NerdWorld Report

Lessons of the Civil War

Originally published July 4, 2004
Republished April 4, 2024

Recently I've been reading one of those "What If" history books that explores how history would have changed if certain events (which could easily have occurred differently) had occurred differently. One of the areas the book talks about is the Civil War, and Abraham Lincoln's role in it. In reading this book, I learned some things about the war which typically do not make it into 6th grade history class. Many of these things strike me as relevant to today's Iraqi war debate.

Ferocious Anti-War Sentiment

The most surprising thing (to me) was how ferociously the war had been opposed by a very large percentage of northerners. The first few years of the war went very badly for the Union, as the southern generals outmaneuvered their northern counterparts. Loss of life was horrific. Lincoln, a Republican, had dedicated his entire presidency to keeping "one nation, indivisible", while a large portion of the Democratic party (the "Peace Democrats") felt the war could never be won, and that a settlement should be made with the Confederacy. [The Confederacy had the strategic advantage: they only had to keep from loosing. The Union had to win. A stalemate would be victory for the Confederacy.] The war was being fought in northern states such as Pennsylvania, not the deep south.

While partisanship (which seems intense, even by today's standards) may have been partly responsible for this anti-war feeling, the costs of the war were huge and obvious, and the benefits less well obvious. When the draft was expanded, there were anti-draft riots in New York City. Many people had very logically concluded that the North could not prevail, and that settlement terms should be negotiated that would stop the bloodshed.

Ruthless Suppression of Democracy

Border states, such as Illinois, had the strongest anti-war sentiment. In those states, Lincoln was ruthless in suppressing legitimate democratic institutions to keep the Democrats from winning elections. The army even attacked Democratic party conventions and arrested Democratic leaders. Minor details such as habeas corpus and a public trial by your peers were conveniently forgotten. Lincoln had the power of life and death over American citizens. There was no such thing as any type of judicial review.

The opposition became so intense that there was even another secessionist movement which attempted to form a "Northwest Confederacy" (the "Northwest" consisted of places like Ohio and Illinois in those days) which would force a halt to the war by effectively dissolving the Union. Lincoln had the leaders of this group arrested and tried by military tribunals. The tribunals sentenced many of them to death, but delayed executing them on Lincoln's request. (Lincoln had intended to pardon them after the war was over, but his assassination prevented him from carrying out this plan. Several were executed.)

Anything Other Than Complete Victory Is Failure

Another thing I found fascinating was the way Northerners viewed the military campaign. Anything other than total victory was viewed as a defeat. Union General McClellan (who, to Lincoln's intense displeasure, was very cautious by nature) often refrained from pressing his battlefield victories and therefore allowed Confederate armies to regroup and fight again after they had lost key battles. The Northern press therefore reported not the victory of a particular battle, but the loss of the opportunity to crush the Confederacy.

After a few particularly bad Union military defeats, Lincoln realized that slaves were fighting for the Confederacy, and considered emancipating them to bring them to the Union side. He refrained from doing this, however, because he felt that this would be viewed as an act of desperation by the Union. Later, the Emancipation Proclamation further enraged the Peace Democrats (especially in the slave-sympathetic border states) since it changed the justification of the war from "keeping the union together" to "freeing the slaves".

Reelection Troubles

The problems of the war, and the intense and widespread anti-war feelings, were felt to doom Lincoln's re-election drive. The congressional midterm elections went badly for the Republicans. General McClellan, who Lincoln had sacked in favor of General Grant, became the Democratic candidate against him. It was not until Sherman reached Atlanta and started destroying the south one city at a time, that Lincoln's political fate improved. He eventually won the election with only 55% of the vote, which means 45% of the white male voters opposed him.

Lincoln, as we all know, was assassinated shortly after his re-election. (His vice president, Andrew Johnson, had also been targeted for assassination, but his would-be assassin chickened out.) The political conflicts present for Lincoln continued during reconstruction, and reached fever pitch with the impeachment of Johnson. Schoolbooks today lionize Lincoln as the savior of our nation, but almost half the population at the time felt he was divisive, and unworthy of being president.

So what are the lessons of History?

War has never been popular with Americans. We see the horrible costs of war, and find it difficult to view the long-term gains as worth the cost.
We tend to forget the conflicts that have wracked our democratic system, preferring the think in terms of a harmonious, progressive, manifest destiny which got us here.
We have always wanted quick fixes to our problems. Anything less than immediate victory is viewed as a failure.

Lessons of the Civil War

Originally published July 4, 2004 Republished April 4, 2024

Originally published July 4, 2004
Republished April 4, 2024