Day 1 of America's most important battle

[nikimcbee]

July 1, 1863

Day ! of probably the most important battle in US history.
Huzzah to the Iron Brigade!

[UnderseaLcpl]

I will contend that the civil war was one of the U.S.'s most useless wars. It was started over a tax. Specifically a tax on imports from Britain. Had the North been constitutionalist this never would have happened.
I would like to add that Abraham Lincoln was not a good president. If he was so good why could he not avoid a war. Furthermore, why did the emancipation proclomation free slaves in the states he had no legal authority over? The two states where he could have freed them (West Virginia and Kentucky) were excluded.
Lastly I posit that the preservation of the Union did more harm then good, as compared to a Union of States. Which would you prefer; your own state's excessive taxation and limited gubernatorial ability, or that with an incompetent federal government passing regulations on top of those you are already beset by?

[August]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I will contend that the civil war was one of the U.S.'s most useless wars. It was started over a tax. Specifically a tax on imports from Britain. Had the North been constitutionalist this never would have happened.
I would like to add that Abraham Lincoln was not a good president. If he was so good why could he not avoid a war. Furthermore, why did the emancipation proclomation free slaves in the states he had no legal authority over? The two states where he could have freed them (West Virginia and Kentucky) were excluded.
Lastly I posit that the preservation of the Union did more harm then good, as compared to a Union of States. Which would you prefer; your own state's excessive taxation and limited gubernatorial ability, or that with an incompetent federal government passing regulations on top of those you are already beset by?

a. Lincoln could not avoid a war because by the time he was elected war was pretty much an inevitability. It had been building for over a decade.

b. Had the south won I firmly believe the nation would have continued to fragment eventually leading to 48 independent countries most likely constantly at war with each other and at least unable to unite against 20th century enemies.

c. Had the south won Seward would never have purchased Alaska which would have put Soviet tank divisions on the North American continent. Not a pretty thought.

d. All the post civil war achievements of the United States, landing man on the moon for example, do not happen because at 1/50th of the budget no single state would be able to afford it.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

a. Lincoln could not avoid a war because by the time he was elected war was pretty much an inevitability. It had been building for over a decade.

b. Had the south won I firmly believe the nation would have continued to fragment eventually leading to 48 independent countries most likely constantly at war with each other and at least unable to unite against 20th century enemies.

c. Had the south won Seward would never have purchased Alaska which would have put Soviet tank divisions on the North American continent. Not a pretty thought.

d. All the post civil war achievements of the United States, landing man on the moon for example, do not happen because at 1/50th of the budget no single state would be able to afford it.

I would also add:

e. The Civil War accelerated the US's industrialization, leading to the economic boom of the late 19th Century, and expanding the industrial revolution to a degree unseen anywhere else on earth.

f. The emphasis on centralized federal government combined with an economic boom (see e) made the US a much larger player on the world stage.

and the obvious:

g. The end of formalized slavery.

In short, you do not have the United States of the 20th Century without the American Civil War.


To the topic, I have had the opportunity to take several walking and automotive tours of Gettyburg. They have all been wonderful, and I highly reccomend a trip to the park as something you will never forget.


EDIT: Oh, and Abraham Lincoln was probably the greatest president and orator the country has ever seen.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

a. Lincoln could not avoid a war because by the time he was elected war was pretty much an inevitability. It had been building for over a decade.

b. Had the south won I firmly believe the nation would have continued to fragment eventually leading to 48 independent countries most likely constantly at war with each other and at least unable to unite against 20th century enemies.

c. Had the south won Seward would never have purchased Alaska which would have put Soviet tank divisions on the North American continent. Not a pretty thought.

d. All the post civil war achievements of the United States, landing man on the moon for example, do not happen because at 1/50th of the budget no single state would be able to afford it.

a) Good point but inevitability of the war is debatable, what exactly made it inevitable?

b) If peace were established and we were to form again as a union of states, what would make us unlikely to unite? 20th century enemies? Which ones? WW1 posed no threat to the U.S. just as WW2 did not. The Japanese never would have attacked us had it not been for the oil sanctions we imposed on them, and look what victory got us, Communist China.
The Germans certainly could not have invaded England. Everyone talks about the Battle of Britain as being the linchpin of invasion but many forget there was a substantial Royal Navy at the time. Add to this the lack of seaworthy German landing craft.
Furthermore, with such difficulty in invading England (even if Hitler HAD really wanted that) how would the Germans ever make a Trans-Atlantic invasion force?
WW2 was won on the Eastern front by the Soviets facing 98% of the Wehrmacht by the time D-Day rolled around (Armageddon, Clive Ponting) and what did that get us? A communist superpower and a nuclear weapon crisis.
c. The U.S. bought Alaska from the Soviet Union. We didn't preclude an imminent invasion by doing so. That's like saying that if Canada bought France the Germans wouldn't have invaded.
d. Landing a man on the moon was economically worthless. The "repute" gained from such an undertaking is dubiously valuable even from a government point of view. Did the Soviets concede superiority to us after the moon landing?


e. Actually, it didn't. The US industrialization process was made by the smuggling of the Bessemer steel refining process and the fact that just because Britain had outlawed exports of industrial processes did not make them unavailable. Research Germany, 1860.

f. The U.S economic boom was made possible largely by the inventiveness of U.S. inventors and the stagnation of British industry in developing new products/industries in an attempt to maintain the status quo ( The Red Queen, Matt Ridley) This was also a function of war debt from the Napoleonic Wars. This same problem led to the downfall of the British Empire from WW1-WW2.

g. Slavery did not require a war to end. Look at the civil rights movement in America in the 50's-70's. There was already a strong anti-slavery movement in the North just as the was a strong civil rights movement in the North during the aforementioned period. Mechanization would have made slavery obsolete anyway. Consider the lot of the sharecropper, who was virtually worthless, compared to a slave who was very expensive. If a slave dies or is sick one must purchase another whereas a sharecropper can be replaced for almost no cost by a multitude of willing laborers.

Slavery was merely an excuse to get the citizenry to pursue a cause that their leaders felt they would not understand. Just as communism taking over the world was the motivation for Korea and Vietnam, just as the Germans taking over the world and murdering babies and all that garbage was an excuse to get people to fight the world wars.

I agree that Gettysburg was a great battle and the men who served on both sides deserve their place in history as did all who fought. Like many wars however, it is a tragedy that they fought and died for something much different than what they believed they fought for.


edit: this is, of course my personal opinion. While controversial, I submit it for consideration.

[1480]

And now I will withdraw my last comment, after the argument was fully expounded upon.

[August]

a) So you agree then that the north and south were on a collision course before Lincoln was elected. Exactly my point.

b) Now why would the Confederacy, assuming they didn't soon fracture themselves as was likely, ever want to reunite with the North? A lot of southerners died fighting the civil war and I seriously doubt they'd be in any kind of mood to consider reuniting with the north for at least several generations. Meanwhile the rest of the continent would be free to go their own way. Some would go north, some south, and some would go independent. In every scenario I could think of they soon would be at each others throats.

c. When the US bought Alaska from the Czar (FYI about 50 years before the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia) it did indeed prevent a Soviet controlled Alaska in the latter part of the 20th century. That means Soviet tank and and infantry divisions on north American soil. Do you really think they'd be staying on their side of the border for very long with no natural barriers and no significant military opposition?

d. Worthless? The moon landings? We'll just have to agree to disagree there..[/quote]

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

a) So you agree then that the north and south were on a collision course before Lincoln was elected. Exactly my point.

b) Now why would the Confederacy, assuming they didn't soon fracture themselves as was likely, ever want to reunite with the North? A lot of southerners died fighting the civil war and I seriously doubt they'd be in any kind of mood to consider reuniting with the north for at least several generations. Meanwhile the rest of the continent would be free to go their own way. Some would go north, some south, and some would go independent. In every scenario I could think of they soon would be at each others throats.

c. When the US bought Alaska from the Czar (FYI about 50 years before the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia) it did indeed prevent a Soviet controlled Alaska in the latter part of the 20th century. That means Soviet tank and and infantry divisions on north American soil. Do you really think they'd be staying on their side of the border for very long with no natural barriers and no significant military opposition?

d. Worthless? The moon landings? We'll just have to agree to disagree there..

a) I thought our difference of opinion was whether they could have avoided war. Yes I do agree they were on a collision course but that does not mean that war was unavoidable.
b) That is assuming there was a war. Had the federal government not imposed tariffs on English goods (and I think some southern exports as well) the issue of states' rights would not have been a problem and there would have been no seccession. Of course, it may have happened again with some different issue, but I believe proper diplomatic response could avert war to any such crisis. Of course this is all speculation, no matter how reasoned it may be.
c) My bad. I didn't think before I used Soviet Union interchangeably with Russia.
Nonetheless, even if we didn't buy Alaska there is no reason to believe that the presence of Soviet tanks in Alaska would mean anything bad. Communist Cuba is only 90 miles from our borders, closer than Alaska. We had tanks, and allies on the Asian continent and in Europe. None of this precipitated a war with the Soviet Union.
d) Respect agreeing to disagree. I will cede that they were not worthless, just economically so. Not one dollar of gross income has ever been generated by exploitation of the moon.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

e. Actually, it didn't. The US industrialization process was made by the smuggling of the Bessemer steel refining process and the fact that just because Britain had outlawed exports of industrial processes did not make them unavailable. Research Germany, 1860.

That's the product, not the industrial infrastructure. The vast materiel requirements of the war was responsible for that infrastructure. Without it, large-scale refinement and manufacturing would have been an impossibility.

f. The U.S economic boom was made possible largely by the inventiveness of U.S. inventors and the stagnation of British industry in developing new products/industries in an attempt to maintain the status quo ( The Red Queen, Matt Ridley) This was also a function of war debt from the Napoleonic Wars. This same problem led to the downfall of the British Empire from WW1-WW2.

Regardless of international affairs, the boom would still have been impossible without the industrial complex of the late century. That complex was a product of Civil War industry.

g. Slavery did not require a war to end. Look at the civil rights movement in America in the 50's-70's. There was already a strong anti-slavery movement in the North just as the was a strong civil rights movement in the North during the aforementioned period. Mechanization would have made slavery obsolete anyway. Consider the lot of the sharecropper, who was virtually worthless, compared to a slave who was very expensive. If a slave dies or is sick one must purchase another whereas a sharecropper can be replaced for almost no cost by a multitude of willing laborers.

Research Eli Whitney and the Cotton Gin for mechanization's effect on slavery.

Slavery was merely an excuse to get the citizenry to pursue a cause that their leaders felt they would not understand. Just as communism taking over the world was the motivation for Korea and Vietnam, just as the Germans taking over the world and murdering babies and all that garbage was an excuse to get people to fight the world wars.

Correct. No one claimed that Lincoln's motives for emancipation were pure. Still, immediate emancipation was the result of the Civil War.

I agree that Gettysburg was a great battle and the men who served on both sides deserve their place in history as did all who fought. Like many wars however, it is a tragedy that they fought and died for something much different than what they believed they fought for.

That's true for every war.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Takeda, 1st and 2nd point. What I gather is that you think without a war there would have been no industrial revolution. I can't even begin to enumerate all the reasons that makes no sense. The first one that comes to mind is that markets decide the success or failure of industry.
3rd point- Even with the cotton gin cotton was a labor-intensive industry so the effects of its mechanization were not enough. Also this completely discounts every crop that is not cotton. Of course, the end of slavery in such circumstances is pure speculation. However, I think most people would agree it would not have continued long.
4th point- not immediate emancipation, remember that W.Virginia and Kentucky, the only two slave states in the union, had slavery all the way to the end of the war. Of course, it could be argued that ending slavery sooner was worth the most bloody war in American history but then you get into all kinds of questions like 'what's a life worth?' and it gets sticky and difficult to discuss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August;

a) It is true that the south seceded before Lincoln took office but that by no means would make avoiding war and reconciling impossible. My main point is that if he were as great as we believe, why did we get into a civil war on his watch? Of course, congress has a role to play too so it may not be all his fault.
b) I do see a couple of things I said that could be interpreted to mean "if the south won" but that was not my intent. From the beginning I intended only to say that the war was wasteful and should not have even happened. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.
c) Saying the states would be 'fractured' is a bit of a logical leap. Especially if there was a common perceived threat. As is 'a history of warfare and mistrust'. This is all supposed to be in the event the war never occurred. Where do the war and mistrust come from?
d) Firstly, I said through exploitation of the moon. Tang does not exploit the moon for its production. In addition, Tang was around before the moon flights, but its adoption by NASA gave it a marketing boost.

Finally, even if that and similar products did eventually recoup the massive investiture of money in the moon landings, it would be in spite of government waste, not because of it.

To re-seummarize, Lincoln was not as good as we all think he was and the war was wasteful.

[Sailor Steve]

There's not much I can add to the two excellent summations above, but I would like to address a couple of specific points.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I will contend that the civil war was one of the U.S.'s most useless wars. It was started over a tax. Specifically a tax on imports from Britain.

This seems like an attempt to focus on one single issue when there were many more involved. If you want to be truly specific and ignore the rest, then you could claim the war started over the same thing most wars start over: a piece of land.

Abraham Lincoln said that he would not fire the first shot. Being a canny politician he knew that the South would open fire on Fort Sumter, and he would have an excuse to respond. If Jefferson Davis and Francis Pickens had been half as astute, they would have responded that the Union could keep that fort, and they would make money supplying and entertaining the Federal troops, and eventually buy the fort, and that they would take that as a token of Lincoln's good faith that he would let them go peacefully. But Lincoln knew that would never happen.

Had the North been constitutionalist this never would have happened.

How exactly was the North not constituionalist? I have my own ideas, but would love to hear yours.

I would like to add that Abraham Lincoln was not a good president. If he was so good why could he not avoid a war.

Benjamin Franklin's words: "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately". Lincoln was a member of the very next generation, and was reasonably certain that none of the states could survive as less than a whole. Right or wrong, he did what he could to save the United States. That he succeeded says much in his favor.

[nikimcbee]

Ha, I was wondering Steve how long it would take you to find this thread .

@ TS, you're a lucky guy, I really want to do the Gettsburg trip , escpecially since I do the Civil War reenacting.

I always reflect on this battle this time of year. What a price for freedom! I find it very interesting to talk CW with Southerners, it makes for a lively discussion . I love debating the most critical part of the battle.

Was it:
1. Day one, stalling the Southern advance.
2. 1st Minnesota charging in the Weatfield. (2nd Day)
3. 20th Maine holding the Little Round top (2nd Day)
4 High Water Mark (Pickett's Charge) 3rd Day)
5. JEB Stuart not showing up til late in the battle (no accurate intel for Lee)
6. All the resources sank in to Culp's Hill.

What do you think? One thing is for sure, Sailor Steve will have no opinion on this subject.:rotfl: . Well maybe just a small opinion.

[nikimcbee]

1st MN!


1st Texas (Cornfield, @Antietam)

[mapuc]

I remember when I saw Gettysburg for the first time on TCM(had a different name then)

have seen it two or three times since then.

What I understand, from what I've heard, then this movie Gettysburg is the 2nd movie in a triology about the civilwar

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Was it:
1. Day one, stalling the Southern advance.
2. 1st Minnesota charging in the Weatfield. (2nd Day)
3. 20th Maine holding the Little Round top (2nd Day)
4 High Water Mark (Pickett's Charge) 3rd Day)
5. JEB Stuart not showing up til late in the battle (no accurate intel for Lee)
6. All the resources sank in to Culp's Hill.

What do you think? One thing is for sure, Sailor Steve will have no opinion on this subject.:rotfl: . Well maybe just a small opinion.

My answer would be that they were all equally critical, since a reversal on any one of them meant a defeat for the Union.

That's what has always fascinated me about the battle of Gettysburg, just how many unlikely things had to go right for the Union to win, even the screw ups.

Take the bayonet charge by the 20th Maine for example:

Before the battle began Chamberlain sent his B Company down the hill just east of their main position to guard against end around flank attack. While they were heading to their position they nearly ran into the main body of the advancing Confederates and were forced to duck behind a stone wall to keep from being attacked and overrun. Chamberlain, having lost contact with them, then seeing the Confederates appear in the area they had just disappeared into figured they had all been captured or killed.

The bayonet charge itself was a far more dicey affair than is depicted in the movie. It was a desperate last ditch action that should have failed. What actually saved them was Company B popping up from behind that wall at just the right moment to fire into the Confederate flank throwing them into confusion and enabling the rest of the regiment to maintain the momentum and initiative.

Had Chamberlain not screwed up and sent Co B out there. Had they been spotted and overrun by the Rebels before they could take cover. Had they not stood up from behind that wall and fired at just the right moment. Had Chamberlain decided not to order a Banzai suicide bayonet attack. Had ANY of those things not happened and the outcome of the entire battle would have been much different.