Not sure if that's the myth. It's more like a misunderstanding of the myth. Obviously different people were motivated differently over whether to join in on the American Revolution, but the well known rallying cry "no taxation without representation" has the advantage of being one of those true myths. For many, the crux of the war was about who had the authority to levy taxes, albeit in the framework of who had the power to regulate the economy.
historical myths people somehow still believe
- Thread starter fourletterlies
- Start date
- Status
Not sure if that's the myth. It's more like a misunderstanding of the myth. Obviously different people were motivated differently over whether to join in on the American Revolution, but the well known rallying cry "no taxation without representation" has the advantage of being one of those true myths. For many, the crux of the war was about who had the authority to levy taxes, albeit in the framework of who had the power to regulate the economy.
The contemporary literature in the Prussian-German Great General Staff is actually pretty impressive on the American Civil War. The elder Moltke, for instance, was obsessed with the use of railroads for logistical purposes (not so much for mobilization, because he recognized that the Americans didn't really have the kind of speed dilemma that he and his own colleagues constantly fretted about). Later, when describing the kind of Volkskrieg that he expected in any future war with France, Moltke drew not only on analogy with operations in France after Sedan but also on the American experience in the southern states, especially in Virginia and Georgia. Phil Sheridan was actually an observer in France in 1870 and got to compare the Prussian treatment of civilians to that in the American Civil War. As far as tactics went, it seems that the most interesting case study was Petersburg, especially in the 1880s.
The collective response to the American Civil War by other European states was less impressive, mostly because most other European states didn't really have military hierarchies that made good collective use of military-historical examples of war for teaching purposes at the time. Britain had no General Staff system worth the name, much less a comprehensive military teaching organization obsessed with military history, so of course the literary record of the ACW would be somewhat sparse. The volume of literature that the British military community, let alone the journalists and interested amateurs, turned out on the American Civil War might have been unimpressive by comparison with that in America, but it seems that the British reading public and military community were infinitely more interested by the military operations of the ACW than, say, the Franco-Prussian/German War. (The Battle of Woking and other invasion literature show, however, that the War of 1870 had a fairly deep impact on the British reading public in other ways.)
On the other hand, I'm utterly unfamiliar with the response by the French military community to the American Civil War; honestly, I wouldn't expect the literature to be particularly comprehensive. I mean, what are you going to pull more examples from: the war you just fought on your own soil against the army that you're going to fight in the next war, or the war that ended six years earlier among somewhat altered material conditions?
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
lol, this description is so delightfully happy-go-lucky, I love it.
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
No, slavery was just one of the issues that caused friction. Most southerners didn't even own slaves it was really only the plantation owners who did. The thing that really set off the war was that Lincoln was elected without a single southern state voting for him. The south felt that the north was out to remove their states rights, the particular issue the north was focusing on was slavery but the souths main concern was their rights as states in the union. Abraham Lincoln said outright that if emancipation must be sacrificed to avoid civil war then he was willing to sacrifice it. Many Confederate general, including Lee, and virtually the entire rank and file of the Confederate army didn't even own slaves. So if the war was all about slavery then why did the Confederates fight? The slave owners may have had cause under slavery but why did the rank and file fight so hard? Many Confederate deserters would take care of their families and then return to their units, the north had far less determination.
I don't know much about the American Civil War, but it seems to me entirely plausible that someone might fight to defend slavery even if they don't own slaves themselves. That's for three obvious reasons.
First, as a general rule, people will fight for principles even that don't directly affect them. Most of those who went off to fight in the First Crusade were not personally affected by the issues in the Holy Land that sparked that war; they went to fight for all kinds of reasons, but one of those reasons was that they thought that pilgrims' access to the holy sites was important even if they weren't among the pilgrims in question.
Second, even if the rank and file aren't fighting for a particular cause, that doesn't mean that that cause wasn't a cause of there being fighting in the first place. Once a war begins, people will typically sign up to fight for their side because they think it's right to fight for their side, not necessarily because they're much bothered about - or even understand - the issue which has caused the war to begin in the first place.
And third, specifically regarding slavery, surely it's obvious that someone who doesn't own slaves might think it in their own interest to preserve slavery, because it means there's someone lower down society than they are. I've no doubt that many low-class white workers - either small land-owners or farm labourers - were very keen to keep slavery in place, because if slavery were abolished, there would suddenly be vast numbers of low-class black workers competing with them for jobs. And what's more, the low-class white workers would no longer be able to say, "Well, things might be pretty miserable for me, but at least I'm better off than those slaves!"
First, as a general rule, people will fight for principles even that don't directly affect them. Most of those who went off to fight in the First Crusade were not personally affected by the issues in the Holy Land that sparked that war; they went to fight for all kinds of reasons, but one of those reasons was that they thought that pilgrims' access to the holy sites was important even if they weren't among the pilgrims in question.
Second, even if the rank and file aren't fighting for a particular cause, that doesn't mean that that cause wasn't a cause of there being fighting in the first place. Once a war begins, people will typically sign up to fight for their side because they think it's right to fight for their side, not necessarily because they're much bothered about - or even understand - the issue which has caused the war to begin in the first place.
And third, specifically regarding slavery, surely it's obvious that someone who doesn't own slaves might think it in their own interest to preserve slavery, because it means there's someone lower down society than they are. I've no doubt that many low-class white workers - either small land-owners or farm labourers - were very keen to keep slavery in place, because if slavery were abolished, there would suddenly be vast numbers of low-class black workers competing with them for jobs. And what's more, the low-class white workers would no longer be able to say, "Well, things might be pretty miserable for me, but at least I'm better off than those slaves!"
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Dreadnought
Deity
I think slavery was a major cause of the Civil War, but to say that the reason for the Civil War was 95% slavery is a bit of an over exaggeration.
Slavery was a catalyst, and a major contributor, but quantifying it as [practically] the sole contributor is too simplistic.
I have class until 6 PM, I'll comment more when I get back.
Slavery was a catalyst, and a major contributor, but quantifying it as [practically] the sole contributor is too simplistic.
I have class until 6 PM, I'll comment more when I get back.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Based on the confederate constitution, conduct treaties with each other governing the uses of waterways, and impeach federal judges.
States rights issues like the right to determine their voting laws, citizenship laws, determine their stance on slavery and, oh yeah, vote in the Senate they didn't care about.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Funnily enough, there weren't really many other issues that caused "friction", and those that did exist tend to lead back to... you guessed it, slavery. It's really astonishing people refuse to believe how thoroughly our early political life was dominated by the question of slavery. Missouri Compromise? Slavery (I would like to see this argued). Kansas-Nebraska Act? Slavery. Dredd Scott? Slavery. Harpers Ferry and the trial of John Brown which prompted eulogies, elegies, and church bells ringing across the entire North?... Yeah. Slavery was one of the major issues for most of the 19th century, yes, but it became THE major issue in the middle of the century. You can't really get around it.
This argument is as meaningless as saying, "Most northerners weren't even freed slaves, therefore they couldn't possibly have been fighting to end slavery." Of course most southerners didn't own slaves, that was a luxury. But that doesn't mean they were fighting to defend what they regarded as the ideals of a "nation".
Also an odd proposition, and more or less irrelevant. Firstly, regional divides in politics happen so often that if this was what really what set it off, we'd have a Civil War every other political cycle. On top of that, you're confusing cause and effect. It's not exactly as though they weren't voting for Lincoln because they universally disagreed with his foreign policy.
Prior to the mid-1800s, the United States was fractured along many more numerous regional lines -- the south, the northeast, the middle, and the back country. The latter three consolidated into one bloc because of the question of slavery -- there's not really another unifying factor that satisfactorily explains it. American politics fractured along northern-southern lines because of the slavery question.
And it's not like this issue was a freakish one in the 19th century. The slavery question was one of the major problems that every nation was confronting in the 1800s.
Their rights to own slaves. There weren't really any other rights that the north was trampling on. Any other issue you might point to is not satisfactory as an explanation for this particular sectional divide. Economic policies favoring industry over agriculture? Then why wasn't it the northern half of the East Coast vs. the South and the agrarian middle? What else is there to turn to? Foreign policy? Fashion industry?
This quote is horribly abused and always taken out of context. First off, it was a letter to a heavily Democratic newspaper editor who he was trying to get on his side; if you think he was going to express radical views here, then I'd suggest not trying for a political career. Secondly, he later went on to say that beyond his political goal of "saving the Union", he held a firm personal belief that all men, everywhere, should be free.
Just as irrelevant as it was at the beginning of the paragraph.
And this is what in the academic field we call "false". Northern units fought just as hard as southern ones for much of the war; on every side in the battle there were heroes and cowards. Pointing out that they existed is not a particularly useful pursuit.
On the other hand, let's take a simple example. Late in the war, when Sherman marched to the sea, his army actually grew. That's right, marching through a "hostile" countryside, which we in the military field would normally associate with "attrition", he managed to actually preside over an increase in numbers -- a situation most generals would absolutely kill for. How did he manage this? Did he have borrow an Irish cauldron? No! Southerners, mostly black but actually including some whites joined the northern army.
Meanwhile, a strand of racism comes every time the southern United States dominates the political sphere. Segregation ended a hundred years after the war. The whites restricted their rights to vote, participate in the legislature, and run successful businesses.
Frankly I don't understand why any educated person would want to perpetuate the myth that the South had any nobler goal in mind than advancing their racist institution and ideals, and continuing their outmoded economic way of life which relied on coercive labor sources.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
not all Confederate soldiers were fighting for slavery, but the generals were.
Dreadnought
Deity
False.
Dumanios
MLG
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,887
Don't forget conscription :3
Dreadnought
Deity
I chuckle a bit when people talk about the fall of the [Western] Roman Empire. You know, that somehow, magically, the [Western] Roman Empire ceased to exist after an arbitrary date (usually, of course, 476 AD).
Well, on the one hand, it's quite well known that the date of 476 was basically propagandizing in the ERE during the sixth century as part of the Gothic Wars and such.
But on the other hand, the 470s were seen contemporarily as a period in which the Roman Empire's writ ceased to run in the West. Sidonius Apollinaris, for instance, certainly thought that the Empire had 'fallen' in 476. You can even see changes reflected in the material culture as far away as the North Sea. 476 might have been an arbitrary date compared to 480 - but it was an important date, and it did mark a major transitional period as far as politics went.
But on the other hand, the 470s were seen contemporarily as a period in which the Roman Empire's writ ceased to run in the West. Sidonius Apollinaris, for instance, certainly thought that the Empire had 'fallen' in 476. You can even see changes reflected in the material culture as far away as the North Sea. 476 might have been an arbitrary date compared to 480 - but it was an important date, and it did mark a major transitional period as far as politics went.
Japanrocks12
tired of being a man
Here's a myth waiting to be debunked somehow: that the Indian donation of 75-100 or 500 (whatever the source) war elephants to Seleucus Nicator was the key to his victory at Ipsus.
Well, according to the account of Ipsos, the elephants actually did help a lot in deflecting Demetrios' charge and in driving off Antigonos' light infantry screen. Whether you think that was decisive or not is kind of a judgment call. (I wouldn't, but you could very easily argue the other way.)
Kahran Ramsus
Warlord
Not the generals, but the politicians in Richmond and the states governments were.
As others have said, why particular southerners were fighting was irrelevant. They didn't start the war. They came in afterwards. The war started because the south seceded upon Lincoln being elected president because he had campaigned on putting a stop to the expansion of slavery. Without the slavery issue, the Confederacy never would have existed and Lincoln never would have called up troops to drag them back into the Union.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
