To Appomattox (2013) a 8 part miniseries

[Unicron]

Perhaps, but wasn't slavery the only one they cared about?

Depends on whom you ask. I think it's fair to say that slavery was the most important catalyst for the war, and there were many southern aristocrats and politicians who viewed it only in terms of protecting slavery, but for the average soldier on both sides that wasn't automatically the case. Many of them saw it as a self-representation issue, and under the assumption that the states had some measure of sovereignty over the central government. It's a line that wasn't particularly clear, and is still kind of vague in some respects. The goal of many Union troops was to keep the country together, even if that meant slavery might survive in its traditional borders, and the goal of many Confederate troops was to start over under a new banner, and to protect themselves against perceived aggression from the North.

I don't mean to start a huge discussion on the war, as that could be its own thread. I just think it's a little simplistic to say nothing mattered except slavery, when there were other factors as well. It's kind of like studying WWI and concluding that the war only happened because of imperialism, which triggered conflicts that could snowball. Imperialism was a major factor, but it combined with other factors.

 

[superdeluxe]

I think it needs to be stated that a majority of the scripts come from grant's memoirs

 

[The Green Mushroom]

I don't mean to start a huge discussion on the war, as that could be its own thread. I just think it's a little simplistic to say nothing mattered except slavery, when there were other factors as well. It's kind of like studying WWI and concluding that the war only happened because of imperialism, which triggered conflicts that could snowball. Imperialism was a major factor, but it combined with other factors.

I'm not talking about why individuals fought the war. If that was the case, America fought WWI because of the draft as did most other countries.

I have always been amused by the slavery vs. other causes issue of the Civil War. Obviously no war has a single cause or even a neat little package of causes that lead directly to war; but.....

If the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, why did the South start bolting a month after Lincoln was elected?

 

[Unicron]

Because, as you said, certain individuals were paranoid over what they believed Lincoln would do, particularly in regards to slavery, and pretty much all of their assumptions were wrong. And once South Carolina threw down the gauntlet, the other states started following suit. Partly because they shared some of the same fears and partly because they assumed the states had the right to do so. The states in the upper South who eventually seceded (VA, NC, AR and TN) only did so formally after the crisis at Sumter and Lincoln's call to put down the Confederacy through armed force. The thought of the new administration using force against other states was larger in their minds than ties to slavery or other views, at least in my own experience. But I think we're in agreement that wars are the result of a bunch of causes, and rarely a neat little package.

 

[The Green Mushroom]

Because, as you said, certain individuals were paranoid over what they believed Lincoln would do, particularly in regards to slavery, and pretty much all of their assumptions were wrong.

I would say it was mostly in regards to slavery, after all who would fight a war over suggesting a Homestead Act?

I agree that they were wrong about every one of Lincoln's assumptions.

The states in the upper South who eventually seceded (VA, NC, AR and TN) only did so formally after the crisis at Sumter and Lincoln's call to put down the Confederacy through armed force.

It is my understanding that the last four states seceded because:

1) Lincoln extended the blockade north of the then 7 Confederate States, which made some people unhappy

2) Lincoln's attitude towards neutrality was even was than Bush's "You're With Us of Against Us" mentality. Lincoln basically told states that wanted no part in the war to man up and both send troops to the federal army and allow that army to march through.....or....the army would march through anyway, but be less polite about it.

Though do remember this is long before Sherman was anything but a teacher in Louisiana. Being less polite on the battlefield 1861 amounted to asking people to kindly leave the battlefield without saying please, as in the picnickers at Bull Run. Being less polite to Maryland was somewhat more forceful.

 

[superdeluxe]

And I thought the biggest issue people would have had was such a diminutive person like Richard Dreyfus, would play a strong barreled character like George Thomas lol.

 

[superdeluxe]

I would say it was mostly in regards to slavery, after all who would fight a war over suggesting a Homestead Act?

I'm not a history teacher, but I was always under the belief that it had more to do with states rights vs federal rights. Like someone mentioned in this thread, every historian has a different thought/opinion on the subject matter.

 

[J.T.B.]

I'm not a history teacher, but I was always under the belief that it had more to do with states rights vs federal rights. Like someone mentioned in this thread, every historian has a different thought/opinion on the subject matter.

Yes people always say states' rights, but the only state's right that anyone thought was worth fighting over was slavery. South Carolina and some other states were quite up front about it in their Declarations of Causes (of secession). Mississippi went so far as to say "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world," and as "none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun, [...] a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

We have to keep in mind that both sides had to share the same country after the war, and it was in the interests of the North as well as the South to smooth over the differences that caused the conflict. Over the years the narrative changed from defending slavery to a more noble-sounding defense of states' rights and resistance to oppression. More people -- North and South -- liked that sound of that, and it's understandable.

The South had a lot of political power early on, but that was changing as the nation grew. But the reason it was so urgent was that they saw the shift in political power as a direct threat to their "institution." When you get down to basic causes, slavery is right at the roots.

Justin

 

[superdeluxe]

That is a well reasoned response. Thanks Justin.

 

[gh4chiefs]

One has to wonder if the South didn't in fact accelerate the demise of slavery by seceding, and firing on Ft. Sumpter. Common theory is that slavery would have eventually ended anyway, but how many years would that have taken? Certainly not by 1865. By seceding, firing on Ft. Sumpter, and pretty much kicking the crap out of the Northern Armies at every turn (in the Eastern theater at least) they kind of forced the North to make it war about more than just secession.

 

[Unicron]

I would say it was mostly in regards to slavery, after all who would fight a war over suggesting a Homestead Act?

My impression is the HA wasn't a major issue, since Southern slaveholding interests blocked it in legislation just before the war and Lincoln didn't formally sign it into law until 1862. I could be wrong on that, but compared to other legislation that was flying around then, I'd assume it was minor.

I agree that they were wrong about every one of Lincoln's assumptions.

It is my understanding that the last four states seceded because:

1) Lincoln extended the blockade north of the then 7 Confederate States, which made some people unhappy

2) Lincoln's attitude towards neutrality was even was than Bush's "You're With Us of Against Us" mentality. Lincoln basically told states that wanted no part in the war to man up and both send troops to the federal army and allow that army to march through.....or....the army would march through anyway, but be less polite about it.

I can't recall specifically about the blockade issue, but I do agree with your second point and I know that was a major contention with some of the other slave states, including the ones that later seceded.

Yes people always say states' rights, but the only state's right that anyone thought was worth fighting over was slavery. South Carolina and some other states were quite up front about it in their Declarations of Causes (of secession). Mississippi went so far as to say "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world," and as "none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun, [...] a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

We have to keep in mind that both sides had to share the same country after the war, and it was in the interests of the North as well as the South to smooth over the differences that caused the conflict. Over the years the narrative changed from defending slavery to a more noble-sounding defense of states' rights and resistance to oppression. More people -- North and South -- liked that sound of that, and it's understandable.

Justin

It's worth remembering though that the state declarations of causes, as well as most of the Confederate constitution, were likely written by the same pro-slavery politicians who were so defensive before the war. That is why they contain such obvious defenses to protect the "peculiar institution," and I think it's highly unlikely they were intended to represent a broader spectrum of views across the South.

I think you're right that some of the sentimentality of the lost cause and the "states rights" emphasis did spring up after the war as well, but as I said above, it was also more common in the beginning than is sometimes believed.

One has to wonder if the South didn't in fact accelerate the demise of slavery by seceding, and firing on Ft. Sumpter. Common theory is that slavery would have eventually ended anyway, but how many years would that have taken? Certainly not by 1865. By seceding, firing on Ft. Sumpter, and pretty much kicking the crap out of the Northern Armies at every turn (in the Eastern theater at least) they kind of forced the North to make it war about more than just secession.

One of the interesting things was, some British politicians believed, among other things, that if the South won an early victory it would only serve to speed up the loss of slavery, because the Confederacy would be surrounded on all sides by free nations and would be unlikely to acquire new territory easily. The Lincoln administration was very keenly aware of timing when it came to things like the Emancipation Proclamation and the need to support it with a reasonable Union victory. The last thing they wanted was to give foreign observers the impression that the North, being on the losing side early on, was trying to achieve victory by fomenting slave revolts and such.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Holy moley, what a cast! Is this really going to happen?

I also read about a Civil War miniseries along the lines of Band of Brothers, in development by FOX.

Fox is in early development on an event series about the Civil War from Emmy-winning writer Bruce McKenna, who's been behind big minis like HBO's Band of Brothers and The Pacific.

 

[superdeluxe]

Holy moley, what a cast! Is this really going to happen?

I also read about a Civil War miniseries along the lines of Band of Brothers, in development by FOX.

Fox is in early development on an event series about the Civil War from Emmy-winning writer Bruce McKenna, who's been behind big minis like HBO's Band of Brothers and The Pacific.

It is pre-production, but things appear to be heading that ways, I think decision in regards to network will be coming hopefully soon

 

[gh4chiefs]

One has to wonder if the South didn't in fact accelerate the demise of slavery by seceding, and firing on Ft. Sumpter. Common theory is that slavery would have eventually ended anyway, but how many years would that have taken? Certainly not by 1865. By seceding, firing on Ft. Sumpter, and pretty much kicking the crap out of the Northern Armies at every turn (in the Eastern theater at least) they kind of forced the North to make it war about more than just secession.

One of the interesting things was, some British politicians believed, among other things, that if the South won an early victory it would only serve to speed up the loss of slavery, because the Confederacy would be surrounded on all sides by free nations and would be unlikely to acquire new territory easily. The Lincoln administration was very keenly aware of timing when it came to things like the Emancipation Proclamation and the need to support it with a reasonable Union victory. The last thing they wanted was to give foreign observers the impression that the North, being on the losing side early on, was trying to achieve victory by fomenting slave revolts and such.

I guess I'm wondering what would have happened had the South not seceded and not brought on the war. If they said "Well we don't like Lincoln but we're standing pat with what we have," I'm not sure how long (if ever) it would have taken for the North to move against slavery, or how long it would have taken to die on it's own. There's no way of knowing of course, but Lincoln doesn't strike me as someone who would have tried to end slavery WITHOUT the backdrop of the rebellion.

My point is ironically, the South probably sped up it's own demise, most likely by several years, by taking such drastic actions to protect this "peculiar institution."

 

[Unicron]

I agree, and it's a very interesting question. Lincoln was something of an unknown quantity when he assumed the presidency, and some members of his cabinet (William Seward, for example, who had hoped to be elected himself) thought he was someone who could essentially be controlled. One of the interesting AH scenarios I have has the North winning the first battle and capturing Jefferson Davis in the process (he'd come up to witness the fight in person), and the Confederate generals soon negotiate an honorable surrender. The war simply becomes the "Rebellion of '61" and is far less deadly to both sides, as Lincoln is able to carry out his amicable reconstruction policy.

 

[Data Holmes]

Anyone interested should check out the book "Black Confederates" by Charles Kelly Barrow, Joe Henert Segars, and Randall Britt Rosenburg. It has many details about black confederates and slaves who fought against the union.

The confederate military was intergrated, both the army and navy had blacks serving within white units. The confederate military was the first to have black chaplains, who admits erred to white troops. The south was even on the verge of emancipation toward the end of the war, as giving up the institution of slavery was more acceptable than losing the nation in the eyes of the political leadership.

 

[superdeluxe]

If ratings are good enough, there are plans that this would be 3 'seasons'.

A older post from the producer:

]If ratings are high enough and the network deems TO APPOMATTOX successful "business," we plan to continue following the characters through two more "seasons." These would cover "Reconstruction" then "The Indian Wars." That's where we'll find (God willing) Grant's world tour.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Gimmee a break, the Confederate military was not "integrated." And the South was hardly on the verge of emancipation at the end of the war. There was some discussion of it, in the context that they were going to lose anyway, and emancipation was inevitable. At best, they would have been trying to take credit for the efforts of others. Wow, give them a gold star.

With imagination like that, I don't see why you aren't working on a science fiction version of the Civil War. Do the Mirror Universe Civil War: What if the Confederates were the abolitionists? Turn everything on its head, to hell with historical facts. It could be incredibly entertaining!

Meanwhile, back in the real world, there were a few scattered instances of blacks serving in the Confederate military, such as the Louisiana Native Guard, who failed to flee New Orleans when the Union Army came to town. Instead, they offered to join the North and fight for them. I guess they were just eager to fight somebody, or more likely, they had property in New Orleans that they were eager to defend - New Orleans' "colored" population being unusual in that regard.

By contrast, the Union Army and Navy totalled about 10% black - 200,000 out of 2 million. Here's my book list for further reading of the nonfictional role of blacks in the Civil War (some of which also cover the war in general):

The complete Civil War journal and selected letters of Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Army Life in a Black Regiment by Higginson.

Battle Cry of Freedom and Drawn with the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War
by James McPherson.

Blue-Eyed Child of Fortune: The Civil War Letters of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw - the guy from Glory.

And for a really thorough experience, peruse Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation, a series of 900-page tomes, which cover both Northern and Southern black recruitment (among other topics), and put the Southern recruitment into context - extremely sparse, especially compared with what the North was doing (and with a very different political complexion.)

And right now you can read an interesting essay by historian Ta-Nehisi Coates, Why Do So Few Blacks Study the Civil War? Among other things, he explains the persistent oddity of the viewpoint that "the war wasn't really about slavery."

And since we're on the topic, I did notice that the cast of To Appomattox is blindingly white. Okay, it looks like it's going to focus on the upper echelons of the military and political establishment, so that's only to be expected.

But in addition to telling that story, I would really like something along the lines of Band of Brothers, which takes the perspective of common soldiers. That's what I'm hoping from the show in development by FOX. And if they take that approach, they better take the Whites Only sign off the production, and include not just blacks in the military but also depict the legions of escaped slaves (inexplicably fleeing the Confederate abolitionists!) who served behind the lines in various capacities, as teamsters, laborers, cooks, and hospital workers. Blacks were far more important to the Northern war effort than is generally depicted in film or on TV. Time to change that.

 

[superdeluxe]

And since we're on the topic, I did notice that the cast of To Appomattox is blindingly white. Okay, it looks like it's going to focus on the upper echelons of the military and political establishment, so that's only to be expected.

It definitely is, while some of the focus will be on the battles, a good portion of the focus will be the relationships between Grant-Lee-Sherman etc.

 

[gh4chiefs]

Anyone interested should check out the book "Black Confederates" by Charles Kelly Barrow, Joe Henert Segars, and Randall Britt Rosenburg. It has many details about black confederates and slaves who fought against the union.

The confederate military was intergrated, both the army and navy had blacks serving within white units. The confederate military was the first to have black chaplains, who admits erred to white troops. The south was even on the verge of emancipation toward the end of the war, as giving up the institution of slavery was more acceptable than losing the nation in the eyes of the political leadership.

I gotta say that all seems unlikely but I know you're just quoting the book (it's not like any of us were there to see it in person.) Sounds like maybe they are taking some truth and twisting it to try to make some kind of point, whatever that might be I don't know.

After reading your comments, followed by Temis' comments, it made me want to look around on the web and I found this website: www.blackconfederatesoldiers.com and if you look on that site they have a "reading list" which has books regarding this subject. They list the book you're citing here, and a few others as well.

Again as I mentioned earlier in the thread, this is what is so hard about trying to understand what REALLY happened with any given historical event, you get so many different accounts of what happened, mixed in with people who deliberately distort information for personal agendas. I'm not saying that's what these authors are doing but it is so contrary to anything else I've read that it just seems improbable and inaccurate.