Great Civil War site

[javlin]

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_mississippi.html

I can see your point but it seems one needs to look at the last few paragraphs that again it comes back to States Rights.I think slavery was just the spark and not the whole or only issue that pushed the War into effect.I find it hard that the other 97% are going to throw thier hat in the conflict for the 3% of slave holders and are willing to die for that.I think it probably evolved to a much deeper conviction again of states rights and the South being treated like the little red headed step child.In 25 years or less the cotton gin would of taken that aspect of needing slaves out but does not at address the issue would slavery of disappeared?Slavery needed to go,England had cut her ties if I am not mistaken in the previous 50-100yrs but it still continues even today in parts of the 3rd world.Intersting discussion for sure from all points of view and I am with Ren about Sherman but that is how the back was broken.

 

[PCScipio42]

We'll have to agree to disagree.....states rights was the shield for slavery. Funny....how the south wanted the Fugitive Slave Act to supersede state's rights. Don't see how you figure "red headed step child" when the south had things their way up until this point. Impression is if we don't get our way...we'll take our ball and go home.

Mississippi seceded Jan. 1861, Lincoln was not inaugurated (sp?) until April 1861. I guess the mere election of Lincoln equals despotic government.

It wouldn't be too hard to get the masses to support the planter aristocracy, the rich controlled and owned the papers....and I'm sure the rallying call of "we're not going to let the Yankees tell us what to do, are we?"

Neither side can claim the high ground in terms of total war. Try Sherman? I guess Early better be tried, too. The Union was just better at it and didn't leave a column of 60,000 men go unabated through it's interior. And it's not like this type of warfare was anything new. From the Romans to the Mongols to as recently the French armies in the Napoleonic Wars all lived off the land. The Mongols would lay waste to whole cities. The Russians even burned their own crops along Napoleon's path.

 

[renrich]

Actually the cotton gin was invented by Eli Whitney in 1793. It's use caused the value of slaves to go up sharply. Previously long staple cotton did not grow well in most parts of the US and the short staple upland cotton which did grow well in most parts of the South was not economically important because the cotton seed had to be removed by hand and was very labor intensive. The cotton gin made the upland cotton a viable crop at a low cost and cotton planting exploded. What would have eliminated slavery in the US was the distaste that other modern countries had for it which would have made the US a pariah.

IMO we all have a knee jerk reaction against slavery which is a little irrational. Slavery has been practised for thousands of years and slaves have not always been worse off as slaves than in their previous condition. Slaves in ancient Rome could become citizens and being a slave and then a citizen of the most "modern" country in the world was better than their previous condition as a "free" person in a barbarous country.

As far as being a slave in the US is concerned the life expectancy of that slave was probably much longer than being a free member of a tribe in Africa. Owners of slaves in the US were no more likely to treat a slave badly than they were to treat a horse or mule badly. That does not mean that some slaves and beasts of burden were not treated badly but it was probably not the norm. Certainly, although it is not often spoken of in our PC nation we have today, many black Americans would not be here today if their ancestors had not been brought to the New World as slaves. I doubt that those Black Americans would willingly go back to Africa where their ancestors came from if told to. My ancestors came mostly from England, Scotland and Ireland and some undoubtedly came as indentured slaves. I would not go back where they came from willingly at all. I prefer America and I appreciate the hardships my ancestors endure so I can live here.

This is not to make a case that African slavery was benign at all. I just question that the abolition of slavery, when it was going to happen naturally anyway and when slavery in the US was perhaps not as terrible as portrayed and the forcing back into the Union states that no longer wanted to be there ,was worth the slaughter of young men and the empoverishment of the South. The statement that the South deserved what they got, which I have heard many times does not seem to me to be a rational and well thought out remark.

In Texas there is an old saying; "God is in his heaven and the legislature is out of session and all is right with the world." In 1875, as reconstruction was ending, the Texas legislature wrote a new Texas Constitution. The legislature could only meet every two years for a limited time and the governer had practically no power. In addition many new laws have to have the constitution amended. Texas had had enough of despotic government.

It is not accurate to say that the South always "had their way." Tight money and high tariffs on imported goods to protect manufacturers in the North were tactics which were hurtful to the South. The best route for the transcontinental railroad was the southern route and the Yankee controlled congress rejected it because it would help the South. It is no more true to say that states rights had nothing to do with seccession than to claim the same for slavery. The unpalatable fact is that slavery in the US was legal, slavery had been practised in the North but was not economical so had been discarded and most of the slaves ever brought to the US were brought in Yankee hulls. You can bet your last dollar that if slavery was a money maker in the North the abolitionists would have gotten no traction.

 

[javlin]

Neither side can claim the high ground in terms of total war. Try Sherman? I guess Early better be tried, too. The Union was just better at it and didn't leave a column of 60,000 men go unabated through it's interior. And it's not like this type of warfare was anything new. From the Romans to the Mongols to as recently the French armies in the Napoleonic Wars all lived off the land. The Mongols would lay waste to whole cities. The Russians even burned their own crops along Napoleon's path.

Sure war has been like that but all your notations include country against country not literally brother agaiinst brother or cousin etc....I am not really familiar with any of the exploits of Early but then again the South only went into the north in the summer of 63 and that was Gettysburg that I am aquainted with.

 

[mikewint]

Javilin perhaps this will help. I think that this is what PCScripto refers to:
EARLY, i.e. Jubal Anderson Early a confederate general under Stonewall Jackson and Lee. I assume he refers to Early's actions during the Valley Campaigns of 1864, when he commanded the Confederacy's last invasion of the North. Lee had sent Early's corps to sweep Union forces from the Shenandoah Valley and to menace Washington, D.C., hoping to compel Grant to dilute his forces against Lee around Richmond and Petersburg, Virginia.
Early's invasion caused considerable panic in Washington and Baltimore, and he was able to get to the outskirts of Washington. He sent some cavalry under Brig. Gen. John McCausland to the west side of Washington.
Early crossed the Potomac into Leesburg, Virginia, on July 13 and then withdrew to the Valley. He defeated the Union army under Brig. Gen. George Crook at Kernstown on July 24, 1864. Six days later, he ordered his cavalry to burn the city of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, in retaliation for Maj. Gen. David Hunter's burning of the homes of several prominent Southern sympathizers in Jefferson County, West Virginia earlier that month.
Chambersburg was a major transportation center and had played a large role in the war and before. John Brown had stayed in the town for several months planning his raid on Harper's Ferry. J.E.B. Stuart had raided it in 1862 destroying railroad property capturing guns and horses. In early 1863 A.G. Jenkins occupied the town burning warehouses and railroad structures. During the summer months much of the Army of Northern Virginia passed through on their way to Gettysburg and Lee established his headquarters on a nearby farm. The July 30, 1864 invasion by Brig. Gen. John McClausland who ordered the burning marked its third invasion.
While almost all of the town was burned, civilians were not targets, rape, and pillaging did not occur. It hardly compares to Sherman's 650,000 man March to the Sea

 

[mikewint]

PCScipio If only the Civil war were as simple as ending slavery. That slavery was a prime rally point cannot be denied. Pro and Anti-Slavery feeling became more and more inflamed over time and exacerbated the North – South polarization of the country starting with:
1848- The ending of the Mexican war
With the end of the Mexican War, America was ceded western territories. As these new territories would be admitted as states, would they be free or slave? Congress passed the Compromise of 1850 which basically made California free and allowed the people to pick in Utah and New Mexico.
1850- The Fugitive Slave Act
The Fugitive Slave Act was passed as part of the Compromise of 1850. This was the most controversial part of the Compromise of 1850 and caused many abolitionists to increase their efforts against slavery.
1852- Uncle Tom's Cabin is published
Harriet Beecher Stowe was an abolitionist who wrote this book to show the evils of slavery. This book, which was a best seller at the time, had a huge impact on the way that northerners viewed slavery. It helped further the cause of abolition and inflame anti-southern feelings
1854- The Kansas-Nebraska Act
The Act allowed the Kansas and Nebraska territories to decide for themselves whether they wanted to be free or slave. By 1856, Kansas had become a hotbed of violence as pro- and anti-slavery forces fought over the state's future. In effect a mini-Civil War.
1856- Lawrence Kansas
On May 21, 1856 Border Ruffians ransacked Lawrence, Kansas which was known to be a staunch free-state area. One day later, violence occurred on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Pro-slavery Congressman Preston Brooks attacked Charles Sumner with a cane after Sumner had given a speech attacking the pro-slavery forces.
1857- Dred Scott Decision
The Court ruled that his petition could not be seen because he did not hold any property. But it went further, to state that even though he had been taken by his 'owner' into a free state, he was still a slave because slaves were to be considered property of their owners. This decision furthered the cause of abolitionists as they increased their efforts to fight against slavery.
1858- Lecompton Constitution
When the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed, Kansas was allowed to determine whether it would enter the union as free or slave. Numerous constitutions were advanced by the territory to make this decision. In 1857, the Lecompton Constitution was created allowing for Kansas to be a slave state. Pro-slavery forces supported by President James Buchanan attempted to push the Constitution through the US Congress for acceptance. However, there was enough opposition that in 1858 it was sent back to Kansas for a vote. Voters rejected the Constitution and Kansas became a free state.
1859- John Brown raids the Federal Arsenal at Harper's Ferry
John Brown was a radical abolitionist who had been involved in anti-slavery violence in Kansas. His goal was to start a slave uprising using the captured weapons. However, after capturing several buildings, Brown and his men were surrounded and eventually killed or captured by troops led by Colonel Robert E. Lee. Brown was tried and hanged for treason. This event was one more in the growing abolitionist movement.
1860- Lincoln elected president
With the election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln on November 6, 1860, South Carolina followed by six other states seceded from the Union. Even though his views about slavery were considered moderate during the nomination and election, Lincoln agreed with the majority of the Republican Party that the South was becoming too powerful and made it part of their platform that slavery would not be extended to any new territories or states added to the union.

 

[renrich]

Unfortunately, it seems that when one examines our politicians closely most have feet of clay. Maybe it is just the nature of politics. I do appreciate Mike in his efforts to bring Lincoln out into the light of day so we can examine him. In all the history courses I ever took in high school and college Lincoln was always portrayed as some sort of god. If he was, he was a tin god. The man who I believe was our finest president, except possibly for Washington, was James Polk. He campaigned on four issues; settling the Oregon issue, redesigning tariffs strictly for revenue, bringing California and the New Mexico territory aboard and establishing a federal bank to lodge federal funds in. He said he would only serve one term. He worked unceasingly for those goals, accomplished them, left office and died. Quite a man. He and his wife were childless because as a boy he had surgery without an anesthetic to remove bladder stones. Ugh!

The cotton gin and Eli Whitney had an enormous impact on US history. An interesting side light on Whitney was brought about by a Texas Ranger in the period just before the Mexican War. Sam Colt's first revolver sold commercially was the Colt Paterson. It was a five shot, 36 cal. pistol with no trigger guard which broke into 3 pieces to be reloaded. The Republic of Texas navy purchased a number of them and some were requisitioned by the Texas Rangers. The Navy did not need them as much as the Rangers. A famous ranger( he later became the sheriff of San Francisco and the state surveyor of California) named Jack Hayes used them in battles with Comanches to great effect but found them to have a number of flaws. In the meantime Sam Colt had gone broke. Another ranger , Sam Walker, hunted down Colt and in consultation helped him design the Walker Colt. Around 45 caliber, with a trigger guard, six shots, and could be reloaded while in one piece. A monster that had as much energy at the muzzle as a modern 357 magnum. Colt had no factory so he contracted with Eli Whitney to build the new pistol and Sam Colt became a financial success. The Walker Colt was used in the Mexican War, especially by the Rangers. It could outrange many smoothbore muuskets because it had a rifled barrel and it was the forerunner of most of the pistols used in 1861-65. Some of the Walkers were made of poor material and blew up in the users hand but overall it was a winner. Sam Walker was killed at Churubusco(Sp?) and it is said he had a Walker Colt or two in his hands when he went down.

 

[javlin]

Thanks Mike and Ren for the info my reading has been the early part of the CW up to Gettysburg.Once I have finished my current read I will possibilly start on the Wilderness Campaign and the book recommended by PCScipio for Cold Harbor.Thanks Again Kevin

 

[PCScipio42]

MikeW-

Chambersburg was more or less held for ransom...produce an x amount of money, goods, etc., or it would be burned. The difference was in scale...65,000 men in three columns vs. the small amount of men that Early possessed. The effect was the same for the town of Chambersburg as it was for a number of towns in Georgia..the town was burned.

 

[mikewint]

PCScipio, Yes indeed it was but the civilian population was not targeted to produce a terror campaign of murder, rape, pillage, and the wholesale distruction of foodstuffs to produce wholescale famine. armies fighting armies is one thing, organized armies attacking civilian populations to produce organized terrorism is another and is unconscionable

 

[PCScipio42]

The orders were not to rape, pillage, etc., they were to forage liberally. When you have 65,000 men running loose there are going to be some bad apples among the bunch. There were instances of where Sherman disciplined some of the more ill-mannered troops. No doubt some of which you mentioned happened, it was wrong. Some of Wheeler's men during this time certainly didn't have clean hands, either, and this was in their own state.

I disagree that Sherman's march was a designed campaign of terror.

 

[michaelmaltby]

This is a great thread, y'all

Couple of related observations - from a Canadian.

IIRC, General Grant, in his auto biography,(while dying of cancer but needing to make $$$ for his family) expresses the idea that the Civil War in all its ghastliness was God's punishment of America for prosecuting an unjust, brutal war on Mexico in 1848.

In his concluding commentary Shelby Foote describes the significance of the entire civil war this way ... (and I paraphrase): Before the war the United staes was always plural (as in "we") after the war the United States had become singular (as in The Nation is undivided). Why is that little detail important .....? Because it describes the fact that "victory" of the Central Government was imposed on "defeated" rebels ..... resulting in the movement forward of The Nation. And that is what happens in all great, successful nations. That is the natural process and it is a mistake to always look backwards. Backwards to what .... past glories .....?

And this brings me to my third point. Separation. As you know, we in Canada have a problem with our physically attractive but rebellious family in Quebec. They want to move out, leave us all behind and form their own Country. Their vehicle plates tell it all: "Je me souviens" ( I remember). Quebecers have convinced themselves that they are the coolest, most unique and talented people on the Planet. Meanwhile in the rest of Canada, Canadians have been paying the bills for our self-indulgent family in Quebec.

Our situation - the Canadian situation - is just the opposite of that of the USA prior to the Civil War. Canada rewarded the separatist-inclined - encouraged their egos and identities - to what end??

Better by far, had Britain imposed British law, language and national identity on a defeated New France, in 1763.

The Canadian public has been bathed all its life with the notion that Canada "needs" Quebec, that Quebec makes Canada "special".

Guess what?? Recent public opinion polls in Canada are showing that for the first time in history, a (small) majority of the Canadian public are saying to Quebec: "Go. Get the f**k out. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!!"

Of course the problem with that sentiment is - that - if Quebec seceded from our Union - we would have a debt-ridden failed state on our doorstep that was run by the Mohawks and Hell's Angels tribes.

Chairs,

Proud Canadian

 

[renrich]

I have read the statement by Grant re the Mexican War also. He was an idiot to say that. Maybe his illness discombobulated him. Texas had achieved her independence from Mexico at San Jacinto. During the numerous changes in Mexican government that agreement was abrogated. Texas existed as a Republic for nine years, ( would that we had stayed a Republic.) But we voted to be annexed to the US. Congress resisted that annexation because of politics( the slavery question.) Finally annexation was agreed on because of the interest that Great Britain displayed in Texas. Mexico stated that the annexation of Texas by the US meant war. Mexico owed a great many citizens of the US (as well as other countries including Britain) a lot of money because of damages during their many revolutions. They could not and would not settle the damages. Mexico also, like in Texas before 1836, claimed a lot of territory, ( New Mexico territory and California) which they could not settle, develop or govern. Texas became part of the US. Mexico moved troops into Texas and attacked the US dragoons in Texas. They let their alligator mouth overload their aspirin rear end. The US proceeded to whip up on Mexico. The final settlement of the money owed US citizens was accomplished when Mexico said "calf rope" by ceding the New Mexico territory and California to the US. Later a little more territory was bought by the US. One shutters to think about California and the New Mexico territory if it was still part of Mexico, which is and has been almost a failed state.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... He was an idiot to say that."

It is a strange thing to say ... but it stands out because that Mexican war saw young officers fighting side by side that would later be at each other's throats.

The Mexican war of 1848 was destined to happen, given the nature of the young USA and the unstable (open to European intervention) nature of Mexican politics.

MM

 

[mikewint]

PCScipio- NOT a campaign of terror. Let's check that out:
In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.
On April 24, 1863, the Lincoln administration seemed to adopt the precepts of international law as expressed by the Geneva Convention when it issued General Order No. 100, known as the "Lieber Code." The Code's author was the German legal scholar Francis Leiber, an advisor to Otto von Bismarck and a staunch advocate of centralized governmental power. In his writings Lieber denounced the federal system of government created by the American founding fathers as having created "confederacies of petty sovereigns" and dismissed the Jeffersonian philosophy of government as a collection of "obsolete ideas."
The Lieber Code paid lip service to the notion that civilians should not be targeted in war, but it contained a giant loophole: Federal commanders were permitted to completely ignore the Code if, "in their discretion," the events of the war would warrant that they do so. In other words, the Lieber Code was pure window dressing.
The Lincoln government intentionally targeted civilians from the very beginning of the war. The administration's battle plan was known as the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to blockade all Southern ports and inland waterways and starving the Southern civilian economy. Even drugs and medicines were on the government's list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southerners, as far as possible.
As early as the first major battle of the war, the Battle of First Manassas in July of 1861, federal soldiers were plundering and burning private homes in the Northern Virginia countryside. Such behavior quickly became so pervasive that on June 20, 1862, General George McClellan, the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac, wrote Lincoln a letter imploring him to see to it that the war was conducted according to "the highest principles known to Christian civilization" and to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible. Lincoln replaced McClellan a few months later and ignored his letter.
Sherman's war philosophy was evident well before the Savannah Campaign in 1864. In 1862 Sherman was having difficulty subduing Confederate sharpshooters who were harassing federal gunboats on the Mississippi River near Memphis. He adopted the theory of "collective responsibility" to "justify" attacking innocent civilians in retaliation for such attacks. He burned the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. He also began taking civilian hostages and either trading them for federal prisoners of war or executing them.
Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, were also burned to the ground by Sherman's troops even though there was no Confederate army there to oppose them. After the burnings his soldiers sacked the town, stealing anything of value and destroying the rest. As Sherman biographer John Marzalek writes, his soldiers "entered residences, appropriating whatever appeared to be of value . . . those articles which they could not carry they broke."
After the destruction of Meridian Sherman boasted that "for five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire.... Meridian no longer exists."
In The Hard Hand of War historian Mark Grimsley argues that Sherman has been unfairly criticized as the "father" of waging war on civilians because he "pursued a policy quite in keeping with that of other Union commanders from Missouri to Virginia." Agreed, Sherman was just the most zealous of all federal commanders in targeting Southern civilians.
In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for "a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing." In 1864 Sherman would announce that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy."The bombardment of Atlanta destroyed 90 percent of the city, after which the remaining civilian residents were forced to depopulate the city just as winter was approaching and the Georgia countryside had been stripped of food by the federal army. In his memoirs Sherman boasted that his army destroyed more than $100 million in private property and carried home $20 million more during his "march to the sea."
Sherman was not above randomly executing innocent civilians. In October of 1864 he ordered a subordinate, General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, "burn ten or twelve houses" and "kill a few at random," and "let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon."
Another Sherman biographer, Lee Kennett, found that in Sherman's army "the New York regiments were . . . filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World." Many acts of rape were committed by these federal soldiers. The University of South Carolina's library contains a large collection of thousands diaries and letters of Southern women that mention these rapes.
Shermans' "foragers" (known as "bummers") sacked the slave cabins as well as the plantation houses. As Grimsley describes it, "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked." A routine procedure would be to hang a slave by his neck until he told federal soldiers where the plantation owners' valuables were hidden.
I suspect you might have a diffeent opinion had your family been in Sherman's path.

 

[PCScipio42]

Quite the post.....I will only address a few points of it. Since you have already stated the Lieber Code was mere window dressing, there is no need even to address that.

So given your criteria, all blockades are a war crime based what you stated above on the Anaconda Plan. I guess the Allies in both world wars should have been tried as war criminals as civilians are "targeted".

McClellan was dismissed because he was incompetent, not because of how the war was to be prosecuted.

Sherman said and wrote many things, not all of which he put into practice. He did not exterminate or even attempt to exterminate the southern population. No doubt many crimes were committed during the march to Savannah. We can debate as to whether or not food and livestock is a legitimate target, shops that manufacture goods, etc. Again, this is nothing new and had been practiced in war for at least 2,000 years even before the start of the civil war. I will say that Sherman was harsh and some of his men committed crimes, but he was no terrorist.

The civil war has been over for for 145 years now, but it seems some are still fighting it.......maybe it's time to move forward.

 

[renrich]

An interesting point about the Mexican War is that it is the deadliest war in American history. Per capita there were more deaths than in any other war, mostly from disease and many who participated in the war suffered from life long disabilities from disease. Mexico was not a healthy place. That war is well worth studying, IMO. The accomplishments of the American forces were almost unbelievable. From a Texas point of view, it is interesting that many of the Texas volunteers were Rangers. In that war the US regulars had no cavalry, only dragoons( infantry that rode to battle) and they could not cope with Mexican cavalry. The Texas governor sent Texas Rangers who coped pretty well with cavalry and guerillas who interdicted the supply lines of Winfield Scott's army. Understandebly ( to me) the Rangers were not well disposed toward Mexico and atrocities were numerous. The US Army commanders were not fond of the Rangers except when they needed them. After the war the first US Army cavalry units recruited and formed were sent to Texas to cope with the Indians, mainly Comanche. Jefferson Davis was the war secretary who reccruited the cavalry and horses ( and camels) Lee, Hood and Stuart served there and Hood was wounded during a skirmish. The US Army cavalry was pretty effective against Indians although not as effective as the Ranger companies that were well led. Some were not.

 

[PCScipio42]

Thanks Mike and Ren for the info my reading has been the early part of the CW up to Gettysburg.Once I have finished my current read I will possibilly start on the Wilderness Campaign and the book recommended by PCScipio for Cold Harbor.Thanks Again Kevin

If you like the Cold Harbor book, you might want to check out Rhea's other three books. BTW, my name is Forrest, and, no, I was not named after Nathan Bedford Forrest!

 

[renrich]

The Red River Campaign was an interesting part of the war fought in 63-64, mainly in Louisiana. That part of the war does not get a lot of exposure compared to the war in Virginia or Georgia, Tennessee. A side light to the Red River Campaign which shows how economics can play a role in the war was the Battle of Mansfield. All during the war there was some clandestine shipping of cotton from the South to the Northern mills. A prominent supporter of Lincoln owned a mill in the Northeast and persuaded Lincoln to influence the strategy of the Union Army and capture Confedrate territory in west Louisiana and East Texas where there was going to be a big cotton harvest. The result was the Battle of Mansfield in April, 1864 where General Banks led the Union Army to move into East Texas. The Confederate forces in that area led by General Taylor defeated Banks and his army and the Yankee did not get the cotton. Texas was a tough nut for Union forces to crack.

 

[mikewint]

I certainly agree, the Civil War is over but one can only learn from history if we view it with an unjaundiced eye. As I stated back on the St. Abe post, let's call a spade a spade. "civilized warfare" is an oxymoron to begin with. It is the victors who hold war crimes trials for the crimes committed by the loosers. Had the South won Abe and men like Sherman would have been tried for their crimes not given medals