Questions about the Civil War

[Galileo Galilei]

OK, these questions have been knawing at me.

1) Why did the citizens of the North tolerate the bloody civil war?

2) Why is President Lincoln hailed as a great war leader, but not President James Madison?

FACTS TO CONSIDER

1) Madison suffered one severe loss, the burning of Washington, which had low casualties and low military significance.

2) Lincoln & the North has several disasters, among them:

1861

Bull Run, a significant unexpected military defeat for the North

1862

Shiloh, a indecisive battle so bloody that it had more death than the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War combined.

Shenendoah Valley, a total unexpected defeat by an army 4 times that of Stonewall Jackson.

Second Bull Run, another decisive loss

7 Days Battle, a sloppy, bloody loss

Friedricksburg, a decisive loss with very high casualties, and an ignorant frontal assault

Antietem, indecisive with the thousands of dead and tens of thousands fo casualties, and an invasion of the North.

1863

Chancellorville, a bloody loss with the North totally outwitted

1864

Cold Harbor, a gruesome, ignorant, bloody loss and idiotic frontal assault.

How did the people of the North put up with this? This is peanuts compared to Bush in Iraq.

On top of these 8 above battles, even the wins were not all rosey. Gettysburg, was very bloody and was a close win, sort of like an NBA team winning in overtime by 10 points. And Gettyburg was fought in northern territory.

Sherman's March to the Sea, while a great military victory, was so bloody as to sicken the stomach.

In fact, outside of Vicksburg, I cannot think of any North victories with low casualties.

The people of the North were seeing their sons die or seeing them come back home with one leg, one arm, or one eye.

Or they heard they were captured living in misearable conditions.

People in the North were in communication with people in the South, as families had spread out all over our great nation.

Even the South casualties and destruction hit home, as these were our kin and comrades from the French & Indian War, the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War, so it was no picnic to hear about deaths down there.

Everyone also knew that the freak death of Stonewall Jackson may have cost the South the War.

On top of all this, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and violated the Constitution, breaking the precedents of James Madison, who defended the Constitution during the entire War of 1812.

I am not an expert on Civil War battles, especially the second half of the War, so I appreciate any comments.

 

[Aratus]

honest abe lincoln was often a great leader surrounded by mediocre generals...
jefferson davis commanded the loyalties of ex-union officers who had scored
quite high in academic school-boy terms when at institutions like west point!!!

 

[Aratus]

most reflectively the War Of 1812 let alone the Spanish-American War was like a tempest in a teapot rather
than the swirling raging inferno of emotions we sometimes concider our all encompassing Civil War to be...

 

[Galileo Galilei]

honest abe lincoln was often a great leader surrounded by mediocre generals...
jefferson davis commanded the loyalties of ex-union officers who had scored
quite high in academic school-boy terms when at institutions like west point!!!

Lincoln tried to micro-manage the war during the first two years.

McClellan finished 2nd in his class at West Point, beating out classmate Stonewall Jackson, who was only 17th. McClellan also beat AP Hill.

The West Point Class of 1846
http://www.civilwarhome.com/class1846.htm

 

[Aratus]

you are correct. that all made the election of 1864 in the north so intense...
this is the same election where honest abe jettisons maine's hannibal hamlin...

 

[Aratus]

mcclellan quite clearly was not a lousy gneral, only at times a cautious one.
mcclellan had locked horns metaphorically with edwin stanton, and as to
stanton's connections, GOTO the courtmarshall of gen'l fitz john porter!

 

[StilesBC]

People hail Abe Lincoln as a great leader because they wrongly believe he was solely responsible for emancipating the slaves. There has been a concerted propaganda effort undertaken for the last 60 years or so to distort the true causes of the civil war and make Lincoln's nullification of the constitution a precedent to be followed rather than the crime that it was.

The north tolerated the bloody war for the same reasons all societies do - they had never seen one before. This is explained well by Generational Theory as espoused by Strauss and Howe in The Fourth Turning.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

People hail Abe Lincoln as a great leader because they wrongly believe he was solely responsible for emancipating the slaves. There has been a concerted propaganda effort undertaken for the last 60 years or so to distort the true causes of the civil war and make Lincoln's nullification of the constitution a precedent to be followed rather than the crime that it was.

The north tolerated the bloody war for the same reasons all societies do - they had never seen one before. This is explained well by Generational Theory as espoused by Strauss and Howe in The Fourth Turning.

I agree.

So why not hail James Madison as the great leader who finally threw off the yoke of the British? Madison did this without a draft, martial law, a central bank, an income tax, or a standing army.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

you are correct. that all made the election of 1864 in the north so intense...
this is the same election where honest abe jettisons maine's hannibal hamlin...

Another reason for the people to not tolerate Lincoln is his dismal poll numbers. He got less than 40% of the vote in the 1860 election, and even in the North barely squeezed out a majority.

Also, Lincoln, unlike most president preceding him, had no national reputation for any great achievement at all, and in fact had virtually no achiements at all. I think he served in the Black Hawk War of 1832, and was elected to congress a couple times, that's it.

I guess the Lincon-Douglas debates were his only claim to fame.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

mcclellan quite clearly was not a lousy gneral, only at times a cautious one.
mcclellan had locked horns metaphorically with edwin stanton, and as to
stanton's connections, GOTO the courtmarshall of gen'l fitz john porter!

McClellan clearly considered battle deaths of his troops, and possible his kinfolk of the South, to be part fo the picture, unlike Grant, the butcher, who favored a war of attrition.

 

[PatriotLegion]

Problem with the North - General's was they all wanted a political career. There best approach to defeat the Army of the South was to hit them straight on!!! Problem was all the Southern Gerenals were all the best veterans of the Spanish-American war and all were mostly grads of West Point. Most of the North generals were argent (sp?), until Grant. Only until that time Grant bid his time with Lee and chipped away at Lee's forces every change he got (much like Lee's tactic to attack a flank of a larger force or a detached regiment when they were open and unprotected).

A great book to read is The Last Full Measure by Jeff Shaara, this was the last of the 3 books in the Civil War. (Gods and Generals and The Killer Angels, also Gone for Solider was great too, all by the Shaara's)

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

There really are no factual answers than can be given to your questions because there are a variety of reasons for both. There were a multitude of people who were not going to tolerate Mr. Lincoln's war and they were very outspoken against it. You do not hear about that much because the victors write the history books and much of the media and most of the educators in this country are members of the cult of Lincoln. They have been taught their entire life that this war was about slavery and nothing but slavery so they in turn demonize the south and casually excuse anything Lincoln ever did because in their opinion his violations of the Constitution were for the common good.

Also you have to remember that upon the suspensions of the write of habeas corpus, Lincoln was able to take many of his most outspoken critics and toss them into jail. Notable citizens such as judges, lawyers, newspaper editors, reporters, state legislators, community leaders,etc were rounded up by Union officials and tossed into military prisons (Ft. McHenry, for example, at one point held more civillian prisoners than military prisoners). So any major opposition movement in the North had it's leaders taken away and the people were scared to voice opposition else they too find themselves locked up, starving and unable to contact thir families. Newspaper editors quickly learned to just be quiet because they had seen many of their peers destroyed by not only being locked up but by having their offices destroyed and printing presses (which were extremely expensive) torn to pieces and thrown into the street. You also have to remember that while history books love to tell us of southerners who joined the Union army that they often fail to mention that there were many "yankees" who went south to fight for their right to be left alone. So all of this combined, in my opinion, is why there was never a mass uprising against Lincoln.

In regards to your second question. I believe that Madison does not get the same credit as Lincoln simply because the war was not as popular and has not become as much a part of our national psyche. I am a big collector of military antiques and I have also put in many years working in the auction and antique business and it is easy to see which wars are the most popular. For example, items from the American revolution sell much higher than items from the war of 1812. Items from WW2 sell for much higher than items from WW1 and both sell exponentially higher than items from Korea or Vietnam. Items from the war of northern aggression outsell them all. This conflict is still the most "popular" that we have ever had. It really comes down to the imagination, people are more able to imagine the life and struggles of the average soldier in the civil war than they are a soldier from the war of 1812. This is helped by the sheer amount of battlefields that have been preserved and monuments erected around the country that serve as reminders. Even professional historians and educators prefer to go back to the 1861-1865 time period to give examples of military strategy or stories of valor because it is much easier for the casual listener or student to imagine. If I were charged with the task of explaining the nature of battle than I am surely going to appeal to the common student with a story from Gettysburg much faster than I would regale them with tales of the battle of St. Michaels because they know Gettysburg whereas 99% of everyone else would stare off into space if you asked them about the battle of St. Michaels. So I think that has a lot to do with why Madison is not held in the same light as Lincoln by the general public.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Problem with the North - General's was they all wanted a political career. There best approach to defeat the Army of the South was to hit them straight on!!! Problem was all the Southern Gerenals were all the best veterans of the Spanish-American war and all were mostly grads of West Point. Most of the North generals were argent (sp?), until Grant. Only until that time Grant bid his time with Lee and chipped away at Lee's forces every change he got (much like Lee's tactic to attack a flank of a larger force or a detached regiment when they were open and unprotected).

A great book to read is The Last Full Measure by Jeff Shaara, this was the last of the 3 books in the Civil War. (Gods and Generals and The Killer Angels, also Gone for Solider was great too, all by the Shaara's)

Do you mean the Mexican war? The SpanishAmerican war was not fought until 1898 although some of the younger Southern Generals did play a part in that war.

 

[Danke]

There really are no factual answers than can be given to your questions because there are a variety of reasons for both. There were a multitude of people who were not going to tolerate Mr. Lincoln's war and they were very outspoken against it. You do not hear about that much because the victors write the history books and much of the media and most of the educators in this country are members of the cult of Lincoln. They have been taught their entire life that this war was about slavery and nothing but slavery so they in turn demonize the south and casually excuse anything Lincoln ever did because in their opinion his violations of the Constitution were for the common good.

Also you have to remember that upon the suspensions of the write of habeas corpus, Lincoln was able to take many of his most outspoken critics and toss them into jail. Notable citizens such as judges, lawyers, newspaper editors, reporters, state legislators, community leaders,etc were rounded up by Union officials and tossed into military prisons (Ft. McHenry, for example, at one point held more civillian prisoners than military prisoners). So any major opposition movement in the North had it's leaders taken away and the people were scared to voice opposition else they too find themselves locked up, starving and unable to contact thir families. Newspaper editors quickly learned to just be quiet because they had seen many of their peers destroyed by not only being locked up but by having their offices destroyed and printing presses (which were extremely expensive) torn to pieces and thrown into the street. You also have to remember that while history books love to tell us of southerners who joined the Union army that they often fail to mention that there were many "yankees" who went south to fight for their right to be left alone. So all of this combined, in my opinion, is why there was never a mass uprising against Lincoln.

In regards to your second question. I believe that Madison does not get the same credit as Lincoln simply because the war was not as popular and has not become as much a part of our national psyche. I am a big collector of military antiques and I have also put in many years working in the auction and antique business and it is easy to see which wars are the most popular. For example, items from the American revolution sell much higher than items from the war of 1812. Items from WW2 sell for much higher than items from WW1 and both sell exponentially higher than items from Korea or Vietnam. Items from the war of northern aggression outsell them all. This conflict is still the most "popular" that we have ever had. It really comes down to the imagination, people are more able to imagine the life and struggles of the average soldier in the civil war than they are a soldier from the war of 1812. This is helped by the sheer amount of battlefields that have been preserved and monuments erected around the country that serve as reminders. Even professional historians and educators prefer to go back to the 1861-1865 time period to give examples of military strategy or stories of valor because it is much easier for the casual listener or student to imagine. If I were charged with the task of explaining the nature of battle than I am surely going to appeal to the common student with a story from Gettysburg much faster than I would regale them with tales of the battle of St. Michaels because they know Gettysburg whereas 99% of everyone else would stare off into space if you asked them about the battle of St. Michaels. So I think that has a lot to do with why Madison is not held in the same light as Lincoln by the general public.

Interesting. Thanks for posting this.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

There really are no factual answers than can be given to your questions because there are a variety of reasons for both. There were a multitude of people who were not going to tolerate Mr. Lincoln's war and they were very outspoken against it. You do not hear about that much because the victors write the history books and much of the media and most of the educators in this country are members of the cult of Lincoln. They have been taught their entire life that this war was about slavery and nothing but slavery so they in turn demonize the south and casually excuse anything Lincoln ever did because in their opinion his violations of the Constitution were for the common good.

Also you have to remember that upon the suspensions of the write of habeas corpus, Lincoln was able to take many of his most outspoken critics and toss them into jail. Notable citizens such as judges, lawyers, newspaper editors, reporters, state legislators, community leaders,etc were rounded up by Union officials and tossed into military prisons (Ft. McHenry, for example, at one point held more civillian prisoners than military prisoners). So any major opposition movement in the North had it's leaders taken away and the people were scared to voice opposition else they too find themselves locked up, starving and unable to contact thir families. Newspaper editors quickly learned to just be quiet because they had seen many of their peers destroyed by not only being locked up but by having their offices destroyed and printing presses (which were extremely expensive) torn to pieces and thrown into the street. You also have to remember that while history books love to tell us of southerners who joined the Union army that they often fail to mention that there were many "yankees" who went south to fight for their right to be left alone. So all of this combined, in my opinion, is why there was never a mass uprising against Lincoln.

In regards to your second question. I believe that Madison does not get the same credit as Lincoln simply because the war was not as popular and has not become as much a part of our national psyche. I am a big collector of military antiques and I have also put in many years working in the auction and antique business and it is easy to see which wars are the most popular. For example, items from the American revolution sell much higher than items from the war of 1812. Items from WW2 sell for much higher than items from WW1 and both sell exponentially higher than items from Korea or Vietnam. Items from the war of northern aggression outsell them all. This conflict is still the most "popular" that we have ever had. It really comes down to the imagination, people are more able to imagine the life and struggles of the average soldier in the civil war than they are a soldier from the war of 1812. This is helped by the sheer amount of battlefields that have been preserved and monuments erected around the country that serve as reminders. Even professional historians and educators prefer to go back to the 1861-1865 time period to give examples of military strategy or stories of valor because it is much easier for the casual listener or student to imagine. If I were charged with the task of explaining the nature of battle than I am surely going to appeal to the common student with a story from Gettysburg much faster than I would regale them with tales of the battle of St. Michaels because they know Gettysburg whereas 99% of everyone else would stare off into space if you asked them about the battle of St. Michaels. So I think that has a lot to do with why Madison is not held in the same light as Lincoln by the general public.

Good Post.

But the War of 1812 brought us the Star Spangled Banner, and the famous quotes:

"Don't give up the ship!"

"We have met the enemy and they are ours!"

The War of 1812 was also voted on by the entire congress and passed 19 to 13 in the Senate and 79 to 49 in the House (61% of all votes).

I think the real reason Madison is less popular is that he wasn't a warmonger, but was a man of peace.

It's a shame, because I think a close study of the War of 1812 shows that Madison was the most enlightened executive war leader not only in United States history, but in the entire history of the world. He followed ALL of the principles of Christian Just-War Theory. In many ways, what James Madison did during the War of 1812 is even more amazing than his work on the Constitution, Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights, and Virginia Resolution. He was the 100% exact opposite of Lincoln, FDR, and other warmongers.

 

[ChaosControl]

Lincoln was a barbaric monster as he allowed the brutal thug Sherman to pursue his bloodlusts.
Lincoln was also the very definition of authoritarian and unconstitutional in his actions.
Lincoln was also a racist who couldn't really care less about blacks and just wanted to deport them so he didn't have to be near them. He merely used them as a way to gain support for his warmongering desires.

Lincoln makes Bush look like a saint.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Lincoln was a barbaric monster as he allowed the brutal thug Sherman to pursue his bloodlusts.
Lincoln was also the very definition of authoritarian and unconstitutional in his actions.
Lincoln was also a racist who couldn't really care less about blacks and just wanted to deport them so he didn't have to be near them. He merely used them as a way to gain support for his warmongering desires.

Lincoln makes Bush look like a saint.

Good post, another reason to prefer Madison to Lincoln.

Madison, almost alone in his time, and especially in the South, never said a racist word against blacks, and the surviving Madison papers are enormous.

Madison also lived about 60 years before Lincoln, and you would think racism would decrease over time.

Madison, in retirement, offered up a specific plan to free all the slaves by selling off Western lands, even thought this idea might have been unconstitutional. For Madison to suggest something unconstitutional, is for him, quite a feat.

At Madison's death in 1836, all 100 slaves on his plantation wept.

In the 1840s, former Madison slave Paul Jennings, actually gave widow Dolly Madison free food and money, so she would not go hungry.

In 1865, Paul Jennings said about James Madison:

"Mr. Madison, I think, was one of the best men that ever lived. I never saw him in a passion, and never knew him to strike a slave, although he had over one hundred; neither would he allow an overseer to do it. Whenever any slaves were reported to him as stealing or "cutting up" badly, he would send for them and admonish them privately, and never mortify them by doing it before others. They generally served him very faithfully."

http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/jennings/jennings.html

Lincoln was a stone-cold racist. The difference between Lincon and Madison could not be more stark.

 

[ChaosControl]

If we had had a Madison elected in 1860 instead of a Lincoln, America would be a far different, a far better, place.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Lincoln was also a racist who couldn't really care less about blacks and just wanted to deport them so he didn't have to be near them. He merely used them as a way to gain support for his warmongering desires.

You also have to realise the Slavery Question was not actually about race, but caste. There were Free Blacks & Mulattoes as well as Mulatto & White Slaves. Slavery was an 'inherited' state through the Mother. If your Mom was a Slave, so were you until Manumitted. Sadly most people today don't understand that at all and have bought hook, line & sinker the ridiculous notion that it was based on race.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

bump because it is an interesting topic.