Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
America's Civil War
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by nicenovice (U11315726) on Saturday, 10th April 2010
Hello All
Can somebody enlighten me about he America's Civil War?
Thanks
Nicenovice -
Message 2
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Saturday, 10th April 2010
It happened in America ? It wasnt very civil though.
You really need to be a bit more specific about what you want to know. -
Message 3
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 11th April 2010
It would depend on who you asked. If you asked someone south of the Mason Dixon line, they would say they decided (As allowed under the constition) to leave the union. The north would say it was to keep the union intact. Slavery really had nothing to do with it until much later when the President needed a rallying cry. Strangely most ex slaves were worse off after the war than before. There are many good books on the subject depending on were you want to start. From the purely battle side or the politic side.
-
Message 4
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Monday, 12th April 2010
I've to agree with Grumpyfred,
Also it's the first historical example of Industrial war (The industrialized North) that shows how the economic and industrial power it’s the key to win a war, even though the Confederation army fought better than Union army without the same technological equipment.
Compare strength, casualties and losses:
Bye
P.S.: some of the American civil war tactics’re used in trench warfare in Europe. -
Message 5
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 12th April 2010
Interstingly though, the south came very close to capturing Washington at First Bull Run. That leads to a What If? would the north have fought on with its capitol taken? (And perhaps its President) Again later in the war the Union plans fell into Lees hands which would have found Lee trapping the whole of the Army of the Potomac on the wrong side of a river, with only one bridge to escape over and would have surely led to if not the capture of most, certainly the loss of most of the guns and stores. Lee though decided it was a plant and disgarded them, thus allowing the Union Army to fight another day. Would that have led to a treaty or even surrender of the North?
-
Message 6
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 12th April 2010
Also it's the first historical example of Industrial war (The industrialized North) that shows how the economic and industrial power it’s the key to win a warΒ
What about Britain's industrial ability and consequent wealth during the Napoleonic wars? Isn't that an earlier example of one combatant nation using its (nascent?) industrial power to good effect?
Perhaps that's worth a thread in its own right.
-
Message 7
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 13th April 2010
Apus_apus,
What about Britain's industrial ability and consequent wealth during the Napoleonic wars? Isn't that an earlier example of one combatant nation using its (nascent?) industrial power to good effect?Β
To what effect? There were no railroads or steamships, no telegraphs, no mass-produced weapons or transport. -
Message 8
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Tuesday, 13th April 2010
To what effect? There were no railroads or steamships, no telegraphs, no mass-produced weapons or transport.Β
I wasn't asking from a point of knowledge, I confess. I was simply wondering if Britain's industrialising gave them an "edge". Considering Dan Snow's recent programme on the Royal Navy driving some/much of the industrialisation at the time, perhaps the Navy was the benefactor
Britain's wealth however did lead to having an advantage, even if it was through financing its continental allies. -
Message 9
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 13th April 2010
To what effect? There were no railroads or steamships, no telegraphs, no mass-produced weapons or transport.Β
The British had been using machine produced cannon since the mid-C18th. During the Napoleonic wars uniform and boot production became industrialized. Blocks (the naval equivalent of WWII's ball bearings) for the royal navy became mass produced in 1802. Both France and Britain used optical telegraphs during the wars. So the seeds were there early.
Though little of that effected how the wars were actually fought.
I'd agree that the things you mentioned are essential characteristics of industrial warfare and they're all their in the Crimean War. Steamships gave industrialized Britain the edge, large factories made the weapons, a railway was shipped out to move equipent from balaclava harbour to the siegeworks, and an undersea, electric telegrpah cable meant the Tsar could have received his news of the war by reading copies of the Tines shipped from London quicker than waiting for reports from his own generals.
The Second Italian War of Independence saw trains transport soldiers into battle at Solferino, the Austrians used airpower to bombard Venice in 1860. -
Message 10
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Friday, 16th April 2010
Grumpyfred,
I image that consequence:
A military expeditionary corps of Britain, France (forces from Mexico) and Spain (forces from Cuba). Britain attacks the US from Canada and France and Spain supported the Confederate in the South.
Hard to say the end of conflict because in the same time Prussia and Russia declare war to the Confederate Allies. Probably Italy, Austria–Hungary and Japan join in the conflict after.
So a world war before 1914.
It's only an opinion.
Bye -
Message 11
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 16th April 2010
Alex, have a look at Harry Turtledoves books,starting with How few remain. Although most of us would say the the first World War happened in the 19th with Britain and France fighting world wide. Again if France had beaten we English in Canada, the war between the north and south could have been between the French who would have controlled what is now the Northern States and expanded south, clashing with the Spanish who controlled the southern ones expanding north.
-
Message 12
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 16th April 2010
Hi nicenovice, in reply to your post
Here goes, according to some there wasn't an American Civil War, it was a War Between the States, or a War of Northern Aggression.
Actually it was a civil war.
The ACW defined the current USA and put the capital in the "U", meaning United.
It (the ACW) put the reins of power into the hands of the President of the USA.
Sorry, being pompous,
AA. -
Message 13
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Saturday, 17th April 2010
Can somebody enlighten me about America's Civil War?Β
There were two American Civil Wars, the first one resulted in the ethnic cleansing of many of the losers and the setting up of a new government.
The second one achieved the liberation of slaves within the various states a great cost in lives! -
Message 14
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 20th April 2010
I agree, laudian....
It's inaccurate to portray the American War of Independence as solely a battle between oppressed Americans and oppressive Brits. It was very much a civil war between American Patriots and American Loyalists. And also, let's not forget the black Americans, most of whom fought on the side of the British.
So, yes, the American War of Independence was very much a civil war.... -
Message 15
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 22nd April 2010
nicenovice,
Cor, don't we go on!!!
Shelves groan under the weight of books extant about the conflict(notice I craftily ignore any previous references to war etc)if, however you just want a cosy indulgence then might I suggest Ken Burns 'The American Civil War, on DVD?
One advantage is that it was the first major conflict to be covered by the new invention of photography and KB naturally uses this source to great effect.
Regards,
Spruggles. -
Message 16
Posted by Hastur1 (U14272072) on Tuesday, 27th April 2010
I would suggest that even if Washington was captured unless Britain recognised the Confederacy then Lincoln may well have fought on in 1861.
As for missing orders, if Mclellan had been more aggressive at Antietam (he had Lee's orders courtesy of Stuart) he would have smashed Lee and ended the war there and then.
The key for the Confederate victory was to be recognised, for no matter how well they battled, one or two decisive defeats would be fatal. Can you imagine the South being able to continue if Fredericksburg or Second Bull Run was reversed?
However, in pursuit of this policy, it was restricting the cotton trade that may have been the deciding factor overall. Not only did it not blackmail England into coming to her aid, it lost an important source of revenue that could have been used for arms
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.