Civil War, 1861-1865!

[Blaggut]

A topic for the discussion of the most interesting, and misrepresented, war in history.

Does anyone else like this war and is obsessed with bayonets, sabers, flintlock pistols, muskets, and grenades?

[Jetthebinturong]

I'd hardly say it was the most interesting war in history. I don't really have any opinion on it, I only replied because you posted your opinion as if it was fact

[James Gryphon]

I'm not sure that I'm obsessed with it per se, but as a Texas southerner, I'm pretty well obligated to have some interest in it. There's a lot that people don't know about the conflict, and lessons that should've been learned that weren't. For example, the poor tactics used in WWI could have been avoided if they had taken a clue from the trench warfare employed in the Civil War.

The Confederacy's success was a lot like the Germans in WWII -- they shouldn't have gotten anywhere near as far as they did. On paper, it was a completely stacked deck in favor of the Yankees, but imperfect knowledge and poor coordination and use of their resources had a dramatic effect in decreasing the capabilities of their forces. When the Union finally got someone who could competently manage a large army, in General Grant, the South was doomed.

[Blaggut]

Meh, I just find it really cool  

Did you know on an especially good day, you can only fire a musket 1-3 times a minute? Yay for the Minie Ball!

I find it most interesting, as each side had many, many soldiers who wee passionate about the war. And there's was family fighting family, friend fighting friend, and town fighting town.

Misrepresented, as people think the war was about slaves, and that confederates were "evil". Also, Abe is nothing like he was back then these days, in the minds of the non-civil-war-fanatics.

But yeah, best war 2014!

@James Indeed. 

[The Skarzs]

It is interesting to note that it wasn't necessarily slavery that started the war; rather, it was the fact that the entire economy of the southern states depended upon slaves to survive. When the northern states wanted to end slavery, it would completely destroy the south's workings, it's economy, their way of life. THAT was why the war started, because they wanted to secede from the rest of the states to preserve themselves. (They actually should have been able to secede, but, you know. . . politics.)

[Blaggut]

Indeed, however, I don't think their economy necessarily depended on slaves with the new inventions and hired labor. Though, Lincon was not planning to free slaves in the first place. Though the south did think their economy would do better seceded from The Union, and perhaps it would have. The Rebs were an interesting army.

[The Skarzs]

Still, slaves were a part of their life, and it's obvious to see that they weren't going to give that up easily.
I wonder, if they had won and succeeded in seceding, how long before slavery would have died out, because it probably would have (hopefully) because of, like you said, new inventions.

[James Gryphon]

Well, it's important not to retroactively paint the Civil War as a heroic conflict, by either side. While the Confederacy is often depicted by modern southerners as championing "states' rights", the trouble is that phrase was used basically as a euphemism for "institutional racism", and remained so for nearly a century. The only right that the South attempted to protect, besides their right to own slaves, was the ability of states to secede from the Union (which, again, they only wanted to do so that they could keep holding slaves). While the right to secession in and of itself is worth protecting, I'm not sure it's worth the death of a half million people, especially when their motive for seceding was so terrible.

That doesn't get the Union off the hook either, though -- people say that Lincoln "freed the slaves"; what they don't realize is that 1) freeing slaves had nothing to do with his motives in fighting the war, and 2) the only slaves that were freed were those in the South -- slaves in Union states retained their status. It was a shrewd political move, hoping to get attention and support, as well as turning European countries' opinions against the South. It was also a strategic move (they hoped there would be a massive slave uprising in the South -- this never happened). In practice, though, it wasn't the earth-shattering document that it's depicted as.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

[Blaggut]

In fact, Lincon was also racist. He wished to send the negros (IE black people, whichever term whoever prefers) back to Africa. And yet people revere him as a god. One reason I find it so interesting.

However, despite the fact he was racist and perhaps should have let the south go- going against what he I believe had said before about another war, perhaps Texas seceding from Mexico?- I believe he was not doing it as a political move and was, well, relatively honest about his opinions. He seemed to control the economy well enough, but at other times he failed and some of his personal beliefs are often considered immoral, and in my opinion, are.

[James Gryphon]

Well, you have to take Lincoln's views on equality in the context of that era. He is far from the only one who believed in recolonization. At the time, and for a while afterwards, it was promoted by a lot of people, and could fairly be considered a moderate viewpoint, between the two extremes of slavery and equality, in that day. The thing to remember is that someone being against slavery did not necessarily mean that they believed people with different skin color were equal.

If our standard for being 'correct' is a belief in the complete equality of man, I suspect there would be only a handful of abolitionists who would have passed the test -- that clearly doesn't mean, though, that we should discount the contributions that others made to the cause. It's best to consider their accomplishments based on how much they promoted equality compared to the standards of the day, not on whether they were identical to our beliefs now.

Some people would have been racists in any age, but I think most would have held modern views, if they had the benefit of the upbringing, knowledge and experience that our society has today. Thus, it's fair to "adjust for era" when you talk about this subject.

(And yes, I'm done editing.)
(For real now.)
(Seriously.)

[Wylder Treejumper]

The Civil War is immensely interesting- the South had the best generals (Well, at least until Grant and Sherman), but the North had a far better economy and populace.

While Lincoln's immediate object was not to free the slaves (It was to restore the Union), it later became a moral point for him. Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation was not, perhaps, a "landmark document", you must also remember that Lincoln  pushed through the 13th Amendment during his presidency.
As for him wanting to send all slaves back to Africa, I've never heard anything like that, and I'm not entirely sure of its veracity.

[Izeroth]

 The civil war is unfortunate, because it should have been ended much sooner. If the North had had competent generals, they probably could have crushed the South in a year. Unfortunately, tactical mistakes and lack of planning caused the war to go on much longer. (Interesting fact: more soldiers died of disease than actual wounds)

[Blaggut]

The war was believed to be ended in a month xD

At the first battle, known as The First Battle Of Bull Run, it was believed to b the only major battle. Citizens, if I am correct, came to the edge of the battlefield to watch and picnic.

In Old Washington, home of the Bowie Knife in which every building has been restored Civil War Era and has almost no modernism is a place I go too often -only 45min from home- has The Janquil Festival which sells some wooden stuff, craft stuff (IE, smithing, basketry, wreath making, cooking, etc), and on occasion, Civil War Weekend, in which reenactors from all over reenact stuff. I have some period clothes (Not uniforms, but The Rebs and sometimes The Union would wear what they had) and plan to join this year (kids as young as 6 would hold flags and 11-16 year olds would help with cannons and even fire guns) and plan to join this year  if anyone is near Old Washington, consider visiting, everyone is extremely welcoming and dress in period clothes.

[Unimaginative]

Part of the issues leading up to the war were the inability of James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce to do much that helped resolved tensions, is what I'd always thought.

[Izeroth]

 There's some civil war battle they do every year in my state, and I'm pretty sure my BSA troop is going this year to see it.