The Civil War, AKA The War Of Northern Aggression

[scipioafricanus]

Eeeh...not quite.

The Clausewitzian definition of "total war" refers to objectives, not level of effort. A "total war" is better termed "war to overthrow the enemy". The object is the obliteration of the enemy government - regime change. Just as a "limited war" in the Clausewitzian definition is better termed "war for limited objectives". The object is restricted - such as expelling Iraq from Kuwait in 1991.

Clausewitz repays study, but "On War" can make for tough reading. I strongly recommend the Howard/Paret translation as the best available. It's the one used by the Naval War College.

Total war as we know it starts with the "Levee en Masse" 1793 France. Everyone within a nation was mobolized for the first time by a central authority.

"From this moment until such time as its enemies shall have been driven from the soil of the Republic, all Frenchmen are in permanent requisition for the services of the armies. The young men shall fight; the married men shall forge arms and transport provisions; the women shall make tents and clothes and shall serve in the hospitals; the children shall turn linen into lint; the old men shall betake themselves to the public squares in order to arouse the courage of the warriors and preach hatred of kings and the unity of the Republic."

SA

[Mike OTDP]

Nope. Go back and study Clausewitz carefully, particularly Book 1. The Clausewitzian definition is solely related to war goals, not level of effort.

[Alcibiades]

If people just admitted that slavery was the overriding motivation for the Civil War, then we can move on. They weren't fighting over tariffs in Bleeding Kansas or John Brown's Raid.

Then there's Howard Zinn who believes that the Civil War was a plot by capitalists to prevent a "people's revolution". That's a whole new level of crazy.

[First Shirt]

Slavery wasn't the overriding concern until Lincoln needed a hook to hang the war on.

Granddaddy used to tell us to save our Confederate money, because "while we ain't still fightin' the war, we MAY decide, at some point to fight it over, and it might come out different, next time."

[crazylegs]

Prior to the Emancipation proclamation, Lincoln actaully reversed several attempts at emancipation by the secretary of war and Generals Fremont and Hunter in order to keep border states and prounion democrats happy.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the Border states, and the slaves held in the border states were not emancipated until after the war when the 13th Amendment was ratified.

Emancipation may have been the absolute best thing to have come out of the war, it may have been the only good result from the war, but the war was not fought in order to ensure emancipation. Emancipation was used to help assure the defeat of the south. To Lincoln, it was a high morale goal who's importance was only overshadowed by the need to win the war and keep the nation together. To the rest of the nation at the time, it was a means and method to strike deep and divide the south from within.

Yeah, I hate racism. And slavery was and still is wrong. But I really hate sanctimonious yankees who get on their high horse about "We freed the slaves! We were the good guys! We were fighting a morale and just war to end black oppression." Nope, most Yankees who served did so because their nation was at war, and that's what good men did. Either that or they were drafted in off the street, and did their duty whether they believed in it or not. Most southerners were too poor to own slaves. They fought for the exact same reasons. A liberal would call it another example of "The nations poor being deluded by those in power to do their dirty work for them." I'd phrase it as "Folks doing what they thought needed to be done."

As far as Northern Generals go, I respect both Shermans' and Sheridans overall ability to rain total destruction down upon thier foes, and find creative means and methods for maximizing attrition warfare. But the southern Generals all seemed to have the better personalities. I call it the "Would I have a beer with him? Index." I think Lee, Stonewall, and Stuart would have made much better drinking buddies then Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan.

[mekender]

i think that a simple look at the raw numbers can show that it wasnt just about slaves...

http://thomaslegion.net/statesandslaver ... ensus.html

It was much larger than just the issue of slavery...

To me it was a war about states rights Vs. federal power... the fed wanted to flex its muscle and enforce anti-slavery rules against states that wanted no part of it...\

don't get me wrong, the whole slavery issue was a huge blight on the history of the world at the time, but it wasnt the whole reason for the war.

[Scott Free]

But I really hate sanctimonious yankees who get on their high horse about "We freed the slaves! We were the good guys! We were fighting a morale and just war to end black oppression." Nope, most Yankees who served did so because their nation was at war, and that's what good men did. Either that or they were drafted in off the street, and did their duty whether they believed in it or not. Most southerners were too poor to own slaves. They fought for the exact same reasons. A liberal would call it another example of "The nations poor being deluded by those in power to do their dirty work for them." I'd phrase it as "Folks doing what they thought needed to be done."

Oh my God!!! You mean that Ken Burns lied??? Nooooooo!!! That can't be true!

[Alcibiades]

Almost the entire Southern economy was based around slavery. Many people depended on the slave industry including farmers who grew food to feed the slaves, banks that loaned money to plantations, and shipping that moved goods along the Mississippi and via railroads.

You didn't need to own a slave to benefit from slavery. The Southern United States produced 75% of the world's cotton. There was a huge amount of money in it.

Lincoln did not fight to end slavery in the beginning. But, remember, he did not start the war. The Secession was preemptive. It was designed to protect the Southern economy from eventual Abolitionist victories (victories almost guaranteed due to the North's larger population growth). The North did not fight to end Slavery, but the South sure as hell fought to protect it.

I don't see why the concept of fighting over money seems so alien. Europeans fought over the sugar plantations of the West Indies because of the great wealth they represented.

[scipioafricanus]

If people just admitted that slavery was the overriding motivation for the Civil War, then we can move on. They weren't fighting over tariffs in Bleeding Kansas or John Brown's Raid.

Then there's Howard Zinn who believes that the Civil War was a plot by capitalists to prevent a "people's revolution". That's a whole new level of crazy.

Speaking of Howard Zinn, seems like Hollyweird is making a documentary about his work of lies.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/con ... 44a700308c

Sounds horrible.

SA