Topic: American Civil War

[Big Time]

McClellan... Ask me why I hate the man with a fiery passion... 

-The General

Hey UG, why do you hate McClellan with a fiery passion?

[wissenlander]

UG thinks he was too agressive and needed to slow down a bit.

[Inarticulate]

McClellan... Ask me why I hate the man with a fiery passion... 

-The General

Hey UG, why do you hate McClellan with a fiery passion?

Because he wasn't British, of course. 

[ekman]

I'll have you men know that he was the savior of America.  He said so himself, multiple times

[Union General]

McClellan... Ask me why I hate the man with a fiery passion... 

-The General

Hey UG, why do you hate McClellan with a fiery passion?

Why?  I think I  should ask you............................

Why not? 

At Antietam, he had the largest army assembled on Earth at the time... and did absolutely nothing with it. If he had actually had the guts to attack on that terrible day, Lee's disorganized army would be crushed. He had the potential to end the war in September 1862, and he dropped the ball. And yet his troops loved him. Why? Because he loved them too much. There is a quote by Robert E. Lee that "In order to be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good leader, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love."

Furthermore, at Antietam, he didn't even bring up his rifled guns to a position of greater advantage. He left that to the short-ranged, obsolete smoothbores.

And in the Penninsula Campaign, he split his massive army in two... the twit...... 

And even though he frequently outnumbered his opponents (The Union Army had numerical superiority to begin with), he would always sit and wait for reinforcements, at times claiming that he was outnumbered at least 2 to 1, and yet... it was the opposite.

I'll have you men know that he was the savior of America.  He said so himself, multiple times

And he was the only one ballsy/stupid enough to run against Abe Lincoln... the self-proclaimed "Savior of America" lost in a terrible landslide... 

*pant, pant*

There... I ranted enough for now... *retreats back into officer's quarters to read a good book*

-The General

[wissenlander]

See, too agressive.

[Inarticulate]

Wow, big letters too!

[Union General]

Wow, big letters too!

*Peeps out from officer's quarters*

Exactly how much I hate General McClellan... Great organizer, terrible general.

*Retreats back to officer's quarters*

 
-The General

[ekman]

Of course (and forgive me if this has been said, but I think it's interesting) if the war had been won so early it probably wouldn't have lead to the same breakdown and subjugation of the South, and slavery very likely would have been left intact.

That's the weird thing about the Civil War, there are countless paradoxes in it where short term victories were actually long term defeats.  If the South would have just lost when they "should" have, they probably would have come out of it with their power and slaves instead of being absolutely ruined.

[Big Time]

Hindsight is 20/20, to use a major cliche. The Confederacy was looking for autonomy, not just the continuation of slavery so an early defeat wouldn't have suited their original goals. If the Confederates had abolished slavery, they could have gained some much-needed international support/recognition. Pushing slavery to the forefront of the conflict was a huge PR victory for the Union, and a huge PR defeat for the Rebs. The average American (North and South alike) war supporter wasn't fighting for slaves one way or the other, but to the potential European ally (to include the British), it was a key point.

[ekman]

There's certainly no way anybody could have really known how the war was going to end - public opinion on both sides was a rollercoaster the entire war.  It's something to keep in mind when looking back in dismay on the missed opportunities of the North (and especially McClellan) - in a sense it was actually a good thing.  Maybe not the best way possible but still not bad in the long term.

[Gustavus Magnus]

It is difficult to make any kind of guess as to what would have happened if the war had ended very quickly in favor of the Union.  Even if slavery had been kept intact, there is little doubt that it would have remained a major issue as new states were added and a growing number of Americans became opposed to the practice.

For certain, had the war ended early, I wouldn't be here.  My grandfather's grandfather was captured at Lookout Mountain and remained at Rock Island Prison until early '65.  He made his way home and eventually married the widow of a another Confederate soldier who was killed mid war.  If the war had ended early, the woman's first husband would have been alive and my ancestor wouldn't have married her.

[wissenlander]

Yeah, I'm bringing this back...

I have to write a paper and will probably be doing something regarding the Civil War, since I can speed through it pretty quickly without a lot of thought.  My premise is Gettysburg being the turning point of the war.  My 3 main points are thus:

1.  CSA casualties were unreplacable
2.  CSA morale issues
3.  CSA financial implications in the European market

Frankly, this is a BS paper, especially the morale aspect, but since that's an opinion piece I can pull a lot out of it I think.

Any thoughts or ideas on a better angle to take without me being a lying bastage?

[t12161991]

How long does it have to be?

Could bring in Union morale as well.

[wissenlander]

Ten pages, ten sources.  Nothing major.

That is a good angle.

[Union General]

Yeah, I'm bringing this back...

I have to write a paper and will probably be doing something regarding the Civil War, since I can speed through it pretty quickly without a lot of thought.  My premise is Gettysburg being the turning point of the war.  My 3 main points are thus:

1.  CSA casualties were unreplacable
2.  CSA morale issues
3.  CSA financial implications in the European market

Frankly, this is a BS paper, especially the morale aspect, but since that's an opinion piece I can pull a lot out of it I think.

Any thoughts or ideas on a better angle to take without me being a lying bastage?

Thre were also financial implications at home for the Confederacy as well. Around 1863 is when inflation really started to take off. Furthermore, they were also increasingly reliant on foreign imports, particularly from Great Britain, which, though a large consumer of cotton, was easily able to obtain cotton from their own colonial posessions.

Now for the tactical aspect...
Grant had already been doing VERY well in the Western Theater of the war, particularly at Vicksburg, where a decisive victory was won just one day after the conclusion of the Battle of Gettysburg. This resulted in a defeat on two fronts and the beginning of the end for the Confederacy.

Anything else? 

-The General

[MrDWhitey]

I hadn't seen Union General post for a while, but as soon as I saw this thread come back I knew it was mere minutes. 

[wissenlander]

Thre were also financial implications at home for the Confederacy as well. Around 1863 is when inflation really started to take off. Furthermore, they were also increasingly reliant on foreign imports, particularly from Great Britain, which, though a large consumer of cotton, was easily able to obtain cotton from their own colonial posessions.

Is this more to do with Gettysburg or the fact that the Anaconda Plan started to really take shape, though?  An essay I was reading earlier points to news of Gettysburg as a major factor in Europe writing the rebellion off as a loss.  Something like 42% success rate down to 15% overnight.

This resulted in a defeat on two fronts and the beginning of the end for the Confederacy.

But if I talk about Vicksburg I think it will lessen the impact I'm trying to go for with a Gettysburg essay.

[Union General]

I hadn't seen Union General post for a while, but as soon as I saw this thread come back I knew it was mere minutes. 

You know me all too well, sir. 
Expect to see me on a lot more often, come late August.

Thre were also financial implications at home for the Confederacy as well. Around 1863 is when inflation really started to take off. Furthermore, they were also increasingly reliant on foreign imports, particularly from Great Britain, which, though a large consumer of cotton, was easily able to obtain cotton from their own colonial posessions.

Is this more to do with Gettysburg or the fact that the Anaconda Plan started to really take shape, though?  An essay I was reading earlier points to news of Gettysburg as a major factor in Europe writing the rebellion off as a loss.  Something like 42% success rate down to 15% overnight.

This resulted in a defeat on two fronts and the beginning of the end for the Confederacy.

But if I talk about Vicksburg I think it will lessen the impact I'm trying to go for with a Gettysburg essay.

My mistake. 

However, the point you NEED to hammer home is Pickett's Charge. The Army of Northern Virginia was never the same after such a disastrous failure. You could also bring up the possiblity that whichever side won, the outcome of the war would be drastically changed.


-The General

[jlutin]

I think the unstainable losses is an excellent angle.  Of course the Union had a higher population, but when you factor in the large percentage of slaves in the south that could not fight, the south was even more pressed for Able Bodies White Males.  That might make a useful chart in your report.  Compare the two sides population, ABWM percentage and the number of non fighting "workers" who could be employed to sustain a war effort.

Has any work been done on the number of CSA troops that had to be held in reserve to prevent a feared Slave uprising?  An issue the north did not have, even though there were some Union riots at various times.

[jlutin]

However, the point you NEED to hammer home is Pickett's Charge. The Army of Northern Virginia was never the same after such a disastrous failure. You could also bring up the possiblity that whichever side won, the outcome of the war would be drastically changed.


-The General

If the South had one on those 3 days, oh.. baby, what a game changer.

Lee would have had the option of pressing for DC (a mistake).  Or pulling back but keeping armies on the line between the north and south to threaten another attack at any time.  That would have forced DC to weaken the western campaign and support the North and for at least a while forced the North into a defensive posture.

Lincoln would have lost for sure at that point.

Gettysburg was a Union win.  Even a Union tie or minor loss would have ended in nearly the same result.  But a Southern win could have saved the Confederacy.

Heck, if that happened you would need a passport to watch a NASCAR race.  Not sure if you would have to talk German, Japanese or Russian at the race, but those are just details.

[wissenlander]

My mistake. 

No worries.

However, the point you NEED to hammer home is Pickett's Charge.

I think that would be a good microcosm of the psychological and morale factor.

I think the unstainable losses is an excellent angle.  Of course the Union had a higher population, but when you factor in the large percentage of slaves in the south that could not fight, the south was even more pressed for Able Bodies White Males.  That might make a useful chart in your report.  Compare the two sides population, ABWM percentage and the number of non fighting "workers" who could be employed to sustain a war effort.

Thanks.  Taking it that extra step will help flesh out that idea even further as far as pure numbers go.  I think the slave issue might have been a trade off in some regards.  Though it did lessen the overall population, it did free up a good portion of ABWMs to fight and not halt production.  But the population numbers have been skewed.  To think that the CSA had 9 million and 1/3 of that was slave it makes the odds that much more insane.  But the following issue is one that is interesting and I really am not sure of the answer too...

Has any work been done on the number of CSA troops that had to be held in reserve to prevent a feared Slave uprising?  An issue the north did not have, even though there were some Union riots at various times.

As much as has been done with this overall topic, I'd have to say yes, but I don't know for sure.  I'll have to check Battle Cry of Freedom.  Seems like the type of info that would be in that book.

If the South had one on those 3 days, oh.. baby, what a game changer.

Though impossible to truly know, I wonder the effects it would've had on Union morale as a whole, whether it would've galvanized or pulverized.  Even after another loss the Union still would've had the advantage in almost every way except for morale.  And at that point I wonder if Europe truly would've stepped in.  Probably not, but that would've been the statement battle they said they were looking for.

[t12161991]

I can't give you exact numbers on the slave thing, but certainly not many.

You should of course mention the Gettysburg Address at some point. Also, that it demonstrated the South would never be able to effectively attack the North on it's home turf.

On how many Southern soldiers the slaves freed up, the South had a 70-80% participation rate among eligible men, while the north had around 20%. The exact numbers are a bit earlier in this thread.

[wissenlander]

I can't give you exact numbers on the slave thing, but certainly not many.

I think that makes sense, what with the general issue of the wealthy able to avoid service and then wounded men not fit for duty being able to guard the home front well enough.

[t12161991]

I'll look up the numbers for you if I have time today. I have them at home.