What aspect of the Civil War in the USA intrigues you as a reader?
The Civil War is intriguing in almost all aspects, but particularly intriguing are the slaves who fought in the war. Now go write a hub about it. Yes, now!
I'm most recently intrigued by the fact that more than half the northern troops were either German or Irish immigrants straight off the boat or were former slaves. While the south faced a shortage of manpower, the north had ample numbers of fresh recruits without even having to tap too deep into its own population for private soldiers.
I have one ancestor who fought in the Civil War. He was an Irish immigrant who enlisted in the Iowa volunteer cavalry. He spent the entire war in Nebraska fighting the Lakota before being honorably discharged.
FOR me as a Canadian it would be why color caused such devastation led by so many good people on both sides. The sad part is as I tour the USA on different occasions, its a shame that the only thing that happened never changed anything and many southern states still believe in slavery today.
Most intriguing to me are the economic disparities and socio-political differences that contributed to the war, when viewed against the singular paradigm of slavery being the catalyst.
I would say that the single most intruiging thing to me about the Civil War, is the aftermath of the war. Specifically, for the purposes of your question, I would say that I am most fascinated by how the two major political parties switched positions with respect to social issues.
As you know, it had been the Republican Party (successors to the Whig Party) which had been anti-slavery (both on principled grounds and the practical fact that free labor was at a disadvantage compared to slave labor) and the Democratic Party had been the party dedicated to preserving slavery.
When I say that the parties switched places on social issues, I obviously don't mean to say that the Republicans started supporting slavery. Its just that, from the perspective of the Left/liberal political region of today, it was definitely the Republicans who were the "progressives" on this and related issues during the time of Lincoln up through TR's presidency -- and what I might think of as a decently moderate line continued from the time of Eisenhower up through Nixon (the late seventies, though, changed a lot of things in this country).
Now, from the perspective of todays liberal/Left Republicans are much, much, much, more conservative (and in some cases what we call "reactionary") on social issues; and it is the Democrats who have (since FDR) been more socially liberal.
So, the single thing that fascinates me the most about the Civil War, is the aftermath, how the two major political parties began to switch places, as it were, with respect to social issues.
The battle at Gettysburg is by far the most intriguing to me. The battle itself took place over a few days and was fought upon varied terrain. A very interesting location is devil's den.
What a loaded question!
During that time, people romanticized war.
Men often ( historical fact) fought on a particular side, to honor their wives convictions and families.
Even when the south was in defeat and surrendered, we were punished.
We had the land, the crops, grain, cotton, tobacco, sugar, vegetables, wildlife.....etc.......yet, we were starving. This punishment went on years after the surrender.
Still, today, the south raises much of the food for the nation and for exportation. And today, the south, is akin to a hidden red haired stepchild, hidden away.
There is almost no one, who does not hold the civil war against us, even over a 100 years later. Yet, so few, truly know the many causes of it. Slavery was not THE issue, but much like today's items of politics, it was the whipping boy.
NOT saying, that I would have supported slavery....( many in the south did not )....only that a true historical view is hard to come by.
As a Kentuckian, I am particularly interested in the experience of war in a neutral state.
Although Kentucky is typically considered a Southern state, politically, Kentucky remained neutral, officially supporting neither the Confederate nor Union side.
Conversely, however, Kentucky citizens did not necessarily view themselves as "neutral", and there were neighbor and family divided by their opposing sympathies.
I think this would have been a complex world to negotiate.
Further north, and you would have had to have stayed quiet or moved south if you had Confederate leanings. Further south and Union sympathizers were rare and in danger on a day to day basis. In a neutral state such as Kentucky, however, people nursed their grudges and political leanings next door to each other during the course of the war. Kentucky is one of the few states where brother could have conceivably faced brother on a battle field. Georgia boys (for example) were likely to have been fighting on the same side; Indiana boys (also for example) were likely to have been shoulder to shoulder on the other side of the gun.
The American Civil War was particularly confusing for citizens of "Border States", where often families had strong ties to the North and to the South and were divided by individual political choices. read more
The art of war... strategies used. If you want to be a good general it is well advised to study many battles and look for ideas that succeeded.
Generally speaking, it is leaders who do the unexpected who succeed.
Every aspect of it. For all they endured. The stories of the people's lives, what they left behind and what they had to face as individuals in that time period as they went on to fight, how they felt about fighting and every other aspect of the war situation.
I think at any angle of it is rich with information that is interesting.
WOW did I just read that many Southerner states still believe in slavery today? What a stupid notion.
The part that intrigues me most about the Civil War, or the War Between That States, as it actually was not a Civil War by true definition. is the fact that so many people do not know what the war was about.
It was not over slavery as so many believe. If that where the case the North would have had to attack itself since they brought the majority of the slaves from the ships to the auction blocks in New York.
History is often written by those who "win" the battles and wars. This is no different. In fact here in Tennessee we have a very unique Civil War Fort, Fort Negley. It was build by the Union forces who forced into service 2700 blacks to build it.
These people where both free and slaves when they were forced to build Fort Negley. Fort Negley is the largest inland masonry fort ever build on US soil. It took 5 months to build it and it was build entirely by slave labor, under Union rule. No my friends the Civil War was not about slavery at all.
But that is not the funny part, fortunaltly now Fort Negley is being somewhat restored. but it is being said on tv that the fort was built by black Union soldiers who fought and died proudly for their cause.
Yes it is true that black men and women fought and died for both the North and the South. But at no time is free black men build, no fight and die at Fort Neglely.
The South was not fighting over the right to keep slaves. In fact very few people had slaves. Slavery was already on its way out just like it had done in the North. Yes Yankees owned slaves first?
The Southern States where fighting over the US Constitution, something that has been brought up extensively over the past year. The North broke the laws written to protect freedoms of the states when it invaded the South but the invasion was not over slavery it was over ports, rivers that could be navigated year round, and few railroads and taxes.
A book named The South Was Right, is a great book for Civil War buffs like myself.
The mistreatment of many citizens by a lazy, two faced government! I have actually been watching documentaries on this war lately, with detailed accounts of what journals said, Lincoln etc... I cannot believe how many times he clearly stated, that he doesn't care what happens to slaves, he just wanted the Union to win, and people call him a hero.... after saying he didn't care at all about slaves???
Do people realize it would have saved tons of money and thousands of lives if the government would have simply paid the slaves wages right off the bat? instead they were pushing southerners to produce millions of trades goods and to never quit, but hey, morally speaking you southerners stink for having slaves...the very clothes and products laying around Northerners homes were from..duh duh duh..SLAVE!!!!! so many people treated slave with contempt when they moved up north... It is disturbing that the government played mind games with every one trying to make the south look so bad...then the Confederate government was just as bad, their declaration was flat out racist, declaring Negros were less than equal..GAG.....
How many men, women and children in the South caught up in that that did not agree, never owned a slave, and only fought because their women were being raped and abused by Union troops.... They starved the south half to death and let them suffer.... It would have been so much easier if the governments pampas ass would have handled it in a diplomatic way... they spent more money on the war than if they would have simply made the transition easier on the very people they pushed it on to begin with..... it was easier to put the blame on the south for the guilt of the entire country... I agree with what one person said in the documentary, I believe she was African American... that in the declaration of Independence, right then and there slavery should have been outlawed, but our founding fathers were slave owners, and they were busy trying to outdo Britain and Europe wanting money to compete for goods, so selfishly they kept up the slave trade...the Government knows they are guilty , and to this day we are still run by a bunch of lying sneaks
As long as I can remember, I have been fascinated by the skill and tenacity of the Confederate soldier. Considering, especially, that they were always lacking enough food, proper clothing, enough munitions, etc., from almost the get-go. One does not read about it much, but even Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels corresponded with each other admiring the fighting prowess of the Southern troops. Also, I have been learning more about the Confederacy's espionage service. For their day, they seem to have been quite innovative. Of course, much of that innovation was bred by necessity. Jefferson Davis, too, is an interesting study since he was commander-in-chief of the services and chief executive of the civil government in a war zone for four years.
by Nick Hanlon5 years ago
Obama is now supporting the rebels in a covert manner-without the support of congress or the United Nations.What would you do to end the civil war in Syria?
by David Stillwell6 years ago
What were the political and economic causes of the Civil War?When you read historical accounts of the civil war, one of the key statements is that the war turned brother against brother... literally dividing...
by pgrundy8 years ago
We watched Ken Burn's series on The Civil War this past weekend (all umpteen episodes---my partner is sick and it is winter in Michigan, so you know, we had time), and I was struck by the similarities between Lincoln's...
by Paul Swendson7 years ago
The South is generally described as the bad guy in The Civil War. Do you think that their point of view had any legitimacy?
by flacoinohio4 years ago
Are you concerned about the possibility of Americans fighting a second Civil War?There are rumors that the United States Government is preparing for a civil war, the largest piece of proof that suggests this is that the...
by Mindy6 years ago
Do you think we will suffer from a civil war in America because or the two parties differences?This is my biggest fear.. that we will implode. Our children deserve a future. Hate breeds war.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.