Healing from the American Civil War

**Officer of Engineers** · 06 Aug 08, 06:08

Forgive me for asking this ... and this is from a Canadian whose knowledge of American history is through books and not through stories

But did not Robert E Lee and Ulyssess S Grant began the healing by their very own actions?

I've witnessed a civil war where there was no healing actions and am trying to understand the dynamics in which the United States healed itself.

**Shek** · 06 Aug 08, 11:30

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Forgive me for asking this ... and this is from a Canadian whose knowledge of American history is through books and not through stories

But did not Robert E Lee and Ulyssess S Grant began the healing by their very own actions?

I've witnessed a civil war where there was no healing actions and am trying to understand the dynamics in which the United States healed itself.

"One Flag, One Country, One Destiny" by Don Stivers
The Confederate Graduates Return to West Point - June 17, 1875

Sir,

My amateur take on it is that Lee and Grant did indeed set the initial example. Also, as time has passed, the importance of the Gettysburg Address plays a role. Lastly, because the fight split families, there was a much greater chance for reconciliation. This happened since the fight wasn't over or along religious, tribal, or ethnic lines.

Albany Rifles could probably answer this much better.

**GAU-8** · 06 Aug 08, 15:22

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Forgive me for asking this ... and this is from a Canadian whose knowledge of American history is through books and not through stories

But did not Robert E Lee and Ulyssess S Grant began the healing by their very own actions?

I've witnessed a civil war where there was no healing actions and am trying to understand the dynamics in which the United States healed itself.

Excellent question OoE and a good topic for a discussion thread Shek. Thanks.

I take away from my own family's history that the rift between the North and South stemmed more from the reconstruction/occupation years than the four years of war. Southern soldiers, though defeated, came home with an honorable record of battlefield victories they could be proud of. Lincoln's lenient post war policy of "let them up easy" fell by the wayside after his assassination. Most well-read Southerners regard the assassination of Lincoln as the worst calamity to befall the South. It wasn't until the economic resurgence brought about by World War 2 production demands that the South truly got back on her feet.

"Let them up easy" came not from our Northern brothers but as a byproduct from the worldwide fight against fascism in the 1940's. That was a long time to be down.

**devgupt** · 06 Aug 08, 15:37

well if the northerners didn't really treated southerners fairly and it was only during second world war south stood on its own- how come no one protested -i mean form 1870's to 1940's is nearly 7 decades - surely someone would have revolted
but couldn't find any resistance movement except KKK which i think wasn't a resistance movement
forgive me for my ignorance but from the outside it looks a bit strange

**zraver** · 06 Aug 08, 16:25

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Forgive me for asking this ... and this is from a Canadian whose knowledge of American history is through books and not through stories

But did not Robert E Lee and Ulyssess S Grant began the healing by their very own actions?

Yes they started it, but I am not sure how far it went.

I've witnessed a civil war where there was no healing actions and am trying to understand the dynamics in which the United States healed itself.

The North and South had similar hereos like Washington, a unified language, the basic American drive to get back to work, and the westward migration. But even then there were a lot of post-war cases of animosity. Jessie James and his gang for example were what Rummy would call dead enders. And as soon as the Southern Whites could they created laws that took the South as close to antebellum conditions via Jim Crow as possible. I don't think the last ghosts of the ACW were laid to rest until Dec 7, 1941. The Revolution gave us a county, the ACW made it permanent, the Westward expansion and immigration made it more than Europe lite and WW2 turned it into a unified nation-state.

**TheDesertFox** · 16 Aug 08, 22:49

Everyone seems to have it this topic on the head to one degree or another.

The healing that occurred after the ACW was very slow and took decades. Most historians agree that it was not until the early to mid 1900's that any real healing occurred. As I am sure that you know, just because there is peace, does not mean healing.

Perhaps one of the more important aspects of the close of the civil war, was the how it was dealt with by General Lee. While not the head of the Confederate government, he was a symbol of the Confederacy to both north and south. While some in the Confederate government wished for the armies of the Confederacy to take to the hills to continue the war, Lee decided not to continue the fight. I think that this may have been the single largest impact in tempering actions of resistance that more commonly follow a civil war.

In war, the presence of a dynamic individual can be very powerful. An example would be Napoleons return from exile and his ability to marshal those around him. After the war, had Lee attempted a Napoleon style return I firmly believe that many would have rallied to him. The role set by Lee, helped stabilize the completely crucial decade after the war.

But thats just my 2 cents from a new butter bar

**zraver** · 17 Aug 08, 00:41

Originally Posted by TheDesertFox

Everyone seems to have it this topic on the head to one degree or another.

The healing that occurred after the ACW was very slow and took decades. Most historians agree that it was not until the early to mid 1900's that any real healing occurred. As I am sure that you know, just because there is peace, does not mean healing.

Perhaps one of the more important aspects of the close of the civil war, was the how it was dealt with by General Lee. While not the head of the Confederate government, he was a symbol of the Confederacy to both north and south. While some in the Confederate government wished for the armies of the Confederacy to take to the hills to continue the war, Lee decided not to continue the fight. I think that this may have been the single largest impact in tempering actions of resistance that more commonly follow a civil war.

In war, the presence of a dynamic individual can be very powerful. An example would be Napoleons return from exile and his ability to marshal those around him. After the war, had Lee attempted a Napoleon style return I firmly believe that many would have rallied to him. The role set by Lee, helped stabilize the completely crucial decade after the war.

But thats just my 2 cents from a new butter bar

Good post, I would add to that the amnesty most senior confederate eladers got and the fac that there was no way to reenslave the blacks made the politcal process tempting and that required re-admisison to the Union. Once you have to buy into something its worth more to you.

**TheDesertFox** · 17 Aug 08, 01:08

Excellent point zraver, one I hadn't considered. The ability to bring former confederate leaders to the table certainly helped, even though this made them unpopular at home. General James Longstreet took large amounts of flack for supporting Grant during his presidency, also for comment regarding General Lee.

There were naturally those who were upset and perhaps to desired to continue the struggle. They lacked, on the large scale, the ability to rally those to their banner.

While Lincoln's vision of peace was not implemented, Grant and Sherman were able to follow the spirit of it to the best of their ability that also helped cushion the first few months of the defeat. (Sherman was rebuked by the new Washington leadership for his "overly generous" terms of surrender).

Not punishing the Confederacy had been Lincoln's idea and in many civil wars this doesn't occur, in would seem more likely that the victor would take the opportunity to punish or further impress their victory upon the defeated. While the peace was harsh on the confederacy, it could have been far more severe.

**zraver** · 17 Aug 08, 22:49

Originally Posted by TheDesertFox

Excellent point zraver, one I hadn't considered. The ability to bring former confederate leaders to the table certainly helped, even though this made them unpopular at home. General James Longstreet took large amounts of flack for supporting Grant during his presidency, also for comment regarding General Lee.

There were naturally those who were upset and perhaps to desired to continue the struggle. They lacked, on the large scale, the ability to rally those to their banner.

While Lincoln's vision of peace was not implemented, Grant and Sherman were able to follow the spirit of it to the best of their ability that also helped cushion the first few months of the defeat. (Sherman was rebuked by the new Washington leadership for his "overly generous" terms of surrender).

Not punishing the Confederacy had been Lincoln's idea and in many civil wars this doesn't occur, in would seem more likely that the victor would take the opportunity to punish or further impress their victory upon the defeated. While the peace was harsh on the confederacy, it could have been far more severe.

And if the harsness was unbearable, you could leave the blue bellies behind and move west, many veterans did just that will the collapse of the Southern economy and new labor pressures caused by the suddenly freed blacks who became what was to be known as share croppers. The poor white farmer on hard scrabble just could not compete so they moved west.

**TopHatter** · 18 Aug 08, 02:21

Is there any truth to 'legend', I guess you could call it, that the city of Vicksburg - which fell to U.S. Grant on July 4 1863 after a grueling six week siege - did not celebrate Independence Day until 1945, 81 years later?

I've seen one or two places on the Net that claim that, also a few books, I think including The Killer Angels.

But I've never seen anything further than that.

OoE, have you chanced to read The Killer Angels?

**TheDesertFox** · 18 Aug 08, 04:34

Killer Angles is a fantastic read, one of the books early in my life that directed me to history.

As for Vicksburg, cannot say. I will look into the matter though, see if anything shows up.

**Officer of Engineers** · 18 Aug 08, 05:54

Originally Posted by TopHatter

OoE, have you chanced to read The Killer Angels?

I think I read that as a course requirement but can't remember a thing about it.

**TheDesertFox** · 18 Aug 08, 06:02

It is a historical fiction about the battle of Gettysburg. Reasonably accurate representation, but an enjoyable read.

**Johnny W** · 19 Aug 08, 16:34

Originally Posted by zraver

Yes they started it, but I am not sure how far it went.

The North and South had similar hereos like Washington, a unified language, the basic American drive to get back to work, and the westward migration. But even then there were a lot of post-war cases of animosity. Jessie James and his gang for example were what Rummy would call dead enders. And as soon as the Southern Whites could they created laws that took the South as close to antebellum conditions via Jim Crow as possible. I don't think the last ghosts of the ACW were laid to rest until Dec 7, 1941. The Revolution gave us a county, the ACW made it permanent, the Westward expansion and immigration made it more than Europe lite and WW2 turned it into a unified nation-state.

I don't think the last ghost have yet been laid to rest. Slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction caused problems that still reverberate through our society.

**TopHatter** · 19 Aug 08, 17:12

Originally Posted by TheDesertFox

It is a historical fiction about the battle of Gettysburg. Reasonably accurate representation, but an enjoyable read.

Read it in high school as part of a class assignment.

Initially I groaned a little at the subject matter (I was a WWII reader who knew little or nothing about the Civil War)

I read the first page where the 'characters' are introduced, got past R.E. Lee and James Longstreet and was stunned by how engrossing it was just reading these character descriptions.

As I recall we had a couple months to read the book, a few chapters a week.

After finishing Longstreet's entry, I burned through the entire book in a few days and started reading it again.

One of the larger surprises I've ever had.

Thread: Healing from the American Civil War

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare

A failure in generalship

Articles and links for the Military Professional

Quagmire or not?

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions