yankees modern history ebook
TRANSCRIPT
-
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
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
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
4/29
4 | Key Features of Modern History
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?
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
5/29
Yankees and Confederates in the American States in the Mid-19th Century | 5
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?
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
6/29
6 | Key Features of Modern History
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
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
7/29
Yankees and Confederates in the American States in the Mid-19th Century | 7
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
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
8/29
8 | Key Features of Modern History
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
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
9/29
Yankees and Confederates in the American States in the Mid-19th Century | 9
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
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
10/29
10 | Key Features of Modern History
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
11/29
Yankees and Confederates in the American States in the Mid-19th Century | 11
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
12/29
12 | Key Features of Modern History
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
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
13/29
Yankees and Confederates in the American States in the Mid-19th Century | 13
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
14/29
14 | Key Features of Modern History
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
15/29
Yankees and Confederates in the American States in the Mid-19th Century | 15
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
16/29
16 | Key Features of Modern History
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
17/29
Yankees and Confederates in the American States in the Mid-19th Century | 17
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
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
18/29
18 | Key Features of Modern History
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
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
20/29
20 | Key Features of Modern History
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
22/29
22 | Key Features of Modern History
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?
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
23/29
Bismarck and Unification of the German States | 23
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?
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
24/29
24 | Key Features of Modern History
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
25/29
Bismarck and Unification of the German States | 25
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?
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
26/29
26 | Key Features of Modern History
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
27/29
Bismarck and Unification of the German States | 27
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
28/29
28 | Key Features of Modern History
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.
-
7/31/2019 Yankees Modern History eBook
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