Yankees Modern History eBook

7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook

1/29

YANKEES AND

CONFEDERATES IN THEAMERICAN STATESIN THE MID-19TH

CENTURY

1

CASE STUDY

INTRODUCTION

The topic o this depth study is one o the most critical in the history o the United

States o America. This study deals with the American Civil War between the Union

in the North, the Yankees, and the Conederates in the South, who sought to leave

the Union and establish a separate country.

The Civil War is the most widely studied and discussed historical issue in the USA.

Books, flms and television programs about the war are popular with the general

public. For academic historians this time redefned the American nation, which

became a world power in the twentieth century.


2/29

2 | Key Features of Modern History

Timeline

1820 The Missouri Compromise. The territory of Missouri applies to join the Union as a statein 1819. The Whites in Missouri own slaves; therefore, it would join as a slave state. Upuntil this time, states from the pro-slavery South and the anti-slavery North had joined the

Union in pairs to keep the balance between pro-slavery and anti-slavery politicians in the

US Senate. Missouri spoils the balance. The dispute is settled by letting the Northern freestate of Maine into the Union at the same time. This compromise shows that a big problem

exists over slavery; the Missouri Compromise does not solve the problem; it just postponed

it for forty years.

1831 The Nat Turner slave rebellion in Virginia. Turner and a group of followers kill sixty Whites.After the rebellion is put down, Turner and a hundred others are executed. The stategovernment in Virginia starts to talk about abolishing slavery.

1832 South Carolina defies the Federal Government over a national tariff law citing statesrights. President Andrew Jackson threatens to use the army to force South Carolinato accept the law and the state backs down. This is an example of the views held by

Southern states about their rights in relation to the Federal Government.

1846

The USA goes to war with Mexico and gains land in the south-west.

1850 The compromise of 1850. Land taken from Mexico creates new problems: should peoplein these new lands be allowed to have slaves? The result is another compromise.California joins the Union as a free state, while the rest become territories and decide for

themselves whether they will allow slavery. The problem is put off again until another time.

1852 Harriet Beecher Stowe writes the novel Uncle Toms Cabinattacking slavery. It has greatinfluence in the North and causes resentment in the South.

1854 The KansasNebraska Act. This is a political attempt to find a solution to slavery. Aspeople move west, arguments increase about whether slavery should go with them.The North doesnt want slavery to spread and the South feels that because slavery is

legal, slave-owners should be allowed to take their slaves wherever they want. The new

territories of Kansas and Nebraska attract a great deal of attention. Stephen Douglas, a

Northern Democrat who wants to be president, says that the new territories should make

the decision for themselves. This is called popular sovereignty. Pro- and anti-slavery

groups flood the new territories with their supporters and this leads to violence.

The Republican Party is formed. The Republicans are outraged by the KansasNebraska

Act and oppose the idea of extending slavery any further. Abraham Lincoln becomes one

of the early leaders of the new party.

1857 The Dred Scott case. The case, heard by the US Supreme Court, holds that slaves arealways the property of their masters, even if they are taken into free states or territories.This decision is greeted with approval in the South, but increases calls from the North to

make slavery illegal.

1859 John Browns Raid. John Brown raids the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry to steal gunsand start a slave rebellion. The Union army stops him and Brown is hanged.

1860 The Democratic Party splits over slavery into Northern and Southern Democrats. Thisensures the election of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate for the presidency.When Lincoln is elected, the first of the Southern states, South Carolina, leaves the Union.

1861 The South forms the Confederate States of America (known as the CSA or theConfederacy) and leaves the Union.Jefferson Davis becomes President of the Confederacy.

The Confederates fire upon Fort Sumter, the Union fort in Charleston Harbor, South

Carolina, and the Civil War begins.

The Battle of Bull Run is the first battle of the Civil War and the South wins. The North

realises it will be a long war.


3/29

Yankees and Confederates in the American States in the Mid-19th Century | 3

1862 Robert E. Lee is given command of the army of Northern Virginia.The Battle of Antietam, repelling an invasion of the North by Lee, is called a Union victory,

but at a great cost of lives. It is really a wasted opportunity.

At the Battle of Fredericksburg the Union attacks at the strongest point of the Southern

line, suffers heavy losses and is forced to withdraw.

1863 Lincoln announces the Emancipation Proclamation, which frees all slaves.The Battle of Gettysburg is perhaps the last real chance of success that the South has in

the war. Gettysburg is a Union victory.

1864 Lincoln appoints Grant as general-in-chief of the Union army.Lincoln is re-elected president.

1865 The Civil War ends.Lincoln is assassinated. Vice-President Andrew Johnson becomes president.

The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution makes the abolition of slavery official.

1868Ulysses Grant, the most successful Union general of the war, is elected as the eighteenth

president of the USA.

Timeline exercise

Study the timeline, then match a clue from List A with an answer from List B.

List A

s *OINSTHE5NIONATTHESAMETIMEAS-ISSOURIIN

s 0OPULARSOVEREIGNTY

s 'RANT

s !TTEMPTSTODEFYTHE&EDERAL'OVERNMENTCITING@STATESRIGHTS

s *EFFERSON$AVIS

s

s ,INCOLNELECTED0RESIDENT

s 4HE.AT4URNERREBELLION

s (ARRIET"EECHER3TOWE

s

List B

s

s THE#IVIL7ARENDS

s WRITESUncle Toms Cabin

s 3OUTH#AROLINA

s SIXTY7HITESKILLEDIN

s THE+ANSASn.EBRASKA!CT

s -AINE

s THE%MANCIPATION0ROCLAMATIONANDTHE"ATTLEOF'ETTYSBURG

s THEEIGHTEENTHPRESIDENT

s THEPRESIDENTOFTHE#ONFEDERATE3TATESOF!MERICA


4/29


THE SOUTH AND STATES RIGHTS

SLAVERY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

One o the key issues o the Civil War was the question o states rights. Beore the Civil War, the United

States was a plural noun; in other words, the ocus was on the separate states that had chosen to unite.

Ater the war, the United States was accepted as a singular noun with the emphasis on the union o

states, or the act that the states had become one country. Beore the Civil War many in the Southbelieved their frst and greatest loyalty was to their state. An example o this was the clash between

the state o South Carolina and the Federal Government in 1832. The president at the time was

Andrew Jackson, who believed that the interests o the people were best served by a strong Federal

Government. Jackson made this clear during the dispute with South Carolina over taris, which were

taxes put on imported goods by the Federal Government to make them more expensive so that people

would buy US-made goods. South Carolina was against the policy; they didnt have industries and

wanted to buy goods more cheaply rom Britain. They claimed the law avoured the Yankee Northern

states where most o Americas industries were located, but disadvantaged the Southern states.

Historian James McPherson pointed out that the question o states rights, along with the issue

o slavery, was central to the debate about the origins o the Civil War. The Southern states jealously

guarded their way o lie and what they saw as their legal right to hold slaves. They also eared that the

more populous North, growing rich on trade and industry, threatened their independence and way o

lie (McPherson 1997).

The frst black slaves arrived around 1619. Slavery expanded when the plantation economy o the

South developed. By rough count about three million slaves were brought into the US between 1619

and 1865 to provide cheap labour or the tobacco, sugar cane and cotton plantations. As the number

o slaves grew into the millions in the South, the laws were adjusted to control slavery. By 1740 slaves

had become chattels: not people, but objects or things that could be bought, sold and used as theowner pleased. The changes to the law produced what has been called the peculiar institution o

slavery in the Southern states o the USA.

In the late 1700s the Yankees in the North had less need or slaves; their industries and arms did

not need slave labour. In the South exactly the opposite had happened. Thereore, by 1800, slavery

was dying out in the North and growing in the South. This undamental dierence was one o the key

causes o the American Civil War. Cotton was one o the main actors in this distinction as the cotton

industry in the South used slave labour. Slavery may have declined gradually in the South, as it had in

the North, had it not been or cotton.

REV IEW QUEST IONS

1 When did the first slaves arrive?

2 Why did slavery become important to the South?

3 To what does the phrase the peculiar institution refer?

4 How many slaves were brought into the United States between 1619 and 1865?


5/29


THE EFFECTS OF SLAVERY ON THE SOUTH

Not everyone in the South owned slaves. Out o eight million Whites, only about 380 000 owned slaves

in 1860. Nevertheless, the class o rich landholders with slaves controlled the South. Slavery might

have, in the short term, helped the Southern economy, but it could not last as it discouraged the

development o new industry and new ideas.

Slavery was seen by many Southerners as the means to keep all Whites more or less equal. Without

slavery, they argued, Whites would have to perorm menial jobs; with slavery, the Blacks perormed such

tasks, keeping the Whites in a class above. Southerners were critical o developments in the North, where

Whites did manual work in harsh conditions in actories, claiming this created inequality among Whites

and was, thereore, contrary to American ideals. Right up to the Civil War the South believed that it

reected the true and original spirit o the United States, and it was the North that wanted change.

LIFE FOR SLAVES IN THE 1800s

In the 1800s slaves suered the ollowing conditions:

r 5IFZXFSFSFHBSEFEBTADIBUUFMT

r 5IFZDPVMECFTFQBSBUFEGSPNUIFJSGBNJMJFTBOETPMEUPEJFSFOUANBTUFST

r 5IF8IJUFTUSJFEUPFMJNJOBUFNFNPSJFTPGUIFJSQBTUBOEDVMUVSF

r #ZMBXUIFZDPVMEOPUPXOQSPQFSUZMFBWFUIFJSNBTUFSTMBOEXJUIPVUQFSNJTTJPOCFPVUBGUFSEBSL

KPJOHSPVQTPGPUIFSTMBWFTFYDFQUPOXPSLHBOHTPSJODIVSDIDBSSZHVOTFWFSIJUBXIJUFQFSTPO

FWFOJOTFMGEFGFODFPSMFBSOUPSFBEPSXSJUF

r 8IJUFTDPVMEIPXFWFSLJMMTMBWFTXIJMFQVOJTIJOHUIFNXJUIPVUQFOBMUZ

In general, slaves were subjected to these conditions, but there were dierences in how they were

treated depending on their age, gender, skills, location and luck. Some masters could be kind and

thoughtul; others could be extremely cruel.

Occasionally, slaves did gain their reedom. Some managed to get extra work and save money to buy

themselves rom their owners. Some slaves were set ree in thanks when their owner died. For the most

part, however, slaves gained their reedom by running away. Many ree Blacks and ex-slaves played an

important part in the Civil War; or example, they made up ten per cent o the Union army. One o the

most amous Black units was the 54th Massachusetts Inantry. Their story was made into an excellent

historical flm, Glory.

THE REACTION OF BLACKS TO SLAVERY

It is impossible to tell just how the slaves elt about their situation in the mid-1800s. Slave-owners

claimed their Blacks were happy; however, this was not supported by the act that slaves saw Abraham

Lincoln as a hero, or that Whites were always on the alert or slave revolts or runaway slaves. The

argument that the slaves were happy was based on the perception that Blacks were dierent. The

REV IEW QUEST IONS

1 How many Southern Whites owned slaves?

2 How was slavery meant to avoid inequality among Whites?


6/29


Whites knew that they wouldnt like to be slaves, but i they

could convince themselves that the Blacks were not like

them, slavery might be acceptable.

Slaves ought the system in two ways. First, every day,

in little ways, and second by violent uprising. In their daily

lie many would only do enough work to avoid getting

into trouble. Many Whites misunderstood this, believing

their Black slaves were just stupid or lazy. By ar the greatest

ear o the Whites was, however, the risk o a slave revolt.

These uprisings were rare but this didnt diminish the ear.

The most amous o all slave revolts was led by Nat Turner

in Virginia in 1831. Turner had been taught to read by the

son o his owner, which was against the rules. Turner led

a group that killed sixty White men, women and children.

Turner had a kind master and this conused the Whites,

who would have ound the rebellion easier to understand iTurner had been regularly beaten. To the Whites this proved

how unpredictable slaves could be and they were all the

more araid. Not long ater the rebellion was suppressed

and Turner was put to death, the Virginia State Legislature

discussed ending slavery in that state. For many months

they debated the idea o gradually reeing the slaves and

returning them to Arica.

REV IEW TASK

Nat Turner was a terrorist. (Terrorism is the use

of violence or the threat of violence by a person

or group to get what they want.) Most of the

murdered Whites did not know Nat Turner. The

children were unlikely to have done him harm,yet he was responsible for their deaths.

Can the rebellion be justified?

As you discuss this question, you might

consider the following points:

s )NNOCENT7HITESWEREKILLED

s )NNOCENT"LACKSBECAMESLAVESAGAINST

their will.

s +ILLINGISWRONGBUTSOISSLAVERY

s +ILLINGINNOCENT7HITEADULTSANDCHILDRENMIGHThave been wrong, but something good came

out of it: the Virginia state politicians started to

talk about freeing the slaves.

s #ANTERRORISMEVERBEJUSTIlED

The historical issue o slavery has produced disagreement.One o the earliest issues discussed was the part slavery

played in causing the Civil War; historians then moved on

to look at what lie was like or the slaves themselves.

Just beore the Civil War most o the books written

about slavery either showed that it was good or Blacks

or that it was cruel. Writers rom both the South and the

North selected their acts and stories to prove their point

o view.

In the 1920s U. B. Phillips wrote a book called American

Negro Slavery, arguing that the vast majority o slave-owners

took good care o their Blacks and that the slaves were

generally happy. This idea lasted until the 1940s. One o the

books to challenge this idea was The Peculiar Institution by

Kenneth Stampp (1956), which presented evidence to show

that slavery was cruel, both physically and mentally.

Books written in the 1970s and 1980s accepted that

slavery was cruel, but pointed out that Black amilies had not

been destroyed. In act, Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman

in their bookTime on the Cross noted that many slaves

became managers and leaders o their own communities.

At the time o the Civil War, 90 per cent o the Blackpopulation could not read or write. By 1880 this fgure

had dropped to 70 per cent, and by 1900 it was down

to 50 per cent. In 1860 only 2 per cent o Black children

attended school; by 1880 this was up to 34 per cent.

When slavery ended many Blacks were still poor, and the

racism that existed in the USA generally, and the South in

particular, did not make lie easy, but, as historian James

McPherson noted, this was the beginning o a social

revolution in the US that is still being elt today.

DOCUMENT S TUDY QUEST IONS

1 Summarise the views on slavery

presented by:

(a) U. B. Phillips

(b) Kenneth Stampp

(c) Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman.

2 Why did the abolition of slavery result in a

social revolution in the USA?

DOCUMENT STUDY: THE ASSESSMENT OF SLAVERY


7/29


SLAVERY AND THE CIVIL WAR

The noble statement made by Jeerson in the Declaration o Independence about all people being equal

was contradicted by the act that there were slaves in the US. American politicians struggled with the

contradiction that their society was meant to be ree and air, but at the same time allowed slavery. The

Civil War almost destroyed the USi the South had won, there would be two countries occupying the

area that is now the USA. It was the bloodiest war in American history. Six hundred thousand Americans

died, more than in either the First World War (115 000) or the Second World War (318 000). The leadership

o the North provided by the Republican President Abraham Lincoln was one o the key reasons or the

survival o the Union. Lincoln did not like slavery, but he always said that to him the Union, or in other

words the survival o the USA as a united country, was the most important thing. Lincoln and the North

did fght to ree the slaves, but primarily they ought to keep the USA as one country.

THE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WARThe causes o the Civil War have been argued or a long time. It is air to say that there were a number

o causes.

THE BASIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH

The Northern states and the Southern states were not alike. The North was industrialised and

urbanised; by contrast the South depended more on agriculture and did not have many large cities.

The North avoured high taris; the South wanted lower taris. The South didnt like the act that most

N

0 400 800 1200 km

KEY

Confederate states

Union states

Virginia divides:17 April 1861

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

US TERRITORIES

MINN.

IOWA

KANSAS

MISSOURI

WIS.

ILLINOIS

MICHIGAN

IND.OHIO

KENTUCKY

W. VA.

PA

NEW YORK

VTNH

MAINE

MASS

CONN.RI

NJDEL.

MDVA

SC

GAALA.

MISS.

ARK.INDIANTERR.

TEXASLA

FLORIDA

NC

Figure 1.1 The Union (Yankees) in the North and the Southern Confederates in the Civil War


8/29


o the big banks were in the North; many elt controlled by Northern bankers. The North received more

migrants rom Europepeople with new ideas and the dream o a new way o lie. Southerners liked

the old ways and were more conservative.

The different views of the Constitution

The US Constitution is the set o rules that states what the government is allowed to do. Beore theCivil War it became clear that politicians in the North and South had dierent views about the powers

o the Federal Government. The Northern view was that the Federal Government was dominant and

its authority was greater than that o the states. In the South there was a strong belie in states rights:

the idea that individual states were more important than the Federal Government. Southern politicians

argued that i they disapproved o the Federal Government they could leave the Union, because the

states had joined the Union o their own ree will and were thereore entitled to leave whenever they

wanted. This view was not accepted in the North, especially by Republican politicians such as Abraham

Lincoln who argued that the Union could not be broken up.

Slavery

This is one o the causes o the war that historians have argued about since the 1860s. At timeshistorians believed that slavery was the only real cause, and at other times historians elt it wasnt really

that important. The truth is that slavery was a vital cause as it became the symbol o the dierences

between North and South. The South believed that slaves were needed to work their plantations. To

Southerners, slavery was part o their way o lieit had existed or hundreds o years and was legal.

When people in the North started to speak out against slavery and demand that it be made illegal,

Southerners saw this as another example o the North trying to tell them what to do.

Slavery was the source o bad eeling between North and South, stirred up by events like John

Browns raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859. Brown was a violent Northerner who believed that slavery was

against the will o God. He staged an unsuccessul raid o the ederal arsenal at Harpers Ferry to steal

guns to arm the slaves, planning a massive slave revolt.

The period o slavery also saw the birth o the Republican Party. In addition, arguments between

Northern and Southern Democrats resulted in a split in the Democrats just beore the Civil War. Clearly

slavery had a great deal o inuence on events.

The westward expansionWhen the USA was ormed it was made up o only thirteen states. The men who wrote the Constitution

hoped the problems o slavery would just go away with time, but as the USA grew, the problem o

slavery grew with it. The westward expansion kept the nations attention on slavery. People in the

North didnt want slavery to expand; people in the South elt that since slavery was legal they should

be able to have slaves wherever they wanted. As the rontier moved west, there were arguments about

whether slaves should be allowed in the new territories.

The problem was that the newly opened territories would eventually become states. Under

the Constitution each state had two senators. The Senate was the most important law-making and

decision-making body in America. I the anti-slavery groups rom the North got more senators,

they could pass laws to make slavery illegal. I the pro-slavery South got more senators, they could

maintain the status quo. Neither side wanted the other to gain the advantage. The result was a series o

compromises that kept the balance between slave and ree states, and thereore a balance between

slave and ree senators.

First came the Missouri Compromise o 1820, when Missouri wanted to be let into the Union.

Missouri would have been a slave state, giving the South two extra senators. The problem was solvedby allowing Maine to enter the Union at the same time. Maine was a ree state in the ar North. This


9/29


compromise lasted until 1850 when another was needed over the land that had just been won rom

Mexico. This held until Kansas and Nebraska wanted to join the Union and yet another compromise,

the KansasNebraska Act, was passed. As the country moved west, arguments about slavery continued,

increasing tension between the North and South.

Lincolns electionThe Republican candidate or the presidency in 1860 was Abraham Lincoln. His main opposition was

split. The Democratic Party had become so badly divided over slavery that they put up two candidates,

one rom the North, Stephen Douglas, and one rom the South, John Breckinridge. Lincoln won the

election with strong support rom the North, even though he was hated in the South, where people

eared that he would ban slavery. As soon as Lincoln was elected Southern states began to leave the

Union. The new president made it as clear as he could that he would not orce the South to give up

slavery, but the Southerners were in no mood to listen. The frst state to leave the Union was South

Carolina, quickly ollowed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. They became

the Conederate States o America on 4 February 1861. Jeerson Davis o Mississippi became the

President o the CSA.

Lincoln took the view that although slavery was legal, breaking away rom the Union was illegal and

constituted a rebellion. When Southern orces, also known as Rebels or Conederates, fred on the Union

Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, the Civil War began. At this point, our more states

Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolinaalso joined the CSA, bringing the total to eleven.

REV IEW TASK

Look at the list of statements for and against the right of the Southern states to leave

the Union, dealing with the themes of states rights and national unity.

The arguments for are like those presented by the President of the Confederacy,

Jefferson Davis. The arguments against are the ones used by US President

Abraham Lincoln.

4HINKABOUTTHEARGUMENTSPRESENTEDTHENDISCUSSTHEM)FYOULIKEHOLDACLASS

debate. Add any arguments that you think fair and write one page for the argument

you support.

THE SOUTHERN ARGUMENT

s 4HESTATESJOINEDTHE5NIONOFTHEIROWNFREEWILL)FTHEYCHANGE

THEIRMINDANDWANTTOLEAVETHEYMUSTBEALLOWEDTODOSO

s 4HESTATESEXISTEDBEFORETHE5NIONANDARETHEREALBASISOFTHE

GOVERNMENTOFTHEPEOPLE4HEYARETHEREFOREMOREIMPORTANTTHAN

THE5NION

s 4HEGOVERNMENTIN7ASHINGTONISTOOFARAWAYANDDOESNTKNOW

WHATTHEPEOPLEINEACHSTATEWANT3TATEGOVERNMENTSARECLOSER

TOTHEIRPEOPLEANDHAVEABETTERIDEAOFWHATTHEPEOPLEWANTAND

THEYWANTTOLEAVETHE5NION

s 4HE3OUTHHASHADSLAVESFORHUNDREDSOFYEARS.OMATTERWHATYOU

THINKABOUTITSLAVERYISLEGAL3OME.ORTHERNERSNOWWANTTOSTOP

3OUTHERNERSTAKINGTHEIRSLAVESINOTHERWORDSTHEIRPROPERTYWITH

THEMWHEREVERTHEYGO4HISISTYPICALOFHOWTHE.ORTHTELLSTHE

3OUTHWHATITSHOULDDO4HE3OUTHDOESNTTELLTHE.ORTHTOGIVEITS

FACTORYWORKERSBETTERPAYORSHORTERHOURS

THE NORTHERN ARGUMENT

s 4HE5NIONONCEMADECANNOTBEBROKENUPUNLESSallTHESTATES

AGREE)NDIVIDUALSTATESCANNOTMAKEANINDIVIDUALDECISIONTOLEAVE

THE5NION

s 4OBREAKAWAYWITHOUTTHEAGREEMENTOFTHEOTHERSTATESISAGAINST

THELAWANDISTHEREFOREREBELLION

s 4HENATIONASAWHOLEHASTOBEMOREIMPORTANTTHANANYSINGLE

STATE4HEGOODOFTHENATIONISMOREIMPORTANTTHANTHEWISHESOF

INDIVIDUALSTATES

s 3LAVERYISAGAINSTTHESPIRITOFTHE@$ECLARATIONOF)NDEPENDENCEAND

EVERYTHINGTHAT!MERICAISMEANTTOBE

s ,INCOLNCANNOTANDWILLNOTMAKESLAVERYILLEGALUNLESSTHE3OUTHERN

STATESAGREE(EISONLYAGAINSTTHEIDEATHATSLAVERYBEALLOWEDTO

SPREAD


10/29


THE COURSE OF THE CIVIL WAR

There was confdence that the war would be over quickly.

Many in the South believed all that was needed was a strong

show o orce to convince the North to leave them alone.

Southerners also believed the European powers would

get involved to help them. The South supplied much o

the worlds cotton and they thought that any attempt by

the North to stop the export o this key material to Europe

would result in Britain and other European nations joining

the war. Northerners were confdent because the North was

more populous, had more industry and greater wealth, and

controlled almost all the US Navy. Both sides were wrong.

The war turned into a long and bitter struggle that didnt

end until 1865.

The American Civil War was the frst industrial war and

was also one o the frst wars that could be called a total

war. In other words, civilians o both sides elt its eects.

Industry increased in importance, supplying guns, uniorms

and all kinds o military equipment; arming produced

ood to eed the armies. Railways increased in importance,

transporting the soldiers and their equipment. Many vital

battles determined the outcome o the war and each side

had real chances to win.

THE KEY BATTLES

The frst battle at Bull Run 1861 This was the frst major

battle o the Civil War and was a setback or the North.

It was ought in northern Virginia not ar rom the Union

capital, Washington. A Union army o 30 000 under the

command o General Irvin McDowell aced a Conederate

orce o 20 000 led by General Beauregard. Both sides were

equally inexperienced and the battle could have gone

either way; however, in the end the South won and the

Union troops ran all the way back to Washington. This

proved to be a great surprise to the civilians who had driven

out rom the Union capital with picnic baskets in orderto watch. They were orced to ee with the Union army

and a ew lucky members o the rebel army enjoyed the

lunches that were let behind. McDowell was immediately

replaced as commander o the Union army by General

George McClellan. Throughout the rest o 1861 and most

o 1862, McClellan spent his time recruiting and training

the Union army. President Lincoln kept urging McClellan to

fght, but the general usually ound excuses to avoid it. It

appeared that he was better at training armies than he was

at leading them in battle. When he did attack, moving south

into Virginia, he was unsuccessul, partly because o the

Figure 1.3 Abraham Lincoln in 1863. Many regard him as the

greatest American president.

61%66% 67%

75%81%

19%

25%

33%34%39%

Union versus Confederate resources in the Civil War

Population Railroadmilage

Farms Wealthproduced

Factories

North South

Figure 1.2 Using the graph, predict the outcome of the Civil War.Support your answer with close reference to the graph.


11/29


outstanding leadership o the new Conederate commander General Robert E. Lee and partly because

McClellan was exceptionally cautious.

The battle o Antietam 1862 McClellans army o 87 000 aced the invading Conederate army

o 50 000 led by General Lee across Antietam Creek in Maryland. This was the bloodiest battle in a war

flled with bloody battles. Twenty-our thousand men died and it was possible to walk all the way across

the battlefeld on a carpet o corpses. During the battle some o the wounded rom both sides had

crawled into haystacks to wait or help. As the battle raged, shells fred by the cannons started fres,

which raced through the haystacks, and the wounded men, too weak to move, were burnt alive. The

Conederate army withdrew, so the battle was technically a Union victory, but at enormous cost.

The next two commanders o the Union army were Ambrose Burnside and Joseph Hooker. They

were in turn replaced by General Meade as President Lincoln tried to fnd a general who might match

the leadership o the Souths Robert E. Lee.

The capture o Vicksburg July 1863 In the west the Union orces were doing better. The

important Conederate town o Vicksburg on the Mississippi River ell to the Union ater a long siege.

Control o Vicksburg and a later Union success at Port Hudson in Louisiana gave the North command

o the entire Mississippi River, cut Texas o rom the rest o the Conederacy, and badly weakened the

Souths already poor supply and transport system. Along with other successes in the west, the capture

o Vicksburg brought General Ulysses Grant to national attention.

The battle o Gettysburg July 1863 This battle was ought just beore the surrender o

Vicksburg, because o the long Union siege. The Southern commander, General Lee, moved north into

Pennsylvania; he hoped that by doing so he might orce the Union to take some o the pressure o

Figure 1.4 Artillery and the mini-ball made the open battlefield a lethal place.


12/29


Vicksburg. Gettysburg was one o the key battles o the Civil War and probably the last real

chance the South had to win. It was perhaps the worst battle that General Lee ought. His

decision on the last day o the battle to order the charge o General Picketts division across

open ground in the middle o the Union line proved to be a disaster. Lees army retreated and

was on the deensive or the rest o the war (Stackpole 1956).

The campaigns o 186465 By 1864 Lincoln had ound the general he needed. Grant

was put in charge o all the Union armies. Some historians argue that Grants understanding

o modern industrial war made him as good a general, i not better, than Robert E. Lee. Grant

had ought in the war against Mexico and knew how bloody war could be. In his frst battle

a bullet blew the jaw o the man standing next to him clean away; his jaw and lower teeth

were let lying on the ground, his ace a bloody mask.

Grant was a clear-minded and realistic commander. He recognised what had to be

done to end the war and he believed the way to win was to wage war in a way that would

hurt the civilians on the Southern home rontGrants march south into Virginia and

General Shermans campaign in Georgia were clear examples o this plan. Grant led the

Union army south into Virginia. He ought a series o bitter battles in May and June o 1864:The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna and Cold Harbor. O these our battles, only

Spotsylvania could be called a Union victory. The dierence was that Grant kept moving

South, putting Lee under continual pressure. Even though the Union armies suered heavy

losses, Grant was more ruthless and relentless than previous Union generals. Grant was in

act fghting a war o attrition. He knew the North had more men and more resources and

that in this kind o war ultimately had to win. This idea is supported by the act that when the

war ended the North had lost 359 000 men and the South 258 000. The North won because

they could aord more losses.

During the Battle o Spotsylvania one o the Unions most popular generals, John

Sedgwick, reluctantly provided an important lesson about modern war. The Conederateshad snipers, that is, expert riemen armed with ries with telescopic sights. These snipers

shot at anything in sight rom a range o 800 metres, keeping the Union troops down and

slowing important preparations or coming attacks. When General Sedgwick heard o this

he went straight to the ront line to convince his men there was really nothing to ear rom

snipers. Uncle John, as Sedgwick was known to his men, told them he was ashamed o them

taking cover as soon as they heard a shot. He laughed and stepped into the open. They

couldnt hit an elephant at this distance, he said, just beore a Conederate sniper put a bullet

into his ace below the let eye. Sedgwick died almost immediately.

Meanwhile, in the west, General Sherman was moving south into Georgia with a

ruthlessness to match Grants. A deeat at Kennesaw Mountain did not stop him. Shermanmoved on and captured the city o Atlanta in September 1864 and then set about destroying

the economy o Georgia to diminish the supply o Conederate troops. Railway lines were

torn up, crops and houses were burned and livestock were killed. Sometimes the Union

troops got out o control, robbing and bashing civilians. Shermans march to the sea rom

Atlanta to the coast at Savannah was an example o total war. The purpose was to make war

on the Southern home ront. Sherman did not apologise or this. He blamed the South or

starting the war and elt they were simply being punished, saying, war is cruelty. This act o

war by the North resulted in bitterness, which lasted or decades.

As the war moved into 1865, Grant set up another siege, this time around Petersburg. When

Lee could no longer deend the town, he moved west. By this time, however, Lees army was

reduced to only 25 000 men and on 9 April 1865 he surrendered to Grant at Appomattox.

DID YOU KNOW?

"URNSIDEAND(OOKERARE

BETTERREMEMBEREDFORADDING

NEWWORDSTOTHE%NGLISH

LANGUAGETHANTHEYAREAS

LEADERSOFMEN

"URNSIDEWOREHISWHISKERS

LONGATTHESIDEWHILEHISCHIN

WASCLEANSHAVENANDTHESE

BECAMEKNOWNAS@SIDEBURNS

*OE(OOKERSARMYWAS

FOLLOWEDBYGROUPSOFYOUNG

WOMENEAGERTOPROVIDE

COMFORTANDSEXUALFAVOURS

ATAPRICE4HEYWERECALLED

@(OOKERSWOMENORJUST

@(OOKERS


13/29


Figure 1.5 The reasons for the Union victory in the Civil War all in one photograph. Yorktown, Virginia, late in the war. The Union had moremunitions and men, and the ships in the background reflect the Norths control of the sea.


14/29


THE RESULTS OF THE CIVIL WARThe Civil War saved the Union, creating the modern American nation. Lincoln believed that the war

was also ought to return the USA to the ideals o the revolution by abolishing slavery. The war frmly

established the authority o the Federal Government over the states.

The assassination of Abraham LincolnAs a result o his leadership during the greatest domestic crisis in Americas history, Lincoln is widely

regarded as one o the greatest, i not the greatest, o the US presidents. The circumstances o his death

at the hands o an assassin on 14 April 1865, only fve days ater the end o the war helped reinorce

his reputation. Lincoln became another o the tragic victims o the war that had threatened to destroy

the country.

Figure 1.6 The Confederate capital of Richmond after the Union siegeevidence that the Civil War was a total war

REV IEW QUEST IONS

1 What is a civil war?

2 List and explain the five main causes of the American Civil War.

3 Which states of the USA joined the Confederacy?

4 What were the key battles of the Civil War?

5 Which general led the Southern army so well for most of the war?

6 List the commanding generals on the Union side before General Grant.

7 Why was General Shermans march to the sea an example of total war?

8 Outline the main reasons why the North won the Civil War.


15/29


Figure 1.7 A Civil War surgeons kit. Few battlefield surgeons had treated gunshot wounds before the war. Of the 11 000 Union doctorsonly 500 had performed surgery; on the Confederate side only 27 out of 3000 doctors had done so. Seven out of ten wounds treated by

the doctors were in the limbsstomach wounds were assumed to be fatal. The most common operation was an amputation. The bone-saw at the top of the illustration was one of the most frequently used medical instruments.


16/29


Lincoln was shot in the head and killed as he sat with his wie and two guests, Major Rathbone and

Clara Harris, in the presidential box at Fords Theatre in Washington. The assassin was John Wilkes Booth,

a well-known actor. With the war lost, Booth decided he would take revenge on Lincoln and the Union

government. Lincoln was not the only target. Booth and his ellow conspirators planned not only to k ill

the president, but the vice-president, Andrew Johnson, and the secretary o state, William Seward.

As an actor Booth had no trouble moving around the theatre. Ater the president and his party were

seated, Booth waited or a particular scene in the play where the audience always gave a big laugh

and a generous round o applause then opened the door to the presidents private box. The guard

had wandered o. Booth moved quietly behind Lincoln and put the barrel o his pistol, a single-shot

Derringer, next to Lincolns head and pulled the trigger. The president turned his head just beore the

atal shot was fred. The bullet, a handmade lead ball, 12 mm in diameter, marked with the initials AL,

entered the presidents head behind his let ear and travelled 17.5 cm into Lincolns skull, stopping

behind his right eye. For a moment everyone was uncertain what had actually happened. Major

Rathbone made a grab or Booth. The actor brought out a large knie and slashed Rathbones arm

beore jumping onto the stage. In making the jump Booth broke a bone in his leg just above the ankle.

As he limped behind the curtains he called out Sic semper tyrannis, Latin or Thus always to tyrants. AsBooth made his escape rom the theatre, Dr Charles Leale, a member o the audience, went to Lincolns

side. He ound the president very pale and without a pulse. Leale managed to restore the pulse but

then ound the wound in the back o Lincolns head and was certain the president would die. Leale was

joined by two other doctors and they moved Lincoln to a more comortable place in a house across

the road. Lincoln died on a bed in the back room o William Petersens house.

Figure 1.8 John Wilkes Booth shoots Lincoln in the back of the head.


17/29


Figure 1.9 This contemporary woodcut shows the attack on Seward. Compare it with the account in the text and note the differences.

The events at the Seward houseEqually sensational events took place at the home o Lincolns secretary o state, William Seward.

Seward was in bed recovering rom a carriage accident. A large man appeared at the door claiming

to have medicine or the injured Seward. When the servant reused to let the man in, the intruder

pushed past and, drawing a gun, began to climb the stairs. At this point, Frederick Seward, a son o the

secretary o state, appeared at the top o the stairs. The large man who had burst into the house was

clearly an assassin. The assassin attempted to shoot Frederick Seward but his gun wouldnt work, so he

smashed the pistol repeatedly over young Sewards head, leaving him near death on the stairs as he

rushed into the secretary o states bedroom. William Seward, however, was not alone; George Robinson

was in the room. The assassin drew a large hunting knie, called a Bowie knie ater its inventor, Jim

Bowie, who was a legendary rontier character. The blade was 22 cm long, heavy and extremely sharp.

The assassin slashed Robinson across the ront o the head, producing a rush o blood as he pushed

past and began to hack at Seward, who was stabbed three times around the head and neck. There

was, by now, literally blood all over the room. Then one o Sewards other sons, Augustus, burst into the

room and tried to save his ather. At the same time George Robinson had struggled to his eet and they

both rushed the assassin. Robinson was again stabbed, this time in the chest, and Augustus Seward

was practically scalped as the assassin slashed wildly with his knie. With bodies as well as blood all over

the room the assassin raced down the stairs, heading or the door. Just beore he reached the door a


18/29


young government messenger, Bud Hansell, arrived. Hansell was immediately stabbed in the chest; the

assassin hardly slowed as he raced into the night. Despite his terrible wounds Seward survived.

Controversy continues about the identity o the man who attacked the Seward household. It is

usual to read that the man was Lewis Payne, a powerul young man who knew Booth and ftted the

description o the attacker; however, some people claim it was Paynes cousin, Lewis Thorton Powell.

Ater the Union government caught most o the conspirators they claimed that Payne and Powell were

the same person, and quickly hanged Lewis Payne, but there is evidence that they were two dierent

people. In their race or quick justice the wrong man may have been hanged (Hanchett 1986).

At the same time, another conspirator, George Atzerodt, was meant to kill Vice-President Andrew

Johnson at a hotel where he was staying. However, or some reason Atzerodt did not act.

The fate of John Wilkes BoothAter shooting Lincoln, Booth ran rom the theatre, got on a horse and rode into the countryside near

Washington. He went to the house o a local doctor and had his broken leg set. A major search was

conducted and he was fnally trapped in a barn at Garretts arm on 26 April. Booth was shot and killed.

The man ocially credited with killing Booth was Sergeant Boston Corbett. This act made Corbett amousand he travelled the country. By 1887, however, he could no longer make a living through appearances

as the man who got Lincolns assassin. Instead, Corbett was made the doorman o the Kansas state

legislature. He kept this job until one day he went crazy and started shooting at politicians. Corbett was

arrested and put in an asylum. He then escaped and was thought to have travelled to Mexico.

ReferencesHanchett W., The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies, University o Illinois Press, Urbana, 1986

McPherson J. M., Drawn with the Sword, Oxord University Press, New York, 1997

Stackpole E. J., They Met at Gettysburg, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, 1956Stampp K. M., The Peculiar Institution, Vintage Books, New York, 1956


19/29

BISMARCK AND

UNIFICATION OF THEGERMAN STATES

CASE STUDY

INTRODUCTION

The process o German unifcation and the ultimate union o the German states

had a proound inuence on the history o Europe and the world in the late

nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For years, Germany comprised a group o

independent states, such as Prussia, Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, Baden, Wurttemberg,

Hanover and others, bound together by a common language and aspects o

culture. The inuence o the French Revolution and the invasion by Napoleons

armies accelerated the move towards unifcation. Under Napoleon the numbero German states was reduced rom 300 to 38 as part o the Conederation o

the Rhine. The Congress o Vienna in 1815 held back the orces o change and

delayed unifcation or a time. In 1848, however, a series o revolutions inspired

by the ideas o liberalism, socialism and nationalism broke out across Europe. The

German revolutionaries o 1848 hoped to uniy the old eudal states o Germany

and build a modern nation. The revolutions ailed. Germany was, however,

ultimately unifed, but the process o unifcation came rom above. Otto von

Bismarck, a Prussian aristocrat, was the architect o unifcation and used the power

o the Prussian state and war to achieve his goals.


20/29


Timeline

1815 The Congress of Vienna. The European powers that had defeated Napoleon meet inVienna to decide the fate of Europe. Prince Metternich of Austria is one of the dominantfigures at the conference. Metternich doesnt want Germany to be unified as he is afraid it

will lead to other changes that will challenge the power of the Austrian king. Metternich is

also worried about the growing power of the other large German-speaking state, Prussia.Germany, therefore, remains a loose confederation of states.

1819 The Carlsbad Decrees. Metternich continues to worry about the growth of ideas likeliberalism that encourage change, and controls the kinds of ideas taught in universitiesthrough the Carlsbad Decrees.

1834 Prussia sets up the Zollverein, an economic union to remove tariff barriers that limit tradebetween the German states. By 1842 almost all the German states including Austria join.It is an important step on the path to Germanys political unification and also amounts to

economic unification.

1848 The revolutions. Liberal revolutions break out in Paris, Vienna and Berlin. Therevolutionaries want to limit the powers of the monarchs, establish representativegovernment and ensure basic freedoms. They also want to see the creation of a unified

German state. These ideas lead to the Frankfurt Assembly, where the future of Germanyis debated. However, the forces of liberalism are not strong enough and the 1848

revolutions fail.

1862 Bismarck becomes Prime Minister of Prussia. Bismarck uses his position to opposeliberalism and to fight for the unification of Germany under the domination of the Prussianstate. The king of Prussia will be the new king of Germany and Bismarck will be the

chancellor of Germany.

1864 The war over SchleswigHolstein. Prussia and Austria join together to fight Denmark forcontrol of the provinces of SchleswigHolstein. The war is short. It is important becauseit adds to German territory. Bismarck will have a later dispute with Austria over the

provinces.

1866The war with Austria. Bismarck wants a unified Germany, but without Austria. The modernPrussian army crushes the Austrians in seven weeks, removing Austria from German

affairs and uniting a number of the northern German states with Prussia in the North

German Confederation.

187071 The Franco-Prussian War. This war is the final step in German unification. Bismarckisolates France from likely allies and then finds an excuse to go to war. The war is over ina matter of months and the remaining German states rally to support Prussia against the

common French enemy. In January 1871 Germany becomes one country and the Prussian

king becomes Kaiser of Germany.


21/29

Bismarck and Unification of the German States | 21

Timeline exercise

Study the timeline, then match a clue from List A with an answer from List B.

List A

s "ISMARCK0RIME-INISTEROF0RUSSIA

s 4AKENFROM$ENMARK

s #ONGRESSOF6IENNA

s

s &RANKFURT!SSEMBLY

s

s !NECONOMICUNION

s .ORTH'ERMAN#ONFEDERATION

s -ETTERNICH

List B

s THE:OLLVEREIN

s 0RUSSIANKINGBECOMES+AISEROF'ERMANY

s ARESULTOFTHE7ARWITH!USTRIA

s

s OPPOSES'ERMANUNIlCATION

s #ARLSBAD$ECREES

s 3CHLESWIGn(OLSTEIN

s

s

THE ROLE OF LIBERALISM, SOCIALISM AND NATIONALISM INCREATING A SENSE OF GERMAN UNITYBoth liberalism and nationalism ourished ollowing the French Revolution, which began in 1789. Both

reected major social, economic and political changes that were taking place in Europe. The economic

revolution, the beginning o modern industry, had led to changes in the class structure o Europe.

A middle class o businessmen, manuacturers and merchants had grown in wealth and numbers,

while a growing urban working class had expanded, providing labour in the new actories and mines.

These groups wanted change. They were encouraged by the philosophies o liberalism, socialism and

nationalism.

LIBERALISM

Liberalism was a nineteenth-century ideology that avoured representative government, which would

give the middle class a say, but was not ull democracy. The liberals believed only those with property

or assets should vote and they wanted to limit the power o the old monarchies and aristocracies.

Liberals avoured reedom o the press, o trade, o religion and o assembly. Liberalism meant change

as it amounted to a challenge to the privileges o the old ruling classes.

Encouraged by the French Revolution, liberalism was later suppressed by the old rulers o Europe

through the Congress o Vienna in 1815, but revived in Germany in 1817, only to be suppressed again

by the Carlsbad Decrees o 1819. Its next owering came with the 1848 revolutions, but it was again

crushed, and liberalism became a minor element in the process o German unifcation.

SOCIALISM

Socialism resulted rom the suering o the working class who were at the mercy o wealthy

industrialists. Socialists called or shared wealth and property, and better conditions or workers. They

combined with liberals during the 1848 revolutions and took to the streets; however, the ailure o

the liberals and the socialists to agree and remain unifed led to the ailure o the 1848 revolution and

meant that the Frankurt Assembly was unable to promote real change.


22/29


N

0 100 200 300 km

KEYPrussia before 1866

Boundary of the GermanConfederation 1815

Boundary of the GermanEmpire 1871

Acquired by Prussia orjoined North GermanConfederation, 18661867Incorporated in GermanEmpire 1871

DENMARK

LUXEMBOURG

BELGIUM

NETHERLANDS

FRANCE

SWITZERLAND

RUSSIA

P R U S S I A

A U S T R O - H U N G A R I A NE M P I R E

SCHLESWIG

HOLSTEIN

MECKLENBURG

HANOVER

WESTPHALIA

ALSACELORRAINE

BAVARIA

WRTTEMBURG

BADEN

BRANDENBURG

EAST PRUSSIA

POLAND

MORAVIA

BOHEMIA

SAXONYTHURINGIAN

STATES

Oldenburg

HesseCassel

HesseDarmstadt

Nassau

RhineRiver

ElberR

iver

OderRiver

DanubeRiver

DravaRiver

Prague

Copenhagen

Warsaw

Vienna

Venice

Munich

Free city ofFrankfurt

N O R T H

S E A

B A L T I C

S E A

Figure 2.1 Unification of Germany 186471

NATIONALISM

Nationalism, the idea that people with a common language and culture should band together as

members o one country, proved to be one o the most powerul o the nineteenth century. German

unifcation had more to do with nationalism that any other single idea. Bismarck used the idea o

nationalism in one war ater another to bring the German states and the German people together.

Nationalism was a concept that was accepted across the political spectrum by liberals, socialists and

their more conservative political opponents like Bismarck.

In 1859 the Nationalverein (National Association) was set up by liberal groups to discuss unifcation

and nationalist ideas. During the same period many German cultural, sporting and educational

associations were established and in 1863 a German National Working Mens Association was ormed.

These organisations reected the spirit o nationalism.

REV IEW QUEST IONS

1 What part did the French Revolution play in German unification?

2 What was liberalism?

3 What was socialism?

4 What was nationalism?


23/29


BISMARCKIAN FOREIGN POLICYThe historian Mary Fulbrook noted that What came as unifcation in 1871 was less a result or

expression o any budding German nationalism than a orm o Prussian expansion and colonisation o

non-Prussian Germany (Fulbrook 1990, p. 125). The man who directed this expansion and colonisation

was Otto von Bismarck. He dominated the domestic aairs o Prussia and controlled its oreign policy.

THE PRIME MINISTER OF PRUSSIA

Bismarck had spent a number o years as a diplomat, representing Prussia in St Petersburg and Paris,

beore the Prussian king, Wilhelm I, asked him to become prime minister. In 1862 the king was aced

with a liberal parliament once again demanding changes. Wilhelm appointed Bismarck prime minister

o Prussia and minister or oreign aairs at the age o orty-seven, because o his record as a devoted

enemy o liberal reorm. Bismarck stayed in the job or twenty-seven years until the kings grandson

Wilhelm II dismissed him.

Bismarck had never been elected to parliament, but in Prussia that did not matter; the king selected

and appointed his ministers and they attended parliament but ultimately were not responsible to it.When Bismarck became prime minister he didnt belong to any particular party. He was not even typical

o his own social class and didnt always behave the way people expected a member o the land-owning

Junker class to behave. He thereore had a great deal o independence. His frst step was to divert the

liberal calls or reorm by saying that all real progress towards change should wait until Germany was

unifed. Bismarck reminded the liberals that in 1848 unifcation had once been one o their aims. This

approach reected Bismarcks considerable political skill: he redirected public and political attention away

rom issues he didnt avour and toward objectives that he did. This approach is reected over and over in

the actions o politicians o every era and every countryi

domestic issues become a problem, try to ocus the publics

thinking on oreign policy or on a common enemy.

At this time the complexity o Bismarcks personality (Taylor

1985) was reected in his dealings with those around him. His

concern was mainly with oreign policy (Waller 1997, p. 20).

Tsar Alexander II o Russia, Napoleon III o France and Queen

Victoria o Great Britain, despite their suspicions, ound him

charming and impressive. In domestic politics, however, he

was abrasive and vengeul. His political career was dotted

with bitter personal euds. Friedrich von Holstein, who worked

with Bismarck at the oreign ministry, said that Bismarck had

no riends beyond his amily and he used people as tools, like

knives and orks which are changed ater each course.

Figure 2.2 Portrait of Otto von Bismarck

REV IEW QUEST IONS

1 What was the historian Mary Fulbrooks view of

German unification?

2 When did Bismarck become prime minister of

Prussia?

3 What was Bismarcks attitude to German

unification and liberalism?


24/29


DOCUMENT STUDY: THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF GERMAN UNIF ICATION

CAUSES AND MOTIVATION

Originally historians interpreted German unifcation

in terms o oreign policy, nationalism and Bismarcks

diplomacy. Traditional German scholarship going back

to Leopold von Ranke, described by some as the athero modern history, identifed oreign policy as the key to

understanding why nations behaved as they did. By the

1960s, however, historians had moved away rom this

view. By contrast, they looked at the domestic scene or

the primary sources o national motivation.

One o Germanys best known historians, Wolgang

Mommsen, urther developed this argument in the 1990s.

He argued that Bismarcks policies were an attempt, in

defance o the trends o the age, to protect the existing

social order (Mommsen 1996). This view was not asextreme as that put orward by the Marxist historians o

the old East Germany, who suggested that Bismarcks

approach to unifcation was little more than a plot by the

ruling class to delay the domestic orces o social change

and revolution. Marxist historians paid l ittle attention

to either individuals or oreign policy; they addressed

the sweeping social and economic changes that were

taking place in Germany at the time. These orces, they

argued, not Bismarck or his diplomacy, were the key to

understanding the period.

According to Mommsen, Wolgang Sauer in his book

The Problem of the German Nation State explained German

unifcation as a three-part model:

r 6OJDBUJPOXBTOPUIJOHNPSFUIBOBUBDUJDCZUIF

SVMJOHDMBTTUPSFUBJOQPXFS

r #JTNBSDLTVOJFE(FSNBOZXBTBA#POBQBSUJTUSFHJNF

5IJTJTB.BSYJTUIJTUPSJDBMUFSNNFBOJOHBHPWFSONFOU

UIBUVTFTUIFUSBEJUJPOBMGSBNFXPSLPGBVUIPSJUZUP

QSPUFDUUIFFYJTUJOHPSEFSBHBJOTUQPXFSGVMGPSDFTPG

TPDJBMBOEQPMJUJDBMDIBOHF

r 5IFUBDUJDVTFECZUIFSFHJNFXBTUPEJWFSUQVCMJD

BUUFOUJPOGSPNEPNFTUJDDIBOHFCZTVDDFTTFTBCSPBE

Mommsens position acknowledged the domestic

social pressures that were central to the Marxist position,

but he insisted that Bismarck remained a central fgure in

the process: Bismarcks policiesadmirable or satanic

occupy centre stage (Mommsen 1996).

Mommsens greatest contribution to this debate was

his recognition that causation in this instance, like in so

many others, rested on many actors: The social and

political oundations on which the German Empire o

1871 rested were multiple and varied. Mommsen also

made a telling point about the process and the outcome

o German unifcation, noting that it was modernization

without democratization (Mommsen 1996). In other

words, the way the new German state had been created

would make it dicult or democracy and democratic

ideals to ourish.

The implication o this, according to Mommsen, was

that conservative politicians were willing to take risks in

oreign policy in 1914 to shit attention away rom Social

Democratic calls or reorm (Mommsen 1996). Beyond

that the ethos o the Prussian state, with its values o

authoritarian rule and militarism, remained a strong actor

in German political lie in the 1930s. Thereore, the way the

German state was created inuenced not only the FirstWorld War, but also the rise o Hitler.

This view is supported by the American historian

George Kent, among others, who summed up this

situation by pointing to the ceremony that took place in

1871 to proclaim the new German nation. He said that

it was in character: Kings and princes o the German

states and generals and ocers o the victorious armies

attended, and, o course Bismarck. Only the representatives

of the German people were missing (Kent 1978, p. 76;

emphasis added).

THE FIRST STEPS TOWARDS UNIFICATION

The unifcation o the German states was undoubtedly Bismarcks greatest political achievement and one

that created the Bismarck legend. Bismarck had opposed the liberals in their bid to uniy Germany rom

below in 1848. By the 1860s, however, he was ready or unity on his terms. The new German nation would

be created rom above, with Prussia as the leading state and the ruler o Prussia as the ruler o Germany.

The process involved three wars, in what Bismarck described as a process o iron and bloodthese were

Bismarcks words, but the phrase blood and iron came to be more commonly used.


25/29


PREDETERMINED OR OPPORTUNIST?

The other major question o historiography about the

process o German unifcation is this: how much o it was

pre-planned? Did Bismarck calculate the process step-by-

step, or did he simply respond to individual opportunities

as they presented themselves? It is possible when reading

about the three wars o German unifcation to assume that

it all ell into a neat, pre-planned pattern, with Bismarck

as the puppet master, pulling the diplomatic strings. This

is the Bismarck legend; a legend that Bismarck added to

in his memoirs. We can test the legend. I we examine

Bismarcks memoirs, his version o history ater the event,

and compare it with what he actually wrote and said

at the time we fnd evidence to contradict the legend,

namely, that it wasnt all careully pre-planned. Following

rom this, the British historian A. J. P. Taylor believed that

Bismarck was a brilliant opportunist, taking advantage o

situations as they arose, rather than pre-planning them.

DOCUMENT STUDY TASK

s 3UMMARISETHECHANGINGHISTORICAL

interpretations of German unification. In

Mommsens view what have been the

consequences of this process?

s 2ESEARCH!*04AYLORSVIEWSABOUTTHERISE

of Hitler and the causes of the Second World

7AR.OTE4AYLORSVIEWABOUTTHESIMILARITY

between Bismarck and Hitler that both were

GREATOPPORTUNISTS

Bismarck continued to be frmly opposed to any liberal

or sentimental visions o nationalism. To him it was a matter

o oreign policy, power and politics. In Bismarcks eyes

unifcation was as much about Prussia taking over the rest

o Germany, as it was the German people uniting. Bismarck

was not a German nationalist in any conventional sense. By

opportunism o astonishing boldness and complexity, he

brought about unifcation as a by-product o service to his

King (Gay & Webb 1973, p. 786). An important step in this

process was the removal o the other great Germanic power,Austria, which was Prussias only rival or the leadership o a

united Germany. From the outset Bismarck was certain that

Prussias interest could be orwarded only at the expense

o Austria (Gay & Webb 1973, p. 786). During the 1860s

Bismarck took diplomatic steps to isolate Austria rom

support. As a result, Russia, Italy and France indicated their

riendship with Prussia.

THE WAR OVER SCHLESWIGHOLSTEIN 1864

In 1864 Prussia and Austria combined to go to war against

Denmark over control o the provinces o SchleswigHolstein.

Some historians have suggested that this brie conict,

easily won by the two German states against a much weaker

Denmark, was just a tactic by Bismarck to draw Austria into a

later dispute between Prussia and Austria over control o the

newly acquired provinces. Historian A. J. P. Taylor disagrees,

however, rejecting the idea that Bismarck entered into the

war over SchleswigHolstein with the idea that it would be

the basis o a later, perhaps more critical dispute with Austria

(Taylor 1985). Taylor saw Bismarck as a brilliant opportunist.

The American historian George Kent agreed with Taylor

when he wrote: It is impossible to point to the moment

when Bismarck decided to go to war against Austria. As

usual, he kept his options open and pursued several policies

simultaneously (Kent 1978, p. 52).

Ultimately the province o Schleswig did become very

important to the German nation. In 1895 the Kiel Canal was

cut through the Jutland peninsula in Schleswig, allowing quick

and easy passage o German warships rom the Baltic Sea into

the North Sea and the Atlantic. Without Schleswig and the

Kiel Canal, the build-up o the German navy, which was part o

the global German policy that contributed to the First World

War, would have been ar more dicult. There is, however, no

evidence that any o this occurred to Bismarck at the time. He

never expressed an interest in a Prussian or a German navy and

his ocus was always European, never global.

REV IEW QUEST IONS

7HATISMEANTBYTHESENTENCE@4HENEW

German nation would be created from above?

2 What was Bismarcks attitude to Austria in terms

of German unification?

3 Which was the first of the three wars of German

unification?

7HATARETHEKEYASPECTSOF'EORGE+ENTS

OPINIONTHATSUPPORT4AYLORSARGUMENTTHAT

Bismarck was an opportunist?

(OWDID3CHLESWIGBECOMEIMPORTANTTO

Germany?


26/29


THE WARS OF NATIONAL UNIFICATION AGAINST AUSTRIA AND FRANCE

THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR 187071

Bismarck was always careul to ensure alliances that were a threat were never established against him.

He also worked hard diplomatically to ensure that potential enemies didnt have strong allies to call on

in time o war. This had been his policy towards France. As a review o the historiography o the period

indicates, there is debate over whether Bismarck planned all the steps leading to the Franco-Prussian War

or i he just took advantage o situations that developed.

The key events that led to the war with France were as ollows:

*OUIFSFXBTBEJTQVUFCFUXFFO1SVTTJBBOE'SBODFPWFSXIPXPVMECFUIFOFYULJOHPG4QBJO

#JTNBSDLXBOUFEJUUPCF-FPQPMEBDPVTJOPGUIF1SVTTJBOLJOH5IF'SFODIPCKFDUFE

5IF'SFODIBTLFE-FPQPMEUPXJUIESBXBTBDBOEJEBUFGPSUIF4QBOJTIUISPOFBOE-FPQPMEBHSFFEUP

TUBOEBTJEF

5IF'SFODIGPSFJHONJOJTUFS(SBNPOUUIFOQSFTTFEGPSNPSF)FBSSBOHFEBNFFUJOHCFUXFFOUIF

1SVTTJBOLJOHBOEUIF'SFODIBNCBTTBEPSBU&NT5IF'SFODIXBOUFEBQSPNJTFUIBUBUOPUJNFJO

REV IEW QUEST IONS

(OWLONGDIDTHEWARWITH!USTRIALASTANDWHATWASTHEKEYBATTLE

7HYWAS"ISMARCKGENEROUSTO!USTRIAINTHEPEACESETTLEMENT

)STHEREANYEVIDENCEIN"ISMARCKSTREATMENTOF!USTRIATHATHEWASALREADYTHINKING

about another war?

Bismarck wanted Germany to be unifed, but without including Austria. A war between Prussia and

Austria was intended to unite northern Germany behind Prussia, then remove Austria as a rival in German

aairs. The war only lasted seven weeks. Nevertheless, Wilhelm I, the Prussian king, insisted on being with

his armies. This meant that Bismarck elt obliged to go along as well and this created a problem becauseBismarck was only a lieutenant in the Prussian army reserve. Clearly this would be awkward because he

would be a lieutenant surrounded by generals. He had undergone the required period o military service

but hadnt enjoyed it or stayed in the army long, later admitting he disliked war and always had a problem

dealing with superiors. The problem was solved when Bismarck was granted perhaps the quickest

promotion in military historyrom lieutenant to temporary major-general, overnight.

The Prussian army, led by the legendary Helmuth von Moltke (uncle o the general o the same

name who led Germanys army in 1914) crushed the Austrians at the Battle o Sadowa, also known

as the battle o Koniggratz, and they surrendered. Bismarck granted generous peace terms or the

Austrians. The Treaty o Prague was a sot peace. Bismarck claimed to be thinking ahead. It was enough

that Austria was out o German aairs and he wanted to be able to build a peaceul understanding

with them. Bismarck didnt want a bitter enemy on his southern border.

Prussia now stood alone as the most powerul German state. Bismarck had drawn together most

o Germanys northern states in the new North German Conederation. It did not include southern

German states like Bavaria, Wurttemberg or Baden. The next war was designed to complete the

unifcation process and draw these southern states into one nation. The technique was amiliar: give

the German peoples a common enemy, something that would encourage them to band together.

That common enemy would be France.


27/29


UIFGVUVSFXPVMEBOPUIFSNFNCFSPGUIF1SVTTJBOSPZBM

GBNJMZBDDFQUUIF4QBOJTIUISPOF5IFNFFUJOHXBT

DPOEVDUFEJOBGSJFOEMZBUNPTQIFSF

#JTNBSDLOPXTUFQQFEJO)FFEJUFEUIFQVCMJDTUBUFNFOU

BCPVUUIFNFFUJOHJOXIBUCFDBNFGBNPVTBTUIFA&NT

%JTQBUDINBLJOHJUBQQFBSUIBUUIFUPOFPGUIFNFFUJOH

IBECFFOIPTUJMF5IJTBSPVTFEQVCMJDGFFMJOHJOCPUI

'SBODFBOE1SVTTJBBOEXBSXBTEFDMBSFE

Figure 2.3 Bismarck in his seventies

REV IEW QUEST IONS

1 What were the second and third wars of

German unification?

2 List the events that immediately led to the

Franco-Prussian War.

REV IEW TASK

4OCONSIDERTHEHISTORIOGRAPHICALQUESTIONOF

how much was pre-planned by Bismarck and

HOWMUCHWASOPPORTUNISMAS4AYLORSUGGESTS

DOFURTHERREADINGTHENDISCUSSTHECAUSESOF

the war.

Make a list of the situations that were created

and controlled by Bismarck and another list of

events and developments beyond Bismarcks

control.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF GERMAN UNIFICATIONMuch to the surprise o the French and many o the neutral observers, the French army proved no

match or the Prussian orces. With the beneft o hindsight, the Prussian victory does not seem so

surprising. Von Moltke was a brilliant commander and the Prussian army was better trained and had

ar better artillery than the French. Although the French ries had a longer range, and they had an

excellent multi-barrelled weapon that was like the American Gatling gun, an early version o themachine-gun, it didnt matter in the ace o the huge advantage the Prussians had with their Krupp-

made heavy artillery. The only aspect o this war in which the French were clearly supreme was in

the brilliance o their uniorms, which had bright colours, gold braid and an excellent cut. In every

other important respect their army was inerior. The British historian Michael Howard summed it up as

ollows: The social and economic development o the past fty years had brought about a military as

well as an industrial revolution. The Prussians had kept abreast o it and France had not. Therein lay the

basic cause o her deeat (Howard 1981, p. 1).

The war was over in six months. The Treaty o Frankurt gave the provinces o Alsace and Lorraine to

Germany, and France had to pay an indemnity o 5000 million rancs. On 18 January 1871 the Prussian

king became the Kaiser o Germany and the German nation was born.


28/29


The Franco-Prussian War had:

r FTUBCMJTIFEUIFOFX(FSNBOOBUJPOBTUIFHSFBUFTUNJMJUBSZQPXFSJO&VSPQF

r DMFBSMZJOEJDBUFEUIFFDPOPNJDBOEUIFJOEVTUSJBMNJHIUPG(FSNBOZ

r QSPWJEFEBDMFBSFYBNQMFUIBUJOEVTUSJBMQPXFSBOESBJMXBZTXFSFWJUBMJO

NPEFSOXBS

r TIPXOIPXNPEFSOCBUUMFFMETXPVMECFEPNJOBUFECZIFBWZBSUJMMFSZ

r MFGUBCJUUFSOFTTCFUXFFO'SBODFBOE(FSNBOZUIBUJOVFODFEUIFPVUCSFBL

PGUIF'JSTU8PSME8BS

All o these actors had a direct inuence on the events o 191418. In the

longer term, however, the impact o German unifcation was even greater.

Both Mommsen and Michael Howard (1991) acknowledged that the legacy

o German unifcation, as directed by Bismarck, had implications that went

beyond the First World War and continued into the 1930s and 1940s. Howard

maintained the victory over France in 187071 was seen in Germany as thevindication o a specifc value-system; one based on loyalty, obedience,

discipline, courage and religious aith, as against that democratic creed widely

regarded as atheistical, materialist, individualistic and morally decadent

(Howard 1991, p. 56). Howard asserted that there were intrinsic links between

aspects o the Prussian tradition and Nazism.

DOCUMENT STUDY

Source 2.1

The Empire created in 1871 by Bismarcks diplomacyand Prussian military power, despite its institutional

similarities to the Western constitutional regimes, was, and

remained, an authoritarian State that recognized neither

the theory nor the practice of popular sovereignty and

self government; and that meant that Germany entered

the twentieth century without the kind of tradition that

might have enabled it to meet the hard problems that were

awaiting it.

G.A. Craig, The Germans, 1991, p. 33.

DOCUMENT S TUDY QUEST IONS

7HATTWOFACTORSACCORDINGTO#RAIGUNIlEDGermany?

2 What do you think were the hard problems

THAT#RAIGMENTIONED

$OESTHISPASSAGESUPPORTORCONTRADICTTHE

views of Mommsen and Howard? Explain your

answer.

REV IEW QUEST IONS

1 Why did the French lose the Franco-Prussian War?

7HATWERETHEMAINTERMSOFTHE4REATYOF&RANKFURT(OWDIDITDIFFERFROMTHETERMS

of peace Bismarck imposed on Austria?

3 What were the immediate results of the Franco-Prussian War?

7HATWERETHELONGERTERMRESULTSOFTHEPROCESSOF'ERMANUNIlCATION

DID YOU KNOW?

Bismarck was not an easy person to have

as a neighbour. People who lived near him

called him the mad Junker, based on the

fact that he was often too impatient to

climb down from his horse to knock on a

door, so he just fired pistol shots through

windows to announce his presence.

Bismarck liked to drink and smoke. He

claimed to have invented a drink that he

called Black Velvet, which was a mixture of

champagne and stout. Bismarck announced

that it was his ambition to drink 5000 bottles

of champagne and smoke 100 000 cigars in

his lifetime. He also liked women and despite

being married he had many affairs. His taste

in women was made clear when he wrotethat he hated clever womenwomen should

be there simply to comfort and entertain him.


29/29

REV IEW TASK

!NSWERONEOFTHEFOLLOWINGESSAYTOPICS

s %VALUATETHEKEYFACTORSTHATLEDTOTHEUNIlCATIONOFTHE'ERMANSTATESIN

s 7HATLESSONSOFHISTORYCANBEGAINEDFROMASTUDYOFTHEPROCESSANDRESULTSOF

German unification?

I you go on to study Chapter 11, take particular note o the views expressed by both Mommsen

and Howard about the legacy o the process o German unifcation or democracy in Germany.

ReferencesCraig G. A., The Germans, Meridian, New York, 1991

Fulbrook M.,A Concise History of Germany, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990

Gay P. & Webb R. K., Modern Europe, Harper and Row, New York, 1973

Howard M., The Franco-Prussian War, Methuen, New York, 1981

Howard M., The Lessons of History, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1991

Kent G. O., Bismarck and His Times, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, 1978

Mommsen W. J., Imperial Germany 18671918, Arnold, London, 1996

Taylor A. J. P., Bismarck, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1985

Waller B., Bismarck, Blackwell Publishers, Oxord, 1997

Documents

Yankees Modern History eBook