Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Get your Civil War on
Bogart
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So I'm reading a lot about the American Civil War right now and watching as many movies as I can about the period. As always, when learning something new, the natural human instinct is to buttonhole strangers and regurgitate all this newfound fancy learning to show how much smarter you are. And of course the offchance that you might learn something new from lesser minds. Hence this thread.
Above: Abraham Lincoln, close friend of Bill and Ted. Robert E. Lee, later immortalised by an orange car. Ulysses S. Grant, drinking man.
It's an fascinating subject, covering as it does the glorious and tragic careers of America's foremost military genius and one of its most respected and eloquent presidents, the transition from wooden warships to ironclads, the struggle to control the destiny of what would become the most important nation of the next century, and, of course, the end of slavery. Excellent reading might well include James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, Shelby Foote's multi-volume history and Bruce Catton's centennial history.
I want to talk about the battles, like Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Stone River and Vicksburg. Or the dramatis personae, like Lincoln, Lee, Grant, Jackson and Sherman. And maybe, if the usual internet stupidity that springs up whenever this subject comes up can be avoided, the politics behind it all. We could discuss the films made about it if you have no high-falutin book learnin'.
Possible avenues of discussion:
Above: Abraham Lincoln, close friend of Bill and Ted. Robert E. Lee, later immortalised by an orange car. Ulysses S. Grant, drinking man.
It's an fascinating subject, covering as it does the glorious and tragic careers of America's foremost military genius and one of its most respected and eloquent presidents, the transition from wooden warships to ironclads, the struggle to control the destiny of what would become the most important nation of the next century, and, of course, the end of slavery. Excellent reading might well include James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, Shelby Foote's multi-volume history and Bruce Catton's centennial history.
I want to talk about the battles, like Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Stone River and Vicksburg. Or the dramatis personae, like Lincoln, Lee, Grant, Jackson and Sherman. And maybe, if the usual internet stupidity that springs up whenever this subject comes up can be avoided, the politics behind it all. We could discuss the films made about it if you have no high-falutin book learnin'.
- Glory - a fine movie about a black regiment fighting for the Union side. It has Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Matthew Broderick and Cary Elwes all doing stirring work.
- Gettysburg - worthy and very long movie that betrays its TV roots with dull camera angles and rubbish dialogue. A cast of many stars and Maxwell Caulfield, much facial hair and ponderous scenes that only occasionally manage to convey the scale and atmosphere of the battle. I welled up a bit when Richard Jordan cried out "Not both of us!" at the end, though.
- Gods & Generals - made by the same people who made Gettysburg, but apparently not as good and somewhat revisionist about the South's attitude to slavery.
Possible avenues of discussion:
- Armchair generalship is always fun. Was Gettysburg winnable, or was Lee always going to come to grief eventually?
- Just how terrible were the Union commanders of the Army of the Potomac (McClellan, Burnside, Hooker) before Meade came onto the scene?
- What would have enabled the South to win (or, more likely, to stalemate) the war? Stonewall Jackson living to fight at Gettysburg? British intervention to break the blockade? Another Lee in the Western theatre? A miracle?
- Was actually seceeding a gargantuan mistake on the part of the Southern states? Would they have had a better chance of getting what they wanted by threatening to seceed?
- How 'bout that crazy facial hair, huh?
Bogart on
Posts
The South needed slavery in the territories in order to guarantee that the free states would never be so numerous as to be able to amend the Constitution against them. The Republicans would not have compromised on slavery in the territories: no slavery in the territories was a foundational issue for them, and such compromise attempts had been tried and had failed. If the south were to preserve slavery, as they were dedicated to doing, then the they needed to win a civil war.
The issue was only going to become worse for them as Lincoln appointed northerners and abolitionists to federal positions throughout the South, and as it became harder and harder for Southern states to legally eradicate abolitionism from public discourse. They were scared shitless that John Brown would be coming for them all.
How did they work
It was especially gruesome too. The slow moving heavy ball ammunition was more likely to shatter bones than pierce flesh. That's why no civil war movie is complete without field amputations.
a) being a successful general during this period was all about actually getting your army to show up where it was supposed to be on time, and
b) Lee's greatest quality as a general was having Stonewall Jackson, as Jackson seemed to be the only general in the country able to do "a)".
Oliver Howard didn't prepare a defense at Chancellorville against flanking, and what happened? He got fucking flanked.
Sedgwick rolled the fucked out of Fredricksburg (finally!) against Early, but WAY WAY too late, and oops! Left it completely undefended.
Also, giving up high ground very fucking close to where you're defending was pretty awful.
Hooker made some mistakes, but when I think about it, it's hard to decide who really fucked up more. Hooker, or his commanders. They all did a pretty good job of it.
Supposedly one of the reasons Lee lost Gettysburg was one of his commanders decided it would be a better idea to go around stealing horses instead of doing important recon.
seconded. It is a fun read.
Edit: Also after when you are well into your civil war buff phase it is always a good idea to visit some of the sites if possible. Devil's Den at Gettysburg is one of my favorite spots. Imagining the battle there in the giant rocks just left me speechless
http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/getttour/tstops/tstd2-11.htm
not too many photos there, but a decent idea.
Steam
XBOX
Is it wrong for me to now expect that there were Abrams tanks at the battle of Gettysburg?
really didn't have much effect on the war itself since they fought to standstills whenever they encountered each other
To be fair, Hooker had the chance to see what was going on and prepare the flank for a definite attack, but thought that the glimpses he'd got of Jackson marching over there were Lee's army in general retreat. Howard was no good and his failures caused severe harm, but it's possible Hooker could have beaten Lee if he'd gotten himself together even after the initial surprise.
I guess that would be Jeb Stuart, who was actually a brilliant cavalry commander. He had, in the past, been an utterly reliable source of information about (and a constant scourge of) the Union armies. Gettysburg was a rare failure for him.
I'm sorry, this just painted an hilarious image on my mind.
"He's gonna get ya!"
"HE'S GONNA GET YA!"
Although to be fair, I'd be scared of this guy too.
Haha, yeah, I remember reading a bit of history where two ironclads engaged eachother, and one ended up running away because they simply ran out of ammunition.
Well if the South had been able to build many they maybe could have broken the blockade which would have made it conceivable for the South to outlast Lincoln. But that wasn't going to happen.
I'm going to beat everyone to it because its inevitable: The South's societal system was fundamentally evil, the Civil War was 99.9% about slavery, Lee was not a good person merely fighting because he loved his state and the South got off easy on Reconstruction.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
which was a pipedream at best
don't worry, there will be argument against Pants. Pants is from Massachusetts and clearly biased. Just wait for the good ol' boys to show up and you'll get your arguments. Too bad my Alabama buddies aren't PA members. They can go on for hours about this stuff and the South....
Steam
XBOX
EDIT: A couple other people posted while I was typing that.
I think on Thursday I'm going to essentially be arguing for the first part in a speech I'm giving. I think the only person in class who actually disagrees with me outright is my teacher, the majority said they were neutral/uninformed on the issue. 99.9% might be overstating it a bit I'd say slavery was more like 75%-85% of the motivation realistically stuff like tariffs did play into the equation at least a bit.
I would agree with the idea that slavery was doomed with the South staying in the Union. But it also seems unrealistic that they could have won the Civil War and thus kept slavery that way. It probably would have been better to stay in the Union and see if they could put up a fight eventually resulting them having a gradual elimination of slavery or government compensation for their slaves.
Been to Gettysburg a ton of times (used to live down the road), and it is indeed pretty awe-inspiring to think of what happened there. Been to a couple others as well, and they really didn't compare, at least to me.
The history books have treated him very well. I'm sure lots of it is he was a true Southern gentleman and very personable individual whereas Grant was a drunk and prickly fellow by most accounts.
I regard him in the same way I regard any enemy General. They are good Generals fighting for the wrong side but I'd be damned if I didn't want them on my side. I don't find them to be evil for doing their job.
I do agree with Obs on one point though, the Civil War is the last war the US was involved in that didn't involve mechanized cavalry and that makes it really interesting. It's kinda fascinating to see what war is like without vehicles dotting the battlefield and having the shackles of the ridiculous european style fighting thrown off.
Plus as mentioned in the OP, the invention of the Ironclads really started a new look at naval warfare and brought upon their own revolution.
Its like a band-aid on an elephant in the room. I doubt anyone here is an expert in Civil War tactics and discussion about what the Confederacy should have done inevitably relies on why the Civil War was fought.
It would have been better for the Confederacy to stick it out by the way. The only positive was slavery ended a bit sooner than it would have otherwise. The 600,000+ fatalities alone is a pretty compelling argument.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
i don't know about the foremost military genius....
but definitly real good.
of course, the only generals that are known to be 'military geniuses' are generals during wartime....
its concievable that the foremost military genius never actually did anything with his knowledge since there was no war at the time.
Generally it seems he's very well regarded even in the North for his military aptitude. It seems pretty rare that he is actually morally tarnished by the group he fought to support because the common conception seems to be that he was forced into it for noble reasons.
There is an annual event held by the Alfalfa club usually attended by presidents, which is in honor of Lee correct?
Seems like if he was such a genius he'd have found a way to start a war and put his skills to use. Slacker.
I'll say "Eh?" to the bolded bit.
My father and I did a Civil War self-guided tour the year I graduated from college. We were going to try and do it in order, but it didn't make much sense if we didn't have a private jet.
Gettysburg, Antietam, Manassas, Fredericksburg, Stonewall Jackson memorial stone next to an interstate, and Appomattox. Got all of it on film and with some pretty awesome pictures of the stone bridge at Antietam. It made me sad to see the sprawl in Gettysburg and Manassas, but c'est la vie.
so your point is that we shouldn't discuss civil war tactics and battles because we all don't know enough and instead talk about slavery in the south.... again.... even though no one has said anything about it.
how about you just make a seperate thread about the evils of the south instead of infesting what could be an interesting thread with it.
man, all the best military geniuses know that war is hell.
The whole walk in a straight line with a drummer playing and flags waving bullshit the British and French used to do. The British did it in the Revolutionary War and got their asses kicked by the guerilla tactics of the Colonies. By the time the Civil War rolled around people were like "Hey, maybe this isn't a good strategy anymore" and abandoned it.
William Tecumseh Sherman?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I think I'd like to do this very much. I've been meaning to do the same thing for the battlefields of the Napoleonic wars in Europe (even though they screwed up Waterloo by creating a big, pointless hill).