# Civil War: Generals before Grant.



## B-17engineer (May 27, 2010)

Since we know the 'hero' of the Union was Ulysses S. Grant, the study in school were doing as of now is a bit interesting.... 

We are learning as of now of the commanders of Union forces who were not nearly as successful. 

The first of those is *George McClellan*: (1861-1862)

McClellan was thirty-four when he was given command of the Union forces. His plan was to go by sea and take Richmond and other key cities but keep resistance to a minimum to show the Union would not interfere with the current slaves. The reconnaissance reports he got completely exaggerated the number of Confederate soldiers which delayed his action because he needed more troops. Due to early battles being lost McClellan was investigated by a committee to see how the war was being fought. During the meeting he said his actions are delayed because he needed to plan routes of retreat. After being essentially called a sissy after that statement he walked out of the room. After the meeting Lincoln had to force McClellan into action. He issued General War Order #1 it forced McClellan to begin an offensive. McClellans idea was to take Richmond from the east and was voted in favor of by commanders. Lincoln decided to remove McClellan from command because he was too cautious. 

What was he famous for? 

The Battle of Antietam where he beat Lee's army back. Lincoln was infuriated with McClellan because he did not proceed to follow Lee's battered army and he let them slip away. If he had followed Lee some say the war could have possibly ended in 1862...

*Ambrose Burnside* (1862-1863) 

Ambrose Burnside was given command of the Union Army after the more conservative McClellan was removed. Lincoln, tired of his previous general being to cautious, pressure Burnside into aggressive action and approved of his plan to capture Richmond. Burnside approached Fredericksburg very rapidly but he waited to deploy troops. He could have sent men across fording points but he waited for pontoon bridges which gave the Confederate army time to prepare. It allowed Lee to repulse attacks coming from the west without having to worry about his other sides. The south part of the town where the Unions main attacks were focused were disorganized and when a breakthrough of Rebel lines occurred they went unsupported. Burnside was upset with his failure and tried a second campaign in Winter but this was bogged down. He offered to resign and Lincoln accepted that idea. He then was replaced with Joseph Hooker who actually conspired against Burnside. 

What was he famous for?

The Battle of Fredericksburg and his choice not to send parts of his army through fording points. This caused many men dead since the Confederates could freely move about and repulse attacks from any direction. 

*Joseph Hooker*(1863)

Joseph Hooker was different than the two generals before him. He had ambitious plans that he could crush the Rebels and be very bold. His plan of attack called for calvary to strike deep in the south and disrupt the rebels supply lines and distract Lee from the main attack. He would command an army going for Lee's flank. The calvary commander Brigadier General Stoneman conducted his raid with extreme caution. None of his objectives were accomplished. The march went surprisingly well and Hooker had the element of surprise but decided not to attack when he got enemy reports. Instead he stopped his army at a town named Chancellorsville and waited for Lee. Lee's army blew past Hookers army and began their invasion of the north. Lincoln asked Hooker to pursue and defeat Lee. Like the two before him Hooker was to cautious and decided to protect Washington instead. Lincoln lost his confidence and he to was replaced. 

What he was famous for? 

The battle of Chancellorsville. His men were passed by Lee's and Lee began his invasion of the north. 

*George Meade*(1863-1864)

George Meade was the probably the best of the three previous men. George Meade was given command right before Gettysburg. At the small town Confederate soldiers were looking for shoes when they ran into parts of the Union army. Meade was pushed back on the first day of the battle. The second day his men dug in on Cemetery ridge and fought off attack from the Confederate troops. On the Third day Lee ordered a charge and the daring Rebel general Pickett charged. 7500 of his 15000 men were killed in the charged. Meade was celebrated for driving Lee out of the North. For some reason he did not pursue. Lincoln and others criticized him for his conservative attitude. Meade was not pressured to leave. He resigned after Grant was given command. Grant offered to let him serve under him but Meade was not happy and this lead to bad attitudes between the two. 

What was he famous for? 

The battle of Gettysburg where he drove back Rebel forces out of the North territory


Then you have GRANT!!


----------



## B-17engineer (May 27, 2010)

Oh and the term 'Hookers' come from prostitutes following Hooker's army...the soldiers called them Hookers


----------



## skipperbob (May 27, 2010)

I hope your study is not just about eastern generals. There were many other very good generals in the west including Sherman, Sheridan and Geo Thomas. Also of course some mediocre to bad generals like Rosecrans, Halleck, Buell. The list is endless. Also, the tale about Hooker and hookers is a myth. It has been found that the term was in use before Gen Hooker - but it makes a nice story.


----------



## B-17engineer (May 27, 2010)

So far thats what we are onto. I know Sherman and have been contemplating what if his roles and Grants roles were switched? Would Sherman do just as well ?


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 27, 2010)

"..... what if his roles and Grants roles were switched? Would Sherman do just as well ?" Can't say, but I think Grant and Sherman were like-minded. If I recall what I read, Sherman and Grant had a weekend meeting in Cincinnati immediately after Grant's promotion - in a hotel - and on the basis of that meeting tactics and strategy pretty much fell into place.

The war was the North's to lose - Lincoln was his own best strategist - and he needed all those earlier appointments to find (Grant) the General who would listen to instruction and obey. 

Little Napoleon (George McClellan) was a weasel .......  IMHO

MM


----------



## R Leonard (May 27, 2010)

> The first of those is George McClellan: (1861-1862)
> 
> What was he famous for?



McClellan saddle; standard army saddle even today



> Ambrose Burnside (1862-1863)
> 
> What was he famous for?



Sideburns . . . also invented a repeating carbine



> Joseph Hooker(1863)
> 
> What he was famous for?



A man with an enormous appetite for adult entertainment. That's why they call them "Hookers"




> George Meade(1863-1864)
> 
> What was he famous for?



1864? No, he retained command of the Army of the Potomac until the end. Grant commanded ALL the US Armies. Meade can best be remembered for keeping his mouth shut and staying out of the way while Grant ran the show.


----------



## B-17engineer (May 28, 2010)

Yeah I was focused more on the battles. Thanks very much! Appreciate any extra info


----------



## Messy1 (May 28, 2010)

Michael, I do believe you are correct about Grant and Sherman being like minded. After Grant's promotion, Sherman did met with Grant in a hotel room and gave Grant his proposal for Total War, Sherman's scorched earth policy. Grant approved the plan. The rest is history.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 28, 2010)

Thanks Messy - my information and inspiration for all things Civil War is Shelby Foote's three-volume "Narrative History of the Civil War". B-17 Engineer - that's what you should be reading . Masterpiece. On a par with Churchill writing about WW2.

MM


----------



## Messy1 (May 28, 2010)

I've been meaning to pick up some books pertaining to the Civil War. I'll keep it in mind.


----------



## Messy1 (May 28, 2010)

Sherman's March to the Sea is still highly controversial. But the results cannot be argued with.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 28, 2010)

Meade did not take his subordination to Grant with good grace, especially during the fighting around Petersburg. Trudeau relates an incident in which one of Grant's aides sent out a report headed "The Army of the Potomac, commanded by Lieut. Gen. U. S. Grant in person, Major-General Meade second-in-command". While this was obviously a slip of the pen, it was a very telling one and was closer to the truth than Meade would have liked to admit. John Gibbon, commanding a division in Second Corps at Petersburg also noted that Meade felt constrained and frustrated, as he was a commander who could give no orders without first gaining approval of the real commander - Grant. (both quoted p. 35 of Trudeau, _The Last Citadel_)

I would like to learn more about the Civil War in General, and the war in the west in particular. My ACW library is about 5 books, and only one is on the western theater, although I get the impression that there was a lot of literal fighting between Union generals in the early days of the western war.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 28, 2010)

"... Shelby Foote's three-volume "Narrative History of the Civil War"" is what you want too, BombTaxi . It is comprehensive, covers the western campaign(s) and - above all else - it is highly readable. 

Union Generals didn't think Lincoln knew how to conduct a war - so they often dismissed him. Whereas Lincoln KNEW that the North had the economy, the population, and the resources needed to defeat the South if the generals would just stop trying to be "generals". 

"... Sherman's March to the Sea is still highly controversial. But the results cannot be argued with." True. But it HAD to be done.

My personal affection often falls with the Southern soldiery - because they soldiered and soldiered on - often marched bare foot - eating green corn from the fields. Amazing leadership from men like Jebb Stuart, Jackson and Forest. And Lee was able to split his army and get away with it - not once but several times. But the CAUSE was doomed.

The most profound conclusion Foote reaches in his trilogy goes like this: -- before the war people would speak in the PLURAL about the US (as in, the United States are a young, proud nation, [example]). After the war people spoke in the SINGULAR, as in, the United States *is* a young, proud nation.

I encourage all who love the United States or who would criticize her to read Shelby Foote.

And Gore Vidal's "Lincoln" is another very insightful book that really takes a broad view of Lincoln the man, the lawyer, the politician and the President. (I'm NOT a Gore Vidal fan BTW )

Happy reading.

MM


----------



## Messy1 (May 28, 2010)

I agree with you 100% MM. Sherman's tactics were necessary to deal a huge blow to the south to hasten the end of the war.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 28, 2010)

Oddly enough, Foote's work was very nearly the first book(s) I bought on the ACW. I was actually in the US at the time, and my suitcase was dangerously overweight already, so I settled for McPherson's _Battle Cry Of Freedom_, which is a very handy single-volume overview. Foote goes on the 'to-buy' list... after the four volume history of 2nd TAF I've been eyeing up for about a year 

I must admit that I tend to take more interest in the Union soldiery - perhaps the first industrialised and partly urban citizen army in the world. In many ways, they set the template for the mass armies of Europe in the following half-century. And I am fascinated by Petersburg (especially as it's one of only two ACW battlefields I've visited, the other being Five Forks. Petersburg has almost the whole of WW1 in microcosm - trenches, mining and horrendous casualties for little gain in the early phases. 

Anyone else got any ACW reading recommendations?


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 28, 2010)

".... In many ways, they set the template for the mass armies of Europe in the following half-century"

True. Bismark observed the war very closely. 

MM


----------



## B-17engineer (May 28, 2010)

Total war was a necessary part because if he couldn't distract the Confederates he could destroy the will to fight. If you mention his name in the south it's not very well received  

Thanks MM for the book references


----------



## parsifal (May 29, 2010)

Mclelllan was no field commander, but as a staff officer, he was probably one of the best in the war. He transformed the union army from an armed rabble into a professional force, with a rock solid repacement and training system. It was one of the defining differences between thye northern and southern armies. And that just didnt happen because of the superior resources of the North. It took organizers like Mclellan to transform that advatage to boots on the ground


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 29, 2010)

You're kind, parsifal 

MM


----------



## BombTaxi (May 29, 2010)

You have to hand it to Little Mac that he was a great administrator. His caution was his downfall, but as I understand it, his spymaster was very much at fault, accepting reports of colossal Confederate armies at face value. Either his sources were lying or incompetent, but either way he accepted their work uncritically, as I understand it. Not the first or last time a commander has been let down by an abysmal intelligence officer...


----------



## skipperbob (May 30, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> You have to hand it to Little Mac that he was a great administrator. His caution was his downfall, but as I understand it, his spymaster was very much at fault, accepting reports of colossal Confederate armies at face value. Either his sources were lying or incompetent, but either way he accepted their work uncritically, as I understand it. Not the first or last time a commander has been let down by an abysmal intelligence officer...



He WANTED to believe he was greatly outnumbered. It gave him an excuse to delay and hesitate and be cautious in the extreme. One of the great enigmas of military history - a great organizer and moral booster whose soldiers worshipped him and yet when it came time to throw the dice and fight a battle - he just couldn't bring himself to do it. The classic example is Antietam - greatly outnumbered Lee and yet when he had finally broken through and had an entire corps in reserve to finish the Confederates off, he was unable to take the gamble. Lee was so successful in the battles of 1862 because he knew McClellan was so cautious.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 30, 2010)

Am I right in thinking that the lost Confederate order which led to Antietam was considered to be a 'plant', and so McClellan held back even though he had full information about the Rebel army in his hands? Or have I just made that up from somewhere?


----------



## syscom3 (May 30, 2010)

Another set of books about the ACW that should be part of anyone's library, are those by author Bruce Catton. All well written and well regarded.

He and Shelby Foote were great writers.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 30, 2010)

".... In many ways, they set the template for the mass armies of Europe in the following half-century"

After a weekend of reflection, I'm willing tp agree with you, Parsifal 

MM


----------



## BombTaxi (May 31, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... In many ways, they set the template for the mass armies of Europe in the following half-century"
> 
> After a weekend of reflection, I'm willing tp agree with you, Parsifal
> 
> MM



I think that was me? But what the hell, I'll share any compliments I can get


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 31, 2010)

".... I think that was me? But what the hell, I'll share any compliments I can get".
Oops. My bad. 

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 31, 2010)

I meant to point out to *Parsifal* that after weekend's reflection, , I somewhat agree with his assessment of Little Napoleon (Geo McClellan). That said, Parsifal, I want to quote you, to you: *"Do not judge on abilities, but on choices".* McClellan's record on choices (under the stress of war) is spotty - to be kind. The ultimate discredit was his decision to campaign for President against Lincoln (his former Commanding Officer). Let us appreciate that the United States of America is the only country that has held a democratic election while in the midst of fighting a continental-wide, vicious Civil War (Lincoln was re-elected). Weasel-George ran against Lincoln. It is to Lincoln's great credit that an election was conducted - and the soldiers voted - for Lincoln.

So yes - George McClellan was a master of some things military (to paraphrase Gilbert Sullivan ) but he fancied himself as a *European* General - a little spit and polish General. In contrast, I offer you the kind of brilliant - not from the ranks - Union Officer - (acting) General Benjamin Henry Grierson. A New England music teacher before the war - who rose through the ranks during the war and stayed on in the regular army as Colonel Grierson. Commanded the black buffalo soldier regiment(s) based in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Fought and won the Indian wars along the Mexican border by out-marching the Comanche warriors - to their water re-supply. Grierson ranks right at the top of brilliant amateur soldiers that the US has produced - that stayed on after war and became career soldiers.

The other point worth noting on this thread is that whole regiments of German Americans fought in the Union Army - under German American officers - leading them in German. (Some had fought together in the 1848 European wars).

And this - bloody riots in New York City in protest of fighting the war to free "the Blacks". The war was NOT popular which is what makes Lincoln so inspired.

As a Canadian I constantly repeat to associates ... you cannot understand the US and its "policies" (foreign, military, etc) unless you thoroughly understand the American Civil War. (The closest we come in Canada to understanding the trauma, was English Canada in 1914-18.) 

Chairs,

MM


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2010)

MM, you make an interesting point when you say the US cannot be understood without understanding the American Civil War. I think that there is a lot of truth to that. The impact that war had on this country was enormous, both in terms of the political and economic impacts but also in the psyche of the people involved and in the pysche of the children and children's children of the people involved.

Any study of that war must, however, include an understanding of the events in American History which led up to the war and what transpired after the war. Let me say though that the impact that the war had on the American People's psyche and their personality grows less and less every year. Let me make one point which, I think, illustrates what I mean. I was born in Texas in the mid nineteen thirties. My ancestors had come to Texas during the Republic and some fought against Indians and Mexicans. Some fought in the War of 1861-65 and some owned slaves. Now, Texas is a little different than the other states because it was once it's own nation but I have heard citizens in my age group from other states of the Southern Confederacy echo the same sentiments. Growing up, I considered myself as a Texan first and a citizen of the US second. I still feel that way, especially today, given our federal government. I served in the US Army and am proud of that service and would serve again if called, ( in a geriatric corps) LOL. But, if Texas, by some miracle, could successfully secede from the US today, I would move back in a heartbeat.

Before the War Between the States, most people in the South felt more allegiance to their state than to the United States and I believe that feeling was also present in the North, perhaps to a lesser extent.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 31, 2010)

I think the ACW was a direct result of the sentiments which led to the American colonists ejecting the British 80 years earlier, and the war cannot be understood without first understanding the Revolution. In many ways the entire political and social history of the USA ties back to the Revolution and the Civil war, and you cannot understand the sentiments ren has expressed today without going back to 1776, maybe even a century earlier to the very reasons that the first colonists left Britain to being with.


----------



## syscom3 (May 31, 2010)

McClellan seems to me to be the perfect general you want to train and organize whole armies. But he wasn't a "fighting" general who will go for the jugular of his enemy. He just wasn't aggressive.

Rerich, your final comment reminds me of a passage I had seen in one of Bruce Cattons books. Before the war, we were a collection of states with little national identity. After the war, we were a nation with a "forged in fire" national identity. Perhaps it was due to the soldiers from all the states traveling and campaigning through out the nation.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 31, 2010)

I think the ACW was a direct result of the sentiments which led to the American colonists ejecting the British 80 years earlier, and the war cannot be understood without first understanding the Revolution. In many ways the entire political and social history of the USA ties back to the Revolution and the Civil war, and you cannot understand the sentiments ren has expressed today without going back to 1776, maybe even a century earlier to the very reasons that the first colonists left Britain to being with.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 31, 2010)

".... He just wasn't aggressive." In the FIELD.  I think he was plenty aggressive about many things - including his conduct with Lincoln. 

Can you imagine the following: with an unpopular war in progress, LBJ decides to run for a second elected term and General Westmorland runs against LBJ on "conduct of the war" as _the_ issue. (I think the Lincoln-McClellan contest is just that kind of thing. Few Generals make good Presidents - Ike and Washington are the exceptions.

The differences between North and South are huge - the south was born out of Plantation agriculture which (with no disrespect intended) predates feudalism as a form of social activity/organization. The rich hold most of the land which is only productive with slavery. The free masses (non rich majority) are struggling for subsidence -- 10 acres and a mule.

In the North - industrialization came quickly - and while the gap between rich and poor way be the same, the population was modernized by the industrial revolution. Industrialization gave machinery to both the farm and the factory.

BombTaxi - I'm not sure how far you have to go back. What is more critical to understand is that the Founding Fathers conceived a document that was in complete denial about the dependence on slavery. Denial on a grand scale is something that the US seems to persist at .... joining European WW2, illegal immigration, drug (prohibition), etc. etc. But that tendency is embedded right from the start.

Lincoln's war wasn't about slavery, it was about union. Preservation of the Union. 

In Canada we have an interesting - and confounding similarity. Quebec (nationalists) want to succeed from our Dominion. They yearn to be a nation, a people, a unique society. But their ancestors came from a pre-Revolutionary France that was FEUDAL. Quebec has made more progress since 1960 (50 years) than they made from 1763 (defeat at Quebec and Treaty) until 1960. Association with Canada is deemed colonial yet that association is the very thing that has pulled Quebec out of its natural feudal state. But I digress .. . 

MM


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2010)

Sys, I believe the point about the soldiers traveling is a good one. The US was a much more rural country then than it is now and many people then lived and died within the immediate area where they were born. Of course, though, many soldiers on both sides had served in Mexico or in the West and still thought of themselves as Virginians or Georgians or Texans. Another example of how times have changed fairly recently though is that the grade school in Dallas I attended was named Stonewall Jackson and a portrait of that gentleman hung above the entrance to the cafeteria. My great aunt taught at another grade school nearby named Robert E Lee. I cannot feature today a new school in Dallas being named after a Confederate general. There is a park near downtown Dallas called Lee Park with a statue of Lee on Traveler and his aide on another horse in the park and many movements have been initiated to tear down the statues, which are enormous and rename the park. So far they have failed but one day they will probably succeed.

Another difference is that, in the forties, in school, we had many semesters of Texas history and Texas Independence Day, March 2 and San Jacinto Day, April 21, were state holidays. Today those days are not observed as holidays and Texas history is barely covered in school.


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2010)

MM, there is no question that the plantation culture had a strong influence in the South, especially in it's politics but it is very misleading to think that the South comprised a few large rich plantations with the rest of the population being practically subsistence farmers. To begin with the population of the South was largely descended from the Borderers, the Scotch Irish, who migrated to America from 1700 to 1775. A book I recommend to you is "Albion's Seed " by David Fischer, a history of the US which traces today's regionalism to colonial days. This book will also outline many of the causes of the War which were rooted deeply within the four different waves of immigrants from England. It has been said that the Revolutionary War would never have taken place if the Backcountry Borderers had not been present in America. Secession would probably have not taken place without them either.

These small volume farmers and tradesmen comprised the vast majority of the population of the South and they owned the vast majority of the land and the property. Some had slaves but many did not. Actually, the increased popularity in the South of slavery and the huge runup in the value of slaves mostly took place after the invention of the cotton gin so that upland cotton became a viable cash crop.

However, there is no question that Lincoln's War was all about preserving the Union, not about freeing the slaves, which poses another philosophical question.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 31, 2010)

Fair enough, *renrich*, but in face of that, you have Lee's troops marching barefoot. That's not a middle class army. The South became fascinated by pre-feudal culture - Rome, Greece (Sparta, Athens, Rome - all familiar city names): the architecture -- Roman and Greek. The South's cultural touch-stone was pre-feudal Plantation Agriculture -- modeled after slave states: Greek cities and Rome.

The South was very modern in very many ways - but people who bought into the culture were buying into a social model that was 1500 years out-of-date. That may seem a brutal assessment but on the whole I think it's true.

Chairs,

MM


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 31, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> BombTaxi - I'm not sure how far you have to go back. What is more critical to understand is that the Founding Fathers conceived a document that was in complete denial about the dependence on slavery. Denial on a grand scale is something that the US seems to persist at .... joining European WW2, illegal immigration, drug (prohibition), etc. etc. But that tendency is embedded right from the start.



I have to disagree with that as many hours were spent debating that very topic while the US Constitution was being drafted. Congress was given the authority to stop the importation of slaves within 20 years and outlawed slavery to new states and to the Northwest Territories. That's about as far as it could go since the Southern States would have nothing to do with the abolishing of it.

_Slavery and our Founding Fathers_ by James Frassett is a good source.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 1, 2010)

My point was more about state's right's than slavery. The original colonists left Europe to live lives that they could not live in the Old World. The Old World power's followed them to the Americas and re-imposed the very government that the colonists had originally fled from - hence the Revolution. Eighty years later, the Southern states, rightly or wrongly, felt that the Federal government was taking away their right to self-government - hence the Civil War. Even today, a section of American society fears the encroachment of the Federal government on their right to self-determination - hence the Republican right, the Tea Party and even fringe movements like the Huttaree. Throughout American history there is a tension between the right of states to rule themselves and the tendency of the Federal government to centralise. It seems that this tension can only be resolved by periodic resort to violence. To an outsider looking in at the present-day American political and social landscape, this can only be understood, IMHO, if you follow the thread back through American history as I have done.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 1, 2010)

Fair points, Viking and BombTaxi. I agree that States vs Federal has been a tension in US government since the "beginning"  but this is not entirely a unique tension to the US. It is more pronounced in the US than in other democracies like Canada, Australia or New Zealand - but there is a thread that links all democracies together and that is the tension of government trying to centralize power and grow itself while other forces (voters, state assemblies, special interest groups, etc.) push back. This tension doesn't exist in non-democracies because in these nations governments' interests lie in government - and they face no pressure to downsize or devolve. This pressure comes from democracy, capitalism and free markets.

Not to put too fine a point on slavery, but I believe it is fair to say that many people immigrated to the new world to achieve or possess what they could not achieve or possess in the old world. (There are exceptions to this, true.) But the question was: what kind of new world was the new world going to be? If your dream was to own 5,000 acres of river bottom and grow cotton, with a white house and shady grounds, then your dream almost certainly included owning slaves. The dream was simply not achievable without slavery (at that time - today it's thanks to Mr. J. Deere and Mr. Monsanto )

If on the other hand your dream was to create and tend a small mixed farm, live with like-minded neighbors. share Christian fellowship and be accountable only to God, then that dream was achievable with the help of a strong wife, sons and daughters. (Think Quakers in Pennsylvania). 

You mention "limiting slavery", Viking, and I am well aware of that train of thought - but - the purpose was to limit the expansion of the southern (plantation economy) states - and history shows that before the Civil War there were numerous nasty, nasty clashes over the issue to slavery. By then there was no getting rid of slavery - only trying to keep it bottled up, and that never works. 

Food for thought - would abolition have been successful in Britain if the sugar plantations had been in Britain and not in Barbados or Jamaica? The struggle to end slavery in Britain was achieved in large part by focusing public attention on a commodity - sugar - and organizing a boycott. Would THAT approach have worked in the US. Don't think so. 

We know from the Lincoln-Douglas debates that Mr. Lincoln had views on slavery that were - to say the least - pragmatic. For example: Federal Government to abolish future slavery and PURCHASE all existing slaves. To do what with them ..? Turn 'em lose? Give them land? 

While the Civil War was NOT about slavery, but about succession; in the end the only way slavery was going to be stopped in the US was by a terrible war in which one side utterly crushed the other and imposed its will. That it reached such a point is due to what I noted in an earlier post - there was denial at the outset by men who were conflicted between what was "right and Godly" and their personal lifestyle. How many were slave owners - landed Virgina gentlemen? 

And today ....? How many Americans truly appreciate the extent to which the country is dependent on illegal immigration?

The public wants cheap food, fast service, personal service .... at what price?

Chairs,

MM


----------



## renrich (Jun 1, 2010)

To begin with, it is interesting to me that this discussion includes people who are interested in the anatomy of the States War who are not even citizens of the US, I believe. I have no quarrel with them or their opinions and perhaps it illustrates a point I want to make.

Before I make the point, however, let me address the shoes question. The Confederate Armies were largely composed of illiterate, Anglo Celt, Protestant, yeoman types. They owned shoes when they joined the army and many had uniforms. The Confederate Cavalry troopers had to supply their own horses, which they were paid a stipend for and when those horses were killed or took lame, those troopers had to go get another one. The reason the The Texas Brigade of the Army of Northern Virginia was infantry, when many in the Brigade wanted to be cavalry was that Texas was too far away to get remounts. The point is that the Confederate Armies were not all paupers and could not afford shoes. The fact is that the Confederate Armies were very good at fighting but they were lousy at supplying themselves with everything including shoes. Once those shoes they brought with them wore out, many went barefoot. In the winter of 1863-64, in East Tenneesee, the Texas Brigade could be tracked through the snow and ice by bloody barefoot prints.

Now to my point and please remember this is only my opinion. The victors always get to write the history of wars. So I was schooled like every other American to believe this about the Civil War. The South was mostly agrarian and the main crop was cotton and that cotton was raised on large plantations owned by rich aristocrats who used slaves as farm laborers. Many of the slaves were badly mistreated. The North was more industrialized and a lot of the people in the North were abolitionists who wanted to do away with slavery which was an abominable institution. Of course we heard about John Brown and his doings. In the election of 1860 the South was nervous because Lincoln, who we were taught was practically a saint and who was undoubtedly one of the best if not the best president the US ever had, was anti slavery and if he won, slavery might be abolished and those rich planters would have no one to hoe their cotton.

Well Lincoln won and the South seceded and the South fired on a US fort and war ensued and the South fought manfully but was outnumbered and outgunned and after a bloody struggle, the Union won, the slaves were all freed and the Union was preserved and then a scoundrel named Booth shot Lincoln which was an absolute tragedy because then Reconstruction was horrible because Lincoln would have treated the Southern States better.

After much study and cogitation,I see a different picture. Many people in the South, most of whom did not own slaves were afraid that if the slaves were freed, they would run amok, raping and pillaging. That drove many to vote for secession. The Anglo Celt does not take kindly to authority or to anyone telling him what to do. Many in the South felt that the people in the North did not have the best interests of an agrarian South in mind. I do not believe that Lincoln was all he is cracked up to be. In fact, I believe he was an idealist who mishandled the situation and, along with his cabinet, precipitated a tragic war which need not have happened. Politics is the art of the possible and Lincoln lost sight of that. Remember that Lincoln strongly opposed the Mexican War in 1846-48. Where would the US or for that matter the world have been if Lincoln had had his way and Texas, New Mexico, parts of Colorado and all of Arizona and California had remained part of Mexico. If he had not allowed the attempt to resupply Fort Sumter in April, 1861, causing Beauregard to open fire and if Lincoln had not called up 75000 troops to put down the Rebellion, then it is very possible that Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas would not have seceded by June and a compromise might have been reached. Slavery was going away anyway and it seems doubtful to me that the freed slaves in the South as well as the already black freedmen in the North were tremendously better off as a result of that bloody war.

Aside from the more than 600000 men who died during the war, how moral is it to force at gunpoint the citizens of a political entity like a state, that joined the Union of it's own free will, back into the Union if it wants out of the Union.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 1, 2010)

As one of the foreigners interested in the Civil War, I must admit that my interest only really developed after some relatives moved to NC. Speaking to them, it struck just how important events of a century and a half ago still are in the US. The Confederate flag is still seen in NC, and people tend to talk about The War of Northern Aggression. Having visited Richmond, I was further intrigued by the 'other side' of the story, and as you say, the 'well known' history is only half a story at best. It has always been clear to me that the war was not about slavery, and Lincoln held back on emancipation because he was not sure his own soldiers would support it - some of them didn't in the event. I can appreciate the desire of the southern states to defend their understanding of the country's founding principles. I can empathise with their need to defend their culture from being overwhelmed and eliminated by a another, largely alien neighbour (after all, isn't that at the heart of nearly all wars?) But I cannot agree that slavery was going away. My own understanding (limited as it is) is that slavery was an integral and necessary part of the Southern economy - imagine the effect on prices across the board if a huge unpaid labour pool suddenly had to be paid.And why would the South have fought so desperately, to the point of committing atrocities against black soldiers, to defend an institution which was dying out anyway?

And the freedmen of 1865 were not immediately 'better off' - they still faced a century of discrimination and abuse before they were treated with the full respect and dignity to which they were entitled. But their emancipation was an ultimately vital first step in that long process, and to suggest that in any way that emancipation was not of any great benefit to them is something I cannot personally agree with.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 1, 2010)

".... how moral is it to force at gunpoint the citizens of a political entity like a state, that joined the Union of it's own free will, back into the Union if it wants out of the Union." That *renrich *is THE question.

Your post is a thing of beauty - from the heart  - and like BombTaxi - I am another non-American interested party in America's Civil War.  Why? ... because Canada lies beside you and should strive to "understand" you. And because the war itself is so titanic - so heroic, and so ghastly bad that it demands to be understood. This was the forge and the anvil - and what you have today in the USA is the creature of that conflagration.

Shoes. I meant/mean no disrespect to the Southern soldier. You describe it best: "The Confederate Armies were largely composed of illiterate, Anglo Celt, Protestant, yeoman types". In short: the fiercest militia armies the modern world has ever seen - fighting under a variety of flags That these men marched and fought with or without shoes - Foote remarks on it, the Burns PBS series notes it. Shoes (re-supply) as you note was an issue - and they looted footwear whenever they could . They are in good compnay.

I think you overall post has much insight - though I disagree with your alternative history view of Lincoln's actions. This war was a long time coming - it was sown at Independence - and only became more and more 'the elephant in the room' as both sides grew and prospered. The southern economy WAS cotton. And cotton and the blockade were the drivers for every Confederate move in England and France for sovereign recognition. No matter how well rounded southern society and economies were - the money and power were in cotton - and cotton was slavery. The relationship between the two was emedded.

"... Many people in the South, most of whom did not own slaves were afraid that if the slaves were freed, they would run amok, raping and pillaging. That drove many to vote for secession. The Anglo Celt does not take kindly to authority or to anyone telling him what to do. Many in the South felt that the people in the North did not have the best interests of an agrarian South in mind." All true. What can I say. 

In British colonies (Trinidad, Mauritius, Jamaica) when slavery was abolished the blacks were just turned lose to go into the hills and scrabble and "free" labor was indentured and imported from India and China. In these colonies today - the Indian and Chinese populations control the economy and politics - and the Creole blacks - are still scrabbling.

I write this because I want to be very clear that I don't exactly where the truth lies here. For thousands of years societies have kept slaves - from complex societies like Rome and Athens to hunter-gatherer tribal societies like Iroquois, Huron etc.

But at some point (Christianity ?) the view took hold that every man was equal in God's eyes. Slavery became a hard sell - however feudalism (serfs attached to a landed aristocrat) was accepted by the church. Isn't feudalism just Slavery under a different cloak?

In the South (as in South Africa) there was a strong effort to wrap slavery in Christianity. Provide a comfort zone for slave owning Christians in their society. But 'it's the elephant in the room' and it won't go away. And the war keeps coming and coming down the tracks.

Abe Lincoln knew what it was to work physically, he knew how power worked (successful railroad lawyer), he knew the conflict slavery evoked in his own life (wife's family were owners I believe) and he knew that slavery or no slavery NOTHING was going to allow the United States of America to dissolve. I think he was right. In the intervening years the USA has become greater in ways it could never have been as a divided country.

Final thought, renrich. You write "... it is interesting to me that this discussion includes people who are interested in the anatomy of the States War who are not even citizens of the US". Does that bother you in anyway  ? Personally, as I said at the beginning, understanding the United States and the Civil War is an important part of my education - and I see similarities and lessons between your history and Canada's. 

Proud Canadian
MM


----------



## renrich (Jun 2, 2010)

MM, many thanks to you for your kind remarks and insightful posts. I absolutely am not bothered by you "foreigner's" interest in the War of Northern Aggression or the history of the US. The point I was trying to make, (poorly) was that most US citizens accept the version of that unfortunate episode which is taught in our schools which makes Lincoln in to some kind of god and the war was a good thing. You and others like you, some not US citizens, try to look more deeply. 

The war was a tragedy for the South. Almost 25% of it's draft eligible men died. It's economy was devestated and did not recover fully until WW2. It is a fact that Confederate veterans were disenfranchised during Reconstruction, while at the same time, former slaves were collected and taken to the polling places but in New York, blacks could not vote. Most Americans believe that the US has not ever lost a war ( if you discount VN) Well, the South lost a war, was conquered and occupied and subjected to all sorts of misery. The history books gloss over that part and the attitude is that they deserved everything they got. R E Lee did not have his citizenship restored until 1975, in a vote by Congress. The vote was NOT unanimous. 

This tragedy was, IMO, caused by the poor judgment of Lincoln, who morally could not support a war against a corrupt regime in Mexico which resulted in the security of Texas, a recent addition to the US, being assured and territories which Mexico claimed yet hardly held and that were being hungrily eyed by foreign powers, being added to the US map. Yet, his morals and scruples were discarded when a few Southern states decided to try secession, for good reasons they thought. Then Lincoln's precipitate actions of calling up, what was then, a huge army and then not ordering the evacuation of Fort Sumter, like in the instance of other Federal installations in the South, eventually caused the most populous states in the Confederacy to secede. In many ways his leadership in that period reminds me of LBJ and the decisions he made that exacerbated the situation in Viet Nam, during the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

As for the root causes of the War, I believe many of those roots predate the American Revolution when especially the Anglo Celts came to our shores. I am not a particular fan of James Webb, a Democrat senator from Virginia but his novels can be a good read and there is a current which runs in those novels about the nonconformist attitude of the Backcountry Borderer which still exists today. Most of my ancestors belong to that tribe.

One last point. In our American History classes, we take for granted that the American Revolution, an event which featured British Subjects who migrated to America, became disenchanted with Crown Rule and revolted to form their own government, was a wonderful thing. It was our God Given right to overthrow that overbearing regime. But, when the people of some US states, who freely joined the Union, decide the despotic rule of Washington, largely dominated and influenced by the interests of the Northeastern voter, decide to get out of that Union, then it is not alright and Lincoln was a great man for calling up his soldiers and forcing the Southern States back into the Union with fire and sword. Anyone else see any incongruity here?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 2, 2010)

Ive always had an interst in the civil war, not so much from the political standpoint, as the military. In wargaming circles it remains a favourite

There are a couple of really good simulations of the civil war. One of the smallest and easiest to play is a game called "a House Divided'. It gets played nearly every year at the National Boardgaming championships. They refuse to let me play any more because I havent been beaten in nearly five years. Makes me sad, because I love the history, and the game for that matter.....


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 2, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...This war was a long time coming - it was sown at Independence - and only became more and more 'the elephant in the room' as both sides grew and prospered. The southern economy WAS cotton. And cotton and the blockade were the drivers for every Confederate move in England and France for sovereign recognition. No matter how well rounded southern society and economies were - the money and power were in cotton - and cotton was slavery. The relationship between the two was emedded.



You nailed that one quite well.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 2, 2010)

The best General in the war was my relative - Robert E. Lee!!! 

Bombtaxi, one book that I do have (most are bios of Lee for my family tree) that would be good to get is "The Civil War Day By Day" by E. B. Long. Its more along the lines of an encyclopedia and without any opinion. Of course I can read a dictionary all day long, so it appeals to me.

IIRC Hooker was well liked by his troops, admired within higher circles and did have a mean streak but when it finally came down to battle he changed so completely, his subordinates couldn't understand what happened.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 2, 2010)

Thanks *renrich* - I appreciate your expanded view. Overall - a very good thread.

I'm not well-versed in the US-Mexico conflict but you have mentioned Lincoln's dis-approval of that war. He wasn't the only one. Grant apparently said (I read his auto biography but can't recall if he says this there) that the Civil War was God's punishment on the United States for an unjust war against Mexico. Obviously neither Grant nor Lincoln were Texans .

Lee had several good Generals working with him Njaco - I'm sure he'd want to share the credit 

Until one understands the Civil War - one knows nothing about the soul of the United States. It was ghastly and on a scale that was quite unimaginable until 1914 rolled along. Mom's Dad and two of three brothers joined in 1914 and went 'over there' . Celtic Anglo Canadian yeomen understand the great (ghastly) battles in much the way Americans understand the Civil War.

And now, history seems to be repeating itself -- "veterans were disenfranchised during Reconstruction, while at the same time, former slaves were collected and taken to the polling places". Sadly, this sounds like the work of ACORN in more recent times.

MM


----------



## renrich (Jun 2, 2010)

Njaco, with regard to your post about R E Lee, I agree. A number of years ago there was an issue of "The American Heritage" magazine which came out with a list of the most overrated people in American History. A fellow named Spiller, who taught at the US Army War College and who is rather well known stated that Lee was the most overrated General in American History. Now I admit that if one says that he is the greatest general in all history, he might be a little overrated and I admit that Lee made some mistakes, most notably at Malvern Hill during the Seven Days and even possibly on the third day at Gettysburg but I think that if one can get inside his head at Gettysburg, one can see his reasoning for the assault on Cemetary Ridge.

Anyway, I wrote a letter to the editor after reading what Spiller said and told him more or less that he did not know what he was talking about. I used this analogy. There was a football coach down in Texas who stated that the definition of a great football coach was that, "he could take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n." I then stated that just think, in 1862, what would have been the outcome, if Lee had commanded the Army of the Potomac and McClellan or Burnside or Pope or Hooker or Meade or even Grant had commanded the Army of Northern Virginia. In my not so humble opinion, Richmond would have been captured and the war would have been over with in 1862.

Was watching the movie "Midway" the other night and thought of Lee, who said at Chancellorsville, that "He was too weak to defend so he had to attack." That was almost what Nimitz did at Midway. He knew he could not sit back and wait for the IJN so he had to surprise and attack them when they least expected it.


----------



## renrich (Jun 2, 2010)

MM, I have also read that Grant did not approve of the Mexican War, which shows how ill suited he was for political power. IMO, President Polk was one of our great presidents. He clearly saw what the US needed to do and he was a tireless worker to see that it got done. As a matter of fact many people in the Northeast disapproved of that war on moral grounds or also because of their views on slavery. Many of those same people were against the annexation of Texas, because it was a slave state. Would that their views had prevailed and Texas had never joined the Union. If we had stayed out and kept the boundaries of our Republic, Texas would be a paradise to live in. Just think, a Texan could go skiing in Aspen, Texas and we would be energy independent like Canada.

By the way, regarding secession by the Southern states, in Texas, we had a plebiscite and secession won handily even though Sam Houston opposed it. That shows clearly that the common people wanted to secede, not necessarily the rich plantation owners, of which there were few.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 2, 2010)

Good stuff on Lee, Renrich .

MM


----------



## renrich (Jun 2, 2010)

MM, Lee did have several good generals working for him and some of them learned their trade in the Mexican War of 1846-48. I heartily recommend to you that you read up on that war. The first volume of "West Point Atlas of American Wars" by Esposito has all the campaigns of that war in detail, if you can find a copy. That war, from the point of view of the accomplishments of American Arms is almost unbelievable. It was also the deadliest war the US has ever fought.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 2, 2010)

Renrich, a near unanimous number of historians from all political stripes rate Lincoln among the best presidents this republic has ever had.

You are in an exceptionally tiny minority to claim otherwise.

Just for the record; the war against Mexico was opposed by many people.

The US had every right to supply its federally owned property in Charlestown.

The opening shots of the war was done by rebel radicals who saw war as options one, two and three. Slavery was the elephant in the room. As long as it was practiced in the south, war was inevitable. If it never existed, there never would have been an occasion for the friction of state vs federal powers to simmer to the boiling point.

If anything, the war unofficially began with pro slavery forces from the south exporting that horrid practice into Missiouri, Kansas and Nebraska. The backlash against it from the abolitionists was inevitable.

As for Lee, he didn't look so invincible once he fought against some fighting Union generals. A win is a win, but what exactly did he do against Grant and Meade? A great general, yes. The best? Nope. Grant gets the honors because he won.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 2, 2010)

renrich said:


> Njaco, with regard to your post about R E Lee, I agree. A number of years ago there was an issue of "The American Heritage" magazine which came out with a list of the most overrated people in American History. A fellow named Spiller, who taught at the US Army War College and who is rather well known stated that Lee was the most overrated General in American History. Now I admit that if one says that he is the greatest general in all history, he might be a little overrated and I admit that Lee made some mistakes, most notably at Malvern Hill during the Seven Days and even possibly on the third day at Gettysburg but I think that if one can get inside his head at Gettysburg, one can see his reasoning for the assault on Cemetary Ridge.
> 
> Anyway, I wrote a letter to the editor after reading what Spiller said and told him more or less that he did not know what he was talking about. I used this analogy. There was a football coach down in Texas who stated that the definition of a great football coach was that, "he could take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n." I then stated that just think, in 1862, what would have been the outcome, if Lee had commanded the Army of the Potomac and McClellan or Burnside or Pope or Hooker or Meade or even Grant had commanded the Army of Northern Virginia. *In my not so humble opinion, Richmond would have been captured and the war would have been over with in 1862.*
> 
> Was watching the movie "Midway" the other night and thought of Lee, who said at Chancellorsville, that "He was too weak to defend so he had to attack." That was almost what Nimitz did at Midway. He knew he could not sit back and wait for the IJN so he had to surprise and attack them when they least expected it.



I agree with ya there. Lee would have been quick to stop the war.

Sys, regardless of who won the war, I still say - in my opinion - that Lee was the best general of the war. Its easy to win when you have unlimited resources - i.e. Patton/Montgomery in NA but its something else when you have to succeed with whats at hand. Renrich's analogy with Nimitz and Midway is almost the same thing. Renrich, remember the last line of the movie? "Were we better than the Japanese or just lucky?"

Its also amazing that Lee is admired thoughout the United States today - and I won't comment further for fear of turning this political!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 2, 2010)

I think the fact that Lee was offered the top Command of the entire Union Army by Lincoln himself speaks volumes of himself. He was a brilliant tactician and IMHO far better then Grant.

When the US Post Office came out with stamps of him I bought a sheet of them, and for a number of years used it for postage for filing my taxes


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 3, 2010)

Thanks *renrich*. "... the first volume of "West Point Atlas of American Wars" by Esposito has all the campaigns of that war in detail, if you can find a copy.". There are several used on Amazon. I'll take you up on that.  But for now can you expand briefly on this: "... It was also the deadliest war the US has ever fought" 

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 3, 2010)

".... I think the fact that Lee was offered the top Command of the entire Union Army by Lincoln himself speaks volumes ... "

Bingo !!!



MM


----------



## renrich (Jun 3, 2010)

Sys, I said in the beginning that my view of Lincoln was only an opinion and you know about opinions. However, just because the vast majority of historians rate Lincoln as a great president does not impress me. We have had a number of presidents that had the majority of voters behind them but that did not make them great or even good presidents. In fact, IMO, it is surprising how many mediocre and even bad presidents our political system has given us and that includes Grant as one of the latter.

Fort Sumter was no longer in the US. It was in South Carolina, which was not in the US. I mentioned that a lot of people, mostly Whigs, opposed the Mexican War. A lot of those same people did not support the War of 1812. Even today, a lot of historians look down their nose at the Mexican War. I put them in the same category as those who worship Lincoln.

I suspect that if the soldiers in the Union Army who got killed because of Grant's questionable tactics against Lee have less than a charitable opinion about Grant as a general. To say he was the greatest general in the war because he won seems to me have some holes in it. Montgomery ultimately won in North Africa. Does that make him a better general than Rommel? I go back to my analogy. If Rommel had been in command of the British forces in North Africa, the war probably would have gone differently.

MM, the Mexican War featured a lot of interesting aspects. The use of flying artillery, rifled muskets and revolvers, amphibious landings, "photographs" and it was America's deadliest war because of the percentage of caualties versus number of combatants mainly because of disease. Very few Anglos who fought in the war came out unscathed. When I read about that war, having some experience with the terrain in a part of the war, I keep asking myself, how did Taylor and Scott manage to accomplish those feats?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 3, 2010)

Understood, renrich. Thanks.

MM


----------



## renrich (Jun 3, 2010)

Another condition which played a role in the accomplishments of the generals in the war was the quality of the troops. On average, the Southern troops, particularly in 1861-62-63, and especially in the cavalry, were probably somewhat better than the Union soldiers. This was owed to several factors. To begin with, most Southern soldiers thought that one Confederate was equal to ten Yankees. Obviously that was not true but if you think you are better then you will perhaps be better. They did not lack in confidence at the beginning.

A more concrete factor was that on average the Southern Soldier, because of their rural background, was more used to firearms, camping out, and perhaps was more physically fit. The cavalry of the South had a big advantage because horsemanship was part of the Southern heritage and there were a lot of good horses. As the war wore on these advantages, real or imagined, went away. One advantage the North had was that many of their soldiers, being from an urban environment, had more built up immunity to disease, than the country boys from the South. Disease was the big killer in the war.

An advantage the Southern soldier enjoyed throughout the war was the Confederate policy of replenishing individual units with men from the same geographical area. Family and friends was the bedrock of Southern culture. The Union was more likely to enlist a unit from an area, send them into battle and fight them until their numbers were too small to any longer be qualified to be a brigade or regiment. An example would be the 20th Maine which when enlisted amounted to around a thousand men but by the time of Gettysburg, at the Little Round Top, was down to about two hundred or so men. On the other hand, The Texas Brigade which first saw action during the Penisular Campaign in 1862 fought the entire war and was in the rear guard of the Army when it retreated from Richmond in the Spring of 1865. That brigade comprised during the whole war the First, Fourth and Fifth Texas regiments and in the beginning the Eightenth Georgia and Hampton's Legion and when those two units were detached an oversize regiment, the Third Arkansas. The Brigade in the beginning was somewhat more than a thousand with the Texas regiments comprising around two hundred and fifty each. During the war The Texas Brigade enlisted around four thousand men from Texas and around a fourth of them died. The odd thing was that around six hundred fifty died of battle wounds and the balance of disease which was almost exactly the opposite of the ratios for both sides during the war.

By the end of the war, any advantage that the Southern individual soldier may have enjoyed in the beginning was gone,especially considering the fact that the Union soldier was much better supplied in everything; food, clothing, armament, medicine, livestock and experience.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 3, 2010)

Good points Ren.


----------



## renrich (Jun 3, 2010)

A look at the casualties in the war yields something interesting. The North had a pool of eligible men for soldiers of around four million. The South had around one million. Most of that million served. Not sure about the number of men who served for the Union but the Union had about 350000 who died whereas the South lost around 250000. The numbers for the South are approximate as their records are incomplete.

Both sides had about 30000 who died in prison camps. Since disease was the big killer, about twice as many on both sides died from disease as died from battle wounds. The South had about 90000 who died from battle wounds and the North had about 120000. The South had about 160000 who died of disease while the North had around 230000. It is easy to understand why the North had so many more die of disease than the South did because their armies were much larger but why would the winning side have so many more KIAs, especially considering that the wounded Confederate was much more likely to die than the wounded Union soldier because of inadequate medical care and factors like poor physical condition caused by malnutrition, inadequate clothing (no shoes, no hat) and inadequate shelter?

Another point to remember is that many of the men who survived the war had been wounded, sometimes multiple times. John Gordon, Confederate General who actually surrendered what was left of the Army of Northern Virginia in 1865 was hit five times at Sharpsburg. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain who rose to a General, took that surrender and he had been wounded numerous times, once at Gettysburg. John Bell Hood lost the use of one arm at Gettysburg in July, 1863, and lost a leg at Chickamauga in September, 1863, and ultimately died of yellow fever, long after the war, in New Orleans. What were those men made of?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2010)

In talking up the accomplishments of the Southern armies one needs to be a bit mindful in my opinion. In TOs outside Virginia, the Confederacy was not particulalry successful or outstanding. Grants River campaigns, the fighting into Kentucky and beyond to Atlanta, does not paint the average reb in too good a lightas compared to the Union. Grants and Shermans campaigns respectively are pretty impressive when you examine them, whilst the souths camapigns around St Louis are very ordinary in my opinion .

In Virginia things were different, but once lee tried to move north into Maryland, he ran into real trouble and did not look so good. Lees campaign in the ozarks before he took command of the Army Of Virginia is also only mediocre in its achievements


----------



## renrich (Jun 3, 2010)

Why do you think Lee did not look good in Maryland. He fought McClellan to a standstill with less than half his force. The fact that the Union had a copy of his plans was not Lee's fault.
The Confederate soldiers fought very hard at Pittsburg Landing and Grant was probably saved by the reinforcements that arrived by boat the second day, not to mention the untimely death of AS Johnston.

JE Johnston did some good work with the Army of Tennesse though always heavily outnumbered. That Army aided by Longstreet's Corps gained a signal victory at Chickamauga. The choice of Hood later was a poor one as he was probably over his head at anything above a corps commander but he was only a shell of a man by then and made incoherent by drugs. N B Forrest, of course, made fools of the Yankees more than once. They were right to fear him.

Except for good luck for the Union, the campaign in the Southwest by Sibley could have been a success.

The fact is that the Confederate Armies everywhere were almost always laboring under significant handicaps, yet they made as much chicken salad out of chicken feathers as any army in history.

It always amuses me that the detractors of Lee always seem to ignore the masterful way he led his army on defense in 1864.

No question however that the South had some leaders in the "west" who were below par. Bragg being one.


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 3, 2010)

Thanks for all the great info guys! Learning alot.


----------

