Monday, October 13, 2014

Week 9 Day 1 Recap


Today was another day of going through the book and discussing some of the events that happened in the reading. Some highlights include:


  • International Affairs - Both Great Britain and France had been considering helping out the Confederacy, but after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and the war became about slavery, both countries decided not to intervene. Great Britain left the United States on its own, but Napoleon's government of France took advantage of the situation. Napoleon gave Hapsburg Maximilian the title of Emperor of Mexico, which was directly violating the Monroe Doctrine. Because the United States was focused on the war, however, Maximilian remained Emperor with the help of some French troops for a couple years, until the Civil War ended and the United States could focus on him long enough to kick him out.
  • The Army of the Potomac - This army, in Virgina, was one of three armies primarily involved in the war, and it was led by General Ambrose E. Burnside, who, incidentally, looked like this: . (Special thanks to Lauren Jacob for finding this beautiful picture.) Burnside's plan was to take his army to the Rappahannock river, across from Fredericksburg, and then cross the river and attack. His boats that he needed to cross the river, however, didn't show up for a while, and instead of doing anything at all, Burnside decided to just sit and wait. This gave Lee, on the Confederate side, enough time to gather an army of 75,000 veteran fighters in preparation for the battle. This should have been enough of a signal to change the plan, but Burnside "lacked the mental agility" to do anything about it and went ahead with the attack anyway, with no chance of success. He ended up losing over 12,000 men. 
  • Joe Hooker - Joe Hooker was yet another army leader with an "On to Richmond" drive, a plan to capture the Confederate capital, Richmond. He, however, failed spectacularly. Hooker took over 120,000 men with him, confident that he would be able to win. He decided not to repeat what Burnside did, so instead he split up his army in order to distract Lee, which Lee used to his advantage to attack. This battle was lost essentially because a) Hooker lost his nerve, and b) Lee acted unpredictably. By the end of it, Hooker lost 17,000 men.
Basically, things are not going too well for the Union.

[Side note: I don't know if this is common knowledge or not, but it turns out that the term "side burns" actually comes from the general's name. Yes, General Burnside had such an iconic hairstyle that an entire type of facial hair was named after him.]

2 comments:

  1. Great breakdown! I think it is important to note that another reason that GB did not want to intervene (through sending boats to the Confederacy) was because they did not want to engage in a war with the US and wanted to wait until the S showed a strong chance of winning the war (Antietam) which were events that lead to the final denial of help to the Confederacy. Something I am slightly confused about is why Great Britain was so scared of engaging the Union in war if the Union was already lacking manpower and had to draft men in order to continue fighting (am I missing something--i dont know why this makes sense esp. for GB)?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Essentially it was the analysis of cost to benefit for Great Britain. Why antagonize the US if the Confederacy had a low chance of decisively prevailing? Though there was some element of doubt the US was heavily favored based on resources. Remember the longer the war went as long as US morale was behind the war the more the resource advantage would tip the scales. Hence if the South could not shake Union morale there was little advantage to an intervention that possible not work (especially with the resources GB had to commit to imperial pursuits abroad and domestic pursuits at home). Also don't forget about GB public opinion...it was against (in general) against supporting slavery (in the form of possible support for the Confederacy). Of course there are historians who disagree. Feel free to research. If not, enjoy the weekend!

    ReplyDelete