Commentary – Page 6 – The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable

The Constitution Caused the Civil War

By Dan Zeiser
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2007, All Rights Reserved

Of course, you say, the Constitution caused the Civil War. By recognizing and institutionalizing slavery, the war was inevitable. But this is not the only reason that the Constitution caused the Civil War. There was another, perhaps more important, reason that the founding fathers caused our particular sectional strife. This reason is the electoral college.

Lincoln’s Assassination: Three Riddles

By John C. Fazio
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2011, All Rights Reserved

Editor’s note: This article is excerpted from a book on the Lincoln assassination by the author, Decapitating the Union: Jefferson Davis, Judah Benjamin and the Plot to Assassinate Lincoln

On Inconvenient Truth and Convenient Fiction

By John C. Fazio
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2016, All Rights Reserved

Editor’s note: John C. Fazio is a past president of the Cleveland Civil War Roundtable and the author of numerous articles on the Lincoln assassination as well as the book, Decapitating the Union: Jefferson Davis, Judah Benjamin and the Plot to Assassinate Lincoln, published in 2015 by McFarland.

Truth, like a bastard, comes into the world, never without ill-fame to him who gives her birth. – Thomas Hardy

All great truths begin as blasphemies. – George Bernard Shaw

Shall truth be first or second with us? “Us” is we historians, real or fancied, amateur or professional. Lincoln said that history isn’t history unless it is the truth. I agree with that, to which I would add only “or some reasonable facsimile thereof arrived at conscientiously and with due diligence.” Therefore, if truth is to be second with us, second, that is, to convenience, aka political correctness or some other approximation of comfort, then I suggest that we are in the wrong business and that we should find some other vocation or avocation, one that doesn’t tax our character so meanly.

The Peter Principle and George B. McClellan

By Dan Zeiser
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2007, All Rights Reserved

We are all familiar with the business theory known as the “Peter Principle.” According to this concept, a person continues to rise in an organization until he or she reaches a level that requires more ability than the person has. Put another way, a person advances until reaching a level of incompetence. This principle applies in more areas than just business, and the Civil War is one of those areas. George Brinton McClellan is perhaps the perfect model of this theory in the Civil War.

The Most Effective Political General

By Dan Zeiser
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2006, All Rights Reserved

The debate has raged for decades. Was it George H. Thomas, Ulysses Grant, Robert E. Lee, William T. Sherman, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson? Each of us has his or her favorite. There are good arguments for those mentioned above and maybe a few others. In the end, perhaps there is no one right answer to the question who was the best general of the war. But ask who was the most effective general of the war and different names arise, names that would never be mentioned in response to the earlier question, names, mostly, of political generals. Benjamin Butler, Nathaniel Banks, John McClernand, while clearly not the best, were all effective generals. While the current notion is that all political generals were incompetent fools, while military generals won the war, that is not entirely true. Political generals acted in ways the military generals did not, often attaining goals military generals were simply incapable of. When examined in this manner, the most effective general was none other than John A. “Black Jack” Logan.

The Most Overrated General

By Dan Zeiser
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2008, All Rights Reserved

Yes, I’m from Ohio. And yes, I love to point out the great accomplishments of fellow Buckeyes. And there is no doubt that he was a key player in the Civil War – one that we Buckeyes love to point to as a primary reason the North won the war. (Heck, I’ve even been to his childhood home in Lancaster. It is well worth the visit.) But William Tecumseh Sherman may just be the most overrated general who fought in the war.

Ulysses Grant: Dual Personality?

By Dan Zeiser
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2011, All Rights Reserved

I have often thought that Ulysses Grant exhibited far different command skills in the West than he did in the East during the Civil War. Generally, my thoughts were that Grant used maneuver much better in the West than when he was in overall command. Look at the Vicksburg Campaign, which is still used today by the U.S. Army as an excellent example of feint and maneuver to keep the enemy off guard. Once Grant crossed the Mississippi at Bruinsburg, he kept Confederate General John Pemberton guessing as to his next move. This resulted in Confederate paralysis and led to the siege at Vicksburg and inevitable victory. In the East, however, Grant’s movements appear much more predictable and less inspired. He seemed simply to attempt to hammer away at Lee until the latter became exhausted and lost enough troops. Recently, however, I have come to re-examine my conclusions. Was Grant a different commander in the West? Did he come east and become simply the butcher he was decried as being? I think not.

Was Jefferson Davis the Reason the Confederacy Lost the War?

By Dick Crews
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2004, All Rights Reserved

Jefferson Davis would have described himself as a loyal American. His heroes were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, James Madison, and Zachary Taylor. All these American heroes were Presidents, Southerners, and slave owners.

Decisive Battles of the Civil War? None

By Greg Biggs
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2008, All Rights Reserved

Editor’s note: Greg Briggs has authored or co-authored several books and many articles on the Civil War. He has held executive positions with several Civil War Roundtables and preservation and historical societies and is a member of the Advisory Board of the Center For the Study of the Civil War in the West at Western Kentucky University. Mr. Biggs spoke to the CCWRT at its December, 2007 meeting; this article is a follow-up to that presentation.

In my program “Napoleonic Cavalryman: Nathan Bedford Forrest” at the December meeting of the Cleveland Civil War Roundtable, I stated early on that the Civil War had no decisive battles despite Civil War historians constantly writing that this or that battle was “decisive.” I also stated that most Civil War historians do not study warfare prior to the Civil War, most importantly the Napoleonic Wars, when decisive battles were fought. Lastly, I argued that the primary reason for the lack of decisive battles in the Civil War was the misuse of cavalry, particularly in the pursuit phase, which rarely existed after a typical Civil War engagement.