The Official Civil War Thread

[LA Ute]

Here's a thread for people who want to discuss the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression. A starter:

Gettysburg Part of America's Soul. Excerpt:

As our country becomes more diluted by societal and cultural influences, Gettysburg holds onto its value. It remains embedded in our national memory. Perhaps that is so because it is much easier to understand the whole war in one word — Gettysburg.


More likely it is because, like America itself, this is a place worthy of being preserved.

[Ma'ake]

Nice column. I've become surprised and a little astonished at the lingering, latent hostility in the South about the Civil War. Actually, it's spread out of the South and into a fair chunk of the Right, who see Lincoln as the beginning of the end of America, as the Framers envisioned it, with power shifted toward the federal government, with examples like forced desegregation, the Civil Rights Act, etc. The issue has sort of morphed from being a racial issue, through the accusations of communist allegiance by MLK, to now a 10th Amendment balance of power stance, and how we need to get back to what the framers envisioned.

There's a revisionist history alive and well about the Civil War, claiming it had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with tariffs from the Northen bullies. Except every Article of Secession from each southern state mentions slavery numerous times, and the tariff issue not at all. These are usually the same people who blame the Jim Crow laws on Northern carpet-baggers, and claim slaves had it good compared to blacks in Africa.

Fascinating stuff.

[LA Ute]

Only real nuts on the far right see it that way, Ma'ake. Lincoln is the hero of mainstream Republicans. Read the Power Line blog for examples, or check out the Claremont Institute or Hoover Institution sites.

[Utebiquitous]

Maake,
I've noticed in my extended family some of the feelings you mention. I have relatives in South Carolina (they're not from there but moved there years ago) who have adopted the Southern resentment - resentment based on Sherman's March. Oh how they lament over Sherman's destruction. Certainly, there was reason for lamentation and anger but it's interesting to sit back and think about Sherman's reasons from his perspective and a northern perspective. Right or wrong, the concept of Total War may have been a significant reason why the Southern generals followed Lee's example and surrendered rather than follow Jefferson Davis' pleas to engage in guerilla warfare.

By the way, someone on the board - it may have been you LA - suggested Winik's April 1865 as a must read. I'm just finishing it. Wow! I hope many of these details are making their way into history classes across this country. They certainly weren't part of my classes in K-12 or even at the U. There was a lot on Lincoln, Lee and Grant. Even so, I'm reading for the first time the actions of Lee post-Appomattox and in particular, the actions of Johnston and Sherman. General Johnston is a singular figure when you really ponder his decision to go against Davis' orders and surrender to Sherman. It seems to me that Americans (southerners/northerners, democrats/republicans) need to know more about the nobility of these Civil War figures - and about their commitment to a Union as the Civil War came to an end.

[LA Ute]

Winik's book is a relatively quick read and full of nuggets of great information.

[LA Ute]

For those interested, a Smithsonian publication:

The Ultimate Guide to the Civil War

[LA Ute]

From Mike Allen's Politico Playbook today:

Early Monday morning is the 150th anniversary of the first shot in the Battle of Gettysburg, which lasted three days. Per the National Park Service's Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania (40 miles southwest of Harrisburg): "The Battle of Gettysburg was a turning point in the Civil War, the Union victory that ended General Robert E. Lee's second and most ambitious invasion of the North. Often referred to as the 'High Water Mark of the Rebellion,' Gettysburg was the war's bloodiest battle with 51,000 casualties. It was also the inspiration for President Abraham Lincoln's immortal 'Gettysburg Address.'"

Also from Mike Allen's Playbook:

"Gettysburg-Mapping the Battlefield: New map may explain Lee's decisions at Gettysburg," by AP's Michael Rubinkam in Gettysburg: "Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee listened to scouting reports, scanned the battlefield and ordered his second-in-command, James Longstreet, to attack the Union Army's left flank. ... [Lee] never again ventured into Northern territory. Why did ... Lee ... attack ... in the face of the Union's superior numbers? ... [G]eographers and cartographers have come up with ... mapping software that shows the rolling terrain ... as it would have appeared to Lee: ... [H]e simply couldn't see throngs of Union soldiers amid the hills and valleys. ... Developed for the Smithsonian Institution to mark Gettysburg's 150th anniversary, the panoramic map went live on the Smithsonian website Friday." See the map. http://bit.ly/19GDvHz Read the story. http://bit.ly/115dhej

[pangloss]

Only real nuts on the far right see it that way, Ma'ake. Lincoln is the hero of mainstream Republicans. Read the Power Line blog for examples, or check out the Claremont Institute or Hoover Institution sites.

Are there any 'mainstream Republicans' still in office?

I think it would be the kiss of death in the next nominating process for someone in the party to describe himself as 'moderate' or mainstream. When Sen. Rubio admitted to speaking with a Democrat and offered a negotiated immigration bill, the hard core turned on him. Sen. Bob Bennett was drummed out of the club as 'too establishment'. Neither one of them would be classified as moderate 25 years ago.

Not that I'm a student of Republican politics, but I don't think Goldwater, John Lindsey, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, Dwight Eisenhower or Nixon would even try in today's environment without drastically changing their positions.



cheers

[LA Ute]

Are there any 'mainstream Republicans' still in office?

I think it would be the kiss of death in the next nominating process for someone in the party to describe himself as 'moderate' or mainstream. When Sen. Rubio admitted to speaking with a Democrat and offered a negotiated immigration bill, the hard core turned on him. Sen. Bob Bennett was drummed out of the club as 'too establishment'. Neither one of them would be classified as moderate 25 years ago.

Not that I'm a student of Republican politics, but I don't think Goldwater, John Lindsey, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, Dwight Eisenhower or Nixon would even try in today's environment without drastically changing their positions.

cheers

I think ideological purity has been a problem for the GOP for a long time, but in fairness, all the guys you list were, and always have been, considered liberal Republicans or maybe moderates (Eisenhower and Nixon in the latter camp). It was a problem for them even then. There are no liberal Republicans left and the definition of "moderate" has moved rightward. The positions Romney took in 2012 would make him a hard-core conservative in 1980 but made him a moderate in 2012.

[USS Utah]

I made the mistake over a decade ago of joining discussions about the ACW with southern partisans. I'm a World War II guy and I was not prepared for the level emotional investment these folks had in events almost 140 years in the review mirror. With most, there was simply no reasoning with them (just las with the tea partiers today); their ancestor did not fight to preserve slavery, Lincoln was a murderer, and the South was right, and if I didn't see it their way, I was patronizingly informed that I should educate myself. Granted, I was kind of new to the ACW -- WBTS, as they put it -- having broadened my horizons beyond WWII just a few years before, but I was no simpleton, either. What was readily apparent to me -- with my WWII informed perspective -- was born out the more I studied the war.

I specifically tracked the tariff from before the Nullification Crisis, and confirmed that it couldn't have been the issue that sparked the war -- an old wound, sure, but the issue had clearly stabilized by the late 1850s as the tariff came down. All of the arguments in the run up to the war regarded the possible extension of slavery into the territories gained in the War with Mexico. Southern Democrats in 1860 would not accept Stephen Douglas as their nominee because of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the concept of popular sovereignty. So they split the field with two southern candidates, all but handing Lincoln the election, and Lincoln was viewed as a threat to the South on the issue of slavery.

As for Lincoln being the beginning of the end, the role of the president and the federal government largely returned to business as usual until FDR and the New Deal, which I would argue was much more significant than anything Lincoln did in trying to hold the Union together. Sherman's March? Sorry, but that was a garden party compared to what we did to Germany and Japan, yet the same people labeling Sherman a war criminal will stop well short of suggesting that Arnold, Spaatz, Eaker, Doolittle or LeMay did anything wrong.

The cumulative affect of all those ACW discussions had the effect of lessening my interest in that war -- especially the politics of it. Sometimes, if I just stick to battles and campaigns, I can enjoy it.

[LA Ute]

The Battle of Gettysburg began 150 years ago today.

[DrumNFeather]

The Battle of Gettysburg began 150 years ago today.

History channel has a new special on about it tonight at 10 PM est.

[USS Utah]

Army Magazine articles (PDF links):

"Gettysburg and Vicksburg at 150"

http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm...g_July2013.pdf

"Why GEN Lee Ordered Pickett's Charge"

http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm...d_July2013.pdf

"Remembering MG George G. Meade: The Forgotten Victor of Gettysburg"

http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm...l_July2013.pdf

[GarthUte]

This link is to some photos taken during the Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about them being colorized - I like the rawness of the old b&w photos - but these are still great to look at.

[LA Ute]

This is a great read for Civil War and Lincoln buffs:

Abraham Lincoln and George B. McClellan

http://abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/...cclellan/#algm

[Mormon Red Death]

I'm going to the site of the last battle of the civil war tomorrow (morrisville nc) I shall return and report

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[LA Ute]

I'm going to the site of the last battle of the civil war tomorrow (morrisville nc) I shall return and report

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Wow, sounds great. I will look forward to that.

[Mormon Red Death]

Wow, sounds great. I will look forward to that.

I guess it wasn't much of a battle but a "skirmish". I couldn't find the plaques so I went to the police station and happened upon a history buff who showed me where to go and gave me some more info on the Battle. Lee had already surrendered at appomattox but the rebels had two major portions of their army. Army of North VA and the AOT army of Tennessee. It was the AOT that surrendered in Durham (15 miles to the west) a couple days after this battle.

uploadfromtaptalk1406477725990.jpguploadfromtaptalk1406477725990.jpguploadfromtaptalk1406477725990.jpg

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[Mormon Red Death]

I guess it wasn't much of a battle but a "skirmish". I couldn't find the plaques so I went to the police station and happened upon a history buff who showed me where to go and gave me some more info on the Battle. Lee had already surrendered at appomattox but the rebels had two major portions of their army. Army of North VA and the AOT army of Tennessee. It was the AOT that surrendered in Durham (15 miles to the west) a couple days after

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Apparently in the woods pictured above you can still find musket balls or other civil war stuff


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[LA Ute]

I guess it wasn't much of a battle but a "skirmish". I couldn't find the plaques so I went to the police station and happened upon a history buff who showed me where to go and gave me some more info on the Battle. Lee had already surrendered at appomattox but the rebels had two major portions of their army. Army of North VA and the AOT army of Tennessee. It was the AOT that surrendered in Durham (15 miles to the west) a couple days after this battle.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Interesting. Lee couldn't surrender on behalf of the entire Confederacy, just the Army of Northern Virginia. The remaining forces also had to give up. The book "April 1865" tells how each one decided not to carry on the fight. That is a great book, as I've said before.

[U-Ute]

An interesting essay on who really won the Civil War, the transformation of the Republican Party, the creation of the Tea Party, and how they're all intertwined...

http://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not...ederate-party/

[LA Ute]

I am not a fan of everything the Southern Poverty Law Center does, but this is compelling information. I have no patience for those Southerners who want to glorify the supposed "heroes" of the Confederacy. And they've done a lot of that for well over 150 years now.

The chart here showing the history of monuments, schools, and so forth constructed to honor Confederate officials is quite instructive.

https://www.splcenter.org/20160421/w...ls-confederacy

[NorthwestUteFan]

That is fascinating. Thanks for posting.

[LA Ute]

I heard someone make a good point today about Robert E Lee: His place in history resulted from his decision to lead a mighty army (The Army of Northern Virginia) in a war against the United States -- the bloodiest war in our history. You can talk about all the nuances you want, but ultimately that is the fact. Statues of Lee belong in museums, not in public places of honor.

[Diehard Ute]

I heard someone make a good point today about Robert E Lee: His place in history resulted from his decision to lead a mighty army (The Army of Northern Virginia) in a war against the United States -- the bloodiest war in our history. You can talk about all the nuances you want, but ultimately that is the fact. Statues of Lee belong in museums, not in public places of honor.

Yet POTUS decides to go down the path that this is all about slavery. He actually said today where will this stop? Because Jefferson and Washington owned salves so they could be next.

There is just no way to state how completely off his rocker Trump is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mormon Red Death]

I heard someone make a good point today about Robert E Lee: His place in history resulted from his decision to lead a mighty army (The Army of Northern Virginia) in a war against the United States -- the bloodiest war in our history. You can talk about all the nuances you want, but ultimately that is the fact. Statues of Lee belong in museums, not in public places of honor.

I'm good with that. I do have a question though... what about crazy horse? What about the statue of Brigham young? Both those were in open rebellion against the USA?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[sancho]

I heard someone make a good point today about Robert E Lee: His place in history resulted from his decision to lead a mighty army (The Army of Northern Virginia) in a war against the United States -- the bloodiest war in our history. You can talk about all the nuances you want, but ultimately that is the fact. Statues of Lee belong in museums, not in public places of honor.

I don't hate Robert E. Lee, and I am a little bothered by all the Lee bashing I see lately. I think there must have been some good southerners too, even though they were on the wrong side of history and morality. The nuances that you want to cast aside matter as much as everything else.

Anyway, tear the statues down for what they represent, but there's no need to re-write the man's history and turn him into a villain/terrorist.

[concerned]

I heard someone make a good point today about Robert E Lee: His place in history resulted from his decision to lead a mighty army (The Army of Northern Virginia) in a war against the United States -- the bloodiest war in our history. You can talk about all the nuances you want, but ultimately that is the fact. Statues of Lee belong in museums, not in public places of honor.

Thomas Ricks pointed out that not only did he lead a rebellion (not a war, technically, he was a traitor) against the United States (resigning his commission in the US army), he led it in defense of slavery. Washington and Jefferson did not do that.

[LA Ute]

Thomas Ricks pointed out that not only did he lead a rebellion (not a war, technically, he was a traitor) against the United States (resigning his commission in the US army), he led it in defense of slavery. Washington and Jefferson did not do that.

And had his side prevailed in the war, the rest of world history would have been quite different, and the human suffering of slavery would have continued for several more decades, perhaps. So he is a hero to certain people, and that is a fact. But let's make him a matter of history and put his likeness in museums. Let's not make him a hero and put his statue and visage in places of honor, especially in states and cities that were not even part of the Confederacy. In other words, there's no need to vilify him, but there's certainly no need to honor him either. He made a tragic mistake, however honorable his intentions might have been.

[LA Ute]

And while I am ranting, let me also rant about Alexander Stephens. He was vice president of the Confederacy, but now his statue stands in Statuary Hall in the United States Capitol building. Every state gets two statues, I think, and Mr. Stephens was one of Georgia's choices. Grrrr.