Common Misconceptions/Myths

[Discipulus]

Myth: There were no anesthetics used during the Civil War to amputate limbs.

 

[leftyhunter]

Myth: There were no anesthetics used during the Civil War to amputate limbs.

Just not all the time though. If the doc ran out of cloroform yipes!!
Leftyhunter

 

[Tennis]

That the Union went to war to end slavery.

No question, slavery is an issue

One must understand that there were multiple points of view in 1860

There were four candidates for President and the Democrats were split into Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats

 

[Tennis]

In 1860 Lincoln did not campaign to end slavery

Several Union generals and many soldiers were not in favor of abolishing slavery

 

[treebie2000]

Lefty is initiating a movement to contact.

 

[leftyhunter]

As a relatively junior student of the War there's a seemingly never-ending parade of myths, misinterpretations, false summations, etc (collectively, 'myth'). Over time one version of a story may be accepted as canonical but then a generation later that changes. Out of your studies of the war and environs, what myth of the War would you most like to snap your fingers and remove from the collective memory of humanity? What do you think has been the most destructive?

The poor Confedrate soldier was always overwhelmed on the battlefield.
Wrong! The Union Army won battles even outnumbered and the following is only a partial list
1.Parrire Grove
2.Pea Ridge
3.Honey Springs
4. Battle of Atlanta
5.Mills Springs
6.battle of Island Mound
At the Battles of Inuka and Cornith the Union Army won on the offense even though it was almost even in manpower vs the Confedrate Army.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

In 1860 Lincoln did not campaign to end slavery

Several Union generals and many soldiers were not in favor of abolishing slavery

True but they changed their minds as the war dragged on.
Leftyhunter

 

[wausaubob]

The myth: battle casualties were extremely heavy. @Saphroneth states they were not, they were typical of Napoleonic battles, and even somewhat low. Reality: the main causes of death and disability were disease, caused by poor camp engineering, lack of sanitary discipline, and extremely poor army diets.

 

[wausaubob]

The main cause of the heavy battle casualties after May of 1863 was the delay by the US in correctly implementing their extreme advantage in combined arms operations to conclusively close the two remaining blockade runners' ports, Mobile and Wilmington.

 

[Saphroneth]

The myth: battle casualties were extremely heavy. @Saphroneth states they were not, they were typical of Napoleonic battles, and even somewhat low. Reality: the main causes of death and disability were disease, caused by poor camp engineering, lack of sanitary discipline, and extremely poor army diets.

Casualties in Civil War battles are pretty much in keeping with what we would expect given the level of technology and the size of the battles. Which is to say: they're in keeping with Napoleonic battles but the largest battles in the Civil War are smaller than the largest Napoleonic ones.

 

[leftyhunter]

As a relatively junior student of the War there's a seemingly never-ending parade of myths, misinterpretations, false summations, etc (collectively, 'myth'). Over time one version of a story may be accepted as canonical but then a generation later that changes. Out of your studies of the war and environs, what myth of the War would you most like to snap your fingers and remove from the collective memory of humanity? What do you think has been the most destructive?

" One Johnny Reb can beat ten Billy Yanks"
The average Union manpower superiority ratio was 1.86 to one on the battlefield and has pointed out sometimes the Union Army was outnumbered yet the Union Army still won the war".
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

And the point was that the myth that they went to war to free slaves would go away.

Again the Union Army not the Confedrate Army freed the slaves. The Confedracy originally fought to preserve and protect slavery the Union Army fought to keep the country together.
By the end of 1862 the only way to defeat the Confedracy was to destroy slavery which did occur.
It's not a myth to say the Union eventually destroyed slavery.
The caveat is the South for many decades was allowed to continue a modified form of slavery post ACW known as " convict leasing" or " chain gangs" where young black males were arrested on trumpted up charges and forced to work. The documentary" The Thirteenth" covers this in more detail.
Leftyhunter

 

[weasel]

The myth: battle casualties were extremely heavy. @Saphroneth states they were not, they were typical of Napoleonic battles, and even somewhat low. Reality: the main causes of death and disability were disease, caused by poor camp engineering, lack of sanitary discipline, and extremely poor army diets.

A tangential myth is that there were huge numbers of bayonet wounds, and that the first machine guns were a game-changer.

 

[weasel]

One thing I've learned on this thread is that posts from @Lubliner and @Tennis will bring others.

 

[weasel]

@Rothermel What are your referencing about Jenny Wade's house? I know who Jenny Wade is, but it sounds like you're referring to something I'm not familiar with.

 

[Saphroneth]

A tangential myth is that there were huge numbers of bayonet wounds, and that the first machine guns were a game-changer.

I think the idea that the ACW is the war where modernity blossoms is probably a common misconception in and of itself. I think there's an argument to be made that the period as a whole (1854-71) sees the transition, and there's an argument to be made that the Franco-Prussian War sees several elements of modern war appearing and becoming in some way standard, but I don't think the ACW is the one which is "the" transition - if you're going to point to one war in the period it's not this one.

The misconception is borne out of two things. The first is how the ACW is the first war of its type or scale to be fought in America, and that type and scale is fundamentally Napoleonic. It's a huge shock to a nation whose previous major wars had as their largest battles Buena Vista (less than 4,500 casualties), Lundy's Lane (less than 2,000 casualties) and Long Island (less than 3,000 casualties), but not really to Europe.
The second is that any appearance of something that sounds modern is siezed upon as being the first example (I have seen serious claims that the ACW saw the first use of hand grenades) without wider context (who knew the first ironclad to see combat was laid down in 1854 in France for the Crimean War?) and treated as if it was typical.

 

[Rothermel]

@Rothermel What are your referencing about Jenny Wade's house? I know who Jenny Wade is, but it sounds like you're referring to something I'm not familiar with.

pardon my light attempt at humor, but growing up in the area many school trips are to Gettysburg. The Jennie Wade house was always on any tour. So after learning a little more about Gettysburg I found a lot of things that I initially had 'been told' were not really factually true.... and as my kids grew up we would always joke as we drove past "Jennie Wades house"..... that's not even Jennie Wades house!!

With the advent of the intarwebs back in the 90's and discussion forums like this or MilitaryHistoryOnline, GDG etc.... I was genuinely shocked to find that the little house we always called "Jennie Wades" was actually the home of Georgiana McClellan, her sister.

And then a commenter said well her name isn't Jennie, her name is Mary Wade. I was like wait....what? What else did I not know?
Jennie wade was a good Union supporter baking bread in her kitchen I was told in grade school....

And then this commenter chimed in that 'Jennie' was her nickname, but as is always the case another commenter chimed in that her nickname was in fact not Jennie.... it was Ginnie. As he name is Mary Virginia Wade. WTH! I have been lied to!

And of course some other person like a chaplain chuck type who always liked to put up an opposite opinion, chimes in that 'you know when they asked John Burns about Ginny he didn't have any nice things to say about her....' again....what in the living heck are these people doing to me? She was a good Union supporter girl name Jennie baking bread when.... but no John Burns believed her sympathies may have been more southern and called her a she-confederate !!! say it ain't so.

Dear lord what other things did these fly by night Gettysburg guides lie to me about?

That wasn't her house, her name is not Jenny, her nickname wasn't even Jennie.... she actually lived up the street and may have been thought of as a little ****ty ? Good lord.

So, sorry for the long story but finally one day many years after first visiting I was actually getting a Ritas Italian ice and staring at the
house and thinking of the story of her death. Some thought that the shot fired that killed Mary Virginia Wade was fired from the Farnsworth house.... yet if you stand there and look on this street that just does not make sense. That house is not in a direct line.
And as I was remarking to my kids, who were rolling their eyes at me.... some man walking by overheard me and said "You know they moved the house...right ??"

I just stared at him blankly, and couldn't even respond. He is walking away and says he works in the Holiday Inn hotel and when they
built the hotel .... they moved the Wade house like 50 yards up the hill.

So... ever since then I take everything I hear about Gettysburg with a grain of salt. Trust but verify....

 

[archieclement]

The most common myth I hear is that the Union went to war to free slaves...........and indirectly by those who try to ignore the US was also a slave country throughout the ACW, the implication that arises from only mentioning or condemning one, that US slavery was somehow better then Confederate slavery.

No other myth gets remotely the level of airtime as that old one does.

Not sure it's a myth......but whenever mentioning abolition or civil rights.....going to Harriet Tubman or Frederick Douglass and ignoring the countless white people who championed the cause, and ultimately sponsored and passed the legislation to make the actual changes is one of greater disservices.

 

[Saphroneth]

That's one that I've seen so prevalent that it's been argued to me that if the British got involved in the war on the side of the CSA, or for that matter just went to war with the Union for their own reasons, they'd be supporting slavery - even though both sides of the war had slavery.

 

[Viper21]

1. The Confedrate soldier "fought to protect his home".
The federal government only siezed one man's property and that was Robert E. Lee's plantation at Arlington and Lee's family was compensated for the property.
2. African Americans loved being slaves and we're deliriously happy to be slaves.
3. The Confedracy had substantial amounts of African American soldiers.
4. Confederate's loved Indians and never harmed a hair on their heads.
Leftyhunter

1. The myth is to deny, that for many Confederates "protecting their home" was reality. Only a few of my Confederate ancestors enlisted in the spring of 1861. Some only enlisted only when invasion became reality. Well into 1862 is the most common enlistment date for my Virginia ancestors. March '62 - 22yrs old, his brother: Oct '63 - 20yrs old. One VA GGG Grandfather enlisted in late 1864 at 60yrs old.

In fairness, I did have some that enlisted early. The earliest I know of was April 22nd, 1861. However, plenty enlisted much later. To include my Maryland, Missouri, & Louisiana Confederate ancestors.

Also, I hate to break it to ya but, you're whole statement about Lee's estate at Arlington is VERY misleading. We've been over this a number of times, & had a couple threads on it. For starters, they took the property, & in 1864 started burying Union dead on it. This was intentional, & a poke in Lee's eye. It was later they tried to pull a fast one, & make the (May 1861) seizure "legal" by, declaring back taxes owed. In 1862 the US Congress passed legislation imposing a property tax on properties that were in "areas of insurrection" within the US. In 1863 a tax of $92.07 was imposed on the estate which according to the amended legislation had to be paid in person. Mary Lee who wasn't fit to travel, & behind Confederate lines at the time, gave the payment to her cousin who lived in Arlington. They refused the payment & auctioned the property in Jan 1864. The only bidder was the US government. Sounds legit....

To say they (Lee family) were, "compensated for the property". Doesn't tell the whole story either. It wasn't until nearly 20yrs later (May 1883), that the Lee family received payment. Keeping in mind of course, once the Supreme Court finally ruled in the Lee family's favor, not only could they have retaken physical possession of the property, they could've forced the US government to remove all of the buried soldiers on their property. The Lee family, having much more class than that, agreed to sell the property to the US government, more than 20yrs after they had taken defacto possession of the place.

2. Have never seen a single person claim such.

3. They had some. The word substantial is subjective. I'll stick with some.

4. Again, have never seen a single person claim what you state. However, you're statement ignores the fact that, it was the US government who had actually policies to remove the Indians, by any means necessary to include killing them. I always read these statements as an attempt to ignore, or minimize the US Governments actual policies towards Native Americans. I get it though. It's a dark spot on US History that many would like to forget, or pretend didn't happen. Especially when so many of the US Civil War Heroes are on the record as not only willfully taking part but, putting some incredible statements to paper about the subject. I won't bother to quote them as, I don't want to derail this thread.