But it is not a fact, it is the most ridiculously false dichotomy I have ever heard. It is the equivalent of saying that a man falsely-accused and framed for murder would 'prefer' life in prison to the death penalty. Do you honestly think anyone sincerely believes that that is a logical argument?

I remember once years ago, my step-father used that argument during a conversation we were having. He is no doubt one of the least intelligent, ill-reasoned thinkers I have ever met - but I never considered for a second that he believed what he was saying. Pure BS.

Thank you. Southerners are actually more handicapped than yankees when deducing truths about The War. Do you know his motivation? Was it related to eliminating an ongoing source of contention?

I've spent a week trying to figure out how to answer this post, and can't. I never went to high school. I went to an experimental school for a year, then to college. Even that one year doesn't apply. It was 30 kids in a planetarium with 2 liberal PhDs as professors. Hardly the typical educational experience in northern Georgia. But trust me. The one issue that was never discussed, was the war. I can speak a bit about junior high. But do you know how long ago that was? No, and you won't either. (typical southern female) lol

Part 1

Perhaps you can extrapolate more detal from the minimal information available to me. All I recall is an absense of analysis. It was purely propoganda then, and if actual observation bears proof, remained so two years ago, when I last visited. There was a dearth of information. Sixteenth president was my known biography of Lincoln. I literally didn't know he was worthy of investigating further. Abolition as an ethical construct, or even a simple historical fact, was glossed over with such alacrity, it seemed strangely unrelated to slavery. But I could quote chapter and verse of the burning of Atlanta, and describe in unremitting detail each individual monument in Chickamauga Battlefield. Jefferson Davis was an indolent dimwitted fool, and Robert E. Lee a more revered and creative general than Stonewall himself. And was he beloved. Let's not forget beloved. You couldn't mention his name, without beloved somewhere in the sentence. It would've been sacrilege. And Stonewall? Why a more brilliant statistician never rode a horse! Comparisons to Alexander and William the Conqueror were just his bounden due. But the most heinous of hatreds, was reserved for the devastation wrought by Sherman's march through Georgia, and the conflagration and devastation he wrought along the way. I have to resist the urge to contemporize, and speak time altered opinions, but instead remain true to the focus of earlier more innocent days. Perhaps I can tell you about southerners, and their deeply inbred prejudices, (and I don't mean racial prejudices, I mean geographical ones) without the prerequisit condition of maintaining a snubbing silence when keeping company with yankees (inadvertantly, of course).

That's right, southerners hate those damned yankees. Have since circa 1865 or thereabouts. If I dared imitate my professor and speak without the everpresent drawl, My mother would bow her head in shame, glance quickly around, to see if anyone could hear, and whisper, "Now don't start talking like them damn yankees. You don't want someone to hear, and think you are one, do you? She was completely serious. The old south still contained remnants of gentilty. It's English roots showing again and again. Everyones heard of southern hospitality. And people practiced what they preached in that respect, or did as long as you didn't hail, from above the mason-dixon line. Baltimore, ironically, is below the line, and the last stop before perdition.

Sherman is definitely an interesting figure and some day I think I'll read his memoirs (I read Grant's and recommend them).

The campaign through Georgia was a deliberate attempt to break the will and capability of the south to keep supporting Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, and the capture of Atlanta pretty much guaranteed Lincoln's reelection.

An excerpt from one of his letters during the campaign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman...rch_to_the_Sea

Hostile people? It gets me angry. And I know better. Those people are still hostile. To this day, he's the most hated man in Georgia. Now maybe not in Athens where the university is. Maybe not even in Atlanta, which is majority black. But you hit the rural areas, or anywhere families have remained for generations, and it's still a topic for emphatic debate, emotional rhetoric and pureblooded rage.

The Stars and Bars (confederate flag) still fly over numerous restaurants, bars, stadiums and all homes have at least one, I'd venture to say. It once flew over the capitol building in Atlanta, but there was a referendum to remove it a few years back. Opposition was naturally heated, lots of violence, till it was voted down. But I'm sure they must've tried again. Phrases like "Southern Born and Southern Bred" and "like Sherman marching through Georgia" ripple off tongues like it happenned yesterday. The mountain people still live like it was the 1800s. And these are rugged individualists, Ruby Ridge types. They're completely segregated today. But not just from non-whites, from all "outsiders". Strange as it may seem, many more than anyone realize would fight the war again. Not really, of course, but they don't know that. With half the people in Georgia (at least) having weapons buried in the backyard, you never know what they might do.

I once took my jewish ex-husband up on Sand Mountain to look around. I was told if I didn't get him off that mountain by sundown, he wouldn't be leaving.

I can't believe I missed this show. I'll be watching it today. I love reading biographies. Haven't read many civil war related ones though. To tell you the embarrassing truth, I know less than anyone here. I've sort of avoided the subject since leaving home.

Yea. Confirmation of what I've heard all my life.

Well, Sherman was not exactly trying to make friends in Georgia. I think his approach was: "Nothing we can do will make them like us, so let's do whatever it takes to win the war."

Two more quotes from him:

And one a little less severe:

Knowing he's speaking of my ancestors, I have an emotional responce, but logically I must agree, I'd take the same position. The only reason to fight a limited war, is a reasonably certain diplomatic solution. There wasn't a prayer in hell, that would happen here. Especially in civil war, where the combatants are neighbors, I'd think you'd want to so devastate your opponent, that he'd never begin another, (at least not with you).

I suspect he's speaking of his own troops, not our civilians, but the ethos isn't disingenuine. I think any General, but those of psychopathic nature, would arrive at similar conclusions, after time. How many freshly dead warriors can you see, and smell, without it effecting you deeply?

Why can't people speak with such eloquency today? Just reading his and Lincoln's speeches ITT gives me chills.

In case this discussion continues:

secession: The withdrawal from the United States of eleven southern states in 1860 and 1861. The act of seceding.

succession: A number of persons or things following one another in order or sequence; the order or line of those entitled to succeed one another (and other meanings). The act of succeeding (to a position, e.g.).


Yes, everyone knows what's meant, but we all might as well get it right if we're going specifically to discuss it.

Question_ioner,

They may have taught you history badly but your English teacher made up for it. What lovely prose!

quest, have you ever seen Sherman's March? Anybody familiar appear in the movie?

It was also a huge amount of physiological warfare on the part of Sherman. By completely destroying everything that got in his way, it was just enforcing that the Confederacy could do nothing to stop him and protect the citizens in Georgia.

So it was like Randy Quaid or Jim Belushi shooting Lincoln?

I'm not entirely sure it was the education in schools that did it, but I grew up with a strong affinity for Lee and Jackson, with passing respect for Davis (perhaps since he was seen as the ultimate reason the South lost). I've been to almost all the Civil War battlefields several times was often told of the great heroism displayed by the men who were from where I was from. Perhaps it's due to the tendency for Appalachian peoples to be Scots-Irish and generally ignoble at a time when the Yankees were portrayed as silk-wearing rich kids (as I got older I learned more about this fallacy). The Dukes of Hazard was my favorite show, and the icon of the show was 'The General Lee,' so it just seems (looking back) that it was more a pervasive affinity that was perhaps less corrected by our teachers than taught outright.

The newest Simthsonian Magazine (April, 2011) has an article on the start of the Civil War: 150 Years Ago The Civil War Begins. Worth checking out.

-Zeno

Imho no need to hate tom that much.
Actually, more like Eric Roberts shooting the president. That would fit better.
-----------------------------------

Some thought on Stonewall jackson. Certainly the valley campaign is truly one of the most fantastic and brilliant campaign ever accomplished. Keeping 20-40k guys pinned down with only 10-15k is truly one of the greatest military accomplishment iv seen. Now he's certainly the best of the civil war, unfortunetely i can't say if he's the greatest us general, because well, he died to early. Would have loved to see him at gettysburg.

Pretty close. I've heard great reviews about "My Thoughts Be Bloody: The Bitter Rivalry Between Edwin and John Wilkes Booth That Led to an American Tragedy"

The father was a great actor as well, but became a drunk. Most of the Booth's were abolitionists. I heard the author of the book discuss these things on NPR one day. I'm probably going to go get the book myself, as the story about the Booth family is intriguing.

I grew up in Louisiana, so maybe I can add some perspective on this. My hometown, Pineville, and the neighboring city Alexandria were burned to the ground during the civil war. The north, having captured New Orleans wanted to go up the red river to Shreveport and further to attack. However, the red river at that point was unusually low, and they couldn't make it up that far, so on the way back they burned the city.

I had one teacher that basically stated 'slavery would have just gone away on its own'. In addition, she claimed that the civil war was not about slavery at all. This was in Junior High and at a catholic school. I was lucky enough to have someone with a MS in History teach me in highschool so the Ph.Ds in college didn't have to correct our misunderstandings.

Jackson would not have been a key figure on day 2. His main value would have been on day 1 when he likely would have secured Culp's Hill. Of course, he was not there and Ewell was. Lee speaking to Ewell in the same manner which he would have spoken to Jackson, ordered him to take the hill if "practicable." Jackson would have understood this to mean, "Get your ass on the hill, no matter what." Ewell did not.

Meade takes the field to command the Union troops on Day 2. Given that Jackson would have secured Culp's Hill, Meade (being very conservative) would have likely looked to set up in a more defensive posture with containment as the goal (looking to draw the Confederates into attacking at another site rather than attempting to take back the hill - all the while remaining positioned between the Confederate forces and Washington).

If by some reason, Jackson did not take Culp's hill and we have the same scenario that existed on Day 2, I am still not sure that Jackson would tip things in the favor of the Confederates. One would certainly believe that Jackson would remain in charge of his own troops and not been transported to lead those of Longstreet (the implication of the above post is that if Jackson led the attack on what has come to be known as Little/Big Roundtop, it would have made a big difference). Recall, the plan was to have Longstreet attack the Left Flank while Ewell attacked the Right Flank, simultaneously with the main goal to retake Culp's Hill with the potential bonus of taking "the Big hill" (Big Roundtop) which would expose the flank.

Well, this did not happen because Longstreet was (arguably) dilitory in getting his men into action. However, even if Jackson was in charge, presumably he would have had to use the same advance scouts who charted a route that was not discovered to be exposed until a number of hours into the trek. At that point, the troops had to double back and take a different route to avoid detection. That was a significant delay, and at the very least, it removed the possibility of the simultaneous attack.

Of course, as events proved, time was the essence in regards to defending the previously undefended Roundtops, and maybe even 10 minutes would have made it possible for the Confederates to take the high ground.

Anyway, I don't see that scenario happening because Jackson would have remained with his men, and I am quite certain had that been the case, the Confederates would have taken Culp's Hill on day one and the Battle of Gettysburg would have essentially lasted one day as a prelude to a much larger engagement at another time and place.

I think we've covered most of this, but may be of some interest (from washingtonpost.com):

five myths about why the South seceded

Good analysis.

My 'day 2' comment was just off the cuff speculation that "if everything happened like it happened" and then Jackson led the attack on the Roundtops things may have gone differently. As you say, if he had been there, day 1 happens differently too.

Also, given what was going on at Vicksburg, I'm not really sure that a Union defeat at Gettysburg would have led to a negotiated settlement allowing succession, although it was probably the last, best chance for such a thing.

Reconstruction was mainly a nightmare because of the illegal violence and terror that white vigilante and supremacist groups directed against freed slaves and Republicans who tried to vote, work and live.

The end of the reconstruction era guaranteed another 80 years of apartheid on american soil.

Had Jackson been there, Day 1 of the Battle would indeed have gone differently. The routed Union forces would have broken and fled south, back into Mead and the rest of the Army of the Potomac. Mead being Mead would then have most likely retreated south to protect the Union capital.

At this point Lee, as ill as he was, would not have pursued. He would have struck east - taking York and ravaging the rich countryside around Lancaster. From there he would have marched on a defenseless Philadelphia. Lincoln, under pressure from the now vulnerable Northern cities of New York and Boston would have sued for peace - exactly the outcome Davis most desired. The history of the country would have been vastly different.

I think this is far-fetched.

Jackson likely would have taken Culp's Hill and the engagement would have been broken off (as you say).

However, the main objective of Meade's army was to screen the Confederates from main objective targets (like Washington DC as you point out) until an opportunity to attack presented itself, or until the Confederates forced the issue. Indeed, as epitomized by Grant's strategy, the North realized that taking cities wasn't going to end the war as long as the Confederates had an army. The army had to be destroyed for the war to end.

The Conderates were pretty much doing the same realizing it would take a decisive victory over the AOP to force a political result (and it needed food that was not available if it stayed in VA). Accordingly, if it was so easy as to march forward to Philadelphia and force Meade to cover that or Washington - in which case the Confederates either take one or the other and get to force their terms, that would have been the plan.

Indeed, knowing that it was necessary to deal the AOP a decisive blow, Lee stayed on for the fight at Gettysburg even though he did not have the advantage after Day 1. If your scenario was in play, the Confederates would have just disengaged, continued to Philadelphia and hooked up with Stuart on the way.

The fact remains that Lee stayed and fought. The only other consideration as preached by Old Pete was to leave Gettysburg and manuver to a better postion for the (inevitable) engagement between the great armies..

Far fetched? Perhaps - but isn't all speculative history? Once the Union forces regrouped and took the high ground south of Gettysburg on Day 1, the battle was destined to rage on, Lee being Lee. As you indicate, Longstreet counseled Lee to fall back and live to fight another day. But Lee replied that "the enemy is there. And I mean to fight him there and I'll whip him or he'll whip me." Retreat was simply not in Robert Lee's lexicon. And without Jackson or Stuart with him, the battle was destined to continue. Your contention that the Union realized it must destroy the Confederate army is certainly correct. Lincoln referred to it as "his terrible math." He realized he could trade casualties with the South until their Army was destroyed and he would still have a vast Army of his own still standing.

Gettysburg is a tremendous subject and you have an obvious grasp of the issues. I live 30 miles from the Battlefields and I've walked them many times over the years and it is always a special occasion. I look forward to more of your opinions on the war.