Civil+War

I See/It Means

I See -a picture in a fancy picture frame -two men next to each other smoking each other's cigars -they are both wearing black hats and it looks like some kind of uniform - one guy is wearing a black sweater and one is wearing one with blue stripes

It Means - They might be friends just smoking -Maybe they are on opposite sides of the war because of their clothes - The uniforms could mean they are soldiers -they could be rich or something because they're smoking

They are brothers that fight on the opposite sides of the war. I think this is pretty sad because they look pretty close and being brothers they probably have a deep relationship and it probably kills them to have to fight against each other during the war. Its also kind of weird because shouldn't they be from the same state, if they grew up living with the same family, unless they moved as children.

The war is splitting families apart.

//**Task**// //Pretend that Massachusetts has seceded for reasons which you disagree (the right of states to determine whether or not to allow slavery). You are asked by the President to uphold the Constitution by commanding the US Army which will re-take Massachusetts by force. Do you accept this job from the President or do you resign and return to Massachusetts to defend it against the US Army? Why?// I would not accept the job fromn the President because I don't agree with him. I would resign and go back to Massachusetts, my home state to warn everyone and help defend it. If I truly believed that the Presidnet and the government was doing something wrong that I don't believe in, I would not stand with them and I would fight against them, and I could never go to massachusetts just to kill everyone there.

//Reflection: Is there anyway to avoid taking a side if you live in the United States during the Civil War? Explain your reasoning.// //I// don't really think there is a way to avoid the war and you probably had to choose a side. Since this was happening in America, all Americanshad to be affected by the war and everyone was forced to support and oppose a side, or you were probably just killed. The war eventually became about fighting for their lives, not just slavery.

Civil War Themes

‍4) Fellow Americans or Traitors ... or both?
Today we will be looking at the sites above.

Begin by opening the first site and scroll down to the Secession Acts of the Thirteen Confederate States.

Skim through all thirteen quickly and find similarities and differences between the states and list those differences in your virtual notebook.

All the states say something about wanting to dissolve the union between their state and the other states under the Constitution. They all say they want all laws and other acts created by the Union to be repealed and don't want to be acknowledged by them anymore. Some states said that the Union took away their rights and violated the Constitution. Like Missouri wrote that the Union violated the contract by attacking their state and making them prisoners, and taking over their capitol. Other states didn't really state a reason, just said that they wanted to be separated from teh Union and have all laws and the Constitution repealed.

Then choose 2 of these Secession Acts and complete the following APPARTS chart on each.

Missouri A- the state of Missouri P- October 31, 1861, Neosho, Missouri P- Missouri was a southern state so they would have wanted to secede from the Union and side with the Confederates A- The United States of America R- The state of Missouri wrote their secession acts to state that they had seceded anbd why they seceded. They felt that the Union wasn't letting them have their rights under the Constitution, and they used to country's militia to attack their own state. T- They are trying to explain why they have seceded. S- This is important becuse it shows that another southern state has seceded and why they did.

Kentucky A- The state of Kentucky P- November 20, 1861 P- Kentucky was also a southern state and they probably had lots of slavery going on there so they wouldn't want slavery to become illegal, so that is probably a reason for that they want to seced from teh united States. A- The United States of America R- The state of Kentucky state the reasons they want to secede such as how the government used lots of money without their consent and imporisoned many of their citizens, and violated their powers as the government T- They are explaining the reasons for secession S- This source is important because it explains why the state of Jebtucky wants to secede.

__Reflection:__ Does the reasoning behind each of these Acts make sense to you? Why or why not? Would you sign on to these Secession Acts if you lived in the state it represents? I think the reasoning for some of the states make sense. A lot of the states didn't really even state a specific reason for wanting to secede, just that they wanted to and to cut all ties with the Union and dissolve all laws and everything. But for some of the states, they said that their state and citizen rights were violated and teh government went against them.

Technology and War

Using the notes you created for section 2 of Chapter 11 - make a list of all the new weapons / technology utilized by troops during the Civil War and explain:

1) What purpose the new technology served 2) How it changed the way war was fought 3) The importance of this weapon to the overall picture of the Civil War

Can new, better technology take the place of experienced quality soldiers? Why or why not?
 * Weapon/Technology || Purpose || How it changed the war || Importance to Civil War ||
 * Ironclads || heavily armored boats || Both the COnfederates and the Union had ironclads and they used them in the parts of the war to attack || The ironclads were especially important to the Union and their campaign onthe Mississippi River valley. ||
 * Rifles || new guns that were accurate up to 500 yards and could be fired about 10 times per minute || Soldiers could attack from farther away and their shooting would be more accurate || As a result of the rifles, there were lots more casualties because the technology was greateer and soldiers could shoot more acurately and target their enemies better and kill them easier ||
 * Bullet-shaped ammunition || people found out that they traveled through air straighter than a round bullet || Soldiers also used bullet shaped ammunition to help them fight in the war because they were more effective and also more accurate || The bullet shaped ammunition also increased the number of casualties in the war because there was a higher chance of getting shot from one of these bullets because they were more accurate. ||
 * Shrapnel || shells that exploded in the airs over a target or when it hit a target || Soldiers used shrapnel more effectively to kill the others and were easier than cannons || Shrapnel also resulted in more casualties because of the advanced technology and how they allowed soldiers to kill more effectively. ||
 * Telegraph || device used to communicate between people || generals on the battle field could now comunicate with government leaders during the war quickly || The south and the North used the telegraphs to communicate between the soldiers and teh government, so they could get what they needed and stay updated on the battles. ||

I think that new, better technology can take the place ofexperienced, quality, solders as long as the technology is advanced enough. If the soldiers are really old fashioned, I thikn that new technology could take them down, even if the people using them are not as experienced. If the weapons were way better tehn the ones the old fsahioned people were using, the new better weapons could still beat them because all the new people would have to learn is how to use it and they wouldnt really need any experience.

media type="custom" key="9687922"

In your virtual notebook make a chart which summarizes the Northern strategy for war, and the Southern Strategies for war. This chart can be in any form you like however it should summarize both strategies and should also explain which you think will be more effective and why you think that (be warned, it might be different than your first impression!)
 * //USING YOUR NOTES!!!//**

I think that the Northern Strategy was more effective. The Union actually had something of a plan on how they wanted to attack the SOuth, and they actually had the troops and the weapons to do so. The South was just basically fighting off of motivation, and they didn't really seem to have any stable plan except to attack with their herat, which isn't really that smart sometimes. Also, they were lacking with soldiers and equipment, and weapons, so they were xleaerly at a disadvantage. The North had all the manufacturing factories and everything, and the South had nothing. SO I think that the North were more prepared and organized and therefore had a better strategy then the South, who really had nothing. ||
 * Northern Strategy || Southern Strategy ||
 * The North were being threatened by the Confederates at Fort Sumter. They were running low on supplies and were demanded to surrender by Jefferson Davis, the presidnent of the Confederate Army. Robert Anderson, the general of the Union army at Fort Sumter sent a message to President Lincoln for help. Lincoln made a decision to send the Union troops only food and supplies to survive, but no extra troops or weapons. He did this so the Confederate group would attack first, allowing the north to attack back without violating the COnstitution. The strategy to fight the Civil war for the North was to cut the South off from all other resources from other countries. They wanted to take advantage of the fact that they, the north had all the manufacturing equipment, and more pople, allowing them to create more troops and weapons. Thet Anaconda Plan was created by Union general Winfield SCott who wanted to isolate the Confederates, so they would have no access to other countries supplies. Then, the Union ships would travel to the Mississippi River and split the COnfederate army into two, making it easier to conquer the southern states again and bring them back to the Union. THis plan, while not bad in thought, however took an extremely long time to put into action, so it was not a very efficient plan. || The south initially started the Civil War by attacking the Union troops at FOrt Sumter led by Confederate president Jefferson Davis. They were in need of supplies, and demanded them fromthe Union. However, Lincoln turned the decision around so Davis was forced to choose between being supplied by the Union which would ultimately supply the Confederate troops, but they chose to attack the Union troops before their own supplies ran out. During the war, teh south's strategy was to just fight, because they believed they had superior military tactics and leaders, like Robert E. Lee, and they had a stronger motive and will to fight. The Confederates compared themselves to the Patriots, during teh American Revolution, and they were the underdogs like the Patriots, who still won against the British, so they believe they also have a shot at winning the Civil War.

6/7/11 Task 1) What was the strategy of the Union in fighting the war? What was the strategy for the Confederacy? Which do you think would be more effective? Why? The Union did not really want to destroy the South, because they mostly just wanted them to unsecede and come back to the United States of America. One of the Union's plans was the Anaconda plan, where they planned to cut off supplies to the South, then travel down the rivier to separate them and attack the divided South. FOr the Confederacy, they didn't really have much of a plan, except to not give in and to stay seceded. The South mainly fought off of motivation and willpower. The south had an advantage when it came to military leaders and had better military tactics. I think that the Union had a much better strategy because they had a decent plan and were mostly organized and everything. 2) Make a list of reasons suppporting and opposing the use of new technology during the Civil War. Supporting- -advanced technology led to better, more effective weapons being created -soldiers could attack the enemies from a greater distance and it would be more accurate - new weapons replaced the old tactics

Opposing -because of the new technology and weapons, there were much more casualties -more soldiers were killed on both sides because of the accuracy and the effectiveness of the weapons - both sides had better weapons, so there were more deaths on both sides

Many people died during the Civil War because they developed new technololgy which led to newer and more efficient weapons that were more accurate and could kill a lot more people from farther away and in a shorter amount of time. There were many more casualties because of the new weapons which could kill more efficiently.
 * Comments, Questions, Connections, Inferences predictions ||  Battle/Date  ||  Victor  ||  Significance ofBattle  ||
 * It is scary/sad to think that if the Confederates had just been a little more organized, they could have destroyed the Union army right then and there and then we would have lost the Civil War ||  1stBull Run  ||  Confederates  ||  Ended the northerners hope for a short battle, and was the first major battle of the Civil War which the Confederates won.  ||
 * I think this battle shows that the Confederacy was far better at military fighting and everything because at first, they had the same number of troops as the Union, and they were obviously winning; it wasn’t until the Union got a whole lot more troops that they even had a chance of winning ||  Shiloh  ||  Union  ||  Ended the northerners hope that the rebellion would end shortly on its own and showed that the Civil War would last much longer  ||
 * The Union has so many more troops and weapons than the Confederate, yet they still lose. I think that is very, very sad. ||  2ndBull Run  ||  Confederates  ||  The Confederates once again won another battle where they won about a year ago. This just adds to the Union’s list of battle defeats  ||
 * Why didn’t McClellan follow Lee and the Confederates and just attacked them then? I don’t think he is a very good general because he just talks and doesn’t actually do anything ||  Antietam  ||  No Victor  ||  The Battle of Antietam was the bloodiest battle in the history of battles. Both the Union side and the Confederate side had many casualties  ||
 * Why would Burnside send his army to attack directly? Did he think that since it would be so unexpected, the surprise would be enough? ||  Fredricksburg  ||  Confederates  ||  The new union general, Burnside ordered his troops to march directly in front of Lee and the Confederates, instead of attacking from the side, like Lee expected. Even though it was unexpected, it was still a terrible decision, and the Union troops were quickly defeated.  ||

**1.** Which army had the advantage after the first day of fighting? What were some reasons for their success? Could they have been even more successful? I think that the Confederate army had the advantage after the first day of fighting. At the beginning, they outnumbered the Union army, and since they had way better military leaders and generals and better fighting skills, they probably had a huge advantage. I think that if they wanted to win the battles, they could have, but they should have followed the Union army when they retreated to Cemetery Hill and Culps Hill. They didn't and that allowed the Union to recover and prepare for the battle the next day. Because of that time, the Union was able to regrouop and turn the battle around in their favor.

**2.** What was the situation by the evening of July 2? On July 2, both the Union and the COnfederates were about matched in troops and everything. The Confederates wanted to attack the flanks of the Union army, but they only amde litle progress. Everything was pretty much balanced out and even among the two sides. The Confederates also wanted to go and take over the hills that the Union was occupying, and only got part of it. By the evening of July 2, no one could really tell who was winning the battle.

**3.** What evidence from the previous day's fighting brought General Lee to decide on the strategy for Pickett's Charge on July 3? What was the result of that assault? The previous day, General Lee attacked the flanks/sides of the Union army and on July 3, he wanted to attack them straight on. He sent 12,000 more soldiers to attack the Union, but the Union was expecting this and were prepared and so their defenses held. As a result, the COnfederates suffered many casualties and teh Union gained the upper ahnd of the Civil War with the win.

**4.** Why did General Lee decide to withdraw from Gettysburg? The COnfederates suffered heavy loss and many casualties so they could not keep fighting. They had to withdraw.

**Part C: Changes in Loyalty** Andrew Baker was a soldier in the 22nd North Carolina Infantry, C.S.A., Pettigrew's brigade. He participated in the brutal fighting that opened the battle on July 1 and in the culmination on July 3. He wrote about his experience on the final day of fighting for the magazine of a Confederate veterans' organization. The Capt. W. T. Magruder to whom he referred was a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and fought for the Union as a captain in the 1st U.S. Cavalry until October 1, 1862. Magruder then joined the Confederate army, became a captain in the 26th North Carolina Infantry, and died at Gettysburg at the hands of his former comrades. Baker wrote about that action:



**//Part A: A Soldier's View of Gettysburg//** **1.** What part did Elisha Hunt Rhodes play at Gettysburg? Elisha began as a private, but later became the commander of his regiment, the 2nd Rhode Island Volunteer Infantry in the US. He led his army to the Battle of Gettysburg on the second day of the battle.

**2.** How was he able to justify the suffering endured by the Union troops? He was able to put his feelings in his diary. He went into detail about how bloody the battle was, how everyone was restless, hungry, and tired, and how they had to travel 34 miles to Gettysburg nonstop. He also siad that the Union had to defeat the Confederates.

**3.** How did he respond to the Union victory? He was very happy! He was overjoyed that the Union won this battle, and believes that the South will never attempt to invade the North ever again, which brought him relief

//**Part B: The Call to Duty**// **1.** How did Edward Porter Alexander feel about Georgia's secession? He felt as though he had to resign from the U.S. Army and go back to Georgia in order to protect his people and his state. He felt that if he didn’t do this people would think of him as a coward

**2.** What option did the U.S. Army provide Alexander to avoid becoming involved in the conflict? The U.S. Army told Alexander that he didn’t have to be that involved in the war and that he wouldn’t have to go against his people either. He said that Alexander could just stay on that particular coast for fortification duty.

**3.** How did he justify his choice? Alexander justified his choice by saying that he was going to go fight for his liberty with the people of Georgia and that if he didn’t go people would think of him as a coward, and he would feel like one too.

//**Part C: Changes in Loyalty**// Capt Magruder was brave and died from being shot during the battle. He inspired some of the soldiers from north Carolinma to fight for their families before charging.
 * 1.** Consider Andrew Baker's vivid descriptions of the valiant behavior exhibited in the chaos of battle. Describe the actions of Captain W. T. Magruder. Speculate on his motivations for fighting in both armies before his death at Gettysburg.

**2.** Why did Captain John Moore not give the order to charge? How might you have felt in his place? He probably was scared or something and felt as if the responsibility was too much for him or he did not want to be held accountable for their defeat. If I were him, I probably would have panicked too, if our leaders were gone and someone put me in charge. I might just run away or something.

//**All Parts**// **1.** How does reading these personal accounts compare with reading summaries of Civil War battles in textbooks? Do they make you more aware of the personal suffering of the participants? The personal accounts are from all different sides and points of view on the Civil War, as opposed to the textbook. Reading these accounts do make me feel bad for the Confederates and everyone, who in the textbooks were prbably labeled as the bad guys. But in these accounts, you can see that the South were really brave and fought for something they believed in and also cared about their families like in Part 3. **2.** What are some disadvantages of relying on personal accounts of historical events? Personla accounts are written from one person and therefore one point of viewand they might be very biased. Also they might give false information to make thier side seem better or they might not understand or realize everything else that was going on behind enemy lines and everything.

**1.** How long after the battle did Lincoln give his address? Two years ago **2.** What did he say about the men who were buried in the cemetery? Lincoln said that the buried men were brave people who were highly devoted to their country and that it is the living men's job to continue what they started. **3.** How did he give meaning to their sacrifice? He said that they dedicatd their lives to the Civil War **4.** What was it that Lincoln wanted the people of the United States to do for the dead soldiers He wants the people to remember teh soldiers and to devote themselves to finish the cause that the soldiers fought for.

Do Now

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic move because it actually banned slavery everywhere and in all of the slave states where slavey was legal. Also, because the Emancipation Proclamation freed southern slaves, Lincoln then encouraged the newly freed slaves to travel north, and leave the south to go fight in the Union army. Also it was passed so Britain wouldn't go and help the Confederates because they also opposed slavery.

Slaves were freed in rebelling states. But not all slaves were free because four slave states did not rebel, the border states of Missouri, Delaware, Kentucky, and Maryland. The Emancipation Proclamation made the war about slavery. Before, it was about state's rights. The north fought to end slavery, and the south fought for slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the border states which still had slavery. Since the border states did not rebel, that meant that they were still part of the Union, which were fighting to end slavery. 1.