I'm now imagining Burnside and Hunter leading a North Carolina campaign. I kind of like Burnside... he was dealt a very shitty hand, and though Fredericksburg was absolutely his fault, I think he could have easily done better had circumstances been different.
Burnside was not a *bad* or vicious man; just promoted beyond his abilities - not an uncommon occurrence in Civil War armies.
Like McPherson says, "Lincoln would rather win the war than the argument; Davis would rather win the argument."
One of McPherson's best quips.
McPherson's excellent "What they fought for" shows many causes for fighting. Some fought for the legacy of 1776, because they wouldn't let the "greatest government in earth" fall down. To allow the Confederacy to win would be to repudiate their forefathers, their history, the Founders, Liberty, and Democracy; it would create a chain reaction that would destroy the US. Whether out of rhetoric or real fears that the US would become many "petty Republics" and that that would lead to a worse life for themselves and their families, this theme was ever present in letters and declarations by Union soldiers, who were very aware of the causes of the war and the possible consequences.
I really do think this has great explanatory value for Northern perceptions of the war and the CSA in that generation. Nor were they wrong to fear those consequences!
But I do not think it factors into present-day attitudes, which is how we got off on this tangent. More than once, in fact, have I heard progressives arguing (after certain elections) that the country would have been better off letting the South go. Ours is really an anti-nationalist age, for now; the animus is really driven by Slavery, and its centrality to why the South chose secession and war.
Last edited: