I'm curious about how strongly what a sociologist today might call "blackness" influenced the lives of free people of African heritage during the last decades of slavery and any time before 1900. In movies such as "12 Years a Slave," free blacks in the North seem to be depicted as behaving and living with identical habits to their white counterparts. Perhaps certain occupations were closed to non-whites, but I'm thinking of something else. Was there cultural markers that were associated with "blackness" in this era? Were there differences between rural and urban blacks, blacks in large mid-Atlantic cities, blacks in New England, and blacks in the West that were distinct from the differences between whites in those regions? What about free blacks in the South? Perhaps this question is too big, is there anyone doing research in this area whose work I could look at, perhaps?

Bringing my question to the Civil War specifically, I assume some people with recent African or slave heritage pass as white for purposes of entering the army. What would happen if such a person was "outed" as black? I believe "one drop of blood" rules didn't formally exist until the turn of the century, although slanders based on even somewhat remote ancestry were common. How black (or Native American, for that matter) did one have to be to be refused as a volunteer in a white company or as a volunteer in general before the emancipation proclamation?

As a few of you already know (because I've been bugging the shit out of this sub for a couple of days, now) I'm writing a book. Trashy romance, yes, but I really love to get my facts right. So... here we go, while I copy/paste pretty much every question I asked yesterday.

• How did substitution work during the draft, particularly if someone was offering to go to war in a sibling's stead? answered by /u/Rittermeister thank you!

• What would a cavalry lieutenant in 1862 likely be carrying on his person? Seriously, I want to know everything that could possibly be in this guy's pockets, since that will be an actual issue in my book. Would one of those things include a pistol? I know that carbines and sabers were typically carried by the cavalry and not pistols, but would it be common enough for them to carry them? If so, what kind of pistol was the most common? answered by /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov thank you again so much, you're awesome! also answered by /u/Rittermeister you're awesome too!

• What kind of saddles and typical riding tack were used in the cavalry? I know a good bit about horses and modern tack, but I'm pretty sure I won't know much about anything that isn't used today and might have been used then. Answered by /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov and /u/Rittermeister thank you so much!

• In 1862, how well fed were Rebel soldiers, particularly officers? Any difference in their supplies at Sharpsburg? thank you so much to /u/Rittermeister for answering this in great detail!

• One of what some of my dumber questions might be is this: what would his reasonable reaction be to cars, planes and electric lights? These advances were only 40 years out and there were prototypes and lots of experiments with regards to electricity. Would he know about those experiments, being a literate middle-class landowner's son? If it's reasonable enough that he knew about that sort of thing going on with lights, that would reflect how I write his reaction. Planes and cars, I can imagine a much bigger reaction, but I'm a stickler for details and I like to be as accurate as possible even if it's something no one else would notice or think about. I know it was a dumb-ish question, so thank you /u/Rittermeister for humoring me!

• Also, being from NC, what would his stance on slavery be and his culture shock regarding equal rights and blacks and whites marrying in our century? Would it be totally out of the question for him to be against slavery and the war in general but to be fighting for the South because he substituted for a younger sibling and didn't want to raise arms against his neighbors? answered by /u/Irishfafnir you're awesome and thank you very much!

• Now the fun question: What were the sexual morals of the 1860s? And like most hormone-crazy teenagers, did teenagers of that day and age run around and get laid? Were they just quieter about it if that's the case, and no one really found out about it or talked about it? And what about stuff like oral sex and full nudity even between husband and wife? I've read somewhere that a lot of wives would blow out the lamp and just lay there and wouldn't even let their husbands do more than hike their skirts up to do the deed. Was this commonplace? Or was this kind of prudishness a rarity?

Whew. I think that's it. I'll probably have more to ask in a few minutes. :D

And yup, I came up with more questions! A link to those, which are further down in the AMA, and thank you to anyone that takes the time to answer those!

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3c73kh/panel_ama_the_american_civil_war_era_military/cssursy

EDIT: I have to go to work now, and as much as I don't want to, I have to! I'll try and check in whenever time allows it between patients at work, but if we're shorthanded like yesterday, the only computer time I'm going to get is for putting in my vital signs and doing my paperwork! And again, thank you SO MUCH to everyone that's helped out with this; my acknowledgements list for this book is going to be like five fucking pages long because yall are SO awesome!

I posted this a few hours ago but /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov made the excellent recommendation that I repost it here:

How exactly was Jefferson Davis elected President of the Confederacy? According to his Wikipedia page, he was selected by delegates at a constitutional convention, but how were those men appointed? Was there any form of popular vote involved?

And as an aside, were Davis' powers and responsibilities relatively comparable to those of Lincoln, or was he limited by the looser structure of the Confederacy? The Civil War is one of my favorite areas of studies and yet I realized today I know almost nothing about the Confederacy's government -- how it was structured, its functions, etc.

I have read on this sub that large American Civil War battles tactically resembled warped versions of napoleonic style warfare. What does this mean? Does this mean infantry fought in firing columns?

If so, why? The war was much closer in time to the Prussian wars in which soldiers advanced in small squads, similar to combat today.

Were there any incidents of large scale melee combat? I know that the Confederate military trained some units of pikemen but ended up not deploying them. How did they envision an effective role for pikemen?

Also the question I'm even more interested in

After the Union won, how did they "punish" the south?

Were there significant voices in the north who wanted to punish the south much more than they did?

As a non American, my tiny amount of knowledge about the civil war mostly comes from Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. So, sorry about this. With that said, how were Native Americans treated by either side in the war? Were they viewed with suspicion, embraced as soldiers, did attitudes change during the war?

Also, to /u/doithowitgo, why is preserving battlefields so important? It feels important to me but I can't express why very well (especially not in English). What would you like done with battlefields- and what state are they in?

• What was the regular army doing at the very beginning and during the war? I understand that it was small and that Scott and Lincoln decided to largely not use it for early campaigns, so what was it used for?

• I heard from Gary Gallagher's lecture series that it was by no means unheard of for women to Mulan themselves into the army (although it would be an open secret with tentmates, of course). Are there any speculative numbers on this?

• What were native Americans doing?

• Finally, Sigel was a bit of a dope as a commander, right? Why were people so proud to fight mit him?

As is my usual practice, rather than get to caught up in footnotes and repeating sources every post, I am collecting all works cited in this single post.

For starters, just as general sources on the war, I have three books to recommend:

Battle Cry of Freedom by Dr. James McPherson, which is generally agreed to be the best single-volume history of the war. Don't miss it!

The Civil War: A Narrative by Shelby Foote, a three part trilogy on the war, which while I do not recommend as an introductory work, given the fact that its historical understanding is ~50 years out of date by now, I nevertheless can not skip mentioning, for the wonderful and engaging picture that Foote paints with his prose, which really can't be beat.

Themes of the American Civil War: The War Between the States, edited by Susan-Mary Grant and Brian Holden Reid, a fantastic collection of essays on the war covering all aspects of the conflict both social and military.

Other works I have used (and I will update this as needed):

The Army Medical Department 1818-1865 by Mary C. Gillett

Confederate Arms by William Albaugh III

Confederate Edged Weapons by William Albaugh III

Confederate Cavalryman by Philip Katcher

Union Cavalryman by Philip Katcher

The Gatling Gun by Peter Smithurst

The Class of 1846: From West Point to Appomattox by John Waugh

Birth of the Battleship: British Capital Ship Design 1870-1881 by John Beeler

Our Iron-clad Ships by Edward James Reed

Inefficiency of Heavy Ordnance in this Country and Everywhere by Norman Wiard

How controversial was Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus/the ex parte Merryman case at the time? Did the people of the North care, or did they just see it as a necessary move?

How did the Confederacy go about establishing a logistical apparatus to oversee the production and distribution of arms, equipment, and general supplies? In a relatively short period of time, how was the Confederacy to maintain such large forces in the field for four years? When did this logistical system begin to break down, and what, if it can be reduced to several critical factors, were the main causes of it's decline?

By 1865 the Union army, which had begun as a replica in miniature of the British army, and the Confederate army, which had not existed at all, had grown into the largest and most efficient armies in the world, divided and subdivided into elaborate operational formations and units and comprising every branch of military specialization. Though dismissed by European military grandees as amateur and unprofessional, each, but particularly the United States Army, out-matched the French, Prussian, and the Russian in up-to-date experience and, but for the interposing Atlantic, would have threatened any of them with defeat

"The American Civil War" By John Keegan

How does the Militaries of the Union and CSA fared against their European counterparts; be it Prussian, British, French or Russians? I'm curious as to how they stand on paper. Let's use 1865 statistics, since at that time the Union and CSA armies are still roughly unprofessional but battle hardened.

How does the Union and their Spencer breach loading repeating rifles fare against the Prussian front line with the German equivalent breach loading rifle?

How does the US Navy fare against the British Navy? How would the Iron Clads fare in river battles along the Rhine, or similar river in Europe?

Could the CSA blockade runners fare better against the British Navy blockading?

Can General Lee, Grant, Johnston and Sherman out think their European counterparts?

Did George McClellan do all that could be reasonably expected with the information he got from Lee's Lost Orders prior to Antietam in the time he had or did he fail to take sufficient advantage of the intelligence?

The Civil War was (one of) the first war(s) where modern machine guns were available. As I understand it, they were hardly used however. Why was that? (Was availability/production limited, or did they not yet see the potential of the weapon, or were they wary of new technology, or something else entirely?)

I did not realize that this event was today so I removed my questions from their separate thread to put them here. Hopefully that's alright.

The following were some questions that came to mind recently about slavery leading up to and during the American Civil War.

1. Leading up to and during the war how do slave populations in the south compare to that of those in the north in terms of scale?

2. Were there any slavery advocates (or even apologists) in the north leading up to and during the war?

3. I've often heard this as sort of an off hand remark but never dug into it, can anyone verify the accuracy of this statement or debunk it (Sorry it is kind of a loaded remark) ?

"The majority of southerners weren't even slave holders, and as a matter of fact the last slave holders to relinquish their slaves were in the north. Not only that but slavery was on the way out in the south anyways!" This quote is sort of an amalgam of things I've heard over the years rather than something entirely specific. Some also say something akin to, "Lee wanted a gentleman's war! If he rushed to the capital the south would have won easily!" Though I think that last bit may not be a question to ponder on this particular subreddit.

If you ladies and or gentlemen had time I'd also be happy to learn more about why the iconography and ideology of the confederacy is still so popular and in a way, "Powerful". Even as a Canadian I see Confederate iconography and idealism in young people my age and younger. I see it in American politics and country music and the flag is absolutely everywhere in the culture. I am in no way a believer that the confederates were like a giant KKK or such things like that but when I look to other countries' histories it is rare to see a symbol of rebellion (never mind one with ties to slavery, and even institutional racism like the KKK or Stormfront etc.) that is so preserved or dare I say at times, even celebrated in the mainstream of a culture. I just want to learn more about why and how that came to be.

In closing I wanted to thank everyone for their time and also reiterate that I'm not against the south or the flag or any of that stuff. I understand and support appreciating things of historical significance and I also understand that nothing in history is really one hundred percent cut and dry. The south had many great generals like Lee and Stonewall and I also recognize that many southerners fought against the north because they viewed it as an invasion of their homeland, not all southerners were slave owners etc.

The US had a huge economic growth in the century between the War of 1812 and World War 1, turning into the world's biggest economy and based on that inevitably the superpower it is today.

How would that development have been influenced if the Civil War never happened and a diplomatic solution to the problems was found? Would the US still turn into the superpower it is today? Would the growth happen even quicker without a Civil War? Or would the economic development still happen but less lopsided to the "North"?

Or is that question valueless since a Civil War was inevitable?

Did Utah ever consider joining the war on the side of the Confederacy given the past persecution of Mormons by the United States government?

I missed a few questions from my notebook, sorry yall! But let's be frank, we knew it was going to happen anyway. I'll probably be bothering yall for the next year and a half.

• What was the treatment of immigrants back then? The main character in my book isn't an immigrant, but I'm curious to know if there could possibly be officers, either commissioned or non-commissioned, that are foreign-born. Including British-born, what about Irish, French, Polish, Swedish, Scottish, etc? *very thoroughly answer by /u/erictotalitarian thank you for so much information!

• What was the frequency of bathing back then for both men and women? What about enlisted men? Commissioned officers? And what about grooming, such as facial hair? What about the average length of a man's hair? Did they typically wear it long like you see in the movies, or is that false? How did they deal with common problem like lice and ticks? And since this is a smutty novel, I may as well ask about crabs, too.

• What venereal diseases were prevalent back then, and what kind of treatments would someone face if they caught them?

• I'm pretty sure that foul language was the norm for soldiers on either side; what was the most commonly used foul language during the war? Pretty much the same as what we say now? Probably not as many "goddamn"s being spoken as nowadays, I imagine, but other words?

• What breeds of horses were usually used for the cavalry?

• I've read and seen in movies how they dealt with infection in limbs by amputating, and I'm pretty sure lots of that stemmed from improper infection control. But what about smaller wounds that required stitches? Did they at least douse it in alcohol first and boil water? Or no, did they just say "gimme yer arm" and throw some stitches in it and send you on your way?

• Besides alcohol, what did they use for painkillers? I remember years ago reading something about opium pills, but I don't know if I'm misremembering it. Also, this is all in 1862 or prior, so they might not have had those yet?

Whew. I think that's finally it! I hope, I certainly won't promise! And to whoever takes the time and effort to answer all of these questions, thank you very, VERY much!

Thank you all for taking the time to answer questions today! I have a few...

• How did control of the major rivers (Mississippi, Tennessee, Cumberland) influence the Western Theater? What was riverine warfare like?

• How did the inner politics of border states, like Tennessee where pro-Union pockets in the east conflicted with those in the west of the state, influence the decision to secede?

• Many battlefields are currently endangered/at risk from development. What can we do as history-loving citizens to help prevent their loss?

Thanks again!

Question for /u/dubstripsquads

Though I'm familiar with the Klan's history as a hate group, I'm also aware that they were considered by many to be a political faction during the Civil War era. With their opposition to white Republicans and their general loathing for African-Americans and those who supported them, how often would you say their violent tendencies bled into political on-goings? Did they use the same intimidation tactics against the republicans that they used against people they sought to oppress?

YES THIS AMA IS UP I AM SO HAPPY YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW

It is to my understanding that the "Confederate flag", as known in popular media, is not actually the official flag of the Confederacy. How did that particular flag gain prominence as the "Confederate flag", and why do we imagine that particular flag when thinking of the white supremacist government of the Confederate States of America?

Two questions:

1. Why were no large battles fought in Ohio? Was it not militarily or strategically important?

2. How did the North and the South react to West Virginia breaking away from Virginia. Was this event used as propaganda? Did the South see it as a great loss?

Also, thank you so much for doing this AMA!

I have heard the Civil War described as a Rich man's war, but a poor man's fight. IIRC, this is because the Union Army had a policy where someone could hire another to fight in their stead as a way of avoiding combat.

Is this accurate? Likewise for the Confederate Army could a slave owner send in a slave as their replacement fighter? Was there any resentment between those who fought for someone else and those who couldn't afford someone like that?

At this time, was American cavalry a creature of it's own or did it take inspiration from European cavalry units? I look at cavalry of the time and they seem to at least be inspired by Hussars, with their carbines and curved sabres.

Is there a survey of what northerners and southerners believed what the purpose of the war was?

I'd love to learn about how this varied across different states, or even better whether there was a significant shift in opinions as war progressed.

Was General McClellan particularly unusual among the commanders of the Army of the Potomac in his overestimation of the resources of the Army of Northern Virginia or was it a common mistake?

How accurate were Grant's estimates of Lee's numbers compared to McClellan's?

/u/AmesCG , /u/Irishfafnir (and any other panelists who want to chime in) I've just read Arthur Schlesinger Sr.'s The States Rights Fetish, from new Viewpoints in American History. (Archive.org link.) It's from 1922, so not exactly cutting edge stuff, but his observation (with numerous examples) that states rights were claimed essentially everywhere as a partisan method to achieve goals not then possible on the national stage or prevent victories by one's foes, fit for abandonment as soon as one's own party won control of the national government, rather than as a cause in itself. This seems right to me from reading on the late Antebellum and informs the general "states rights for what" question one ends up posing to Lost Causers.

But it has been almost a century. How does the argument hold up today?

Hello there! I have a question that might be the most up the alley for /u/petite-acorn, but I'd obviously love to hear of any information anybody can provide.

I'm interested to know to what extent, if any, the pacific coastal states and territories (California, Oregon, Washington) participated in the war. California and Oregon were officially Union states, and Washington Territory was a Union territory, but they're obviously quite a long way from most of the action, divided by a heck of a mountain range (or two, depending).

Did any of the coastal states provide an actual state regiment (1st Oregon regiment, or the like) to the Union? Did they provide supplies or material, officially or unofficially? Did recruiting occur on the Pacific coast for units forming back east? Did any skirmishes occur between local populations and either raiders or other locals who were pro-CSA?

With the transcontinental railroad not being completed until shortly after the war, I can imagine the movement of people and supplies to the front lines might have been more difficult and longer from the west coast than even from Europe. Would that be accurate, or was there a system in place? Did it differ between the eastern and western theatres of the Civil War?

Thanks!

Is it credible that Confederate General Richard Ewell really said this at the early outbreak of the war in 1861? :

"There is one West Pointer, I think in Missouri, little known, and whom I hope the northern people will not find out. I mean Sam Grant. I knew him well at the Academy and in Mexico. I should fear him more than any of their officers I have yet heard of. He is not a man of genius, but he is clear-headed, quick and daring."

Did George McClellan ever personally witness a battle in Europe?

How did his experience as a military observer in the Crimean War influence his ACW leadership and performance?

Did the Southern Congress sit members from Missouri or Kentucky? Occupied territories?

Would the Royal Navy have swept the U.S. Navy from the seas if the British had chosen on active intervention? How would monitors (and their mammoth Dahlgren guns) have faired against the British and their far more numerous but far smaller Armstrongs?

• Is it true that the Civil War was the catalyst for Americans identifying with their country more than with their state? If so, how exactly did this occur?

• When and why did Confederate leaders become icons/heroes?

• What were the politics of Reconstruction, was it ended prematurely, and how did the politics of the time influence the modern narrative/legacy?

Many thanks.

Is there a reason why Thomas Meagher was not allowed to replenish the Irish Brigade's ranks before Gettysburg?

The whole unit had ~500 men at the Wheatfield and I read the reason Meagher resigned his command before the campaign was because his request to muster more Irish soldiers was denied twice.

So I created my own post not knowing about this AMA, but I'll ask it again here. During the American Civil War were cavalry soldiers required to supply their own horses?

What were Nathan Bedford Forrest's real views on race and on the Klu Klux Klan at the very end of his life?

Did anyone among the European leaders or public openly voice the strategic benefits to European interests of a permanently divided / broken United States? If so, how were these thoughts voiced and how were they received?

How involved was Prince Albert in managing the Trent Affair? I've heard he was trying to calm this down right up until his death.

Were there occasions when swords fought bayonets during the war?

How would these encounters typically play out?

Why weren't revolving rifles(or other more rapid fire personal weapons) adopted on a wider scale?

Were the railroads that Sherman destroyed built by slaves?

Considering it was President Johnson who did revoke the grants - is it accurate to impute that President Lincoln actually agreed with Sherman's January 1865 scheme of 40 acres ('and a mule') land grants confiscated from rebels and given to freed slaves?

How much did the fact that most (from what ive been told) guns in the conflict had rifleing and pointed bullets instead of round ones effect the casualty rate? As a 3rd year history major i have studied combat, formations, military tech from about 1600 to 1800 but dont know much at all when it comes to the American CW

Can you tell me more about the "red strings" (and it's place in the history of the civil war)? Had some ancestors in it but i'm having a hard time finding more about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Strings

The movie Gettysburg portrays General Lee as stubbornly refusing to follow Longstreet's suggestion that they not engage the Union Army in the hills where the Confederate army would be at a tactical disadvantage, but rather move to a more favorable position where they could remain in on the defensive side rather than being forced to attack.

Do we have evidence of some kind of an actual dispute of that nature between the two generals? What options other than attacking the Union troops in the hills did Lee have?

What was the relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens like? How much did or didn't they get along?

I've read before that a large reason why most of the Civil War battles were so stagnant on innovation of battle tactics was because generals on both sides were trying to be the next Napoleon and were trying to imitate his tactics. Is there any truth to this?

I guess this next question depends on the answer to the first question. One of the main reasons that Napoleon was so effective was innovating uses of new tactics and a whole new way of warfare. If everyone was trying to be the next Napoleon, I would have assumed there would be some generals who would try radical new things. Was this attempted or was there never really any attempt to innovate and try something new?

I posted this question as a thread a while ago without particularly the answer I was looking for, so I was hoping if any of you experts could enlighten me with an answer ;).

From my readings of the Civil War (which to be fair is limited, I am planning on reading Shelby Foote's three volume history of the CW), from my research of Confederate Generals and formations, from my impressions on games (like Ultimate General Gettysburg), and some movies, I get the impressions that the South seemed to fight the war quite passionately and/or bravely in comparison to the South. I hear a lot about of the fame of Confederate brigades like the Texas Brigade, the Louisiana Tigers, the Stonewall Brigade, the Alabama Brigade, and the "Light Brigade", all of who distinguished themselves for their resilience, hard-fighting, and/or brave characteristics. I read about the courage of Pickett's charge (Armisteads high-water mark for example), the daring nature of Cavalry raids done by J.E.B Stuart and Nathan Forrest, the stand of the Stonewall Brigade at the beginning of the war, etc.

So my question is: Is there any truth behind the idea that the Confederate Soldiers might have been more passionate and brave than the Union at times, or is this just a component of the Lost Cause myth?

EDIT: I apologize in advance if my question is dumb :P

How was artillery generally employed during the war and how effective was it?

Were there any novel uses of artillery?

Is it true that Robert E. Lee inflicted more deaths of US soldiers than any other battlefield general the United States has ever fought?

Can the First Klu Klux Klan be viewed as a modern terrorist organization, and can the Union Armies attempts to restore order in the south be viewed as a kind of counter-insurgency campaign?

see disclaimer at the bottom

So i'm re-reading Blight's excellent "race and reunion" and on page 286 he talks about

festivals such as old plantation days at which ex-slaves would swap staged stories with confederate veterans [which] became common in Southern public culture

after we got past the lost cause rationalizing how do we now look at those sort of ex-slaves (since there had to be enough to them to be included in such spectacles). and on page 284 Blight cites confederate veteran writer cunningham's term in 1905 giving "lessons for young negroes" against social equality obstentially from "old-time darkies". What do we know about such groups or people like Amos Rucker (one of the infinitely small number of black people to join the UCV group)?

What does recent scholarship (which as spent thousands of pages debunking the myths of the lost cause) say about this?

look obviously both in the late 1800s and today people use these sorts of things to advance toxic tropes about the slave happy under the heel of the southern master (and i think historian ed ayers gave the best sort of response to that when someone called into the backstory radio trying to argue for the idea of blacks fighting in the confederate army ) so to be clear that's not my viewpoint and hopefully no one accuses me of that. I'm just interested in this sort of counter-intuitive (and obviously wrong) response to emancipation.

I've read on Wikipedia that the blockade on Confederate cotton trade crippled the cotton industry in the world and spurred the development of Egyptian cotton. Just how big was the economic impact of the blockade, and what if any other economic impacts did the American Civil war have on the global economy? Obviously it drastically changed to American South but how about the rest of the world?

Hi, I just submitted this is a question but I was suggested to put this here.

After the south seceded in the Civil War how long did it take for slavery to be truly phased out?

It obviously couldn't have happened in one day, and some slaveowners must have refused to give up slavery.

Thanks so much for doing this AMA! I'm making my way through The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader, and have a couple question based on the pre-Civil War documents therein.

1. I'm struck by the fact that, even as they're doubling down on the institution of slavery, southern documents + those submitted by southerners in Congress often still endeavor to avoid the word "slavery," often substituting "property" instead. I understand why the word was left out of the Constitution, but it's much less clear to me why people who embraced the institution and argued that it was not only just, but also helpful to those it enslaved, were so delicate with their language.

2. During the decade or so leading up to the war, the idea that northern critics of slavery were violating their Constitution obligations merely by opposing the institution (as opposed to the more concrete offense of refusing to return fugitive slaves) began to cited by representatives of the south. Who was the first to articulate this idea, and when did it first emerge?

I, like many Americans, have a friend (or two, or three) who buy some amount of the "Lost Cause" narrative of the Civil War. Do you main responders have a preferred or "standard" method of addressing these beliefs (States' Rights, Slavery was inevitably disappearing, Northern Agression, etc.) and narratives in personal interactions? Do you find it worthwhile to try to correct a friend's misunderstanding of the causes of the ACW, or is it something best left untouched in your opinion? Do you have any recommendations for an accessible text or two that a lay person could read to get a good idea of the source of these beliefs and why they are not considered valid anymore?