Day 1 of America's most important battle

[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.

[Iceman]

On one of my birthdays ,can't remember which...about 20 yrs ago now,I saw the movie .To me this was an eye opening movie not in it's exactly correct story telling but from what I have looked into this units battles and such it is pretty accurate.At the end of the movie it shows the colonel being buried with his black troops after the battle,which I would think would have been a priority on both sides to bury the dead soon as possible.What struck me about it is that reading actual letters and accounts of this that the confederates offered to go and find the body of the colonel so he did not have to be buried with the blacks and his mother told them no,that Col. Robert Gould Shaw would have wanted to be buried with his troopers....to me this captures the essence of brotherhood in fighting against something that is wrong regardless of color.

Similiar to many other things in history...the fight against Nazi Germany and Japan..taking a stand against something that is screwed up takes alot of courage.

P.S....I consider Abraham Lincoln to be my country's greatest president.

The Gettysburg Address

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

November 19, 1863

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[1480]

Iceman, you also bring up some great points but let me one question: Would the USA have ever gotten involved in WWII if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor? Before you answer with your heart, think about it: 1. FDR was running for reelection. 2. We were in the middle of an economic depression. 3. No popular support to assist the Allies. 4. The Lend Lease act, FDR's way of helping England, was quid pro quo. Had to be, otherwise see #1 and #2.


Just as was pointed out about the Battle of Gettysburg, the stars had to be
perfectly aligned for us to get involved.

[August]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Similiar to many other things in history...the fight against Nazi Germany and Japan..taking a stand against something that is screwed up takes alot of courage.

Great point! It's something we often tend to miss when we debate what historical figures should have done in a particular situation. As Lcpl says "hindsight is 20-20" but it's also the sheer guts required to embark on a course of action when the result is in doubt.

Lincoln did what he had to do to to keep the Union together. Did he make mistakes? Well he was human so of course he did, but what is important is that he prevailed and in doing so put my country on the path to greatness.

[August]

a) but your original statement was "If he was so good why could he not avoid a war?" Well obviously he could not have affected those chances either way BEFORE he was elected in late 1860, and by then war was indeed inevitable.

b) You keep changing the argument. We were discussing a post civil war world where the south wins. Now suddenly there was no war at all? Then if there was no war then would have been no secession either.

c) Not only tanks but 48 fractured independent states with a history of warfare and mistrust. I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think the Soviets were not expansionist or opportunist.

d) Not one dollar? Obviously you aren't counting the billions of dollars made through spin off technologies. I myself had a glass of Tang just last night.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

Sorry to isolate a single part of a post, but everyone has been carefully dancing around the slavery question, and I have to jump into it here.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

This is not to say that the war was fought over slavery, as it was not.

The war was fought over secession and reunion. That much is obvious. But the state's right's and slavery problems date to the Constitution. Delegates from the northern states wanted to outlaw the importation of slaves. Delegates from the southern states threatened to abandon the convention if outvoted on that question. The Virginia Plan had representation being totally proportional to population. The smaller states wanted equal representation for each state. This led to the system we still have today, with the upper house (Senate) having equal representation for each state and the lower house (House of Representatives) having proportional representation. In either case Southern delegates argued that their populations were so small that slaves should be part of the enumeration (hence the 3/5ths rule, in which five slaves count as three free men for representation purposes). When the northern states objected, the southern states refused to take part unless they were accomodated. The northerners, realizing that unless they acted as a whole they would likely fail (there's that "hang together" thing again), were forced to compromise. The southerners agreed that importation of slaves would cease by 1807.

Side-note: did you know that a coalition of Federalists attempted to implement the secession of several New England states as a protest to the War of 1812?

The main argument of the early 1800s between North and South was the question of equality in numbers, the Southern states complaining that the vast majority of new states were 'Free' states. This lead to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which artificially forced the balance to remain equal. The Compromise of 1850 included the Fugitive Slave Act, which required Free States to return runaway slaves.

In 1854 South Carolina threatened to secede if John Fremont were to become president, simply because he represented the new Republican Party, and they were Abolitionist.

In 1860 South Carolina again threatened to secede if Abraham Lincoln was elected, for the same reason. They carried out this threat.

Of the original seven seceeding States, virtually every one of their Ordinances of Secession lists the leading cause as the refusal of certain Northern States to obey the Fugitive Slave Law, and South Carolina's refers to them directly as 'The Slave-Holding States'.

I don't argue that slavery was the only cause, or disagree with the concept that most of the soldiers and many of the leaders on both sides didn't have it in mind as a reason to go to war, but the war was fought over secession, and the Southern States seceded almost exclusively over the idea that the Northern States wanted them to give up their way of life, specifically slavery, and were willing to use Federal power to do it. Nowhere in their listed causes can I find mention of tariffs imposed on English goods.

Sorry to rant, but I think they stated their causes quite plainly, and nowhere in their listed causes can I find mention of tariffs imposed on English goods.

[Takeda Shingen]

You're absolutely right, Steve. I should have been more clear that my intention was to cut off the counter-argument that I was oversimplifying the cause of the war by insisting that it was the abolition of slavery foremost. It was really about repesentation in government, in which the southern states were hindered by the fact that their economy was largely based on slave labor, which greatly impacted their population. So, yes, slavery can been seen as the root of the problem. Still, 'let's free the slaves' was hardly the rallying cry of the Union, at least at the onset.

[Dan D]

Side-note:
Some interesting facts and thoughts with regard to the American Civil war I found here: http://usaerklaert.wordpress.com/200...rauma-der-usa/
It is a blog run an American expat in Germany. I would have simply quoted the whole piece but it is not written in English, so I tried to roughly sum up some of the many points the author makes:

A popular claim: “Europeans and Americans have drawn different conclusions from WWI and WW II. Because American civilians never suffered the consequences of the horrors of war on their own soil, they have no idea what war really means. This explains the different attitudes of America and Europe towards using military forces to solve conflicts”.

The author tries to put things into perspective and points out that such statements tend to irritate Americans. If there is a national trauma of the USA, it is not Vietnam but the Civil war.
The most costly war in the history of the USA was the Civil war which took place in …well, America. More than 550.000 soldiers died. 23.000 Americans alone died in the 12 hours lasting battle of Antietam..That is more than the combined American, British, Canadian and German casualties during the Normandy landing 1944.

The Civil war marks the beginning of “modern”, industrialised warfare. In the face of advanced weapons technology the old infantry tactics of Napoleon times which still were used in the beginning turned out to be obsolete.

A consequence: trench war in Virginia
http://712educators.about.com/cs/his...blcwphcas7.htm


It was also the beginning of “total war”, Sherman’s “march to the sea”, where you do not only try to beat the enemy armies on the field but also directly aim to destroy the enemies economic resources and infrastructure. Heavy suffering amongst the civilian population is the consequence.

Sherman: “Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses and people will cripple their military resources…I can make the march and make Georgia howl”.

“Sherman’s neckties”:
http://ngeorgia.com/ang/Sherman's_Neckties


Richmond destroyed:
http://www.archives.gov/research/civ...il-war-118.jpg



So, you could say at least that when WW1 broke out, it was the Europeans who were sticking flowers to their guns and had naïve and romantic misconceptions of war while Americans probably knew better what this war would ”feel“ like because of the experiences they had made in the Civil war and therefore they were not so eager to join in the fight.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by Dan D

So, you could say at least that when WW1 broke out, it was the Europeans who were sticking flowers to their guns and had naïve and romantic misconceptions of war while Americans probably knew better what this war would ”feel“ like because of the experiences they had made in the Civil war and therefore they were not so eager to join in the fight.

I think it is exactly as you say. At that time many people were still alive who had witnessed the horrors firsthand or through their parents. Not so in europe. Germany for instance had fought a cheap war in 1871 and people thought it would be the same in 1914. Of course we also had a radically different education at that time.

However we have other examples for post WWII, the USSR and Germany both had extreme losses in WWII and still took opposite directions in that respect, so exlaining all with psychology is not so simple.

Some excellent posts from all participants. I cannot contribute much on that level, though I have studied the subject a bit. So I'd better read and leave this to the US guys.

But it's obvious that a different outcome would have destabilized the situation in North America, lead to more wars and have repercussions for a still likely WW 1+2.

[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.