Featured Where Do You Disagree With the "Conventional Wisdom" on the Civil War?

JeffBrooks

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Location
Hutto, TX
Where do you disagree with the "conventional wisdom" on the Civil War. In other words, what commonly accepted "truths" about the war do you believe are incorrect?

I'll start.

1. I do not think that Gettysburg and Vicksburg marked the turning point of the war and I believe that the Confederacy had as much of a chance at winning the war at the start of 1864 as it did at the start of 1863, if not better.

2. On a strategic level, I think the performance of Ulysses Grant in 1864 was rather poor.

3. Aside from his logistical abilities, I think that Sherman was a poor general.

4. I think that the Confederacy lost the war more due to its own mistakes than due to the superior numbers and resources of the Union.
 
This is where the dual meaning of the word "cause" comes into play. What "caused" the war was not necessarily the "cause" that the individual soldiers were fighting for. A massive bar brawl may start with two guys fighting over a woman, but that doesn't mean everybody in that brawl was fighting over that woman.
Exactly, in the CW more than any other conflict if you polled the combatants why they were fighting the answers would have amazed you. They fought for many different reasons. No One certain cause.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
The single greatest cause, as announced by themselves, was the preservation of slave rights. As I have stated many times before what the individual believes he is fighting for becomes subservient to the national cause. By a factor of many the cause of the Civil War was slavery. That is not "conventional wisdom" that is history, with plenty of evidence to back it up.
 
Vote Here:
The single greatest cause, as announced by themselves, was the preservation of slave rights. As I have stated many times before what the individual believes he is fighting for becomes subservient to the national cause. By a factor of many the cause of the Civil War was slavery. That is not "conventional wisdom" that is history, with plenty of evidence to back it up.

Yes it is often repeated and still I don't buy it. In an army of volunteers the personal reason to go to war is sure different and more important to the individual than the "National cause" that of course must dominate in a regular army. And I simply cannot imagine all these men in the ranks fighting for the preservation of slavery while they did not even own one.
And just for the fun of it, here comes a scence from the movie Gettysburg:

"I don't know about other folk, but I ain't fighting for no darkies. I'm fighting for my rats. That's what we're all fighting for [...] Why is it you folks can't just live the way you want to live, and let us live the way we do?"
(yes, yes, I know, this is no serious source ... no comment needed!)

 
Vote Here:
Yes! That's it exactly! It was a good read, and he does use a lot of statistics but like we both have said, it feels a bit off. Almost as if he went into the research with his mind already made up and then tried to twist the facts and stats to fit, rather than study the states and facts and then make up his mind.

Nobody had posted what the book's name and author was yet. Thanks! To bad I left it in that hotel room. :/

Sorry it's been a few days (and many posts/pages later).

I don't know if there's been any follow up or analysis of his work done. It was written in 1987 so perhaps there's more/new information that has been presented?

If you are interested in getting it there are some really cheap options out there:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300084617/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

 
Vote Here:
The single greatest cause, as announced by themselves, was the preservation of slave rights. As I have stated many times before what the individual believes he is fighting for becomes subservient to the national cause. By a factor of many the cause of the Civil War was slavery. That is not "conventional wisdom" that is history, with plenty of evidence to back it up.


I KNOW what my G-Grand signed up for. MONEY to help the family. Add to it what you will.
 
Vote Here:
I will play devils advocate and say Lee can unite forces with Johnson in Nc. On the other hand Sherman is already in Nc with approx 60k men? Lee is not the type of guy who would try to sneak off the coast and find a fast steamer to Jamaica so your right there are a whole lot of bad options and no good ones.
leftyhunter
There is no way that Lee would have been able to to break off engagement from Grant and make it to North Carolina without being destroyed by Grant out in the open..
 
Vote Here:
I KNOW what my G-Grand signed up for. MONEY to help the family. Add to it what you will.

Where was he getting that money from? A government that existed in an effort to maintain slavery.

The German government does some things I cannot agree to. I'm a civil servant. Would I have to leave my job just because I cannot agree to everything my Government decides? No, I just take the money and vote for the other ones next time. In the case of rebforever's ancestor I'd say that you must be able to afford ethical principles. When it comes to sustaining a family, I think your hungry kids are closer to you than some ethical principle you are in no way connected to. I don't think that you reflect very much where the money comes from if your wife does not know how to feed the kids
 
Vote Here:
The individual soldier, both sides, had as many reasons for joining as there were soldiers, and not many of those reasons had to do with government matters. However, as 1SgtDan says, all those reasons are subordinated to whatever the national cause is. Even today I've been asked why Indians sign up for the military even though the government has wronged us and we don't have much in common with government goals. Same story - everything from need a job to a job needs doing. (Don't think there's anything more patriotic than a Native Marine, by the way!)
 
Vote Here:
By 1863 the north controlled most of the largest population centers in the south. You really should look into that.
When the war began Richmond was a small town with few hotels and not much else, until the CSAa moved its government there, then it exploded to over 100,000, but it was too much for the cities water and food distribution system,davis trophies to get a new rail road link to improve the connection to Raleigh North Carolina and Richmond but the other state leaders cried out about the cost. The first crack in the armor, states right versus centralized government,mthe argument did not go away with secession, it plagued Davis.
New Orleans was the largest population in the south when the war began and one of the economic drivers of the south. Atlanta was a small town relatively, 30,000 approximately. Not what we imagine today. But for the south to loose New Orlelans would be like the north losing New York City.
Not only did the north control the rive boat traffic on the Mississippi,mthe Tennesse, and the Cumberland, they controlled the east west rail system that connected Atlanta and Savannah to the Mississippi.
By the winter of 1864 for all practical intent, the CSA a was compressed into North Carolina and Virginia.
There may have been a few people still delusional enough to believe God was on their side,mbut it was obvious to those who were sober enough to look at a map, that Devine intervention would be too late.
Many Confederate soldiers marched barefoot into Gettysburg, through out the Southern ranks food was on short rations.
Propaganda always paints a pretty picture to the masses. The facts are the facts.

Someone was asking about a soldier from Alabama on a recent thread and I remember noticing how many of the officers had resigned in 1862-63. One of my husband's gr gr uncle's was one of those, who'd fought for awhile, was wounded, not mortally, and hoped to get out with a disability without resigning. In a diary he keeps talking about being unable to walk and then constantly describes walking to town, walking around the camp, strolling here, traversing there.

Eventually he resigned and went home to start rebuilding his fortune and did so, ending up quite well off after the ACW. So, I looked up some of the other officers who'd resigned and their story seemed a lot the same. This gg uncle wasn't the largest planter, with about 40 slaves, but he had various business interests in addition to raising cotton.

What I was wondering was, did this have an effect on morale on both the ragged troops and their families if many of the officer class who'd been in on the recruitment of the average soldier, had gone home to take care of themselves?
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
This is where the dual meaning of the word "cause" comes into play. What "caused" the war was not necessarily the "cause" that the individual soldiers were fighting for. A massive bar brawl may start with two guys fighting over a woman, but that doesn't mean everybody in that brawl was fighting over that woman.
A good analogy 'cause most southern boys just like to brawl!
 
Vote Here:
A good analogy 'cause most southern boys just like to brawl!

There's definitely some truth to that - and not just Southern boys. It was a time period when war and martial skills were glorified, particularly in the South, but in the North as well. And life on the farm or in the factory was pretty dull. Young men were thirsty for glory and adventure, and war gave them that opportunity. And of course being young men they were invincible...
 
Vote Here:
This is where the dual meaning of the word "cause" comes into play. What "caused" the war was not necessarily the "cause" that the individual soldiers were fighting for. A massive bar brawl may start with two guys fighting over a woman, but that doesn't mean everybody in that brawl was fighting over that woman.

oh my, stooping to injecting common sense into a CW discussion. this simply won't do!

:frantic::D
 
Vote Here:
Seems to me that why a person joins the military is personal, but why he is needed to join the military is the national cause.
If there were no national cause, there would be no war, if there was no war there would be no need for soldiers no matter how in need of money, excitement, glory or whatever the individuals might be.

Wars are fought over national causes, soldiers choose to fight in them for varied reasons.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
Seems to me that why a person joins the military is personal, but why he is needed to joint the military is the national cause.
If there were no national cause, there would be no war, if there was no war there would be no need for soldiers no matter how in need of money, excitement, glory or whatever the individuals might be.

Wars are fought over national causes, soldiers choose to fight in them for varied reasons.
Excellent points
 
Vote Here:
Wars are fought over national causes, soldiers choose to fight in them for varied reasons.

Or in some cases they are compelled to fight in them regardless if they believe in the cause or not.

I can't imagine dying for a cause I didn't believe in. I'm sure it has happened throughout history.
 
Vote Here:
I've read that that the best offense for the Union was a cordon offense, while the Confederacy's best defense was a point defense, which would allow them to take the offense to the North whenever possible. I tend to agree with the former statement, but not so sure about the latter. Seems like they tried that and it didn't work.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top