"Unlearning" the Civil War

[GrantVSLee]

My seventh grade history books taught me that U. S. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee because he had superior numbers.
That's it?

It wasn't until decades later that I learned (by searching on my own) that there were more factors to Grant's victory. Superior numbers played an important role--I'm not denying that. But other equally important factors were:
A - Grant was commanding separate armies across multiple theaters to attack key Confederate territories.
B - Grant was attacking frequently and relentlessly with the intention to seize the advantage and prevent Lee from properly responding.
C - Lee was held in check by Grant's attacks and Jefferson Davis's strategy of having the Army of Northern Virginia protect Richmond, thus preventing Lee from uniting with Joseph Johnston and greatly reinforcing the AofNVa.

What interpretations of the Civil War have you had to "unlearn", so to say?

 

[Youngblood]

Manpower, manufacturing, and supplies.

Your 7th grade history book wasnt wrong, just very basic.

 

[JOHN42768]

Wondering if History is still taught. You see some people on TV answering questions and they don't have a clue

 

[WJC]

I agree that the false 'overwhelming resources' argument has long been taught. Many will recall Shelby Foote's assessment in the PBS documentary series, The Civil War: "The North fought that war with one hand behind it's back." Historians have shown conclusively that was not so.
For a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of both sides, see the YouTube video David W. Blight, Terrible Swift Sword: The Period of Confederate Ascendency, 1861-1862 (HIST 119). Yale Courses, Number 13, at about the 22-minute point.

 

[tbuckley]

Wondering if History is still taught. You see some people on TV answering questions and they don't have a clue

Having taught History in a small college in eastern Ohio, I have had 18 - 20 year old students who had little knowledge of the Depression and WWII, knew nothing about WWI or the Spanish American War. Their knowledge of the Civil War was usually limited to knowing it had something to do with slavery and a place called Gettysburg.
I did have students over 30 and they had a much better knowledge of History. The younger students didn't seem to care about anything that happened before they were born.
Sorry for the rant.

 

[Mike Griffith]

What interpretations of the Civil War have you had to "unlearn", so to say?

Too many to name or number. Heck, for many years, somehow I had the idea that the war started when the South invaded the North and that the North was just defending itself against the South.

 

[Viper21]

My seventh grade history books taught me that U. S. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee because he had superior numbers.
That's it?

It wasn't until decades later that I learned (by searching on my own) that there were more factors to Grant's victory. Superior numbers played an important role--I'm not denying that. But other equally important factors were:
A - Grant was commanding separate armies across multiple theaters to attack key Confederate territories.
B - Grant was attacking frequently and relentlessly with the intention to seize the advantage and prevent Lee from properly responding.
C - Lee was held in check by Grant's attacks and Jefferson Davis's strategy of having the Army of Northern Virginia protect Richmond, thus preventing Lee from uniting with Joseph Johnston and greatly reinforcing the AofNVa.

Even your own arguments back up the claim of overwhelming manpower, & resources.

I realize some like to minimize, or ignore the overwhelming manpower, & resources of the US during the war but, they were the deciding factor. That's not to say they weren't other factors but, I strongly believe, had the resources, & manpower been equal..... the CSA would've won their independence. Keeping in mind, that in no way, shape, or form, means subjugate the US. Simply, keep them at bay, & out of the South. Defeating the US wasn't the objective, or necessary.

 

[Jimklag]

My seventh grade history books taught me that U. S. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee because he had superior numbers.
That's it?

It wasn't until decades later that I learned (by searching on my own) that there were more factors to Grant's victory. Superior numbers played an important role--I'm not denying that. But other equally important factors were:
A - Grant was commanding separate armies across multiple theaters to attack key Confederate territories.
B - Grant was attacking frequently and relentlessly with the intention to seize the advantage and prevent Lee from properly responding.
C - Lee was held in check by Grant's attacks and Jefferson Davis's strategy of having the Army of Northern Virginia protect Richmond, thus preventing Lee from uniting with Joseph Johnston and greatly reinforcing the AofNVa.

What interpretations of the Civil War have you had to "unlearn", so to say?

This book will help with the reasons for the war's outcome.

 

[CCMDCSA]

I do believe that I graduated when they still taught history to a degree but my little brother 9 years my junior had to unlearn that all confederates were slaveowners and all Yankees just wanted slavery to come to a end

 

[John Winn]

These are the "facts" as I remember them from my school days and which I "unlearned" early on:

the war was fought to end slavery;
everyone in the North was an abolitionist and everyone in the South a secessionist and slave owner;
Lincoln freed all the slaves with his proclamation;
the war was pretty much Lee v Grant;
nothing happened west of Tennessee;
all Confederate soldiers were barefoot and in rags;
there was no anesthetic and men had to bite bullets;
the war ended at Appomattox;
reconstruction apparently didn't happen as it wasn't mentioned.

 

[Old_Glory]

These are the "facts" as I remember them from my school days and which I "unlearned" early on:

the war was fought to end slavery;
everyone in the North was an abolitionist and everyone in the South a secessionist and slave owner;
Lincoln freed all the slaves with his proclamation;
the war was pretty much Lee v Grant;
nothing happened west of Tennessee;
all Confederate soldiers were barefoot and in rags;
there was no anesthetic and men had to bite bullets;
the war ended at Appomattox;
reconstruction apparently didn't happen as it wasn't mentioned.

That sounds about right. Rubbish. Best to just dump everything one learned about the Civil War in K-12 and start from scratch.

 

[Viper21]

That sounds about right. Rubbish. Best to just dump everything one learned about the Civil War in K-12 and start from scratch.

My boys, HS graduates in '11, '15, & '17, hardly learned anything about the Civil War in high school. They "learned" more about modern social issues than, the historical figures buried in the same town as their high school.

 

[Old_Glory]

My boys, HS graduates in '11, '15, & '17, hardly learned anything about the Civil War in high school. They "learned" more about modern social issues than, the historical figures buried in the same town as their high school.

If that was the focus, then you should be glad the school didn't mention the Civil War.

 

[Southern Volunteer]

Well to be fair as its pointed out the superior resources/manpower argument while simple isn't that bad to teach grade schoolers especially 7th graders. In a setting like that you're dealing with kids that care a lot and will want to seek knowledge out on their own, kids who couldn't care less about history and just want to get to science class, and the kids that just want to go home and don't care about anything. I don't have a problem teaching kids generalizations when they're teaching to a general audience. If you try to give them specialized advanced knowledge before they're ready for it or if they don't want it you're more likely than not just wasting your breath. The ones that care will seek knowledge out, most people on this website are proof of that.

 

[Viper21]

If that was the focus, then you should be glad the school didn't mention the Civil War.

Oh, they mentioned it. They briefly put out the virtuous Yankee narrative.

 

[Yankeedave]

The north did have supior numbers. But not at the front. Life went on back home.
But one side is going to be able to replace losses later on that the other won't.
The ability to close New Orleans early on. And I emphasize ability. There are a bunch of little New Orleans. No matter what happens the south counter this.
And they are being beat on the ground. New Orleans is two massive forts that are tacticaly beaten. Then there is the naval engagement...
There is little good the can be said of the south in the West. It's throwing good after bad.
Geographicly the south is forced into defense. Options limited right off the bat. Coupled with political mistakes like Atlanta vs Richmond...
And Lee does get beat in the east. It's a back and forth but the north does darn near starve out a fine army. Once he's gone the all the imported material in the world won't matter.
There is nothing new to closing down foreign ports etc. It's implementing it. This is what was thought to both sides but only the north can sustain it.

 

[huskerblitz]

Wondering if History is still taught. You see some people on TV answering questions and they don't have a clue

Nope. Me and my class sit around all day and play video games and order pizza. Just think, I'll have them all ready to take care of you when you can no longer do it yourself.

You're welcome.

 

[luinrina]

Their knowledge of the Civil War was usually limited to knowing it had something to do with slavery and a place called Gettysburg.

And that Lincoln was somehow involved in all of this. That's what I remember from my history class dealing with the American Civil War. Granted, in Europe, our focus was more on events that had an effect on Europe - like the French revolution, Napoleon, both world wars. But I clearly remember my last two to three years history intensively focussing on World War II especially. And I hated it. How often did we have to hear about Hitler's atrocities against the Jews? I distinctly remember having been taught about that topic at least SIX times in two to three years - and not only taught in History but Literatur and Social Studies as well. Instead of repeating the same over and over again, I wished we had dealt a bit more with American history like the Civil War. /rant

So, what did I have to "unlearn"? Lincoln was involved - check. There was a place called Gettysburg that played a role - check. Slavery was part of the issue - check. Now I had to unlearn how the three were connected.

When I started with researching the New Mexico Campaign, I had no clue that I was about to embarge on a mission impossible to learn everything about the ACW.

 

[leftyhunter]

My seventh grade history books taught me that U. S. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee because he had superior numbers.
That's it?

It wasn't until decades later that I learned (by searching on my own) that there were more factors to Grant's victory. Superior numbers played an important role--I'm not denying that. But other equally important factors were:
A - Grant was commanding separate armies across multiple theaters to attack key Confederate territories.
B - Grant was attacking frequently and relentlessly with the intention to seize the advantage and prevent Lee from properly responding.
C - Lee was held in check by Grant's attacks and Jefferson Davis's strategy of having the Army of Northern Virginia protect Richmond, thus preventing Lee from uniting with Joseph Johnston and greatly reinforcing the AofNVa.

What interpretations of the Civil War have you had to "unlearn", so to say?

Your history text didnt mention that close to 300k Southern born troops black and white( 104k white per the book " Lincoln's Loyalists Union Soldiers from the Confederacy" Richard Current North Eastern University Press) enlisted in the Union Army. Nor did your book discuss Unionist guerillas or Confederate desertion and conscript evading.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Even your own arguments back up the claim of overwhelming manpower, & resources.

I realize some like to minimize, or ignore the overwhelming manpower, & resources of the US during the war but, they were the deciding factor. That's not to say they weren't other factors but, I strongly believe, had the resources, & manpower been equal..... the CSA would've won their independence. Keeping in mind, that in no way, shape, or form, means subjugate the US. Simply, keep them at bay, & out of the South. Defeating the US wasn't the objective, or necessary.

and @GrantVSLee
Yet if one averages out all the major battles as I did in the thread " by what metric was the Confederate Army Superior"? the average Union manpower superiority ratio was only 1.86 to one. In an offensive war an offensive army is supposed to have a 3 to 1 manpower superiority ratio. Most of the Union Army was on the offensive.
There were battles i.e. Prairie Grove, Pea Ridge , Mills Springs where the Union Army was outnumbered and still won.
Leftyhunter