Five Myths

[Morrison]

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 ?

1. Politically Incorrect guide to the Civil War
2. Ken Burns Civil War never mentioned were they were sent.

 

[Morrison]

When? Can you provide evidence for this statement?

this is from a book on British made Confederacy collectible

 

[Morrison]

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 supporte

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.

England did not want America to be a new empire. But Russia need a new empire to fight Britain.

Russia to New York to prevent bottle necking, but sending anything up the Platomic would bottleneck it. People joked that Lincoln an Alexander UK were lovers.

There is ridden of a n attempt for the US to invade Cuba in 1870. Politics got in the way. Spain did send guns to the CSA.

No

 

[Morrison]

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.

Russia moved it navy to to New York to prevent the Bottle neck but then to D.C. To protect the Union. There were joked that Lincoln and Alexander OK were lovers.
The UK was interested in the US not becoming an Empire.

 

[Morrison]

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.

Russia would not have allowed the South to get independent. That is now it came up.

 

[rpkennedy]

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

No, they were not.

Ryan

 

[WJC]

Russia would not have allowed the South to get independent. That is now it came up.

Although the Czar was friendly with the United States and openly expressed support for the United States, at no time did he or his government express interest in becoming militarily involved.
The reason for the Russian fleet's visits to American ports was to avoid its being bottled up and neutralized by the British Navy if Britain decided to oppose Russia over Poland. This action was widely (and intentionally by some) misinterpreted as a sign that Russia was on the verge of intervening.

 

[thomas aagaard]

If you want to go down the cave with the troll, I can't do much about that. I suggest this contributions about the Pope and the Russians etc. are so noteworthy they need their own thread.

I as talking about the claim that the Coldstream guards was send unofficially to support the csa. Funny how the OR never mention that regular British soldier was fighting for the south.

So I was interesting to see what alt-history books he would share as a source for it.

 

[Kurt G]

I as talking about the claim that the Coldstream guards was send unofficially to support the csa. Funny how the OR never mention that regular British soldier was fighting for the south.

So I was interesting to see what alt-history books he would share as a source for it.

I think they fought alongside a black Confederate regiment .

 

[matthew mckeon]

wrong forum

 

[Jamieva]

Russia would not have allowed the South to get independent. That is now it came up.

Again it has nothing to do with the article being discussed at the start of the thread. You continue replying to everyone with more posts that are off topic

 

[Jamieva]

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

Its so absurd it is wasting everyone's time to engage the poster asking for evidence he clearly does not have

 

[WJC]

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

Although many foreign military officers came to America to observe the two combatants in action, most- if not all- did so on their own, using their own resources. It would be a mistake to assume that the presence of these observers signaled some sort of support for either belligerent.

 

[WJC]

Russia moved it navy to to New York to prevent the Bottle neck but then to D.C. To protect the Union.

As I mentioned earlier, this is myth: the Russian fleet was not in American waters to "protect the Union".

 

[thomas aagaard]

Its so absurd it is wasting everyone's time to engage the poster asking for evidence he clearly does not have

As I already replied one time, I was expecting him to mention a historical novel or alt-history book.
And Iam actually interested to see where he got the absurd idea from.

 

[SWMODave]

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

Missing that moderator position yet?

I had really never come across this topic until the magazine article. I concentrated on the surrender ceremony at Appomattox part of the article. By the way, I did not read all 7 pages of this thread but anyone interested in reading the article, it is posted online here. There is no copyright violation as the magazine themselves posts their issues online. After spending far more time one this than I care to admit, I suspect that the author, William Marvel, is 'splitting hairs'. I do not accept the theory that one has the responsibility to 'disprove a story', no more than I believe one is guilty unless one can prove they are innocent. I do believe Mr Marvel has been proven to be incorrect in former findings he published in Blue & Grey (case in point).

It appears Mr Marvel gets hung up on the whole 'saluting' concept. The order 'Carry arms' that Chamberlain uses appears to be an older version of 'shoulder arms'. While not an official salute, it could be used as a sign of respect. Union Major General Merritt wrote on the surrender "When General Lee came out of the house he was attended by his one staff-officer. As he stepped into the front yard a number of Union officers saluted him by raising the hat; he returned the salute in like manner, and then, looking in the direction of the Confederate army, smote the palms of his hands together three times, his arms extended to their full length,..". Was this an official salute? No. Was this an approved military salute? Of course not. It was a sign of respect ...but even this general uses the term 'salute'.

Raising one's hat to General Lee, like going to shoulder arms for surrendering Confederates, does not mean every single person in the ranks on ether side, automatically forgave and forgot. Some never got over the hatred the war had caused. But most did, and some immediately. I suspect most of the men were so overcome with the fact the war was over and they were going home .... hate took a back seat. And ask any soldier which is more comfortable.... shoulder or order arms. They'll tell you order arms, because they're not carrying a musket. So Chamberlain had no other reason but respect to put his soldiers to shoulder arms.

One more thing - Hardee's on guard duty
"No. 1. Should an officer approach, the corporal will command: Carry arms, and resume the support arms when the officer is passed.
When the sentinel sees the relief approaching he will halt and face to it, with his arms at a shoulder. At six paces the corporal will command: 1. Relief. 2. HALT; when the relief will halt and carry arms. The corporal will then add, "No.1," or "No.2," or "No.3,…
Sentinels will be respected by all persons of whatever rank. They will present arms to general and field officers, to the officer of the day, and to the commanding officer of the post. To all other officers, they will carry arms."

Showing respect is not a Lost Cause theory. Being American is not a Lost Cause conspiracy. There is a lot of nonsense out there that the Lost Cause is spreading - come to Missouri - it's about 33% historical B.S. But when we get all wrapped up in whether there was a diary at Cold Harbor, or a bunny rabbit at Gettysburg, or a salute, that wasn't a salute (Chamberlain's words) at Appomattox, then we start to raise, in some cases, trivial objections to a period in time that we, as a body, hold immensely important in American history. I get more hung up on the 'facts' than many members do, and that is one of the reasons I host Soldiers Tales, where proof of authenticity is not a requirement. In this case, while I agree the Apple Tree surrender story is a tale, I do not question Chamberlain's memory, and see no motive for him to intentionally lie.

JMHO.

 

[Sandsquid]

As I recall from my issue, the cover states something more like Lincoln and his EP didn't free any of the slaves, which by itself is of course true. I don't remember the actual article saying anything like it not being significant or changing though. The rub of course - and no doubt source of any mythmaking - is that NO slaves were freed by the EP alone, but by failure of the South to take the warning, followed by appropriate Federal military action.

That is an odd way of someone choosing to change that statement. It would be like saying "the Constitution doesn't protect your right to free speech". Only when you fail to be quiet, and the court system acts to protect it as the unnamed quantifiers, even though everyone would already assume those two pieces.

It's kind of a way of talking around something that we would never do in real life. I'm not sure why that line of thinking gets used in this one situation but not elsewhere.

Or if a state made $1 million in fines on drivers failing to go hands free with phones, someone saying "hands free laws don't collect any revenue for the state... Only when drivers fail to take the warning, followed by appropriate police action." No.. We say the new hands free driving fines increased revenue in the state by $1 million. We don't have to explain that people had to break the law to be fined, or police had to catch them. To say "not one dime was collected by the new hands free fines" would be the statement that would be evasive disinformation. Especially with leaving out the obvious parts of why you chose to read it that way.

Or "the prohibition amendment didn't result in 23,000 arrests for bootlegging. NO people were arrested by the Amendment alone, but by liquor makers and transporters failing to take the warning followed by appropriate Federal law enforcement action".

I wonder why someone would try and add those quantifiers silently? It seems rather disingenuous to me.

But it appears the magazine calls that line of thinking a myth anyways, so that's good to hear.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

I would argue that ill feelings were more prevalent than many believe. The GAR couldn't endorse the Gettysburg reunions because so many of their members objected to allowing their former enemies to participate. To my mind, that's pretty telling.

Ryan

I didn't know that - that the GAR didn't endorse the Gettysburg reunions. Did they ever endorse any reunions?

 

[Scott1967]

In the latest issue of Civil War Monitor, five well known Civil War historians offered what they thought were the five more persistent myths about the Civil War.

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

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

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

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

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

1. Had the effect of stopping any foreign intervention however remote it might have been.

2. We don't know what was said in private between Grant and Lincoln

3. The South had virtually no chance of winning the war and never did its only hope was in July 1863 and they fluffed it allowing Lincoln to be re-elected in a landslide even with the casualties of the Overland campaign and Petersburg.

4. The Civil War was indeed the first modern war so many patents and inventions , Railways used to move troops , Trench warfare , GI weapons that could shoot up-to 400 yards (Yes we know) Ironclads.

5. This is debatable we have eyewitness accounts of this happing from men that were their but I agree with the op on this both Chamberlain and Gordon could tell a good story.

Great thing about any History is that Historians will always construe and form their own opinions thus trying to get their point over on joe public just like I'm doing as well

 

[thomas aagaard]

4. The Civil War was indeed the first modern war so many patents and inventions , Railways used to move troops , Trench warfare , GI weapons that could shoot up-to 400 yards (Yes we know) Ironclads.

Moving troops with Railroads was done in 1848 and by 1860 it was part of the warplanning in all European armies.

Trenches have been used for 2000+ years.

Rifled firearms had been around in relevant numbers since the 18th century.
By 1850 we have battles like the one at Isted with more than half of the engaged infantry using rifle muskets. (80% on one side and 25% on the other), The crimean war had them... and in 1859 we have the battle of Solferiono. Way way bigger than any battle during the civil war... with both sides armed with rifle muskets.
Also the rifle musket was a technological dead end, that was made obsolete in 1841 by the Breechloaded rifle....

So none of them was new by 1861.

Ironclades was used in the Crimean war... but yes, the first ironclad on ironclad was during the civil war.
(like how jet fighters was used by both sides during WWII, but the first jet on jet fight was in Korea)

The 7 year war (global war),
Napoleonic wars (Huge mass armies based on conscripton),
Franco-Prussian war (large armies armed with breech loaded rifles. Mass use of rifled artillery)
and The Great War are all better candidates for "first modern war" depending on what areas you focus.