Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
We often see Charles Dickens, famous author and editor, quoted to criticize the North, stating that the war was about money. At that time, Dickens had been in the US exactly once, in 1842, on a six-month lecture tour with his wife.
He wrote a book afterwards about his experience (usually referred to as American Notes). His opinion of Americans was unpopular with Americans, and Dickens was criticized for it throughout the 1840s and 1850s. Some literary scholars feel his criticism during the Civil War itself might simply be an example of "see-I told-you-so" to those critics. Dickens himself was a crusader for social reform and strongly opposed to slavery.
Very much appreciate the postings and links on Charles Dickens. I've been trying to link his writing in "American Notes" with his insistence that the war was being fought for economic reasons. His distaste for all things American in the earlier writing -- most especially the peculiar institution -- is obvious. I suppose there is distaste to be read into his assigning the quarrel to greed, but his complete departure -- in the oft-quoted statement -- from the uncivilized ownership and treatment of slaves is puzzling.
I suspect he was simply filling a quota for column-inches.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Very much appreciate the postings and links on Charles Dickens. I've been trying to link his writing in "American Notes" with his insistence that the war was being fought for economic reasons. His distaste for all things American in the earlier writing -- most especially the peculiar institution -- is obvious. I suppose there is distaste to be read into his assigning the quarrel to greed, but his complete departure -- in the oft-quoted statement -- from the uncivilized ownership and treatment of slaves is puzzling.
I suspect he was simply filling a quota for column-inches.
Ole
I've never seen a complete quote from the December 1861 article everyone refers to in Civil War debates. It is from one of the two magazines he was editing at the time, called (IIRR) "All The Year Round". Most articles in that magazine were unattributed, so there is no proof Dickens wrote it (and the record of who actually wrote them is long since lost, unlike the other magazine). However, it is known that Dickens wrote something similar in a private letter to Switzerland a few months later, and that he was a very hands-on editor. As a result it is generally assumed Dickens (who did contribute many anonymous pieces to his magazines) wrote this one. If not, it is pretty clear he was in agreement with it.
Charles Dickens, Karl Marks ... etc. Go home and stay out of it. You've got enough to deal with at your own homes.
Well, at the time the American Civil War was the hot topic of the day. By late 1861 it would be beginning to have serious economic affects in England and France; immigration to America had dropped off for the first time in decades. It was the only war going on in any major industrialized nation at the time (the French and Austrians having finished up in 1859, and the Austrians, Prussians and Danes not having started up the 3rd Danish War until 1864). It also got into the question of slavery, which had been a major issue in England and elsewhere for 50 years or so.
As a result, it was discussed in all the magazines and papers and salons. People demonstrated for one side or the other (usually the anti-slavery side). Union and Confederate agents were running about Europe, trying to buy weapons and supplies, urging foreign powers to support them, intriguing against the other side. In the Confederate case, they were trying to outfit ships to raid Union commerce and the Union was bringing pressure to bear to try to prevent them.
Naturally, people like these wrote about it and gave speeches about it, just as Americans wrote and spoke about the two World Wars before we were involved with them. For Marx and Engels, for Dickens, for other famous people involved in reform movements of one sort or another it would be inescapable, both as a case for their own views and as an economic consideration. If you want to be published (i.e., make a living), you need to be writing things the publishers are buying.
Engels, though, usually wrote as a military analyst. Marx and Dickens and others usually came at it from a social or political viewpoint. The professional European military didn't pay a lot of attention to the Civil War, particularly in 1861-62, seeing the whole thing as an amateurish affair.
Marx is famous about his quote about the use of black troops: it turned the CW from a constitutional(about constitutional issues) to a revolutionary struggle.
Military observers tended to look at the CW style of fighting: masses of conscripts and volunteers, poorly trained, led by amateurs, fighiting bloodly, inconclusive battles, as what they planned to avoid. The Prussians especially saw the Americans as mismanaging tactically.
However WWI meant that the worse aspects of CW combat would be reenacted, with more men and more powerful weapons.
Marx is famous about his quote about the use of black troops: it turned the CW from a constitutional(about constitutional issues) to a revolutionary struggle.
I remember the quote. It certainly showed how Marx and many others saw it. I don't think, however, it had much impact within America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
Military observers tended to look at the CW style of fighting: masses of conscripts and volunteers, poorly trained, led by amateurs, fighiting bloodly, inconclusive battles, as what they planned to avoid. The Prussians especially saw the Americans as mismanaging tactically.
However WWI meant that the worse aspects of CW combat would be reenacted, with more men and more powerful weapons.
Generally, most European militaries ignored the American Civil War. The exceptions were the British and the Russians, who saw some similarities between the situation and their own far-flung territories (and, in the case of the British, a certain similarity to a largely amateur force needed in an emergency).
But even that came later. The massive wars of 1866 and 1870 led to glorification of all-things-Prussian, with this called the "Age of Moltke" in European military history. The British emphasis on this came about largely through G. F. R. Henderson after about 1885, and continued up until WWI. Then a different school arose through the teachings of J. F. C. Fuller and B. H. Liddell-Hart. The first one can be seen as Virginia and Confederate (Lee-Jackson) centered. The second is more about Grant and Sherman.
The Prussian observer at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg thought ANV infantry was about as good as regular Prussian infantry, thought the cavalry inferior except for Stuart's scouting/courier system.
The Prussians' rapid defeats of Denmark, Austria and France, all smaller nations, diplomatically isolated, and the victims of sudden assaults by well trained troops with a professional officer corps. That was the lessons the Europeans, and the Americans, drew from "modern" warfare. Jackson's campaigns were studied because they resembled the Prussian wars in their emphasis on rapid marching and manuever.
These lessons were that victory could be achieved, at a sustainable cost, and within a short timeframe. At the start of the Great War, both the French and the Germans executed war plans designed to achieve victory within half a year.
But the Great War quickly began to look like the Civil War. Planned offensives bog down in bloody stalemates, blockades and war distort the economy, rapid expansion of the armed forces beyond all expectations. And finally, the greater numbers crush the lesser numbers in a sea of blood.
Moltke supposedly spoke disparagingly about the CW armies as "armed mobs chasing each other around the countryside." It's not that his criticism lacked validity, but that the CW, not the Franco-Prussian War was to be the dress rehearsal for the mass wars of the 20th century.
The Prussians' rapid defeats of Denmark, Austria and France, all smaller nations, diplomatically isolated, and the victims of sudden assaults by well trained troops with a professional officer corps. That was the lessons the Europeans, and the Americans, drew from "modern" warfare. Jackson's campaigns were studied because they resembled the Prussian wars in their emphasis on rapid marching and manuever.
These lessons were that victory could be achieved, at a sustainable cost, and within a short timeframe. At the start of the Great War, both the French and the Germans executed war plans designed to achieve victory within half a year.
But the Great War quickly began to look like the Civil War. Planned offensives bog down in bloody stalemates, blockades and war distort the economy, rapid expansion of the armed forces beyond all expectations. And finally, the greater numbers crush the lesser numbers in a sea of blood.
Moltke supposedly spoke disparagingly about the CW armies as "armed mobs chasing each other around the countryside." It's not that his criticism lacked validity, but that the CW, not the Franco-Prussian War was to be the dress rehearsal for the mass wars of the 20th century.
Well, if we are going to discuss this, we should probably start a new thread to avoid hijacking this one into a different topic.
I agree with you about the lessons and future implications. My point was only that the European military of the day generally ignored it in their study.
Dickens probably did believe the war was about money. The fact that he detested slavery doesn't mean he had to believe the war was over slavery, particularly in view of the fact that Lincoln insisted that it wasn't.
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Dickens, Civil War, America, slavery, the South 
Linear Mode
