G'day guys
one of my very few new years resolutions has been to learn more about the American Civil War, well, thought some of you guys might be able to help me.
i know a lil, but not alot, so if anyone could answer a few Q's i have that'd be great.
ok first off
#1- who where the Zuaves, why did they wear different uniforms to everyone else?
#2- what was the reason the war began in the first place, i believe it was something along the lines of... the north wanted to unite the whole of america into a "union" and the south wouldnt go along with this, then the south fired at a fort or something similar....and that kicked the whole thing into motion, buty can someone shed more light on why the war happened, without going into too much depht for now(also correct me if what i previously said was wrong)
cheers, hope someone can help

HI, I'll try to answer a little bit here:

1. Just off the top of my head I think the Zuaves' uniforms were designed after the French Moroco military uniforms. They were used mainly before the war by various drill outfits both in the North and the South when they put on the various military drills and parades during various holiday clelebrations. Personally I never cared for how they looked compared to the regular army uniforms of the time period, but that was something of the 'style' then. Also the Zuaves were looked upon in this time period as sort of the 'elite of the elite' in the French military, and the American military was still very much enamored with the Napolionic era. Notice how many photos there are of the various military leaders, esp. in the North, who had their pictures taken with one hand inside their uniforms, again, something in rememberance of Napoleon and his time.

Soon after the war started most of the military unit who wore these types of uniforms in former times discarded them in favor of the more drab appearance of the regular army uniforms.

2.The actual fightinger, per say, started at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861 when Southern batteries fired on Ft. Sumter in Charlestron Harbor, although there are others who say that it started a few day before that when again, Souther batteries fired warning shots at the 'Star of the West', a Union supply ship, when it tried to enter Charleston Harbor to re-supply the garrison inside the fort. And there are others who say it can go back to as far as the fighting in Kansas/Nebraska between pro southerners 'border ruffians' as they were called, and norhtern 'free-soilers'.

It's generally looked upon to have ended with Gen. Lee's surrender on April 9, 1865, of the A. of N. V. at Apomatox C.H., although the last battle of the war is say to have been fought at the Palmito Ranch in Texas on, May 13. And Gen. Kirby Smith didn't surrender until May 26.

3. The reson(s) it began are, to a large extent still being argued today in some circles. but by and large it's a generally accpeted fact that there were two oppoiste types of societies in America before the Civil War, operating on two completely different sets economic and political standards. And these two societies had basically be founded and stayed in operation just about ever since the early 1600s.

Many, many issues developed and evolved over time that kept splitting these two section farther and farther part. And as these long stading issues grew and developed, radicals-both from the North and the South-jumped on these differences and propelled them forward, sometimes beyond any resonable solution, mainly just to inflate their own egos.

And, of course, as is the nature of war in general, the populations of both sides soon refused to see any logical or reasonable solution to their differences except on the battlefields. Where in this case over 600,000 died, either directly or indirectly, from this conflict.

Hope I've done just a little to hlp you here.

Take care, Sgirty

Thanks heaps for that mate, that was very interesting and insightful, and answered my Q's perfectly
cheers

Hi David:

I'd like to expand on what Sgirty wrote regarding the causes of the War of the Rebellion. War of the Rebellion. I like that term. That's what it was called in the official records.

The issue of tariffs, that is, taxes on imported goods, had long been an issue between the northern and southern states. In fact, the South Carolina state legislature, in the early 1830s, had passed the Nullification Act, which (they felt) enabled their state to nullify any tariffs on imported goods. Andrew Jackson threatened to send in Federal troops to enforce the national law, and South Carolina was forced to back down. That event was known as the Nullification Crisis. The northern states had been developing industrial capabilities, but being the fledgling industries that they were, they needed protection from established European industrial powers. In retaliation, the European governments effected by those tariffs imposed retaliatory tariffs on goods imported from the United States, those goods being the agrarian goods such as cotton. The cash crop of the southern states was cotton, and those tariffs were felt both financially and politically, especially since Indian cotton was beginning to be imported to England. Southern states felt that this was a threat to their way of life.

The southern economy was heavily dependent on the use of slavery to harvest cotton and feared that northerners were acting to end their "peculiar institution". Southern politicians rejected every compromise before the war started on the grounds that slavery would be restricted. This was not necessarily true as each pre-war compromise dealt with the establishment of new states and the determination whether or not they would allow slavery rather than ending established slavery. Slavery became the emotional issue that set the stage for the end of compromising to solve the crisis. Southern politicians would boast the "Cotton is king." Harvesting cotton was a labor intensive process. In fact, the cotton industry had been on the verge of becoming economically unfeasable in the 1850s until Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin (engine) that separated the seed from the useable cotton. As an ironic aside, it was Eli Whitney that began the use of interchangable parts for weaponry.

Once it became clear that southern politicians would not accept any type of compromise, they felt that it was their perogitive and right to leave the Union, or to seceed. Artillery batteries in Charleston harbor ended the process of legislative compromise and started the process of settling the issue by force of arms.

For an in-depth discussion of secession, visit our webite at http://www.BelleCityRifles.com

Whew. I didn't intend for this to be so long, but it's a complicated issue. I'd recommend "The Battle Cry of Freedom" by James M. McPherson. It's an excellent resource for the political causes and history of that time period.

-Charlie

Two good answers, at least no one jumped into the standard ol "yankee" answer. Which we all know what that is about.

A pretty fair site I've found is at ...

http://www.civilwar.com/timehome1.htm

The actual war itself was fought to re-unify the country. The economic lead into the war is absolutly dead on and forgotten by 99 percent or not even taught. All blacks in the USA have been told the war was fought to free the slaves, and this myth is helped along by Hollywood. Most of the union soldiers would have walked away had they bee told they were fightig for this as the Southern army woud have to. Only the very rich (plantation owners)and some of the uppermiddle class (city folks/merchants) the average private was a farm boy whose family didn't ow slave, if you told him he was risking his life to save some rich man keeping his butler he would have walked

Cheers guys, thanks for that

One thing that contemporary Americans often don't appreciate is the difference in just exactly how citizens viewed the construction of "The United States" before and since the war.

The concept that this country is a single entity, with smaller areas that have quaint regional differences, is not exactly the way the original citizens viewed things. There was a VERY strong belief that the sovereignty of the "states" was a lot more substantive than it is viewed today.

The thought that a state had the right to "nulify" a policy of the "federal" government was not as impossible to consider as it is today.

I had a professor at school who said that in early writing, people were more likely to refer to "these" United States (plural) and actually considered us a "collection", and it wasn't until the late 19th Century (after the Civil War) that changed and we truly began to think of ourselves as "the" United States.

While it is certainly true that we do have unique laws and government in each state, it is also true that we are in fact a single entity today, and the Civil War ensured that outcome.

I know that there have been several books written about how the 20th Century might have played out had the outcome been different, and there had been TWO Nations between Mexico and Canada. I can't imagine any scenarios in which the world would be better today had that happened.

Tom

Sgirty pretty much hit the nail on the head with teh Zouave units. Elmer Ellsworth is considered the father of the Zouave movement in America. in a way, they were the Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Snowbirds, Frecce Tricolore and Red Arrows of their day. The units were noted for their serious drill exhibitions in the years immediately before the war.
Each state had at least one Zouave unit, several had numerous ones and many were recruited from the fire departments. Among the most celebrated was the 5th New York Militia, Duryee's Zouaves. At the battle of Gains Mill in Virginia, the unit took terrible losses and was forced to retreat from the field. Rahter than just fall back, they regrouped and marched off the field in proper fashion.
Another well known unit was the 1st Louisina Special Rifles, Wheat's Zouaves, also known as Wheat's Tiger or Tiger Zoauves. Recruited from the stevadores and rough housers of New Orleans, they had a reputaion for being very brave in battle. There is still uncertainty about the original color of their jackets. Some sources indicate they were died blue but faded rapidly to brown, others say they were brown to begin with. What is incontrovertable, though, is they were known for trousers made of matress ticking, very stiff cotton duck like material typically in striped blue and white or re, white and blue. Many wore straw hats with hat bands emblazoned with "Tigers!" or "Go, Tigers".
One unit, at least, teh 114th Pensylvania Collis' Zouaves, kept their zoauve uniforms throughout the war.
You'll note these units are refered to numericvally and by a person's name. This is because at the time of the Civil War, anyone with the funds could raise a militia regiment. This becomes confusing due to the Confederate practice of naming units for the commander, such as Hood's Texas Brigade, or Heth's or Pickett's divisions.
One interesting note about the Zouave units is that, for the most part, enlisted men had much more colorful uniforms than the officers, in contrat to other units where enlisted men had sky blue trousers and dark blue sack coats while the officers had braid, sashes, swords, et c.
Beside's the expensive art books, two excellent references on the Zouaves are Osprey #177, American Civil War Armies 2 Union Troops (which has a color guide for quite a number of Union Zouave units) and their Elite Series #62 American Civil War Zoauves.
The other respondents are touching on the causes and reasons behind the ACW, known in the South as the War of Northern Aggression and many othe names. After nearly 150 years, this is still being discussed.

Having spent 30 years (Active and Reserve) in the Army you'd think I'd know this for certain, but I've only heard what might be described best as an urban legend explanation. The Army Dress Blue uniform (oddly the ONLY uniform I got in 1972 that was still in use unchanged when I retired in 2002) has a coat of dark blue, and the pants are a much lighter blue color (sky?) I've been asked many times why the colors didn't match, and had always heard the reason was that years ago the coats were not worn nearly as much as the trousers, and thus didn't fade because of exposure cause the mis-match. Do you have any references that may shed some light on why the current Dress Blue uniform is this way?

On another note, having been raised in Virginia, my grandparents on both sides had known people who fought in the Civil War. It was always referred to (somewhat humorously) as "the late unpleasantness"
:-)

Tom

My references don't indicate why the trousers were sky blue. Initially, they had been the same blue as the coat but were changed to the pre war blue by the end of 1861. The fading I've seen on "veterans" in my unit, C Company of the 10th Massts. Volunteer Militia, tends to a slightly purple hue, nowhere near the blue of the trousers. They seem to hold their color pretty well.
I can only guess your dress uniform was used in homage to the uniform of the ACW soldier's garb.

Thanks. No doubt that homage to blue goes back at least that far and perhaps even to the Revolutionary War when the continental army wore blue rather than the red of the British.

I'm sure that somewhere buried in some dusty archive is the reason the two colors don't match, but we'll probably never know for sure!

Tom

The Uniform Regulations of 1858 specified a nine-button frock coat, dark blue wool, and dark blue woolen trowsers. The frock coat was patterned after a civilian dress jacket. Early in the War of the Rebellion, the states supplied uniforming, which resulted in some rather interesting combinations. For example, the original Wisconsin issue uniform was a gray frock coat and gray trowsers. Late in 1861, the Federal Government began to be the sole issuers of uniforms. For a short while, the original 1858 regulations were followed. Then new regulations specified a four button sack coat for "fatigue duty" and light blue kersey trowsers. The sack coat was patterned after a civilian everyday jacket. Kersey was a fabric that mixed light blue dyed wool with cotton. I'm not sure off hand what the mix was, but the majority was wool. The light blue was used because of a shortage of dark blue dye.

Using the 2nd Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry as an example, they left the state wearing gray frock coats and trowsers, with a gray shako type hat. It was shaped somewhat like a forage cap that stood up rather than sagged. The unit was later issued shorter jackets and lighter weight "summer" trowsers that soon wore out in a certain strategic location, leading to the nickname of Ragged-Assed Second. In late 1861, the 2nd Wisconsin was issued the dark blue nine-button frock coat and dark blue trowsers, with the sack coat issued for "fatigue duty." The men tended to dump the sacks as they were staggering with over fifty pounds of weight in their knapsacks on the march. In the spring of 1862, light blue trowsers were beginning to be issued and could be seen on the men. Plus, many of the men began to wear the more comfortable sack coat. The dark blue trowsers were issued sporadically until August of 1862, with seven pairs issued to the regiment.

The weaponry was even more mixed and a real logistical nightmare. So much for standardization.

-Charlie

That's really great information. I don't know if that's the reason that the two items are specified in different shades today, but the thought that it may go back to recall a shortage of the dark blue dye, somehow seems appropriate. Luckily today's Army NEVER has that problem. :-)

There still are several "traditional" features about the Dress Blue uniform. The shoulder boards are very similar and the background color is unique for each branch, just as it was in the 19th century.

At least we're not still using the same rifles!

Tom