|
Alright, there has been a bit o' discussion about the American Civil War lately. In Australia, we're pretty boring and never had a civil war or even a War of Independence!
In 2010, I am teaching Modern History and one of the topics is the American Civil War. I know a bit about it, but I am an ancient historian and have only taught Modern History once in the past.
If anyone can offer any good suggestions on possible books and resources, please do! Any information on the ACW would be fantastic! A brief rundown on the war would be grand as well.
|
Realy? Its only a matter of time before the NT with all its Uranium declares independance and that letcher of a Prime Minister send in the Troops despite the fact he is in no way constitutionally recognized.
Certainly the Last PM (Howard) reversed a pullout of troops when I sent him a letter informing him I supported the NT declaring independance and bringing our Population up to a Billion...and not selling off our Uranium.
|
Though I'm usually annoyed by the historical inaccuracies on Wikipedia, the Wiki page for the American Civil War is surprisingly well made, featuring lots of references and footnotes. As always though, use it as a starting point for scholarly research.
I would recommend the books written by Professor James McPherson or William W. Freehling, particularly these ones. Battle Cry of Freedom, by McPherson, and The Road to Disunion, Parts 1 and 2, by Freehling. Both give you plenty of background detail about the subject. I personally would say Battle Cry of Freedom is the definitive book on the American Civil War, but that's just me.
This one seems to be focuses on the war itself, looking at it from a military perspective.
Hope these suggestions are helpful.
Well being from the South, the War of Northern Agression is a sore memory for us and I am flabbergasted by the "politically correct" attempt to whitewash much of our history. I think about it mostly as the War of States' Rights.
Politically correct how? Sore memory to what extent? Please elaborate.
|
Two books I would start with are "The History Buff's Guide Guide to the Civil War," and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War." If you want to understand the war from Abraham Lincoln's perspective I would recommend "With Malice Towards None, A Life of Abraham Lincoln." For understanding Lincoln's assassination and how it was tied to the Civil War I would recomend "Manhunt, The 12 Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer."
As a history teacher myself I'm curious, why do you have to teach the U.S. Civil War in Australia?
|
Well being from the South, the War of Northern Agression is a sore memory for us and I am flabbergasted by the "politically correct" attempt to whitewash much of our history. I think about it mostly as the War of States' Rights.
The "state's rights" they were talking about was the right for Kansas to choose slavery, which if you go by straight votes, Kansas voted against it. Considering there was deception on both sides in an attempt to hijack Kansas votes, we can never be sure who won, though anti-slavery was the official result. You *could* very well say that the war was started because the south was fighting AGAINST states rights. It's a classic "I want freedom for ME, screw the rest of you"
Now granted, you could argue that Kansas was just the spark that set the fire alight, and could also argue that the aggression you speak of was that the North would not allow the south to secede.
But the fact of the matter is that while you can argue all you want about state's rights, the right they were fighting for was the "right" to have more slave states than free states.
Before you start yelling "yankee" at me, I would point out that while people think of the south as the hotbed of slavery, the first states to legalize it were Massachussetts and Maine. My ancestors were known for being staunch anti-abolitionists, owned slaves, and fought to keep their "rights" to own them right up until they were forcibly taken away. They continued to be racist bigots well into the 1900's and were anything but bleeding heart liberals. To emphasize this point, I will note that w hat many people don't know is that the infamous 18th century preacher Johnathan Edwards was not chased out of town for being too "fire and brimstone" but because he tried to teach my great great great grandfather that he was going to burn in hell because he owned slaves!
Frankly, I think the whole "war of northern aggression" tack is an attempt to whitewash slavery out of it to make the South look more noble than they were.
The number of deaths was an absolute tragedy. Frankly, I think the North should have let the South secede. The political dichotomy of the two is *still* tearing this country apart. Slavery was a dying institution anyway. The cotton gin had greatly reduced the value of slavery and without Northern factories (as an embargo was a virtual guarantee, and that's what nearly broke the south during the war anyway), international pressure was sure to end it before long.
You see, I'm not against the idea that the war has been whitewashed in the favor of the North, but for different reasons. It was not a holy crusade and it is very likely that it was not even a good choice. But the idea that the counter response is to whitewash the goals and reasoning of the South is nothing but apologizing for your ancestors. There is no reason to do so and does nothing but engender animosity between two sets of people that is tantamount to the Hatfield-McCoy family feud.
I alone know the true story.
If anyone can offer any good suggestions on possible books and resources, please do! Any information on the ACW would be fantastic! A brief rundown on the war would be grand as well.
I'll second McPhereson's Battle Cry of Freedom. It's the finest single volume survey of the era yet produced. If your remit includes Reconstruction, Foner's book of the same title is the standard text. For grand strategy for the Union, McPhereson's Tried by War is also great.
On a more informal level, William Davis's The Cause Lost slashes and burns the romantic myths about the Slave Power aristocracy. And has a chapter of fairly uninteresting movie reviews, but it's a book of essays. It can't all be great.
Bruce Catton and Shelby Foote were novelists who pretended to be historians. I'd avoid both.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to X series is, well, the work of political hacks. The one on evolution is a collection of creationist crap, which out to give you an idea of the superlatively low level of scholarship and the deliberate aspiration to the same on the part of the editors.
For online resources, this collection of primary sources is excellent. It includes in black and white what the secessionists said their purpose was and the compromise proposals they floated, and were offered to them, to avoid war. (The detection of the overriding concern in these documents is not hard.) The same author has a few helpful chronologies.
David Blight's Yale course on the subject is available online and it's outstanding. He's a good enough lecturer that you could even watch it for fun. (Well I could. If your remit is just the war itself, the Reconstruction stuff is easily skipped. I wouldn't skip the lead-in to the war, though. The lectures on the worldviews of Slave Power and the Free Soilers is fascinating all in itself.) Transcripts are available for all the lectures. The lecture titles have a bit of drift from their content. Sometimes he doesn't get around to something scheduled and it gets into the next lecture on instead.
|
Yes. It was the North who attacked Fort Sumter after signing the various articles of Secession for the Slave owning states.
Either way, there's a discussion thread for it elsewhere on this forum. Lets keep this thread clean of that, shall we?
This is what I've been told about the Fort Sumter "attack". If this isn't the right place for this, I guess I'll apologize. Upon South Carolina's succession, the SC government requested for months that the federal forces evacuate the Fort, and provided ample opportunity for them to do so. Their failure to do so is the act of Northern Agression that spurred the war.
So again, sorry if this isn't where its supposed to go. I just thought I would let you all know what I've been raised to believe.
It's fascinating history, if you don't take the public school version of it too literally.
|
|
Upon South Carolina's succession, the SC government requested for months that the federal forces evacuate the Fort, and provided ample opportunity for them to do so. Their failure to do so is the act of Northern Agression that spurred the war.
Which only counts as valid if you acknowledge secession, which the Union was of the opinion that the majority of people didn't want. Thus SC's stance was viewed as tantamount to having a government illegally hijacked by its politicians.
I'm not going to go into as much detail as my previous post. I'm not trying to come off as a harsh historical dictator and I realize I'm dangerously close to helping ignite a flame war, which is not my intention.
My point, and this is where I'm going to try desperately to bring my (ironically) off topic tangent, is that there is two sides to every story, and people tend to pick an extreme that justifies "their" sides involvement (which I just plain don't understand, you weren't there, how can it be "your" side), when neither extreme is in any way shape or form accurate.
As far as studying the ACW, I would recommend, as I always do, personal letters. Secondary books tend to have a bias and contemporary speeches/newspapers etc can be highly propagandist.
I would recommend the personal letters of BOTH Lincoln and Robert E Lee. Both figures cut the image of men making agonizing decisions and never being truly happy with the choices at hand.
|
|
Really? Its only a matter of time before the NT with all its Uranium declares independence and that lecher of a Prime Minister send in the Troops despite the fact he is in no way constitutionally recognized.
Certainly the Last PM (Howard) reversed a pullout of troops when I sent him a letter informing him I supported the NT declaring independence and bringing our Population up to a Billion...and not selling off our Uranium.
You have to share the uranium, how else am I going to get a plutonium powered entertainment centre at home?
|
|
Having caught an episode of the HBO miniseries John Adams, I notice that they imply that the Roots of the Civil War Crisis is laid in the Post Revolution Peace when an argument over Influence of States based on Tax submissions to the Central Government was seen to be a precursor to that later conflict simply because the wealth was concentrated in the north and thus a process where representation based on wealth of individual states ability to convey taxes would perpetuate that inequality of the states along a north - south partition.
I've only read one set of books on the American Civil War, the series by Shelby Foote, and found it very enjoyable. It is almost exclusively about the military campaigns, so it may or may not be what you're after.
What bugs me is the myth that the war was because of slavery/. Certainly, it was one of the causes, but Lincoln really only promised freedom to the slaves because it gave him support from a lot of the northerners and such. He actually made a speech later stating that he believed that black people should, essentially, be subservient to white people.
What bugs me is the myth that the war was because of slavery/. Certainly, it was one of the causes, but Lincoln really only promised freedom to the slaves because it gave him support from a lot of the northerners and such. He actually made a speech later stating that he believed that black people should, essentially, be subservient to white people.
I would also point out that the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the Confederacy, not those who were in the slave-holding states of the Union (yes, there were slaves still in the North).
It was used as a tool to weaken the Confederacy and win the war; to Lincoln, it was not an end in itself.
Alright, there has been a bit o' discussion about the American Civil War lately. In Australia, we're pretty boring and never had a civil war or even a War of Independence!
Whoa up mate...
Might want to go re-think the significance of the Eureka Stockade, as well as the rebellion culminating at Vinegar Hill. Sure, they are smaller in scale, but just as significant in what they represented.
As to Mr Yellow Dingo and his 1 Billion Aussies policy, well, 'good luck with that' :p
What bugs me is the myth that the war was because of slavery/. Certainly, it was one of the causes, but Lincoln really only promised freedom to the slaves because it gave him support from a lot of the northerners and such. He actually made a speech later stating that he believed that black people should, essentially, be subservient to white people.
At one point Lincoln said that if he thought it would preserve the Union without bloodshed, he'd be all for slavery to continue. There was a lot of other issues wrapped up in the situation rather than just slavery. That was simply the most emotive issue involved and easiest to rally people either for or against.
What bugs me is the myth that the war was because of slavery/. Certainly, it was one of the causes, but Lincoln really only promised freedom to the slaves because it gave him support from a lot of the northerners and such. He actually made a speech later stating that he believed that black people should, essentially, be subservient to white people.
Chubbs, Lincoln believed in emancipation. It was a central tenent of the new Republican Party as well as his personal beliefs. He also knew as president that his first duty was to preserve the Union, with or without slavery. In the beginning he didn't threaten slavery because he was hoping to avoid war or have a quick war that ended with reintegration of the South. As the war drug on and Union casualties mounted the preservation of the Union was not cause enough to maintain Northern sentiment for the war. He took the opportunity of a, rare, Union victory (otherwise it would have smacked of deperation) to strike a blow against slavery and the Southern economy with the Emancipation Proclamation. It contained a carrot as well, slavery was only ended in territories in rebellion against the Union as of a specific date. It reinvigorated Northern morale and war sentiment and coincided with Lincoln's personal beliefs. Slavery as a whole was ended by Constitional Amendment of course. In finding fault with Lincoln, who was after all only human and a product of his time, some have challenged his anti-slavery beliefs. They, are wrong. Revisionist history is often popular because it is different as much as it may be correct. It's hard to get a doctorate and make a splash as a historian by agreeing with what has already been stated as "correct". And, of course, some people belief, correctly or not, that conventional history is "wrong". It's open to debate, but the consensus on history as I'm sure you know is often the consensus because it is supported by the weight of evidence.
I've taught US history at high school and college levels. People on this thread have suggested some good sources. Read the books, look over it with an eye free from involvement and see what you think.
One fairly odd experience I had that you won't have is teaching the US Civil War at a Southern US college and referring the the Union side as "we". I got some interesting looks from the students. And in s sense, I caught myself by surprise, never having considered part of the US as in any way foreign. It was a lesson in itself. After a moments thought, I grinned and added "you know, "we", the US, the side that won the war". Most of them laughed. A few probably started burning effigies of me. The war still raises some passion in the US, especially in parts of the South, but I doubt you would find any significant number of people who believe that a Southern victory would have been a good thing, for the US, the South, or the world as a whole.
|
|
What bugs me is the myth that the war was because of slavery/. Certainly, it was one of the causes, but Lincoln really only promised freedom to the slaves because it gave him support from a lot of the northerners and such. He actually made a speech later stating that he believed that black people should, essentially, be subservient to white people.Chubbs, Lincoln believed in emancipation. It was a central tenent of the new Republican Party as well as his personal beliefs. He also knew as president that his first duty was to preserve the Union, with or without slavery. In the beginning he didn't threaten slavery because he was hoping to avoid war or have a quick war that ended with reintegration of the South.
Also, the first of the states to seceed, South Carolina, did so with the belief that Lincoln was going to emmancipate the slaves. They secceded befpre he was even inagurated, which shows that regardless of where Lincoln's heart was the South believed the War was about slavery.
Alright, there has been a bit o' discussion about the American Civil War lately. In Australia, we're pretty boring and never had a civil war or even a War of Independence!Whoa up mate...
Might want to go re-think the significance of the Eureka Stockade, as well as the rebellion culminating at Vinegar Hill. Sure, they are smaller in scale, but just as significant in what they represented.
As to Mr Yellow Dingo and his 1 Billion Aussies policy, well, 'good luck with that' :p
Shifty you forgot the Rum Rebellion, they only successful Military Coup in Australia. A group of Royal Marine officers got very grumpy when Governor Bligh (Yes the guy from the mutiny on the Bounty)ended their monopoly of the Rum trade. So they and a retired officer staged a coup and took over government of the Colony.
The second battle of Vinegar Hill was actually at Castle Hill - Its called the second battle of Vinegar Hill as a lot of the Convicts involved were Irish rebels who had surrendered after the first battle of Vinegar Hill in Ireland.
Also Ned Kelly wanted to form the Irish Republic of Eastern Victoria. One of the theories for the stand at Glenrowan when he could have easily got away was that he was waiting for his supporters to rise up. Because the Kelly gang failed to derail the police train Kelly knew they were out gunned and told his supporters to melt away while they would keep the police busy.
I could talk for ages about Indigenous resistance to European colonisation as well.
So Chubbs I don't remember covering any of this at school so why do you teach the American Civil war and not, The Rum rebellion, or Eureka?
Shifty you forgot the Rum Rebellion, they only successful Military Coup in Australia. A group of Royal Marine officers got very grumpy when Governor Bligh (Yes the guy from the mutiny on the Bounty)ended their monopoly of the Rum trade. So they and a retired officer staged a coup and took over government of the Colony.The second battle of Vinegar Hill was actually at Castle Hill - Its called the second battle of Vinegar Hill as a lot of the Convicts involved were Irish rebels who had surrendered after the first battle of Vinegar Hill in Ireland.
Also Ned Kelly wanted to form the Irish Republic of Eastern Victoria. One of the theories for the stand at Glenrowan when he could have easily got away was that he was waiting for his supporters to rise up. Because the Kelly gang failed to derail the police train Kelly knew they were out gunned and told his supporters to melt away while they would keep the police busy.
I could talk for ages about Indigenous resistance to European colonisation as well.
So Chubbs I don't remember covering any of this at school so why do you teach the American Civil war and not, The Rum rebellion, or Eureka?
Well yes, but took the Rum Rebellion as not being 'civil' per se, as it was soldiers against poor unlucky Mr Bligh...
Of course, Vinegar Hill (Castle Hill) was another fine example of lack of sportsmanship on behalf of the English - seeing 'parlay' as an opportunity to shoot the ringleader.
And good old Ned was essentially continuing the Ireland debate in a different country - the poor mad bastard.
Anyhow, just shows how rich we are in armed rebellions, uprisings, mutinies and coups... dunno why you'd need to look across an ocean for more cracking yarns. Most of the Civil War stuff is too 'upscale' and its hard to get a feel for the individual personalities.
Well yes, but took the Rum Rebellion as not being 'civil' per se, as it was soldiers against poor unlucky Mr Bligh...
Of course, Vinegar Hill (Castle Hill) was another fine example of lack of sportsmanship on behalf of the English - seeing 'parlay' as an opportunity to shoot the ringleader.
And good old Ned was essentially continuing the Ireland debate in a different country - the poor mad bastard.
Anyhow, just shows how rich we are in armed rebellions, uprisings, mutinies and coups... dunno why you'd need to look across an ocean for more cracking yarns. Most of the Civil War stuff is too 'upscale' and its hard to get a feel for the individual personalities.
Bligh had a lot of bad press, a bit of it was unwarranted.
The Irish, rich in idealism, poor in fire-power.
None of it has been huge, but it all has a unique and interesting Australian character.
I recommend Leviathan if you are looking for an interesting book on the history of Sydney. Its by John Birmingham the same guy that wrote He died with a falafel in his hand (One of the funniest books I have ever read).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My own biases are present of course, but I'd also suggest reading Sherman and Sheridan's biographies on Project Guttenberg. Some of Sherman's memoirs of Lousianna in the lead up to the Civil War are enlightening. I think Lee might have some autobigraphies as well.
|
|
Shifty - Mr. Dwarf is not wrong, Leviathan is a great read!
Mr. Dwarf - Well, I wanted to teach JFK, but was poo-pooed by my Head Teacher who believed the American Civil War would be a more interesting topic for my Year 11 Modern History class. She has also dictated the Ancient History curriculum for 2010-11 as well (not much Rome in the classroom this time round).
Personally, after reading The Dark Side of Camelot, I was really inspired to delve back into the Kennedy Era again. I really recommend it, its a reporter's book and not a historian's book, but a fun read nevertheless.
Anyway, the American Civil War is a case study for Modern History.
|
|
Shifty - Mr. Dwarf is not wrong, Leviathan is a great read!
Mr. Dwarf - Well, I wanted to teach JFK, but was poo-pooed by my Head Teacher who believed the American Civil War would be a more interesting topic for my Year 11 Modern History class. She has also dictated the Ancient History curriculum for 2010-11 as well (not much Rome in the classroom this time round).
Personally, after reading The Dark Side of Camelot, I was really inspired to delve back into the Kennedy Era again. I really recommend it, its a reporter's book and not a historian's book, but a fun read nevertheless.
Anyway, the American Civil War is a case study for Modern History.
I would have expected the head teacher to have picked a topic of more global significance. For example, my last Modern History class I was assigned the rise of Facism in the 20th century and prior to that it was the history of Soviet communism.
|
|
David Fryer - I am actually sharing this class with the Head Teacher. I suppose that is why there is little choice in topics. However, there is a tendency in our faculty for topics to be chosen based on the Head Teacher's opinion rather than our expertise.
For example, I generally teach Roman options. Now we are teaching Greek options, because the Head Teacher decided that was what she wanted to teach. In the end, I only work there and the Head Teacher calls the shots. I miss out on teaching the Augustan Age again, but the Persian Wars are still pretty cool.
Since our executive have censored out book selections for Advanced English, I am not too phased by the new dictatorial nature of our faculty. We have a new principal and a new deputy principal, so things are bound to change!
I recommend Leviathan if you are looking for an interesting book on the history of Sydney.
I have only heard good things about this book, so will have to bite the bullet. Personally I am a bit of a buff on true crime and the various underworld identities that have given us that particular 'Aussie' flavour :p
I am also partial to a lot of the other legends and lore of course, I just like the crime stuff as it has been so influential on our formation as a nation.
Chubbs, the American Civil War is a pretty neat era to study, for lots of reasons. But I'll add a couple things that will help blow people's minds.
1) The war wasn't a "civil war." That implies two sides fighting for control of the State. There was one side who wanted to secede, and the other side that said "no." The term 'War of Secession' is more accurate. Although no one calls it by that name.
2) There were black slave-owners in the South, and there were black volunteers for the rebel army. Not many, mind you, but they did exist, and most history glosses over that very interesting tidbit.
I hope you don't solely focus on the slavery issue as the driving force behind the war. It was a major one for sure, but there were plenty of other factors that get drowned out because slavery is such an emotional topic.
Personally, I'm fascinated with the technology of the era. Fairly modern weapons used in century-old formations . . . the medical advances made . . . . .
Good luck!
|
|
2) There were black slave-owners in the South, and there were black volunteers for the rebel army. Not many, mind you, but they did exist, and most history glosses over that very interesting tidbit.
Also Native American slave owners, particularly among the Cherokee. It gets ignored usually because it goes against the popular myth that slavery was about racism. If you have other Blacks and other minorities also owning slaves the racist angle becomes harder to sell.
One thing you also might want to talk about is the Far West Campaign, which gets glossed over even in The U.S. Even here, most people don't know that there was an active military campaign going on in Texas and New Mexico.
Personally, I'm fascinated with the technology of the era. Fairly modern weapons used in century-old formations . . . the medical advances made . . . . .
I tell my students that the Civil War was a prelude to World War I in that respect. The truth is that the Civil War was the dawn of what we consider 20th century military technology. It was the first time a weapon like the machine gun was used, it saw the introduction of what would become the modern battleship, and it was one of the first times that aircraft were used in a war. In this case it was hot air ballons used at the Battle of Richmond to try and spy on the Confederate defenses.
|
|
[ I tell my students that the Civil War was a prelude to World War I in that respect. The truth is that the Civil War was the dawn of what we consider 20th century military technology. It was the first time a weapon like the machine gun was used, it saw the introduction of what would become the modern battleship, and it was one of the first times that aircraft were used in a war. In this case it was hot air ballons used at the Battle of Richmond to try and spy on the Confederate defenses.
And the submarine, namely, the Hunley.
|
|
[ I tell my students that the Civil War was a prelude to World War I in that respect. The truth is that the Civil War was the dawn of what we consider 20th century military technology. It was the first time a weapon like the machine gun was used, it saw the introduction of what would become the modern battleship, and it was one of the first times that aircraft were used in a war. In this case it was hot air ballons used at the Battle of Richmond to try and spy on the Confederate defenses.And the submarine, namely, the Hunley.
True, forgot about the Hunley. My students always ask my if the Housatanic was connected to the Titanic.