Five Myths

[Morrison]

1. The Emancipation Proclamation was not a significant and game changing measure.

Any decent level of research will tell you otherwise!

2. Grant had a "free hand" after he took command of the Union armies in 1864.

LOL - To my knowledge, no general who wasn't also a king ever had a 'free hand' in any campaign.

3. The South couldn't have won the war.

Odds were against them, but yes they could have (opinion). I think the South had better odds of winning in the SCOTUS without resorting to war - but that's probably its own thread...

4. The Civil War was the first "modern" war.

Too vague a definition - there were certainly modern lessons to be learned, but that's true in many wars.

5. The stories of reconciliation around Appomattox, like Chamberlain's men "saluting" the surrendering Confederates.

Curious on this one - which ones have been refuted\confirmed?

- K.

The Emancipation was about black confederate soldiers. If they were a myth than it changed nothing.
a
Sherman was said to have a free hand. This extends to him ordering Southerners to be raped and everything burned.

Likewise the South continued as it did because it was held up by England so that if the war became Russia, Prussia, Persia, Italy, Austo-Hungury, Bolivia, Columbia and the Union vs. UK, France, Papel States, Ottoman Empire, Spain, Mexico, Netherlands, Brazil, India, China and the Confederacy would have been WWI in the 1860's.

It was the first modern war to see how technology could bring that much death.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Sherman was said to have a free hand. This extends to him ordering Southerners to be raped and everything burned.

It was the first modern war to see how technology could bring that much death.

Except that you are way off.
First of all, now is the time you back up your claim that Sherman ordered rape. And that he ordered "everything" burned.

2nd. The civil war was not especially deadly. It was way less so compared to the Napoleonic wars. That war had plenty of battles that was more deadly, both in % and in numbers.

 

[Kurt G]

What evidence is there that "WW1" would have happened in the 1860s ?

 

[thomas aagaard]

What evidence is there that "WW1" would have happened in the 1860s ?

The first real world war was the 7 year war, in the mid 18th century.
And the Napoleonic wars was also fought across most of the globe.

Also Austria-Hungary didn't exist at this point in time. (It was just Austria)
Austria and Prussia was just as likely to fight each other as fight together during this period.

The rest of you long list of states make little sense.
Why on earth would any of them want to get involved in a war over the issue of a rebellion in the USA?

 

[Morrison]

Except that you are way off.
First of all, now is the time you back up your claim that Sherman ordered rape. And that he ordered "everything" burned.

2nd. The civil war was not especially deadly. It was way less so compared to the Napoleonic wars. That war had plenty of battles that was more deadly, both in % and in numbers.

1I do have evidence on Sherman, Edited.
2The simple fact that England could not officially fight for the Confederate s because they "only had 10,000" troops for the Civil War. (That is half the number of troop that died in the Crimian war.)

 

[Kurt G]

I have read many interpretations on Britain's possible intervention : everything from the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation prevented it to the fact that there was never any serious thought about it . I have never seen any evidence that they had planned on sending ground forces to help the Confederacy .

 

[huskerblitz]

2nd. The civil war was not especially deadly. It was way less so compared to the Napoleonic wars. That war had plenty of battles that was more deadly, both in % and in numbers

You lost me at 750,000 deaths not being 'especially deadly".

 

[Kurt G]

You lost me at 750,000 deaths not being 'especially deadly".

I think he was referring to battle deaths . Most deaths during the Civil War were due to disease . In the Napoleonic wars just battlefield deaths probably exceeded a million .

 

[thomas aagaard]

You lost me at 750,000 deaths not being 'especially deadly".

Kurt G is correct.
2/3 was from sickness.
When you look at casualty figures from the actual battles, it is no more deadly than earlier wars. In % or in actual numbers.

So sure it was deadly, but is was not more deadly than the Napoleonic wars. (and there are none western wars that was way worse)

 

[thomas aagaard]

1I do have evidence on Sherman, Edited.
2The simple fact that England could not officially fight for the Confederate s because they "only had 10,000" troops for the Civil War. (That is half the number of troop that died in the Crimian war.)

No one is banned from backing up their claims with sources. It is a necessity in any historical debate.

 

[CSA Today]

Without viewing the article C.C. I believe most of this, i.e. Chamberlain, has to do with Lost Cause insinuations of
"We are brothers again." when in actuality that was far from the case in reality.

But, until I see excerpts....

I believe most Lost Cause advocates would have argued that was far from the case.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

I believe most Lost Cause advocates would have argued that was far from the case.

Glad to see that we are in agreement.

 

[Morrison]

I have read many interpretations on Britain's possible intervention : everything from the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation prevented it to the fact that there was never any serious thought about it . I have never seen any evidence that they had planned on sending ground forces to help the Confederacy .

The coldstream guard and Irish were sent to aid the South. (Unofficially) but, what I was in reference to was the "Trent Affair." Actually why I am currently banned from links is I posted two sentences and a link to my blog that argues that Britain instigated the first six state to secede . (Cherokee seceded do to the government declaring marshal law.) But in reference to the Emancipation, Russia placing her navy in San Francisco and the Platomic River did far more keep England officially out of the war.

 

[Jamieva]

Can we get back on topic, the discussion of how many obscure nations in 1860 would pile into a WW1 like affair belong in a what if discussion, which this is not.

 

[Kurt G]

A couple of things .
1. I found that Pope Pius IX did not support the Confederacy , but did offer to mediate .
2. Where did Naser al-Din Shah Qajar send the elephants ?

 

[matthew mckeon]

What a zany turn this thread has taken. Back to the subject of the thread.

Earl Hess writes an essay in Five Myths about the Civil War being the "first modern war." He argues that there were some modern aspects to the war and many more that were traditional.
Modern: steam powered transportation of men and supplies. The Civil War was the first war in which railroads played such an essential part. Steam powered boats and ships were crucial "modern" features of the war.

Not so modern: The modes of raising troops, usually in a state by state effort, with limited conscription wasn't really modern.

Weapons technology: While rifled muskets and cannons increased the range of Civil War weapons over the smoothbore muskets of yesteryear, they didn't really change things. Most killing was done at under one hundred yards: smoothbore range. What would change tactics on the battlefield wasn't the range of the rifles, but the rate of fire, the magazine fed rifles and machine guns that appeared decades later.

Total War: Hess compares the destruction caused by people like Sherman with 20th century attacks on civilian populations. There is no comparison. Aerial bombing by the Allies killed hundreds of thousands German and Japanese civilians, Axis attacks on civilian populations went in the tens of millions. Nothing in the Civil War remotely approaches this.

 

[WJC]

The coldstream guard and Irish were sent to aid the South.

When? Can you provide evidence for this statement?

 

[matthew mckeon]

When? Can you provide evidence for this statement?

I suggest, with respect, we are getting well off topic for the thread.

 

[thomas aagaard]

First Edited. the US wanted to conquer Canada in the 1850's strongly enoph for England to instigate revolution, but Tzar Alexander was obsessed with Lincoln saving the Union to the extent that the Russian Navy was stationed around D.C. (It is accepted that England had limited hegemony over France.)
Second, I am on a WWI forum also but ment Hungry which strongly supported the Union.
Third. The Vatican almost supported the CSA as a Vatican newspaper mentioned that the Pope was looking into recognition. This would have hated the London of Italy to aid the Union.
Fourth, Spain had recaptured Dominicans and knew that many American were looking at invading Cuba. Many historian question why Spain was not more involve in aiding the South.
5, Netherlands owned slaves. if Cuba was in danger then Aruba would also.The
Sixth, the Union had been one of the first counties to recognize Bolivar's victory.
Seventh, the Shah of Persia sent war Elephants to aid the Union.
Eighth, Empirial China had recently lost to Russia which had was so pro-Union that it was joked that the Tzar and the President of America were lovers. China even tried to sell a flotilla of shops to the Confederacy.
Ninth, South African Republic was fighting England for its independence and were asking for American support.
Tenth, the Ottoman s sides with the North. (Sorry I got that one wrong)

More excuses. Post your sources.

Russia moved its navy to make sure it could not be bottled up in case of a war. It had nothing to do with the civil war.

Hungary did not exist as a sovereign state so would not have supported anyone.

Why was anyone in the prewar US interested in Cuba? To expand slavery. It was people in the south who was a threat to Spain.


No one was interested in getting involved in a global war over some rebellion in america.

It was way way closer that the 2nd Sleswig war expanded into a greater European war... in that case UK, Sweden-Norway, France, and Russia all at one time or another was willing to go to war with Prussia, Austria and the German Federation over the issue... And even then they didn't. An issue that was way way more critical to the future of Europe than what was happening in america.

 

[thomas aagaard]

I suggest, with respect, we are getting well off topic for the thread.

When someone make a claim that absurd, asking for evidence is the right thing to do.