Common Misconceptions/Myths

[Harms88]

We've had discussions here about 'myths and misconceptions' before. Many that get mentioned are interesting corrections of anecdotes and small-scale details. Then there are the claims about slavery and secession that spark ideological debates and kind of take the fun out of these discussions.

Which has kinda become the situation with this topic. Which is a sad reality of discussing the ACW. It's far too common for a topic to go like this:

Guy posts something about the Civil War where the South isn't squeaky clean.
Other guy retaliates with finger pointing, extra points if the finger pointing immediately goes towards Sherman and his March to the Sea.
Original guy retaliates with other finger pointing.
Whole topic devolves into finger pointing, ignoring facts or conflating realities to make the other side the less virtuous of the two.

We are perhaps one of the few historical communities where every topic is up for debate and every issue becomes an ideological battleground. It's a reason I generally don't venture too much into any thread that isn't specifically related to a specific event or person, I don't have time to deal with such childish nonsense (which it really is).

 

[leftyhunter]

1. Didn't seize property..? Are you serious, or splitting hairs..? One of my very own Grandfathers had his property occupied, & turned into a contraband camp. A wealthy man in 1860, he died broke in 1867. Besides having most of his personal property seized, his home was burned as well.

How many Southerners had their homes looted..? Everything from their servants, their livestock, their crops, & their personal belongings confiscated, then their home torched. They may not have had the deed to their land rewritten to the federal government but, everything they had was taken, or destroyed. This isn't a myth. It really happened.

2. I thought we were talking about common myths/misconceptions in place today ? How about just on this forum. Can you point me to a current member who says that..? Or where that is a common statement by anybody today..?

3. Can you show me where it was Official CSA policy to exterminate Native Americans..? We know Sherman & Sheridan were very enthusiastic to carry out the US policy of such. Their written words on the subject are telling.

4. The SCV has claimed that tens of thousands of Black men served in the Confederate war effort. I believe their published estimates were 60,000 total, in various roles, with as many as 13,000 seeing combat. I don't believe those are ridiculous guesses. Out of roughly 4 million, 60K seems plausible to me. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the number was higher.

Northeners had their homes looted to. Looting homes goes back to the Caveman era nothing new.
Either the Union took away GGGPas property or they didn't. If they needed the land for a Contraband Camp that's just the fortune if war. If your GGGpa was loyal to the Union he could file a claim for damage with the Southern Claims Commission and if luck get 2/3rds compensation.
13k African American soldiers in the Confedrate Army with out documentation is a ridiculously high figure. If we had tens of thousands of approved state applications for ACW veterans benefits for African Americans in the Confedrate Army then we would have something but we don't.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

I don't know a single person who believes that the Union went to war to free the slaves. They did free the slaves but that's not why they sought to suppress the rebellion.

I have heard it far more often then any the others mentioned......some of which I have never heard....

Just read some posters here.....they will continually attack one side over slavery...while apparently wearing blinders that the other side was slaveholding as well.....and had been not for 4 years, but almost 90.......and also apparently ignore that the side they are attacking, was just continuing the others sides policies of both slavery and racial codes.....

 

[Lost Cause]

It is true that Lincoln couldn't magically free all if the slaves at once with the stroke if a pen but slaves did self liberated if Union troops were nearby. It's true that the Union Army often didn't have and adequate amount of food and shelter for freed slaves.
Is the argument that the Union Army didn't always attend well to freed slaves be" if slave owners were just left alone the slaves would be better off?"
Leftyhunter

Many slaves headed to contraband camps as early in the war as 1861.

 

[Saphroneth]

Many slaves headed to contraband camps as early in the war as 1861.

I think it's worth realizing that "contrabands" were not actually treated as inherently free, and that the Emancipation Proclamation did do a good thing in that respect - it clarified the status of future liberated slaves. Until then there was a weird kind of tension, IIRC, where the amount of work done by contrabands was carefully accounted for so that if in future they were returned to their masters accounts could be settled.

 

[Lost Cause]

Who ever said that there was "overwhelming support" for the EP? I've never heard anyone claiming that.

A few posts within this forum and some generally online. Here is one excerpt:

"Agreeing with black and white abolitionists, they supported emancipation as a wartime policy that would destroy the Confederacy. Even northerners skeptical of the Emancipation Proclamation returned Lincoln to office in 1864. Though this had much to do with Union military successes in the deep South, recent scholarship has shown that many white northern soldiers favored wartime emancipation by 1864 and 1865. By the end of the war, in fact, a solid contingent of white Northerners believed that emancipation rationalized the bloodiest conflict in American history. Agreeing with Lincoln that emancipation was just repayment for the sin of slavery, many Americans entered reconstruction with a nearly millennial belief in Civil War abolition."

How did Americans react to emancipation? | The Abolition Seminar

The Abolition Seminar. An educational tool for teachers, students, and all who fight for freedom. Menu. Skip to content. About; Learning Modules. The Eighteenth-Century Atlantic World · African Americans and Abolitionism · The Transformation of American Abolitionism · Civil War and Emancipation...

www.abolitionseminar.org

 

[Saphroneth]

"Agreeing with black and white abolitionists, they supported emancipation as a wartime policy that would destroy the Confederacy. Even northerners skeptical of the Emancipation Proclamation returned Lincoln to office in 1864. Though this had much to do with Union military successes in the deep South, recent scholarship has shown that many white northern soldiers favored wartime emancipation by 1864 and 1865. By the end of the war, in fact, a solid contingent of white Northerners believed that emancipation rationalized the bloodiest conflict in American history. Agreeing with Lincoln that emancipation was just repayment for the sin of slavery, many Americans entered reconstruction with a nearly millennial belief in Civil War abolition."

I think it's important to realize that wartime, and especially reaction against an enemy's perceived position, does a lot to shape opinions in a much shorter timeframe than would otherwise be achieved. Before the American War of Independence the Colonies were generally considered (and I would say correctly) a bastion of pro-royal feeling, and the initial unrest was directed at getting the attention of the king about the overreaches of Parliament; by 1776 things had reached the point that establishing a Republic was considered to be the best thing to do, which is a very sudden change in opinion.

I think it is not inconsistent to think that anti-Emancipation feeling in 1862 could become a swell of support for Emancipation in 1864. However, it would be remiss of me if I failed to point out that remaining anti-Emancipation feeling is one of the plausible reasons to drive the strong anti-Lincoln vote in 1864.
Given that Lincoln had a war record to run on which was producing victories, that the Republican party had become a National Union party ticket in order to capture Democratic voters, that many explicitly voted for Lincoln not because they wanted to but because they felt Pendleton was not safe to have in the VP position and that there were at least some electoral shenanigans reported as going on in the army at the time, the wartime performance of the Lincoln ticket must be viewed as subpar. There are basically four possible causes for that - negative animus towards Lincoln personally, positive feeling towards his opponent personally, a general dissatisfaction with the bloody cost of the war and a specific dislike of the most controversial domestic policy decision made by Lincoln's administration.

All probably contributed, and if I had to rank them I'd probably put the Emancipation Proclamation quite a long way down the list, but McClellan and Pendleton didn't get 45% of the popular vote because they were completely unpopular.

 

[Lost Cause]

I think it's worth realizing that "contrabands" were not actually treated as inherently free, and that the Emancipation Proclamation did do a good thing in that respect - it clarified the status of future liberated slaves. Until then there was a weird kind of tension, IIRC, where the amount of work done by contrabands was carefully accounted for so that if in future they were returned to their masters accounts could be settled.

As I recall, there was tension at one of the first contraband camps in Hampton, Va as runaway and former slaves filtered through Ft. Monroe. They were located to the camp under the US Confiscation Act of 1861, which conflicted with the Fugitive Slave Act. The fort's commander, General Benjamin Butler was shockingly in the middle of the controversy.

 

[wausaubob]

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.

It seems to me that steam military vessels are so much more maneuverable in harbor environments, that it creates a modernity. They don't need masts. They can go into battle with their rigging down. They are very difficult to disable unless a fortunate shot damages the steam engine. Steam transports are much more reliable in passing through straits and battling adverse wind conditions. To me, the US/Mexican War and the Crimean War both proceed differently because the navies involved can rely on steam vessels.
When the headquarters can gather information with telegraph signals, and report to the capital on developments with electronic communication, the pace of events accelerates. Telegraphs, even it was just for reporting, and steam powered vessels, create something recognizably modern.
The modern element that appeared in the Civil War was the large scale troop movements utilizing railroads.

 

[Saphroneth]

It seems to me that steam military vessels are so much more maneuverable in harbor environments, that it creates a modernity. They don't need masts. They can go into battle with their rigging down. They are very difficult to disable unless a fortunate shot damages the steam engine. Steam transports are much more reliable in passing through straits and battling adverse wind conditions. To me, the US/Mexican War and the Crimean War both proceed differently because the navies involved can rely on steam vessels.
When the headquarters can gather information with telegraph signals, and report to the capital on developments with electronic communication, the pace of events accelerates. Telegraphs, even it was just for reporting, and steam powered vessels, create something recognizably modern.
The modern element that appeared in the Civil War was the large scale troop movements utilizing railroads.

That modern element is not a modern element that first appears in the Civil War. The largest rail movements that take place in the Civil War involve forces on the scale of one or two (establishment) divisions, and take a considerable amount of time; compare this with the French movement into Italy in 1859.

This movement (170,000 men, 312 guns) involved moving from Paris and Lyons to Alessandria and Turin over the course of about two weeks - that's a movement where the shortest journey taken by any given corps is about 200 miles and the longest closer to 500 miles (direct - though some units went all the way down to Toulon, sailed to Genoa and then railed up to Turin). Assuming 300 miles is the average distance travelled, a real underestimate, the movement involved 51,000,000 person-miles and delivered a complete, coherent army ready for campaign in two weeks. (After three days there were already 10,000 French troops at Genoa, which forestalled a possible Austrian attack.)
Without disrupting civilian rail traffic.

This rail movement is undoubtedly both larger (in terms of troops moved and person-miles travelled) and more adroitly handled than, as well as being years prior to, any strategic movement in the US Civil War. It is not an ACW novelty.


Steam vessels were a major change to combat, but that of course is Crimean more than anything.

 

[Saphroneth]

As I recall, there was tension at one of the first contraband camps in Hampton, Va as runaway and former slaves filtered through Ft. Monroe. They were located to the camp under the US Confiscation Act of 1861, which conflicted with the Fugitive Slave Act. The fort's commander, General Benjamin Butler was shockingly in the middle of the controversy.

There's a few cases where pro-Emancipation measures taken by generals are reversed, and at least one case of the Fugitive Slave Act being enforced on a slave who'd run away to Washington DC.
Union progress through the war on the matter was progress, but it wasn't monotonic.

 

[eeric]

^

first i ever heard the word 'monotonic"

 

[Saphroneth]

^

first i ever heard the word 'monotonic"

I debated using a different word, but "monotonic" (i.e. always going in the same direction, sometimes flat but never reversing) really is the word that has to be used.

 

[Lost Cause]

I think it's important to realize that wartime, and especially reaction against an enemy's perceived position, does a lot to shape opinions in a much shorter timeframe than would otherwise be achieved. Before the American War of Independence the Colonies were generally considered (and I would say correctly) a bastion of pro-royal feeling, and the initial unrest was directed at getting the attention of the king about the overreaches of Parliament; by 1776 things had reached the point that establishing a Republic was considered to be the best thing to do, which is a very sudden change in opinion.

I think it is not inconsistent to think that anti-Emancipation feeling in 1862 could become a swell of support for Emancipation in 1864. However, it would be remiss of me if I failed to point out that remaining anti-Emancipation feeling is one of the plausible reasons to drive the strong anti-Lincoln vote in 1864.

Given that Lincoln had a war record to run on which was producing victories, that the Republican party had become a National Union party ticket in order to capture Democratic voters, that many explicitly voted for Lincoln not because they wanted to but because they felt Pendleton was not safe to have in the VP position and that there were at least some electoral shenanigans reported as going on in the army at the time, the wartime performance of the Lincoln ticket must be viewed as subpar. There are basically four possible causes for that - negative animus towards Lincoln personally, positive feeling towards his opponent personally, a general dissatisfaction with the bloody cost of the war and a specific dislike of the most controversial domestic policy decision made by Lincoln's administration.

All probably contributed, and if I had to rank them I'd probably put the Emancipation Proclamation quite a long way down the list, but McClellan and Pendleton didn't get 45% of the popular vote because they were completely unpopular.

There is a good book on the EP and it's impact on Lincoln's 1864 re-election : "Emancipation, the Union Army, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln." IMO, Lincolns re-election was dependent primarily upon campaign success or failures in the field. Lincoln was concerned about his success as he took certain liberties, such as granting furloughs to Republican soldiers to campaign/vote for him, to help ensure his success. General Logan, a former anti-Lincoln Democrat, was one example who took leave during the "March to the Sea," creating aggravation for Sherman.

 

[Saphroneth]

There is a good book on the EP and it's impact on Lincoln's 1864 re-election : "Emancipation, the Union Army, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln." IMO, Lincolns re-election was dependent primarily upon campaign success or failures in the field. Lincoln was concerned about his success as he took certain liberties, such as granting furloughs to Republican soldiers to campaign/vote for him, to help ensure his success. General Logan, a former anti-Lincoln Democrat, was one example who took leave during the "March to the Sea," creating aggravation for Sherman.

And if the EP was popular, and Lincoln was popular, and McClellan was unpopular, we end up with a situation where Lincoln doesn't really need ongoing good news in the war - just to avoid disasters. On the other hand, if the EP was a mixed bag at best, and McClellan and Lincoln's relative popularities were within shouting distance of one another, it's the good news which turns the trick.

 

[Cdoug96]

One myth is that the Union didn't have a battlecry of their own like the rebel yell, they did, and I have seen it variously as hurrah or huzzah, and occasionally the Union troops would shout or chant the name of a battle ("Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!" at Gettysburg and "Chickamauga! Chickamauga!" at Missionary Ridge, just to name a few). The northern Zouaves also had a battlecry, "Zou! Zou! Zou!", and don't forget the Irish battlecry, "Faugh ah ballac!" The most common was huzzah or hurrah as I said earlier. Variations of this battlecry are still in use by our armed forces today (Oorah and Hooah).

 

[CSA Today]

One myth is that the Union didn't have a battlecry of their own like the rebel yell, they did, and I have seen it variously as hurrah or huzzah, and occasionally the Union troops would shout or chant the name of a battle ("Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!" at Gettysburg and "Chickamauga! Chickamauga!" at Missionary Ridge, just to name a few). The northern Zouaves also had a battlecry, "Zou! Zou! Zou!", and don't forget the Irish battlecry, "Faugh ah ballac!" as I said earlier. Variations of this battlecry are still in use by our armed forces today (Oorah and Hooah).

A bunch of Yankees running around yelling huzzah or hurrah must have been truly terrifying.

 

[weasel]

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

After hearing all that I'm almost wondering if we should verify if there was really a war...

 

[Saphroneth]

A bunch of Yankees running around yelling huzzah or hurrah must have been truly terrifying.

Generally, my understanding is that most war cries are more for your own morale than that of the enemy (though they can be both). Given that the most common failure mode of an assault in the Civil War is the failure to push through to bayonet range (and the most common success mode is when the defenders fall back), a war-cry is a pretty useful motivator.

 

[GwilymT]

A few posts within this forum and some generally online. Here is one excerpt:

"Agreeing with black and white abolitionists, they supported emancipation as a wartime policy that would destroy the Confederacy. Even northerners skeptical of the Emancipation Proclamation returned Lincoln to office in 1864. Though this had much to do with Union military successes in the deep South, recent scholarship has shown that many white northern soldiers favored wartime emancipation by 1864 and 1865. By the end of the war, in fact, a solid contingent of white Northerners believed that emancipation rationalized the bloodiest conflict in American history. Agreeing with Lincoln that emancipation was just repayment for the sin of slavery, many Americans entered reconstruction with a nearly millennial belief in Civil War abolition."

How did Americans react to emancipation? | The Abolition Seminar

The Abolition Seminar. An educational tool for teachers, students, and all who fight for freedom. Menu. Skip to content. About; Learning Modules. The Eighteenth-Century Atlantic World · African Americans and Abolitionism · The Transformation of American Abolitionism · Civil War and Emancipation...

www.abolitionseminar.org

It seems Northerners were more interested in freeing slaves than I thought. Thanks for pointing that out.