History UsefulNotes / TheAmericanCivilWar

13th Feb '16 2:40:04 PM trumpetmarietta
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* NotSoDifferent: Many people equate Northern abolitionism, mistakenly, with Northern anti-racism. In actuality, many people in the North were just as racist as those in the South. Being against slavery did not always mean they were for the rights of African Americans. An example of this can be found in the Draft Riots of New York, as well as such Union heroes as William T. Sherman, who refused to allow black Union soldiers into his army because, as he wrote to his stepbrother, “I won’t trust niggers to fight.” (After Black troops were actually allowed to join the Union Army and fight, they proved themselves capable beyond any doubt.) [[note]]Seriously, guys, why do you ''think'' Reconstruction was a total failure?[[/note]]
to:
* NotSoDifferent: Many people equate Northern abolitionism, mistakenly, with Northern anti-racism. In actuality, many people in the North were just at least as racist as those in the South. South.[[note]]Opposition to interracial marriage was ''higher'' in the North than it was in the South, for example.[[/note]] Being against slavery did not always mean they were for the rights of African Americans. An example of this can be found in the Draft Riots of New York, as well as such Union heroes as William T. Sherman, who refused to allow black Union soldiers into his army because, as he wrote to his stepbrother, “I won’t trust niggers to fight.” (After Black troops were actually allowed to join the Union Army and fight, they proved themselves capable beyond any doubt.) [[note]]Seriously, guys, why do you ''think'' Reconstruction was a total failure?[[/note]]
13th Feb '16 1:19:27 PM trumpetmarietta
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** William Quantrill who historian James [=McPherson=] considered "a psychopath" for leading a band of "pathological killers" to murder Missouri unionists. He and his men (which included future cowboys Frank and Jesse James) [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre killed 164 people]].
to:
** William Quantrill who Quantrill, whom historian James [=McPherson=] considered "a psychopath" for leading a band of "pathological killers" to murder Missouri unionists. He and his men (which included future cowboys Frank and Jesse James) [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre killed 164 people]].

** In fairness, this is all with hindsight. For the first two years of the conflict, there was actually a real chance that France and/or Britain might intervene: France for political reasons (Napoleon III’s France had just set up a puppet state in Mexico that the Union did not like, and thus wanted the U.S. weakened to lessen the threat to it) and Great Britain for economic and political reasons (a huge chunk of her industry was in textiles, and Lord Palmerston was an influential and jingoistic nutjob). They also disapproved of their ships being impressed by the Union and the Union’s treatment of Confederate diplomats. Britain didn’t intervene ultimately because a war would have been expensive and (deeply) unpopular, not to mention the fact that they disliked the idea of helping Imperial France (who might even have taken the chance to ally with the USA and declare war on Britain in return for the former’s recognition of French-backed-Mexico) and were pissed at the Rebels’ laidback and somewhat arrogant diplomatic overtures (the aforementioned “King Cotton” mentality). Indirect intervention or even simple gun-running was ruled out pretty early on when the USA declared that any kind of British support for the Confederates would mean war. While the world’s only superpower didn’t exactly fear wars with second-rate powers like Spain or the USA, ever since her defeat in the Hundred Years’ War Britain has — unlike certain other countries ([[CoughSnarkCough *cough*FRANCE*cough*]]) — never been fond of pointless (and expensive!) wars. That’s ‘Perfidious Albion’ for you.
to:
** In fairness, this is all with hindsight. For the first two years of the conflict, there was actually a real chance that France and/or Britain might intervene: France for political reasons (Napoleon III’s France had just set up a puppet state in Mexico that the Union did not like, and thus wanted the U.S. weakened to lessen the threat to it) and Great Britain for economic and political reasons (a huge chunk of her industry was in textiles, and Lord Palmerston was an influential and jingoistic nutjob). They also disapproved of their ships being impressed by the Union and the Union’s treatment of Confederate diplomats. Britain didn’t intervene ultimately because a war would have been expensive and (deeply) unpopular, not to mention the fact that they disliked the idea of helping Imperial France (who might even have taken the chance to ally with the USA and declare war on Britain in return for the former’s recognition of French-backed-Mexico) and were pissed at the Rebels’ laidback and somewhat arrogant diplomatic overtures (the aforementioned “King Cotton” mentality). Indirect intervention or even simple gun-running was ruled out pretty early on when the USA declared that any kind of British support for the Confederates would mean war. While the world’s only superpower didn’t exactly fear wars with second-rate powers like Spain or the USA, ever since her defeat in the Hundred Years’ War Britain has — unlike certain other countries ([[CoughSnarkCough *cough*FRANCE*cough*]]) — never been fond of pointless (and expensive!) wars. That’s That’s ‘Perfidious Albion’ for you.
6th Feb '16 4:43:44 PM samhuddy
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** Winfield Scott, “Old Fuss and Feathers,” previously served as a general in the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War.
to:
** Winfield Scott, “Old Fuss and Feathers,” previously served as a general in the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War. He had been in the service for so long that one of the other Union Generals, Winfield Scott Hancock, had been named after him.

Added DiffLines:
** Winfield Scott, “Old Fuss and Feathers,” previously From 1865 to 1901, every US President except the draft-dodging GroverCleveland had served as a general officers in the War War; five of 1812 and the Mexican-American War.them as generals.
1st Feb '16 5:00:12 PM WestTxTapper
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* TakeAThirdOption: During the Texas legislature’s debate on secession, when unionist governor Sam Houston saw that secession was inevitable, he advocated that Texas should return to being an independent republic in order to avoid destruction as part of the Confederacy. Similarly, Kentucky tried to declare itself neutral in the conflict, but both sides quickly invaded the state, rendering it moot.
to:
* TakeAThirdOption: During the Texas legislature’s debate on secession, when unionist governor Sam Houston saw that secession was inevitable, he advocated that Texas should return to being an independent republic in order to avoid destruction as part of the Confederacy. Confederacy. ** Similarly, Kentucky tried to declare itself neutral in the conflict, but both sides quickly invaded the state, rendering it moot.
18th Jan '16 7:30:11 AM AzureOwl
Is there an issue? Send a Message
to:
* ''Series/MercyStreet'' tells the story of a Union hospital in occupied Alexandria, Virginia, during the middle of the war.
16th Jan '16 11:09:13 AM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message
to:
* ''Film/TheHatefulEight'' by Creator/QuentinTarantino is a Western set in 1870s, nearly a decade after the Civil War. Major Charles Marquis Warren (Creator/SamuelLJackson) is an African-American Union Veteran. The movie generally mocks the "Lost Cause" nostalgia of its Southern character, and one character is a Confederate General who murdered African-American soldiers after they surrendered during the war.
5th Jan '16 1:49:43 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Admittedly, the Civil War took a larger toll upon the Southern states of the American Union, where most of the war was fought. Not only was property destroyed, but more importantly a lot of ''wealth'' disappeared virtually overnight; wealth in the form of Confederate government bonds and currency — which became worthless when the Confederacy was dissolved in ’65 — and perhaps most importantly slaves, who were declared free by the Federal Government as a means of sabotaging the Confederate war effort. Slavery had shaped the southern economy for decades, the profitable and dependable returns from investing in slave-picked cotton discouraging investment in other forms of agriculture, raw-resource gathering, primary and secondary industries. As the Industrial Revolution picked up speed, the economic ‘sideshows’ of industry and commerce turned out to be far more profitable than agriculture ever could or would be. The South had been prosperous, but by the 1850s the central-northern United States had become ''more'' prosperous and were growing at a dramatically faster rate. What the war did was destroy much of the wealth of the South and force a fundamental restructuring in its economy. Thus the South largely lagged behind the rest of the United States until the [[UsefulNotes/FranklinDRoosevelt New Deal]] and the advent of the more balanced economy of the “New South” in the mid-twentieth century. The southern states were neither impoverished nor left backward (relative to the rest of the entire world except Britain, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, and France) by the Civil War. But the war did leave them struggling to adapt to a more … ''normal'' state of economic affairs, something that would have been difficult even had there been a smoother and more gradual end to slavery (a virtual impossibility in any case).
to:
Admittedly, the Civil War took a larger toll upon the Southern states of the American Union, where most of the war was fought. Not only was property destroyed, but more importantly a lot of ''wealth'' disappeared virtually overnight; wealth in the form of Confederate government bonds and currency — which became worthless when the Confederacy was dissolved in ’65 — and perhaps most importantly slaves, who were declared free by the Federal Government as a means of sabotaging the Confederate war effort. Slavery had shaped the southern economy for decades, the profitable and dependable returns from investing in slave-picked cotton discouraging investment in other forms of agriculture, raw-resource gathering, primary and secondary industries. As the Industrial Revolution picked up speed, the economic ‘sideshows’ of industry and commerce turned out to be far more profitable than agriculture ever could or would be. The South had been prosperous, but by the 1850s the central-northern United States had become ''more'' prosperous and were growing at a dramatically faster rate. What the war did was destroy much of the wealth of the South and force a fundamental restructuring in its economy. Thus the South largely lagged behind the rest of the United States until the [[UsefulNotes/FranklinDRoosevelt New Deal]] and the advent of the more balanced economy of the “New South” in the mid-twentieth century. The southern states were neither impoverished nor left backward (relative to the rest of the entire world except Britain, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, and northern France) by the Civil War. But the war did leave them struggling to adapt to a more … ''normal'' state of economic affairs, something that would have been difficult even had there been a smoother and more gradual end to slavery (a virtual impossibility in any case).

* BatmanGambit: One of the considerations behind the Emancipation Proclamation was to turn British opinion against the South. It had been hoped in the South and feared in the North that the [[UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire British Empire]] and the French, would recognize the Confederacy as a new nation and send [[GunboatDiplomacy the world’s most powerful navy to back this up]]. France and Great Britain were on the verge of doing just that when the Battle of Antietam occurred. It gave the North just enough of a victory not to seem desperate when it issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which focused the war back on the issue of slavery, which the British and French hated.
to:
* BatmanGambit: One of the considerations behind the Emancipation Proclamation was to turn British opinion against the South. It had been hoped in the South and feared in the North that the [[UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire British Empire]] and the French, would recognize the Confederacy as a new nation and send [[GunboatDiplomacy the world’s most powerful navy to back this up]]. Napoleon III's France and Great Britain were on the verge of doing just that when the Battle of Antietam occurred. It gave the North just enough of a victory not to seem desperate when it issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which focused the war back on the issue of slavery, which the British and French hated.

* EarlyBirdCameo: Trench warfare was first seen in Virginia towards the end of the war, in all its bloody, gory, honorless detail, a full fifty years before the No Man’s Land in France. ** In some ways, however, it was actually very much like the trench warfare that had been going on at least since the 17th century under the name siege warfare. The difference was that now soldiers were digging trenches without a fortress behind or in front of them. ** This war also saw the battlefield introduction of ironclad warships, with the two varieties being large Casemate Ironclads, with the traditional arrangement of many guns firing through gun ports in broadside and chase arrangements, as well as the smaller Monitor Ironclads, which featured a few big guns in rotating turrets.
to:
* EarlyBirdCameo: Trench trench warfare fought with rifles and artillery was first seen in Virginia towards the end of the war, in all its bloody, gory, honorless detail, detail - a full fifty fifteen years before the No first well-known iteration of 'No Man’s Land Land' in France. the Franco-Prussian War. ** In some most ways, however, it was actually very much ''very much'' like the trench warfare that had been going on at least since the 17th century under the name siege warfare.'siege warfare'. The difference was that now soldiers were digging trenches without a fortress behind or in front of them. ** This war also saw the battlefield introduction of ironclad warships, with the two varieties being large Casemate Ironclads, with the traditional arrangement of many guns firing through gun ports in broadside and chase arrangements, as well as the smaller Monitor Ironclads, which featured a few big guns in rotating turrets. These would not be seen again for several years.

** And the Irish in the South at the time were mostly [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots-Irish_American Scots-Irish]], not the stereotypical Irish Catholics who largely were immigrants at this time who tended to settle in the North. In fact, the term Scots-Irish came about not too long before the Civil War for the Protestants (who immigrated from England/Scotland to Ireland, then to America often Appalachia and the Carolinas) to differentiate themselves from the lower class Irish Catholics who came later (mostly starting during the famine of the 1840s). Before that, the Scots-Irish were just called Irish.
to:
** And the Irish in the South at the time were mostly [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots-Irish_American Scots-Irish]], not the stereotypical Irish Catholics who largely were immigrants at this time who tended to settle in the North. In fact, the term Scots-Irish came about not too long before the Civil War for the Protestants (who immigrated from England/Scotland England and Scotland to Ireland, then to America often Appalachia and the Carolinas) to differentiate themselves from the lower class Irish Catholics who came later (mostly starting during the famine of the 1840s). Before that, the Scots-Irish were just called Irish.

** The Emancipation Proclamation was also welcomed by the Union as payback since the South were attacking and assaulting the North with impunity, and the Unionists felt it made zero sense for the South to dictate terms of engagement and play the aggressor while suffering no consequences in return. As a war measure, abolition crippled the Southern economy since slaves had an interest to fight with the North, and globally, it killed any chance for international recognition from England and France.
to:
** The Emancipation Proclamation was also welcomed by the Union as payback since the South were attacking and assaulting the North with impunity, and the Unionists felt it made zero sense for the South to dictate terms of engagement and play the aggressor while suffering no consequences in return. As a war measure, abolition crippled the Southern economy since slaves had an interest to fight with the North, and globally, it killed any chance for international recognition from England Britain and Napoleon III's France.

* WhatAnIdiot: The “King Cotton” mentality of many ardent secessionists in the build-up to the war. [[SarcasmMode But of course rabidly abolitionist Great Britain will automatically cave! It's not like they own an entire subcontinent that is perfect for cotton cultivation and has loads of cheap labor! Or that there are other countries like Egypt that also grow tons upon tons of cheap cotton and are willing to sell to Britain — and France, too for that matter! Or that Britain depends on the North for FOOD! Or that Britain and France have seen this coming for a decade and have filled their warehouses to the brim with cotton! Or that bullying a world superpower is going to make them cave in!]] ** In fairness, this is all with hindsight. For the first two years of the conflict, there was a real chance that France and/or Britain might intervene: France for political reasons (Napoleon III’s France had just set up a puppet state in Mexico that the Union did not like, and thus wanted the U.S. weakened to lessen the threat to it) and Great Britain for economic reasons (a huge chunk of her industry was in textiles). They also disapproved of their ships being impressed by the Union and the Union’s treatment of Confederate diplomats. Britain didn’t intervene ultimately because a war would have been expensive and (deeply) unpopular, not to mention the fact that they disliked the idea of helping France (who might even have taken the chance to ally with the USA and declare war on Britain in return for the former’s recognition of French-backed-Mexico) and were pissed at the Rebels’ laidback and somewhat arrogant diplomatic overtures (the aforementioned “King Cotton” mentality). Indirect intervention or even simple gun-running was ruled out pretty early on when the USA declared that any kind of British support for the Confederates would mean war. While the world’s only superpower didn’t exactly fear wars with second-rate powers like Spain or the USA, ever since her defeat in the Hundred Years’ War Britain has — unlike certain other countries ([[CoughSnarkCough *cough*FRANCE*cough*]]) — never been fond of pointless (and expensive!) wars. That’s ‘Perfidious Albion’ for you.
to:
* WhatAnIdiot: The “King Cotton” mentality of many ardent secessionists in the build-up to the war. [[SarcasmMode But of course rabidly abolitionist Great Britain will automatically cave! It's not like they own an entire subcontinent that is perfect for cotton cultivation and has loads of cheap labor! Or that there are other countries like Egypt that also grow tons upon tons of cheap cotton and are willing to sell to Britain — and France, too for that matter! Or that Britain depends on the North for cheap FOOD! Or that Britain and France have seen this coming for a decade and have filled their warehouses to the brim with cotton! Or that bullying a world superpower is going to make them cave in!]] ** In fairness, this is all with hindsight. For the first two years of the conflict, there was actually a real chance that France and/or Britain might intervene: France for political reasons (Napoleon III’s France had just set up a puppet state in Mexico that the Union did not like, and thus wanted the U.S. weakened to lessen the threat to it) and Great Britain for economic and political reasons (a huge chunk of her industry was in textiles).textiles, and Lord Palmerston was an influential and jingoistic nutjob). They also disapproved of their ships being impressed by the Union and the Union’s treatment of Confederate diplomats. Britain didn’t intervene ultimately because a war would have been expensive and (deeply) unpopular, not to mention the fact that they disliked the idea of helping Imperial France (who might even have taken the chance to ally with the USA and declare war on Britain in return for the former’s recognition of French-backed-Mexico) and were pissed at the Rebels’ laidback and somewhat arrogant diplomatic overtures (the aforementioned “King Cotton” mentality). Indirect intervention or even simple gun-running was ruled out pretty early on when the USA declared that any kind of British support for the Confederates would mean war. While the world’s only superpower didn’t exactly fear wars with second-rate powers like Spain or the USA, ever since her defeat in the Hundred Years’ War Britain has — unlike certain other countries ([[CoughSnarkCough *cough*FRANCE*cough*]]) — never been fond of pointless (and expensive!) wars. That’s ‘Perfidious Albion’ for you.
5th Jan '16 12:14:55 AM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* TheRemnant: A surprisingly large number of Confederate soldiers never stopped fighting the war, becoming bandits or outlaws (e.g. Jesse James and his gang) rather than disbanding.
to:
* TheRemnant: A surprisingly large number of Confederate soldiers never stopped fighting the war, becoming bandits or outlaws (e.g. Jesse James and his gang) rather than disbanding. Others transformed into terrorists such as the UsefulNotes/KuKluxKlan and other hate groups that played a huge role in disenfranchising African-Americans.

** As mentioned above, groups of Confederates and their families fled to Brazil after the war in the hopes of establishing an enclave for fellow exiles. Their descendants still live there today as the ''Confederados''.
to:
** As mentioned above, groups of Confederates and their families fled to Brazil Brazil, where slavery remained legal until 1888, after the war in the hopes of establishing an enclave for fellow exiles.exiles and new slave plantations. Their descendants still live there today as the ''Confederados''.

* TheRevolutionWillNotBeCivilized: Underdog rebels though the Confederates were, you’d be hard-pressed to consider a group whose casus belli is the preservation of slavery heroic. Of course, the South did not see themselves as revolutionaries. They denounced the Radical Republicans and abolitionism as revolutionary and as per James [=McPherson=] launched "a pre-emptive counter-revolution".
to:
* TheRevolutionWillNotBeCivilized: Underdog rebels though the TheRevolutionWillNotBeCivilized: ** The Confederates were, you’d be hard-pressed to consider a group whose saw themselves as underdog rebels fighting for "State's Rights". This is odd since their leadership were wealthy slaveowning elites, their casus belli is was the preservation ''and extension'' of slavery heroic. Of course, slavery, and their rebellion was triggered by their defeat in fair and square democratic elections. In actual fact, the South did not see themselves as revolutionaries. They denounced the Radical Republicans and abolitionism as revolutionary and as per James [=McPherson=] launched "a pre-emptive counter-revolution". ** The Abolitionists did not shy away from violence, evidenced by the actions of John Brown's rebellion which preceded the Civil War, and the work of other free soil and abolitionist activists in Missouri. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayhawker#See_also The Jayhawkers]] raided [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacking_of_Osceola and sacked Osceola]], burning the town to the ground and executing 17 people. In fairness, this was in retaliation to the Border Ruffians, the casualties were far lower than the retaliatory raids by William Quantrill and "Bloody Bill" Anderson.

* ValuesDissonance: The Union's main motivation was that it will not tolerate rebels seceding just because they lost an election fair and square. Only the abolitionists were remotely interested in emancipation until doing so was framed in terms of undermining the rebel war effort, and even then Lincoln’s government sat on the idea for a couple of months until they could claim to be winning (post-Antietam) before they went ahead with emancipation. There’s also the whole slavery thing, which doesn’t fly among most people these days, and that is after entertaining alternatives like sending ex-slaves and colonizing them to Africa, supporting the rights of border states to hold slaves, proposing compensation for the slaveowners. ** The issue of slavery was fundamental to the economy and policies of the South, which had a huge role in pre-war American politics, leading to such laws as Fugitive Slave law and instances as Bleeding Kansas, both of which were regarded as unconstitutional and anti-democratic. The Republican Party's main platform was opposing ''the extension'' of slavery into new territories and new states, with only the radical wing comprising of hardcore abolitionists and anti-racists. The Republicans styled themselves the champions of [[WorkingClassHero free soil and free labor]], securing the opportunity of every able-bodied free worker to get a fair wage which was not possible in a slave-owning society, with unpaid labour with no regulation and terrible working conditions. Aside from being immoral, slavery was damaging to the economy and society at last, and unionists had many reasons to oppose it. ** Of course, Lincoln himself ultimately {{subverted|Trope}} this. While he’s famous for saying he preferred “saving the Union” to freeing the slaves, and initially began firmly in the ‘abolish slavery, deport all the black people to Africa’ camp, he came to view abolition as a moral imperative, and recanted the deportation argument … the latter coming especially after his persuasion by Northern black leaders, which was itself amazing for the time. Frederick Douglass, the freed slave, abolitionist, and great orator, noted after a few meetings with the man that Lincoln was about the only white person to treat him as a respected equal, with none of the condescending superiority that characterized even the staunchest white abolitionists’ interactions with black people.
to:
* ValuesDissonance: The Union's main motivation was that it will not tolerate rebels seceding [[SoreLoser just because they lost an election fair and square. square]]. Only the abolitionists were remotely interested in emancipation until doing so was framed in terms of undermining the rebel war effort, and even then Lincoln’s government sat on the idea desk for a couple of months until they could claim to be winning (post-Antietam) before they went ahead with emancipation. There’s also a major victory (Antietam) gave him the whole slavery thing, which doesn’t fly among most people these days, and that is after entertaining alternatives like confidence to announce it. Some ideas considered by Lincoln included sending ex-slaves and colonizing them to Africa, supporting the rights of border states to hold slaves, proposing compensation for the slaveowners. slaveowners. It was only towards the end, the passage of the 13th Amendment, that abolition triumphed. ** The issue of slavery Slavery was fundamental to the economy and policies of the South, which had a huge role in pre-war American politics, leading to such laws as Fugitive Slave law and instances as Bleeding Kansas, both of which were regarded as unconstitutional and anti-democratic.South. The Republican Party's main platform was opposing ''the extension'' of slavery into new territories and new states, with only the radical wing comprising of hardcore abolitionists and anti-racists. The Republicans styled themselves the champions of [[WorkingClassHero free soil and free labor]], securing the opportunity of every able-bodied free worker to get a fair wage which was not possible in a slave-owning society, with unpaid labour with no regulation and terrible working conditions. Aside from being immoral, Like many immoral practises, slavery was damaging to the hinders overall development of economy and society at last, society, and unionists had many there are pragmatic and rational reasons to oppose it. ** Of course, The Emancipation Proclamation was also welcomed by the Union as payback since the South were attacking and assaulting the North with impunity, and the Unionists felt it made zero sense for the South to dictate terms of engagement and play the aggressor while suffering no consequences in return. As a war measure, abolition crippled the Southern economy since slaves had an interest to fight with the North, and globally, it killed any chance for international recognition from England and France. ** Lincoln himself ultimately {{subverted|Trope}} this. While he’s famous for saying he preferred “saving the Union” to freeing the slaves, and initially began firmly in the ‘abolish slavery, deport all the black people to Africa’ camp, he came to view abolition as a moral imperative, and recanted the deportation argument … the latter coming especially after his persuasion by Northern black leaders, which was itself amazing for the time. Frederick Douglass, the freed slave, abolitionist, and great orator, noted after a few meetings with the man that Lincoln was about the only white person to treat him as a respected equal, with none of the condescending superiority that characterized even the staunchest white abolitionists’ interactions with black people. Towards the end, Lincoln even voiced tenative support for African-American suffrage, at least for

* WhatNowEnding: The story of the country’s non-European population at the end of the war. The abolitionists have succeeded, and all the slaves are free. Unfortunately, the vast majority of ex-slaves (1) are illiterate and have few if any skills, (2) have zero property or savings, (3) largely live in an area suffering an economic depression, one that is now actively hostile to their interests, and (4) have rather more psychologically screwed-up people among them than average, due to the endemic violence and depravity of the system they had lived their whole lives under. The result would eventually be generations of African Americans dominated under despicable racist tyranny until the UsefulNotes/CivilRightsMovement began to fight it seriously in the 20th century.
to:
* WhatNowEnding: The story of the country’s non-European population at the end of the war. The abolitionists have succeeded, and all the slaves are free. Unfortunately, the vast majority of ex-slaves (1) are illiterate and have few if any skills, (2) have zero property or savings, (3) largely now live in an area suffering an economic depression, one that is now actively hostile to their interests, and (4) have rather more psychologically screwed-up people among them than average, due to the endemic violence and depravity of the system they had lived their whole lives under. The result would eventually be generations of African Americans dominated under despicable racist tyranny until the UsefulNotes/CivilRightsMovement began to fight it seriously in the 20th century.

In the 1910s, around the 50th anniversary of the war, Civil War films (then silent) became extremely popular, with hundreds being produced, including the (in)famous ''Film/TheBirthOfANation''. Most films had a theme of reconciliation; a film about the Civil War that did not portray Southerners as heroic victims (as did ''Birth of a Nation'' and ''Film/GoneWithTheWind'') risked having no audience or bookings in the states of the old Confederacy. Most early Hollywood studio bosses were first- and second-generation European immigrants, so they had no personal association with the war to motivate them to make movies that automatically wrote off a fifth or a quarter of all theater screens before the production even began.
to:
In the 1910s, around the 50th anniversary of the war, Civil War films (then silent) became extremely popular, with hundreds being produced, including the (in)famous ''Film/TheBirthOfANation''. Most films had a theme of reconciliation; a film about the Civil War that did not portray Southerners as heroic victims (as did ''Birth of a Nation'' and ''Film/GoneWithTheWind'') risked having no audience or bookings in the states of the old Confederacy. Most early Hollywood studio bosses were first- and second-generation European immigrants, so they had no personal association with the war to motivate them to make movies that automatically wrote write off a fifth or a quarter of all theater screens before the production even began. began. As such most films about the Civil War, Confederate and Union, avoided discussing slavery or the war's true causes.
4th Jan '16 11:33:48 PM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* ValuesDissonance: The Men of the North fought for the Negro, so that he might be shipped back to Africa. Only the abolitionists were remotely interested in emancipation until doing so was framed in terms of undermining the rebel war effort, and even then Lincoln’s government sat on the idea for a couple of years until they could claim to be winning (post-Antietam) before they actually went ahead with emancipation. There’s also the whole slavery thing, which doesn’t fly among most people these days. ** Really, the main reasons the Republican Party was opposed to slavery at all (or at the very least, its expansion into new territories and new states) were pragmatic, not moral. The Republicans styled themselves the champions of the [[WorkingClassHero Average Working Man]], and were committed to securing the opportunity of every able-bodied free worker to get a fair wage for a fair day’s work. You couldn’t get that in a slave-owning society, where you could just have a slave work in a field or factory and not have to worry about compensation or ensuring decent working conditions. The Republicans wanted to end slavery in order to level the playing field. *** It's worth noting that Lincoln himself ultimately {{subverted|Trope}} this. While he’s famous for saying he preferred “saving the Union” to freeing the slaves, and initially began firmly in the ‘abolish slavery, deport all the black people to Africa’ camp, he came to view abolition as a moral imperative, and recanted the deportation argument … the latter coming especially after his persuasion by Northern black leaders, which was itself amazing for the time. Frederick Douglass, the freed slave, abolitionist, and great orator, noted after a few meetings with the man that Lincoln was about the only white person to treat him as a respected equal, with none of the condescending superiority that characterized even the staunchest white abolitionists’ interactions with black people.
to:
* ValuesDissonance: The Men of the North fought for the Negro, so Union's main motivation was that he might be shipped back to Africa. it will not tolerate rebels seceding just because they lost an election fair and square. Only the abolitionists were remotely interested in emancipation until doing so was framed in terms of undermining the rebel war effort, and even then Lincoln’s government sat on the idea for a couple of years months until they could claim to be winning (post-Antietam) before they actually went ahead with emancipation. There’s also the whole slavery thing, which doesn’t fly among most people these days. ** Really, days, and that is after entertaining alternatives like sending ex-slaves and colonizing them to Africa, supporting the main reasons rights of border states to hold slaves, proposing compensation for the slaveowners. ** The issue of slavery was fundamental to the economy and policies of the South, which had a huge role in pre-war American politics, leading to such laws as Fugitive Slave law and instances as Bleeding Kansas, both of which were regarded as unconstitutional and anti-democratic. The Republican Party Party's main platform was opposed to opposing ''the extension'' of slavery at all (or at the very least, its expansion into new territories and new states) were pragmatic, not moral. states, with only the radical wing comprising of hardcore abolitionists and anti-racists. The Republicans styled themselves the champions of the [[WorkingClassHero Average Working Man]], free soil and were committed to free labor]], securing the opportunity of every able-bodied free worker to get a fair wage for a fair day’s work. You couldn’t get that which was not possible in a slave-owning society, where you could just have a slave work in a field or factory with unpaid labour with no regulation and not have to worry about compensation or ensuring decent terrible working conditions. The Republicans wanted to end Aside from being immoral, slavery in order was damaging to level the playing field. *** It's worth noting that economy and society at last, and unionists had many reasons to oppose it. ** Of course, Lincoln himself ultimately {{subverted|Trope}} this. While he’s famous for saying he preferred “saving the Union” to freeing the slaves, and initially began firmly in the ‘abolish slavery, deport all the black people to Africa’ camp, he came to view abolition as a moral imperative, and recanted the deportation argument … the latter coming especially after his persuasion by Northern black leaders, which was itself amazing for the time. Frederick Douglass, the freed slave, abolitionist, and great orator, noted after a few meetings with the man that Lincoln was about the only white person to treat him as a respected equal, with none of the condescending superiority that characterized even the staunchest white abolitionists’ interactions with black people.

** After the war, veterans’ reunions would occasionally involve [[RetiredBadass former soldiers]] from ''both'' sides, such as the Gettysburg reunions which continued until the late 1940s, by which point there were too few people left alive to justify them. The general opinion expressed by the attendees was that their opposite numbers had most definitely been worthy opponents.
to:
** After the war, veterans’ reunions would occasionally involve [[RetiredBadass former soldiers]] from ''both'' sides, such as the Gettysburg reunions which continued until the late 1940s, 1*940s, by which point there were too few people left alive to justify them. The general opinion expressed by the attendees was that their opposite numbers had most definitely been worthy opponents.

* WrittenByTheWinners: One of the greatest aversions ever: “Lost Cause,” anybody? Indeed, this article notes [[https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/civil-war-cinema-confederacy-keaton-lost-cause/ that movies]] depicting the Civil War are rarely pro-Union, with ''Film/{{Glory}}'' and ''Film/{{Lincoln}}'' being the solid exceptions. The Lose Cause was often tied with "pro-Reconciliation" movies. Since the movie industry was formed at the height of the Lost Cause historiography and as a result of recycling DeadHorseTrope and SmallReferencePools, film-makers unconsciously reinforced tropes and images from these films:
to:
* WrittenByTheWinners: One of the greatest aversions ever: The “Lost Cause,” anybody? Indeed, this article notes was a great aversion i.e. if you see the South as the real losers rather than the African-American community who were briefly enfranchised and empowered after the Reconstruction only for significant ground to be given over to the unreconstructed south. [[https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/civil-war-cinema-confederacy-keaton-lost-cause/ that Most movies]] depicting the Civil War are rarely pro-Union, with ''Film/{{Glory}}'' and ''Film/{{Lincoln}}'' being the solid exceptions. The Lose Cause was often tied and recent exceptions, with "pro-Reconciliation" movies. Since the movie industry was formed at the height theme of the Lost Cause historiography and as "Reconciliation" triumphing over atonement for slavery. As a result of recycling DeadHorseTrope and SmallReferencePools, film-makers unconsciously reinforced tropes and images from these films:
29th Dec '15 2:34:43 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Four years long, the Civil War was by far the most protracted of the early industrial wars;[[note]]“Industrial war” is defined as a war between modern, industrialized countries using mass-mobilization and -production techniques.[[/note]] none of the other industrial wars of this period, save the Crimean and Boer Wars, lasted more than three years. Though several of those conflicts were more expensive in absolute terms, ''none'' was ‘relatively’ more expensive or illustrated quite so well the crippling effect of protracted industrial warfare upon an economy and society.[[note]]Even, if not ‘especially’, in those parts not directly affected by the fighting: inflation affects everyone.[[/note]] The Austro-French War in Piedmont-Sardinia/Northern Italy, the Russo-Turkish War, the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar, the Second Boer War, and the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 all give certain (and ''better'') insights into ‘modern’ warfare at the time, however, as they involved The Great (and second-rate) Powers of the age. UsefulNotes/TheCrimeanWar (1853–56) is often contrasted with and seen as a smaller-scale precursor to the American Civil War — Russia was about as under-industrialized relative to the Franco-British (and Piedmont-Sardinian) alliance as were the USA’s rebel states to its loyal ones. However, it is generally accepted that the Civil War is one of the earliest, if not ''the'' earliest, wars that can be called a modern ‘total war’ — a war not of army against army or government against government but society against society, involving the belligerents devoting most or all of their manpower and industry to support the war effort, with the civilian populations and infrastructure of the belligerents being treated as entirely legitimate resources for exploitation by their own governments and for destruction and expropriation by the opposing side (witness Sherman’s March to the Sea for the clearest example).[[note]]UsefulNotes/TheNapoleonicWars and the Taiping Rebellion are earlier arguable total wars, but the Civil War was definitely, in TV Tropes terms, the TropeCodifier.[[/note]] This war was essentially the TropeCodifier for modern battlefield tactics: less about cavalry, more about infantry, and keep your Dakka handy, because UsefulNotes/{{Swords}} aren’t useful anymore. In fact, the [[GatlingGood Gatling gun]] was invented and saw limited experimental use during the last years of the war (‘limited,’ as it was extremely expensive and prone to mechanical failure) — though it was an early predecessor to [[MoreDakka rapid-fire automatic weaponry]]. The world even got a sneak preview of UsefulNotes/WorldWarI in the form of the trench warfare that took place at Cold Harbor, Petersburg, and Vicksburg. Of course, like it does so often, [[FunnyAneurysmMoment the world proceeded to completely ignore it]][[note]]Of course, it was no easier than usual to tell ''which'' lessons could/should be learned from the war. It was very hard to draw conclusions from the limited reports of the time, as it has taken ''generations'' to compile a thorough account of the war in all its details. That’s not even mentioning the ‘benefit’ of hindsight.[[/note]] Like UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, this war was waged on battlefields but won in factories; the highly industrialized North could mass-produce muskets, cannon, and ships that the agrarian South could only import, and largely couldn’t in large numbers with the Union NavalBlockade in place. Also, this war had the first recorded successful sinking of an enemy ship by a submarine, and they did it ''completely blind''. And the first battle between two fully-armored ships, CSS ''Virginia'' (a ‘casement’ ironclad built on the hull of a partially-destroyed wooden warship, and often known by that warship’s former name, the ''Merrimac'') and USS ''Monitor'' (founder and namer of its class, first all-iron ship, first rotatable gun turret) at Hampton Roads. The two shot at each other for ''three hours'', and neither took any appreciable damage whatsoever. Naval forces of the world took note: From now on, their ships needed to be MadeOfIron … and they needed some bigger guns.[[note]]For instance, a rare case of military leadership actually comprehending the ramifications of a new technology can be found in the British Navy's response to the formal accounts of the battle: All contracts for the production of sail powered wooden ships were immediately terminated, and all such ships under construction at that time scrapped. Britain's shipwrights began drafting what would become the ''Devastation'' class coast-defence battleships, the prototype for modern battleships and destroyers.[[/note]]
to:
Four years long, the Civil War was by far the most protracted of the early industrial wars;[[note]]“Industrial war” is defined as a war between modern, industrialized countries using mass-mobilization and -production techniques.[[/note]] none of the other industrial wars of this period, save the Crimean and Boer Wars, lasted more than three years. Though several of those conflicts were more expensive in absolute terms, ''none'' was ‘relatively’ more expensive or illustrated quite so well the crippling effect of protracted industrial warfare upon an economy and society.[[note]]Even, if not ‘especially’, in those parts not directly affected by the fighting: inflation affects everyone.[[/note]] The Austro-French War in Piedmont-Sardinia/Northern Italy, the Russo-Turkish War, the UsefulNotes/FrancoPrussianWar, the Second Boer War, and the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 all give certain (and ''better'') insights into ‘modern’ warfare at the time, however, as they involved The Great (and second-rate) Powers of the age. UsefulNotes/TheCrimeanWar (1853–56) is often contrasted with and seen as a smaller-scale precursor to the American Civil War — Russia was about as under-industrialized relative to the Franco-British (and Piedmont-Sardinian) alliance as were the USA’s rebel states to its loyal ones. However, it is generally accepted that the Civil War is one of the earliest, if not ''the'' earliest, wars that can be called a modern ‘total war’ — a war not of army against army or government against government but society against society, involving the belligerents devoting most or all of their manpower and industry to support the war effort, with the civilian populations and infrastructure of the belligerents being treated as entirely legitimate resources for exploitation by their own governments and for destruction and expropriation by the opposing side (witness Sherman’s March to the Sea for the clearest example).[[note]]UsefulNotes/TheNapoleonicWars and the Taiping Rebellion are earlier arguable were semi-industrial total wars, but for our purposes the greater amount and proportion of Industrial Revolution-era devices and weapons (chiefly the water- and steam-powered factory, the telegraph, and the railroad) makes the US Civil War was definitely, in TV Tropes terms, the TropeCodifier.TropeCodifier [[/note]] This war was essentially the TropeCodifier for modern battlefield tactics: less about cavalry, more about infantry, and keep your Dakka handy, because UsefulNotes/{{Swords}} aren’t useful anymore. In fact, swansong of infantry weapons' brief supremacy over artillery in the [[GatlingGood Gatling gun]] was invented and saw limited experimental use early-mid 19th century. The ''status quo'' during the last French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars had been the primacy of artillery - most famously, Napoleon's own skill set 'merely' amounted to excellent [[StrategyVersusTactics Operational-level maneuver and handling of forces and Tactical siting and use of artillery.]] The later Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 signalled the end of this period as modern infantry and artillery firepower proved roughly equal, the French forces' cutting-edge infantry weapons being stymied by the Prussians' cutting-edge artillery pieces. By the time the Second Boer War of 1899-1902 and the RussoJapaneseWar of 1904-5 had rolled around artillery was once more the dominant weapon on the battlefield, and battles were won or lost depending entirely on the use and effectiveness of artillery. Recognizing and adapting to this development was to prove a major obstacle in the first two years of the war (‘limited,’ as it was extremely expensive and prone to mechanical failure) — though it was an early predecessor to [[MoreDakka rapid-fire automatic weaponry]]. The world even got a sneak preview of UsefulNotes/WorldWarI in the form of the trench warfare that took place at Cold Harbor, Petersburg, and Vicksburg. WorldWarOne. Of course, like it does so often, [[FunnyAneurysmMoment at the world proceeded to completely ignore it]][[note]]Of course, time it was no easier than usual to tell ''which'' lessons could/should be learned from the war. It was very hard to draw conclusions from the limited reports of the time, as it has taken ''generations'' to compile a thorough account of the war in all its details. That’s not even mentioning the ‘benefit’ of hindsight.[[/note]] Like UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, this war was waged on battlefields but won in factories; the highly industrialized North could mass-produce muskets, cannon, and ships that the agrarian South could only import, and largely couldn’t in large numbers with the Union NavalBlockade in place. Also, this war had the first recorded successful sinking of an enemy ship by a submarine, and they did it ''completely blind''. And the first battle between two fully-armored ships, CSS ''Virginia'' (a ‘casement’ ironclad built on the hull of a partially-destroyed wooden warship, and often known by that warship’s former name, the ''Merrimac'') and USS ''Monitor'' (founder and namer of its class, first all-iron ship, first rotatable gun turret) at Hampton Roads. The two shot at each other for ''three hours'', and neither took any appreciable damage whatsoever. Naval forces of the world took note: From now on, their ships needed to be MadeOfIron … and they needed some bigger guns.[[note]]For instance, a rare case of military leadership actually comprehending the ramifications of a new technology can be found in the British Navy's response to the formal accounts of the battle: All contracts for the production of sail powered wooden ships were immediately terminated, and all such ships under construction at that time scrapped. Britain's shipwrights began drafting what would become the ''Devastation'' class coast-defence battleships, the prototype for modern battleships and destroyers.[[/note]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 546. Show all.