The American Civil War -- what's widely misunderstood about it?

good article on "what should we call it?"

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/the-name-of-war/?_r=2

the pennsylvania patriot-news retracts its original bad review of the gettysburg address:

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/11/a_patriot-news_editorial_retraction_the_gettysburg_address.html

whew what a relief

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/150-years-later-wrestling-with-a-revised-view-of-shermans-march.html

happy to have quoted sherman in a toast for a wedding in atlanta

The American Civil War -- what's widely misunderstood about it?

That it was actually about ethics in games journalism.

john c calhoun was a scary motherfucker

https://31.media.tumblr.com/965276cffe9067f85cce4c986490f797/tumblr_inline_miwzrdXok01qz4rgp.jpg

http://www.nndb.com/people/902/000043773/calhoun55.jpg

that is one smooshed looking head

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121108014856/christmasspecials/images/7/78/Sam_the_Eagle.jpg

irl lol

150th anniversary of lincoln's second inaugural today -- always worth a reread:

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/inaug2.htm

walt whitman covered the inauguration for the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/1865/03/12/news/washington-last-hours-congress-washington-crowds-president-incident-capitol.html

Where can I read a account of this that does thorough justice to every flavour of villain involved in the Compromise of 1877

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

^^^ seconding this request

You might start with this book I read a few years ago. Prefatory though. Ignore the title.

Also: Gore Vidal's 1876.

the novel builds to that election

i'm always amazed how well-preserved many of the battlefields are. take the bodies, do some repairs, preserve everything.

https://www.battlefields.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_crop_1280x450/public/thumbnails/image/Antietam%20Battle%20Page%20Hero_0.jpg?itok=NG6j4-zV
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Antietam_National_Battlefield_Memorial_-_Dunker_Church_02.JPG

it's interesting what goole noted upthread about the advances in battlefield weapons vs the lack of preparedness generals had in dealing w/those advances when deploying their own troops. assuming there was that disconnect it does explain a lot about the bloodiness of certain battles but it doesn't explain how it wasn't forecast more accurately.

sherman saw it

The weapons the Union and Confederates faced were pretty much the same as those for the Crimean War of the prior decade. In both cases the wars bogged down into entrenched siege, with trenches snaking from the Potomac inland. Much the same could be said for the land portion of the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5. That didn't stop generals from both sides marching battalions in column into machine gun and breech-loaded artillery fire in 1914, as if it was still 1814.

Most generals are slow on the uptake, in any era. Not just fighting the last war, but fighting the wars that produced their curriculum as cadets.

Sherman saw that in fully industrialized warfare, the goal should be destroying the economy of the adversary. But his men still fixed their bayonets and charged.

the battlefields are preserved cos everything else got destroyed, often on the way to the battlefields

at least in GA where there were a lot of scorched earth & pillaging tactics in use all around

But his men still fixed their bayonets and charged.

he didn't know another way to fight, but iirc he was closer than his classmates to understanding the sheer volume of death required by the way they did know? maybe just by dint of tending to misery anyway. immediately after fort sumter he was predicting a v long and terrible war. i guess such pessimism (or resignation) prob became less unusual after bull run 1?
but sherman's still enough of an outlier to get relieved for suicidal depression, and back home "convalescing" he's talking+writing outright apocalyptically, which was prob the sane frame of mind. of course by then the war was going on, for anyone to see.

Buy this:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D6QQT77/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o00_?ie=UTF8&psc=1

(not a part of this current discussion)

Recommended -- I read a couple of outstanding Civil War books by Stephen Sears: "Gettysburg", and "Landscape Turned Red" (which is about Antietam.) This is very much blow-by-blow, field level stuff, blood and violence and fools and cowards and incompetent leaders and natural-born genius strategists.

On the strategy side, Sears takes a fairly harsh view of McClellan, views Meade very strongly, gives Lee solid marks but not as strong as others might. He saves a lot of his sympathy for the soldiers who were thrown into what seems like the most hellish battles anyone had ever seen up to that point. The guy is a very very good writer imo.