These 5 Myths About the American Civil War Need to Be Addressed

Photo Credit: Thure de Thulstrup / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

One of the most, if not the utmost, important topics in US history is the American Civil War. While a significant portion of the information presented about the conflict is factual, some bits have been mythologized. Below are five myths about the conflict that require correction.

FALSE: Robert E. Lee didn’t own slaves or support slavery

Robert E. Lee, 1863. (Photo Credit: Library of Congress / Getty Images)

In the years following the American Civil War, significant effort was made to portray Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee as a heroic figure of moral virtue. This narrative included assertions that he opposed slavery and didn’t personally own slaves.

The historical evidence contradicts this portrayal. In 1857, Lee’s wife inherited 189 enslaved people upon the death of her father, George Washington Parke Curtis, according to his will. The document stipulated the slaves be freed five years after Curtis’ death. Records indicate Lee sold several of the individuals to settle debts and took legal action to prevent the emancipation of others.

Lee may have been described as paternalistic toward his slaves, but this doesn’t alter the fundamental reality of his ownership of them. Civil War historian Eric Foner elaborates on this in an article published in The New York Times, saying, “He was not a pro-slavery ideologue. But I think equally important is that, unlike some White Southerners, he never spoke out against slavery.”

FALSE: Ulysses S. Grant was drunk during the Battle of Shiloh

Ulysses S. Grant during the American Civil War. (Photo Credit: Universal History Archive / Getty Images)

Ulysses S. Grant led the Union Army to victory during the Civil War, emerging as a national hero. However, throughout his military and political career, accusations of his alcohol consumption persisted. Some of these allegations surfaced after his triumph at the Battle of Shiloh, with a reporter from the New York Herald claiming Grant was intoxicated during the battle.

Grant, indeed, struggled with alcohol throughout his life, possessing a lower tolerance than many. In Ron Chernow’s 2017 biography Grant, it’s noted that while the Union general had this issue, he would never jeopardize a forthcoming battle by drinking beforehand.

The rumors prompted calls for President Abraham Lincoln to dismiss Grant. According to State Senator Alexander McClure, Lincoln responded, “I can’t spare this man. He fights.” In a letter to his wife, Julia, Grant swore, “[I was] sober as a deacon no matter what was said to the contrary.”

FALSE: Amputations were frequently performed without anaesthesia

Wounded Civil War soldiers sit outside a hospital building in Fredericksburg, Virginia. (Photo Credit: James Gardner / Buyenlarge / Getty Images)

Many Civil War movies and books would lead one to believe that anaesthesia was relatively uncommon during the conflict. The images of soldiers taking a shot of whiskey and biting down on wood as they have a body part sawn off are ingrained in people’s minds. While that certainly did happen, it wasn’t as common an occurrence as Hollywood would make us believe.

The reality was that Civil War doctors were quite aware of the need for anaesthesia, and the majority used chloroform and ether to conduct serious surgeries. According to History Collection, “Over [90 percent] of all amputations performed during the war were accomplished with the patient under anesthesia.”

Related Post

One of the soldiers on the receiving end of these amputations was famed Confederate General Stonewall Jackson. He lost his left arm to friendly fire following the Battle of Chancellorsville and died from pneumonia a week later.

FALSE: The Confederate Army was made up of volunteers

Confederate Army volunteers pose for a picture in Pensacola, Florida. (Photo Credit: MPI / Getty Images)

Another claim is that all soldiers within the Confederate Army had volunteered for service. This is so ingrained in our minds that the sports teams at the University of Tennessee are nicknamed the “Volunteers.” This is untrue, despite the majority of troops volunteering to join the fight. Knowing that many soldiers would be needed for the war, the Confederate Army began a conscription program.

Between 1862-64, the Confederate government passed a number of conscription acts geared toward ensuring the Army had enough men to win the war. They initially made it so that all White men between the ages of 18 and 35 were to serve three years in the military. This range eventually widened to include those who were between 17 and 50 years old. What’s more, they were to serve in the military for an unlimited amount of time.

Like many conscription programs, the wealthy were favored. Any man who owned more than 20 slaves was exempt from the draft, so they could manage their property. Wealthy men also had the choice to hire a substitute to serve in the Army for them. While this created resentment among those who were hired, the poor had little choice but to go to war.

FALSE: States’ rights were the cause of the war

Confederate soldiers play cards during the American Civil War. (Photo Credit: MPI / Getty Images)

One of the main arguments from Confederate apologists is that the cause of the conflict was not slavery. They frequently argue that the cause was states’ rights, and that the Union infringed upon the South’s right to continue owning slaves, despite there being no bills put forth to end the practice. Unfortunately for them, this argument doesn’t hold much weight.

There was furious debate in the two decades leading up to the Civil War, regarding the practice of slavery, and, for the South, Lincoln’s election was a bridge too far.

Want War History Online‘s content sent directly to your inbox? Sign up for our newsletter here!

When the Confederates formed their own government, their constitution made it so that slavery could only be ruled upon at the federal level and not by individual states. One passage, in particular, stood out, reading, “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

Todd Neikirk: Todd Neikirk is a New Jersey-based politics, entertainment and history writer. His work has been featured in psfk.com, foxsports.com, politicususa.com and hillreporter.com. He enjoys sports, politics, comic books, and anything that has to do with history. When he is not sitting in front of a laptop, Todd enjoys soaking up everything the Jersey Shore has to offer with his wife, two sons and American Foxhound, Wally.
Leave a Comment