slavery. So while it might be technically true that the war did not begin as a holy crusade to free the slaves, it would be fair, I think, to say the war started due to differences between the north and south over slavery.

Lincoln's actual Republican platform during the election was that all future states would be admitted as free states, meaning within their boundaries slavery would be illegal. The prime concern among southern power brokers is that with this likely to happen with Lincoln's election, in short time the increasing number of free states would add electoral college votes, plus House and Senate members, pre-disposed to vote out slavery across the nation.

Lincoln made many efforts to appeal to southern concerns leading up to the war, and immediately after his election, that he would not pursue an emancipation agenda, and was perfectly content to allow slavery to continue in the current slave states. This is why leading abolitionists initially condemned Lincoln, especially as he resisted their urgings to immediately make the war about ending slavery nationwide. To Lincoln, the first duty was to end the war and preserve the union. But, when the war had continued past the first year, and the bloodshed had hardened views on both sides, Lincoln came to realize that the die had been cast.

His final act on this issue was to make it known to states in rebellion (the war was actually called in the north the "War of the Rebellion"), that past the deadline announced in the Emancipation Proclamation that all states still in rebellion would have slavery ended by force of law. Lincoln was also perfectly willing to allow slavery to continue in the so-called border states such as Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Only states in rebellion would have the end of slavery forced on them. So, you see, even at this point, Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation as a final hammer to try to compel an end to the war. But, it did not work, and frankly Lincoln anticipated it would not. It is very interesting to study the political environment of the era and realize how controversial the Emancipation Proclamation truly was among states that fought for the union. The recent movie "Lincoln" produced by Steven Spielberg is a fascinating and highly accurate account of these momentous events.

Ken

[pfflyers]

Thanks Ken for responding to my post before I accidently deleted it. Your views and knowledge on this subject are facinating to me. I wish you'd been my high school history teacher.

[Skyhawk_310R]

Thanks Ken for responding to my post before I accidently deleted it. Your views and knowledge on this subject are facinating to me. I wish you'd been my high school history teacher.

I am very humbled by your comments.

You may remember the so-called 3/5th of a person concept which has to be the single most repugnant and morally objectionable aspect of the early American government. Here is how that worked to the unfair advantage of slave holders in the south. Say the state of Virginia has a population of 500,000 people, but some of that population count was really a 3/5 tally of slaves who of course had no voting rights whatsoever.

That would have meant that in terms of men with voting rights (because remember in all the southern states women were denied voting rights also), the south had a higher percentage of electoral college votes, and higher number of representatives in the US House than they would have if slaves were not tallied in the census for the purpose of apportioning electoral college votes and US Representatives.

This compromise was a result of northern states wanting male slaves to not be counted at all for electoral representation, and southern states wanting them to be counted 100% as was the custom for women and children. What the 3/5 rule did was empower southern US Representatives with a higher voting influence than their northern counterparts. Not only did the southern representatives vote on behalf of all the male voting citizens of their states and all women and children, but also on behalf of many male slaves who had no votes to cast at all!

In my view, the near 80 year advantage this represented seeped in to southern power philosophy. They relied upon it and as a result welded a sizable political influence above and beyond their true representation of actual voting citizens in America. This expectation did a couple of things in my view. It birthed a certain degree of arrogance on the part of southern power brokers that they could and should shape society to suit their narrow aims and the rest of the nation and their states would simply follow heel. Second, it meant that with the certain expansion of nothing but free states, that future elections would go against them.

This is why the war was started.

Ken

[Eoraptor1]

As Gary Sinise says in CSI: NY, "everything connects". In 1861 Abraham Lincoln, explicitly states he's fighting the war for the preservation of the Union. He did not run as an Abolitionist, only on limiting the expansion of slavery into the Territories, but this was noxious enough to the South that he didn't appear on the ballot in many soon to be Confederate states. Lincoln constantly referred to Andrew Jackson, who was very much pro-slavery, but uncompromisingly anti-secession, denying its legality under the Constitution. Remember, Lincoln is a lawyer. Americans elect a lot of lawyers and ex-generals to high office. If I understand him correctly, this is what TeaSea means when he says the war was not fought to end slavery. What I always recommend to people studying the Civil War is that they read The Declarations of Causes for Secession. This is the Confederate leadership's stated rationale for leaving the Union, and people don't read it. I know people who can tell you in what peach orchard their great-great-grandfather fought in 1863, but haven't read the Confederacy's foundation documents. It's an eye-opener for a lot of people. The reason I mention this is because when Lincoln emancipates the slaves (in territory NOT occupied by Federal troops, and as a war measure) the narrative undergoes an Orwellian change, in the North and South. The Union is now fighting for "A New Birth of Freedom". People forget that Emancipation was nearly as unpopular in the North as the South. There were desertions in the Federal army amongst disaffected troops who did not wish to risk their lives to free slaves, and a major draft riot in New York City right after Gettysburg. I very much agree with Skyhawk about the denial of the role of slavery in American life continuing to the present day. When the newly 2010 Congress read the Constitution aloud, they omitted the 3/5ths clause, without which John Adams wins a second term in 1800 and there is no contentious electoral tie between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. Virginians do not dominate the White House term after term. All of this is conjectural however, as I consider it doubtful the Southern states would have entered the Union without the compromise.

I suggest people give John C. Calhoun a close reading. My mother's side of the family is from South Carolina, and he's still the bee's knees there to many people. Calhoun considered slavery so essential to the Southern way of life that to destroy it, would be to destroy the South culturally and economically. His universe has two poles on the subject: one is either Master or Slave. He considered the freedom of white Southerners to be contingent upon the institution of slavery, just as the Spartan utopia had been contingent upon the enslavement of the Messenians, and was also able to convince himself that slavery was best for the slaves as well. All of his "outrages" against Federalism involve the power of free states to restrict or eliminate slavery were he considers it necessary. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT; read him yourself. His logic would be immediately apparent to the Spartans or Romans, but the big difference is that in those civilizations, all men are NOT created equal, some are divinely imbued with superiority to others. They did not have our philosophical pretense.

I also recommend William T. Sherman's writings. I find the man a bundle of contradictions and I strongly suspect him of having been bipolar. I find him and his view of the 19th Century South very enlightening. He had lived in the antebellum South, and liked its people. He'd surveyed parts of Georgia before the war, a fact Georgians would come to regret. He hated black people, believed in their subjugation, did not believe they would make good soldiers, and was very alarmed at their induction into the Union army. (His friend US Grant believed differently.) BUT, as a practical matter, there was no greater abolitionist. He's still widely hated in the South. His view of war was that he was not fighting merely a hostile military, but a hostile social order, hostile economic system, hostile populace, and he made war on all of them. When you view what he and Phil Sheridan did to white people's homes, their treatment of Indians should come as no surprise.

JAMES

[TeaSea]

Eorapter1 has it....the war was fought to preserve the Union. Slavery was the issue that threatened the Union, but the war was fought to preserve the Union. So Ken, I stand in disagreement with you.

An important distinction, quickly lost in the post war period and the subsequent creation of the "cause" mythology ( I refer to both sides myths here, not simply the Southern "lost cause").

Remember that not every slave state seceded, and most of the Western states were on the fence until the last moment and did not secede until after Sumter. Arkansas, where my family is from, condemned the secessionist movement until the day after Sumter's fall. These states did not leave the Union over slavery.

if Rami we're going to touch on this subject I would approach it from the oblique...make a declaration, either slavery was or was not the cause, then attack it either way Using a Socratic methodology (which is what we're doing here...more or less). See where you end up.

By the way, I often think of the dilemma one would have faced as a serving officer in the Army at that time. Now, with 154 years of distance it would be easy to say I would have stayed with the army I knew and loved and could not conceive of taking up arms against my country. But then, I don't have that strong bond to a particular state that those gentlemen would have had. Part of the result of the civil war.

[Skyhawk_310R]

That's an interesting way to look at it, and I think it has merit. The secession was over slavery, but the war initially at least was fought to preserve the union.

Yes, I agree with that. But, I guess I come down on the point that without secession, there would have been no war. So, perhaps it is more a cause and effect relationship that I focus on vice the initial justification for the war itself. One thing I think we can both agree on is that for a great number of people, the war was fought to eliminate slavery and they sought every means by which to ensure that would be the case. Eventually, the moral weight of their arguments, combined with the horrible human cost of the war, convinced Lincoln that there had to be a more positive outcome than simply mending fences at the end of it. So, Lincoln by the end of the war became an abolitionist. For him, to have already paid the monumental human cost, there had to be an end to the institution that so divided the nation or else there would be serious risk of a second such war. No one wanted that!

Cheers,

Ken

[Rami]

Hey guys,

I have no disillusions about slavery's role in the Civil War. I have not found cause to disagree with McPherson's assessment in those video links that slavery was at the root of a lot of the issues leading up to the Civil War...tracing back to Jefferson's warning about "a fire bell in the night" and to the original founding of the Constitution.

All I was saying was that from a Union perspective at the start of the Civil War, the question of slavery was not a paramount issue. For Lincoln, the issue of what to do about the states in the Confederacy was. It became clear later on in the war that slavery had to be destroyed....but at that point (late 1862) more to destroy the South's economy and to keep foreign powers (specifically England and France) from assisting the South, especially with the Union blockade. By 1864, however, it was clear that by destroying slavery, it would settle this simmering issue that had plagued the United States since its inception in 1776.

Lincoln was a human being whose perspective on slaves changed over time...compare his attitudes in the Lincoln-Douglas debates to that of the Emancipation Proclamation. That's a lot of personal growth. (Although yes, the document did not in fact free a single slave...it gave slaves an incentive to flee to Union lines)

[pfflyers]

Having been raised and educated on the west coast I was given a pretty shallow account of the war. It was years later that I first heard the southern perspective and it was eye-opening to say the least. To them what history books call the Civil War was their War of Independence. Lee was their Washington and Lincoln was the oppressive King George. The average Confederate soldier was not fighting to save slavery, but to save his home, mother, and apple pie (propaganda was alive and well back then too).

edit: Not trying to politicize this thread, only making the point that history can look pretty different depending on your point of view. I was surprised to learn how deep some folks feelings were about something that was a dusty historical event to me.

[glh]

I doubt the issue will ever be firmly resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. It seems that the debate continues through the generations and continually serves as fodder for writers to expound upon the subject. If memory serves me correctly, the Civil War and its origin(s) IS the period in American history about which most books are published.

I guess you pays your money and you takes your choice !!

[Eoraptor1]

By the way, I often think of the dilemma one would have faced as a serving officer in the Army at that time. Now, with 154 years of distance it would be easy to say I would have stayed with the army I knew and loved and could not conceive of taking up arms against my country. But then, I don't have that strong bond to a particular state that those gentlemen would have had. Part of the result of the civil war.

This, I think, is one of many things people today tend to miss; when Robert E. Lee says "I could not draw my sword against my country" he means Virginia.

Just a few parting thoughts; as I think I said, we're still cleaning up from a flood here in Niagara County, and I still have a lot to do. That, plus my other projects mean last night was the first time in nearly a month I even plugged in my joystick. I do want to thank everyone who participated in this thread, even if I didn't agree with you, and I thank everyone as well for their civility. I'm used to vandalism and hate mail, so I'm sometimes confused by people who practice manners. Now, once upon a time, I had the reputation of being, shall we say, opinionated. I'll take that. I admit, I'm deeply biased toward my own point of view. Something else that gets me in a lot of trouble is my proclaimed belief that humans are not particularly rational beings, they rationalize, which is IMO a different mental process. They have double, triple, and quadruple standards. They can justify nearly anything. It's like watching an episode of Mission Impossible; you know the Team is going to accomplish the mission; it's just a matter of how. They want to see themselves as realists, but they also want to think highly of their ancestors, and this to my mind leads directly to selective blindness, selective memory, and selectivity on whom they are willing to grant full humanity. Just throwing that out there, because IMO it makes a HUGE difference on what reality people are willing to accept. I'm very interested in the historical period, but I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the Romanticism surrounding it. That represents a sanitized view of history I deeply resent. It was a horribly destructive, and IMO avoidable conflict. As Sherman pointed out at the time, people chose that war, and we're still living with the consequences. We're going to go on living with the consequences. I don't agree with Shelby Foote on everything, but one thing I do agree with is his statement that nothing came out of the war that couldn't have been achieved through arbitration, but then as now, people saw arbitration as being for wimps. What price glory?

I thank everyone again for their much appreciated civility.

JAMES

[Skyhawk_310R]

So very well said!

Ken