I Have To Tell You All Something I Discovered About The Civil War

[ThomWV]

I have been doing a lot of reading lately on the subject of West Virginia's history. I am thinking about writing a book about the state later this year and have been collecting information and visiting places with that in mind. This state has a very different sort of history than the states in which I was raised. It has been fascinating to learn more about this area.

In my reading it was inevitable that time would be spent on the Civil War and our involvement in it. Looking for information on one of the war's earliest battles led me to a real treasure in understanding an aspect of the war I had not really given much thought. That was the military leadership and logistical skills of the sides.

The resource I found is simply stunning. Its title says it all: "The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies". That's right folks, the reports from the battlefields for just about every contact during the Civil War, listed in chronological order.

The particular battle that interested me has about a half dozen documents from each side covering a few days before and after the battle. This was one of the very earliest battles. Here is what I learned. The South never stood a chance. I mean no chance at all. The planning and execution by the North was complete, from the South, almost nonexistent. I had always thought that the sides were more or less evenly matched as far as talent went and the war was really won on the basis of materials availability but that illusion was quickly shattered. You just can not imagine how incompetent the Southern military leaders were until you read accounts from both sides of the same actions.

Give it a try: http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html

[leftofthedial]

1. not universally true,

but it was more true outside the main body of the Army of Virginia and especially early in the war

I think history pretty clearly shows the South had some excellent generals and developed excellent mid-level officers and noncoms during the first couple of years of the war

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. If I recall, Braxton Bragg and Hood were fairly incompetent

while better Generals like Pat Cleburne and Joseph Johnston were either not advanced or were relieved of command because of personal friction with Jefferson Davis. I believe the Army of the Tennessee was not very well run.

[Johonny]

28. I believe

Johnston was moved west exactly because he was unorganized as the original poster is pointing out.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

39. I think he had the better tactic against the Union army that marched on Atlanta

His moves were evasive and were conceived as a war of attrition, only engaging when the terrain was in his favor and intended to bleed the Union army. The idea was that the longer the war lasted and the more lives it cost, there was the long (and perhaps only) chance that the North would grow war-weary. An example is the very bloody fight at Kennesaw Mountain, Georga where the North lost a lot of men attacking an impregnable position. Apparently, Jefferson Davis didn't get along with Johnston and replaced him with John Bell Hood, who was not a planner but an out-and-out confrontational fighter. Hood bled the Army of the Tennessee dry and wrecked it. Before the war started, Johnston was generally revered as the best field General the South had. Joe Johnston was very badly wounded and nearly killed in 1862, thereby constituting the reason that he dropped out of the picture for quite awhile. Hood was a disaster compared to Johnston.

[Thothmes]

45. Question

You seem to have two Johnsons confused. Joe Johnson was wounded outside of Richmond in the Spring of 1862 defending Richmond against General McClellan's Army. His wound was not severe, but it did take him out of action. Johnson was replaced with General Lee. General Albert S. Johnson was killed at the battle of Shiloh against General Grant. A.S. Johnson was widely viewed as the most capable generals in the Confederated Service at that time.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

52. No - Joseph E. Johnston, with a "t"

http://ngeorgia.com/ang/Joseph_E.Johnston

According to this and all the accounts I've read, his wound at the Battle Of Fair Oaks was quite severe, nearly fatal.

[Thothmes]

55. Thanks.

[Johonny]

79. I agree with you

Davis wanted to replace Johnston before the injury and used the injury as an excuse to move Lee into command of the army. It's generally felt that Johnston was a good in the field but a bad behind the desk. Which is a bad thing to be if you're within shouting distance of the politicians. I think you're a little hard on Hood. He basically did what he was suppose to do. He was put in charge to fight with the army and he did that until they were used up. Basically at that point the war was pretty much lost it was a matter of continuing the slow tactical defensive withdrawal of Johnston and Lee or trying a pointless all out offensive. Hood could either continue to do what Johnston did and get removed or fight on the offensive and lose and get removed. Really not a great choice to be in as a commander.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

81. I think

that John Bell Hood was a great battlefield general at the brigade and division level. He was ruthless and extremely aggressive. His Texans were called shock troops because they never accepted the concept of retreat. Hood was badly wounded twice, once losing the use of his left arm and later having his right leg completely amputated. I recall a story about Robert E. Lee reviewing his troops with an important English dignatary who was visiting the South. The Englishman noted that Hood's Texans had torn or heavily patched rear-ends on their uniform's pants. Lee turned to him and said something like: "that doesn't matter - no one ever sees the backs of my Texans". Hood was extremely effective in the Seven Days series of battles. He could take orders and carry them out to the fullest degree.

But I think that's where his skill was best displayed. When he suffered a bad wound (I think it was the second where he lost his leg) and went to a hospital to recuperate in Richmond, he met and befriended Jefferson Davis. Hood supposedly wrote several letters to Davis, highly critical of Johnston's evasive statagies against Sherman in his march on Atlanta and recommended his removal. Hood had almost been court-martialed earlier when he was in the Army of Northern Virginia for insubordination on the insistence of Longstreet, but Lee liked him and kept him on. The letters to Davis were something I think very unbecoming to an officer. Davis replaced Johnston with Hood and I think the result was a disaster. Not only did Hood mismanage the defense of Atlanta and needlessly lost a lot of good men, but he later did not pursue Sherman in his march on Savannah but instead chose to engage another segment of the Union Army headed by Thomas and Schofield. His idea was that if he could cut Sherman's supply line and threaten Tennesse and the Union army in that vicinity, it would force Sherman to head back North. What he didn't realize was that Sherman didn't count that much on a supply line and was living off the land. It was the battle of Franklin that I think showed Hood's inability to command above the division level. He had no concept of how to plan a battle or a campaign. At Franklin, Hood punished his troops for their failures at Atlanta and sent them to their deaths before a completely impregnable position with well dug in Union troops. Seven major Southern Generals died at the battle of Franklin, including the outstanding Pat Cleburne. What was left of Hood's army then suffered the worst single defeat that a Southern Army ever suffered in the entire war at the Battle of Nashville. Nashville was the only time in the war that a major Southern Army fled in panic en masse from the field. Hood completely ruined his force and it never recovered.

So, I agree with you that Hood was great, fearless, and utterly fantastic at the brigade and division level when he was following Lee's orders. I think he was out of his class when he tried to command an army and plan a campaign. But that's just my opinion and I'm no expert on history.

[Thothmes]

90. By all standards of today

John Hood should have been medically discharged from the army. He had lost all use of one arm at Gettysburg and lost a leg a Chicamauga. He was heavily medicated, with some of the wierd concoctions that were used at the time,for the pain of his injuries. He could not stay in a saddle for more than an hour or so. General Lee personally like Hood, but in private correspondence opined that Hood was to much lion and not enough fox to command an army.

[leftofthedial]

40. west of Virginia, the south had problems throughout the war

at the outset of the war, the Union had a "professional" officer corps, while the south was really just a disorganized militia.

[Thothmes]

43. Over half of that professional officer corp resigned their

commissions in the United States Army and tendered their services to the Confederate State. This even includes the man the General Winfield Scott offered command of the entire Union Army to.

[leftofthedial]

57. it took them a while to get organized though

and you had LOTS of lieutenants who suddenly found themselves commissioned colonels and the like.


Early on, it was pretty chaotic for both armies, but far more "organized" in the Union.

[Dr.Phool]

2. There's a lot there. Where did you start?

I'm bookmarking it for later tonight.

[ThomWV]

8. It was difficult at first but here's how I did it

I was interested in a small battle near a town called Rollesburg and the retreat of the South from Cheat Mountain. I had the date of the conflict and so I knew it would be early in the volumes and just did a simple search on Cheat Mountain. As it turns out the book is arranged by date the dates of the events first and then the dates of the reports second. You figure it out pretty quickly but finding the spot where event you are interested in begins can be a bit tricky. Once you get that the reports make sense though.

What I found was Northern Commanders making and executing plans and Southern Commanders making excuses.

[1monster]

3. All one has to remember is how General Lee sacrificed the Army of Northern Virginia

on the alter of his ego and you'll understand why the North won...

(on edit: Battle of Gettysburg, Pickett's Charge)

[The Stranger]

24. Actually, isn't Lee's Shennandoah Valley Campign taught in military schools as the paragon strategy?

[HawkerHurricane]

27. Actually, it's Thomas Jackson's campaign.

The "Stonewall" commanded there.

[Thothmes]

48. This is after

He repulsed McClellen outside of Richmond. Fought McClellen to a draw at Antietam, defeated Pope at Second Manassas, defeated Burnside at Fredricksburg
and defeated Hooker at Chancellorsville.

[rasputin1952]

69. You have three terrible Union generals there...

McClellan, Pope and Burnside each had a good point, but all three of them had numerous bad points. McClellan was always terrified of nonexistant numbers of Confederates; Burnside was an idiot; Pope just couldn't manage anything.

The war could have ended at Antietam, but McClellan refused to pursue...Burnside showed his incredible stupidity at the Bridge, (and compounded his problems later at Fredricksburg, doing almost exactly the same thing!). In any case, there were disastrous decisions on both sides, but the reality is, the South could never have won, even if the British sided with them as they hoped. They had neither manpower nor industry...they had resolve though. Unfortunately, one cannot eat resolve, nor use it as ammunition.

It took right up to WWII for the South to come back up to Antebellum conditions...a horrible waste of men and material, on both sides.

[Thothmes]

72. Not quite accurate

McClellan was the only senior officer in either army that had seen what modern warfare with rifled muskets and artillery could do to men. He was a military observer with the British in the Crimea. He built the Army of the Potomac. Burnside was not an idiot, he was a good example of the "Pete" principle. He was a very capable corp commander and even after his stint as Commander of the Army of the Potomac, he reverted to command the IX corp through half the Petersburg Siege. Hooker is also an example of the Peter principle. After his loss at Chancellorsville he was sent to command a corp under Grant. It was Hooker's men that fought the "Battle above the clouds" outside of Chattanooga. Pope has very little to recommend him in any circumstances. In my opinion, the South has one good shot at winning succession, but that was before the first gun fired on Sumter. Had South Carolina pressed their case to succeed in Federal Court, I believe that the Taney Supreme Court would have sided with them. At that point, succession would be legal. But the Barnwell Rhetts of South Carolina preferred to pull the lanyards at Battery point. Once that action was taken, from a military standpoint, it was a matter of time to defeat for the South. Unless the Union tired so of the carnage that they were willing to let the South go to end it. Sorta like the way Viet Nam ended and most probably the way that Iraq will end.

[ieoeja]

82. I hadn't thought of that McClellan that way.

Battlefield tactics throughout the Civil War were mostly f'ing stupid. Nobody today would dream of marching their men against an enemy stronghold in ranked masses. I never made the connection that McClellan likely figured that much out which put him at the top of the class in the East.

So he knew what not to do, march his men to a senseless death, but just hadn't figured out what to do. The latter would have taken a complete retraining of the military, officers and men. Which would have been quite a task.

Here's a trivia question for you: how long was Grant in the field against Lee?

I saw Newt Gingrich -- I know, I know, but he does know his history -- asked who was the better general, Lee or Grant? Gingrich said he knew his answer was going to make him unpopular with his constituency, but the fact was that Lee surrendered only 13 days after Grant first took the field against him. Highly doubtful it would have gone quite that quickly had Grant been in command on day one. But for the most part he and Sherman seemed to be from a latter era compared to the other generals in that war.

[Thothmes]

86. Lee Vs Grant

General Grant assumed Command of all Union Armies on Mar 12 1864. In early April 1864 he established his headquarters in the vicinity of the Army of the Potomac on the Rapidan River. When the Army of the Potomac launched its Spring offensive against the Army of Northern Virginia in early May 1864, it's commander was General Meade. Grant headquarters moved with the Army of the Potomac throughout the campaign. While Meade actually commanded the army, Grant directed its movements and kept it pushing against the ANV. Essentially from May 4, 1864 to April 9, 1865 when Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to him, Grant was in the field against Lee. He fought Lee at The Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, North Ann, Cold Harbor, Petersburg and then ran him to ground at Appomattox.

Grant came to see that the Confederate State would last not one day longer that its last army. His aim as Commander of the Union Armies was to not defeat Confederate armies, but to destroy them. Grant also realized that these armies were supported by its civilian populations. He supported Sherman's March from Atlanta to Savannah with that aim in mind. He also ordered General Sheridan to burn the Shenandoah valley to the ground because it was the primary source of food, forage and animals for the the Army of Northern Virginia. It was a glimpse of what war was to become in the 20th century.

[VOX]

95. Spot-on about the insane Napoleonic tactics with **rifled** muskets...

The standard-issue .58 caliber rifled Springfield was, in the hands of a cabable marksman, accurate up to half a mile! The Napoleonic tactic of massing one's fire with these weapons -- clustering men together in dressed lines, or jogging toward a stone wall where hundreds of rifles were massed, etc., was outmoded to say the least, and frankly insane.

Both sides used this tactic repeatedly, and both paid dearly. Think of the Federals making wave after wave of futile assaults at Fredericksburg, or the Confederates advancing across the open ground at Gettysburg.

Absolutely tragic.

[hootinholler]

64. Longstreet gave him good counsel the night before

He urged withdrawal to find good ground between Gettysburg and DC. The Union would be obliged to attack him in defense of DC.

Instead Pickett was given orders. Halfway across the field, the Confederate lines were dressed under fire. If you've never stood on Cemetary ridge and looked across the fields I don't think you'll understand the insanity of that charge.

To Lee's credit, he did own up to the fatal mistake.

-Hoot

[rasputin1952]

70. Pickett got he name of the "charge", but Pettigrew's men

took the brunt of the defeat, Pickett's men were an undersized division, Pettigrew had nearly 2 divisions in the fight.

I took my son to Gettysburg a few years back...Devil's Den, the Peach Orchard, Little Round Top, Seminary Ridge, Cemetary Ridge....The northern flank that made the hook...How those men fought that battle is beyond belief. We stood at The Angle for a long time, talking about the battle and what had happened those days. My son asked me "who were the good guys?". All I could say was that they were all Americans, there were no "good/bad" guys. Those men fought for what they believed in, even though today we might not see just why they belived in something we cannot fathom as being "just". But the point is...they were Americans, and they bled and died on that field. What we got for that sacrifice, was a nation that would be more solid, a nation no longer divided. It began the long road to Civil Rights, a road we are still walking down, albeit a little slower these days.

We owe those men, from both sides, a debt of gratitude.

[1monster]

80. I've been there. I think it should be required for every adult in the United States

to take the battlefield tour at Gettysburg... It brings home the insanity of ANY war.

[MasonJar]

5. That is certainly a revelation since history has recorded a completely disparate

view from the one you just espoused. Robert E. Lee was reported to be incredibly superior to his Yankee counterparts, which is why more than one of them was fired by Lincoln. The South certainly had a lot of officers who foolishly thought that they were superior to the Northerners since they were gentlemen and would, therefore, easily defeat the Yankees, but that did not detract from their commanders' skill. The South simply did not have the firepower and factories and many etcs. essential for a winning war against the North. But its generals have been universally accepted as quite superior. What did you read, sir, of the decisions of Robert E. Lee, for example, that can prove your original thesis, because a totally original thesis it is?

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. What I have read on the topic is similar to what you describe.

But perhaps Ken Burns is simply full of shit :shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Speaking of being overrated...

I wouldn't hold Ken Burns as a final authority on the Civil War.

Not that he's not good.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Yeah, that's Southern revisionism.

Back in the twenties, during the rise of the KKK there was a lot of revisionist history glorifying the South. They turned Lee into a kind of messiah. He was a good general, but a lot of his big victories were because of Northern incompetence, not because he was the Napolean's heir apparent.

[HawkerHurricane]

12. True of most generals

The 'Great' ones make thier reputation by running up the score on the incompetents.

Wellington was not a better general than Napoleon... he was good enough to keep Nappy from pulling a fast one.

As for R.E.Lee... His opponents were mostly incompetents chosen for political reasons.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

14. Waterloo was doomed from the beginning

Napoleon was facing a Prussian army at his back and the English army in his front. And he came very close to pulling it off.

[HawkerHurricane]

19. Part of the reason...

Wellington held his ground was that he was promised the Prussians were coming. The British reserves were almost as large as the Prussian army... but the Duke didn't want to commit them because they were covering his retreat route.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

35. Actually the Prussians arrived

Blucher commanding a force of nearly 70,000 attacked Napoleon's right flank on the last day while the English were holding the line in front. Napoleon had previously defeated the British-Dutch army a few days earlier at the battle of Quatre Bras, forcing their retreat to Waterloo and he had defeateed the Prussian Army at Ligny to delay their close with the English force. He then dispatched General de Grouchy with 33,000 men to meet the Prussian Army as it marched to join the English-Dutch force. Grouchy defeated a force of Prussians at the battle of Wavre, who were there to hold off his move on the main Prussian force. But by that time, the main force of Prussians had marched on Waterloo and, just in the very nick of time, arrived and hit Napoleon at the same time he had engaged the English in his front. General de Grouchy was blamed for not disengaging and rejoining the main force, as he heard the sound of the battle and the cannon in the distance. He was just 8 miles away in Wavre. He failed to march on the battle in time. His 33,000 men could have made a big difference.

[HawkerHurricane]

42. Timing is everything.

Wellington planned to retreat to the sea if he didn't get Prussian support. He had 40,000 men 'in reserve' to cover his route. The British Army's main objective wasn't defeating Nappy, it was keeping the British Army intact to fight another day.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Do you think so?

I don't know anything about it. But I understand enthusiasts spend an awful lot of time imagining ways Napolean could have won it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

37. The odds were very long

Napoleon was facing Dutch, German, English, and Prussian armies. He managed to defeat them separately in the days just before Waterloo. His strategy was to try to keep them from joining up. It was a very tough chance, I think.

[PassingFair]

92. How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War...

http://www.amazon.com/How-Robert-Lee-Lost-Civil/dp/1887901159

I absolutely LOVED this book.
(Of course, I live in the NORTH...)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71F8D77Z4CL._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.gif

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Yup.

That said, I haven't met many Englishmen who named their Dodge Charger after Wellington, having grown up worshipping Wellington, and then gotten into heated arguments after saying Wellington was overrated.

But then again, there hasn't been a very large sample size.

"As for R.E.Lee... His opponents were mostly incompetents chosen for political reasons."

Yeah, anybody would look like a military genius when your opponent's McClellan.

[HawkerHurricane]

20. McClellan, the Civil War's MacAurther

Couldn't fire him, the opposition party would throw a fit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Ouch, that's almost unfair to MacArthur.

Despite his faults, I think MacArthur was somewhat more competent as an officer, IMO.

[HawkerHurricane]

25. MacArthur was more competent...

at least at Public Relations.

[knight_of_the_star]

60. And being able to actually attack the enemy

Then again MacArthur was almost reckless on the offense so that doesn't say much.

[knight_of_the_star]

58. That's not saying much

Considering that calling a general more competent than McClellan would be like saying you're taller than a snake. MacArthur's reputation is a bit overblown, his biggest piece of triumph was in the Philippines (which was mostly won by the Navy anyway, after Leyte Gulf it was all over except for the bleeding) and Inchon which was a big gamble where he got DAMN lucky. There were far better commanders in WWII than MacArthur whose egos at least matched their abilities.

[melody]

13. As the child of progressive southerners I can assure you not all the positive southern spin is false

My great-granddad fought the KKK from invading his town but he still gave a couple of his children the middle
name Lee. This *northern* revisionism that god was on their side and that everything is black and white is just
as false as the "south will rise again, hail beulah land" glorification crap.

If nothing else, the north and south represent two entirely different cultural strains within the US -- we're as
different from each other as we are from the Canadians. We ought to have mutual respect, imo.

[NewJeffCT]

32. In my high school history class

way back in the early to mid 80s, my history teacher listed reasons each side thought they would win. The last one for the North was "Because God was on their side."

So, when he was making out the list for the reasons the South thought they would win, he asked us for the last one, to which I replied, "Because God was on their side."


Everybody was surprised when I said that because we lived in Connecticut - the heart of Yankee country - and nobody that the slave-owners would think they had God on their side. But, I was an atheist even then and realized that almost every side in history had thought they had God (or the Gods) on their side.

[melody]

36. exactly

And the irony is that many of the people who died on the south's side were the descendants of white slaves -- people so poor they couldn't afford a milk cow let alone a slave. For them, they were battling invaders of their homeland, for the same reason the Iraqis take up arms now.

[ThomWV]

10. After reading the reports no other conclusion could be come to.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. That's like how the war in Afghanistan is a collosal failure.

Everybody knows it, but not many people want to say it.

The North fought the war with one hand behind its back, and its shoe laces tied together. The South was doomed from the begining, and that's why it all went soundways from the moment they invaded Northern soil.

[melody]

11. It has been argued that southern military leaders were constrained by their military code

There were certain things southern gentlemen just didn't do (we're talking about the field military here, not Jefferson
Davis and his ilk) just as there are things English gentlemen "do not do". It was a cultural thing. The north had a
wider array of behaviors they could resort to that southern military men weren't allowed to.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Like what?

Sorry, the Confederate leadership was rotten from the top down.

[Captain Hilts]

26. No, they're weren't. There's a reason the North offered Lee the command of their army. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Yeah, because he was a competant general.

Not because he was a fine gentleman.

[melody]

30. Yes and the USA is always good and true

That same kind of simplistic, north-as-godly mindset has presented to us the cherry-picked history known as the Civil War.
It's as much a piece of propaganda as the black-and-white crap the US pimps abroad.

I'm not going to get into fine details with you as you're coming from an absolutist, either/or mindset -- if you need to
believe the south was stupid/bad and the north was good/true, then go with god. I say the same thing to people on the
right wing (and the left wing) who need to believe the US is only one thing versus another.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Never said that.

But you can't execute black prisoners of war and call yourself a gentleman.

[melody]

34. And the people who executed black prisoners of war were not out in the field

Beyond that, do you have any idea of the atrocities Sherman alone committed against the south?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Melody...

It was official Confederate law, signed by Jefferson Davis himself.

[melody]

41. Bornaginhooligan ...

So you looked up Sherman and you couldn't find a way to refute what a hideous bastard he was so the best thing
you could do is sneer contemptuously by citing Confederate law as if that has ANYTHING to do with military field behavior?

Look, as I've said, if you need to believe in good guys and bad guys ... heroes and villains ... and
that you are on "god's" side, by all means, be my guest. I know the history -- it is far murkier than that.
But believe what you need to believe. The fact of the matter is plenty of poor southern non-military people
were viciously murdered by Sherman. That was a hideous, blood-thirsty war with NO heroes on EITHER side.

Go ahead and have the last word that you will need to have and let's kill this silly thread ... believe what you like.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Did Sherman have confederate prisoners summarily executed?

:shrug:

[melody]

50. Okay, one last one -- YES n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. Source?

[Riktor]

68. That's hardly objective

... tens of thousands of men lay dead due a senseless war the South single-handedly started. It isn't a justification for what he allowed his men to do, but it certainly puts his permissiveness into context. In fact, I'd say Sherman's campaign bears a striking resemblance to the Allies' decision to bomb the ever-lovin' hell out of Dresden, albeit Sherman's targets had more value to the infrastructure of his enemy.

To reduce Sherman to a "hideous bastard" is to overlook the psychological mechanisms that drive ordinary human beings to heinous acts of violence against their fellow man. The fact of the matter lies in that Sherman at least believed the Southern people to be entirely responsible for the actions of their government, and thus, the man was unable to perceive a divide between the Confederate government and the Confederate people. Similarly, the staff of Andersonville allowed almost 13,000 prisoners to die for precisely the same reason; they felt the POWs interred therein shared responsibility for the actions of the Union government, and were therefore unqualified to receive humane treatment.

Needless to say, your summation of the Civil War is fairly accurate. It was a brutal, completely avoidable affair, that, for one reason or another, is romanticized and glorified by North and South alike.

[melody]

71. That's a gross distortion under the guise of objectivity

And you're bornagainhooligan anyway. Your syntax gives you away. Some of us don't have to
invent our own amen corner to argue specifics.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Thothmes]

74. How does that explain that more

Confederate prisoners died in Union custody than Union prisoners died in Confederate custody.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

63. Some African Americans fought for the South, as strange as that sounds

Nathan Bedford Forrest, who sometimes fought in the regular Confederate Army such as his action at the Battle of Chicamauga but who otherwise led a large contingent of guerrilla fighting cavalry had black troops under his command. At the start of the war, he offered freedom to his 44 slaves if they would fight for him. Forty-three of them accepted his offer and were incorporated into his little army. Reportedly, they had many chances to leave or desert but most of them stuck with him to the bitter end and were each assigned with two pistols, a rifle, and a horse. In fact, throughout the war, he continued incorporating former slaves into his guerrilla army and had 65 black troopers still alive and fighting with him reporting for duty at the last muster at the end of the war when he surrendered in May, 1865. Forrest was even quoted as saying about his black troopers: "Finer Confederates never fought".

This is very strange, considering that Forrest is credited with having inspired the Ku Klux Klan. Also, Forrest's little army murdered unarmed Union black troops at the battle of Fort Pillow and also massacred Union black troops at the battle of Brice's Crossroads. History seems to have many strange aspects.

[Thothmes]

73. Just how many black Union Army prisoners

did Lee have executed anyway. I believe that law that you refer to required captured black soldiers to be returned to slavery and their white officers to be shot.

[ThomWV]

21. If you read these 6 reports you will think they were constrained by incompetence

Read it for yourself: There are 6 reports, 3 from each side. You will not believe the difference between the sides.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fwaro%2Fwaro0002%2F&tif=00080.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DANU4519-0002

[melody]

29. I've read them. You also have to consider the source. There are reports from various other sources

I recommend reading accounts from all sides.

[JVS]

53. This field military confederate didn't shy from much

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCausland

[melody]

59. There are many exceptions to the rule

But none of them came close to Sherman's scorched earth. It's the leg-up of the average sociopath -- they do things
so horrible that no sane person would even consider it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

85. They were also constrained by the fact that the North dwarfed them

economically and in terms of their respective populations. One of the historians (name escapes me) responsible for that great documentary about the civil war said that the North fought all the time with one arm behind their back. They didn't want the economic life of their country to be to subordinated to winning a war on an urgent basis, when they were always going to win it anyway.

He concluded, and evidently it seems the most, if not the only plausible conclusion, that the arch-culprits responsible for that war were the ever so genteel and courtly (my words again) plantation owners; concluding that the biggest ever mistake was to abandon the freed former slaves without offering them any help.

You'll never read it in history books or documentaries, but it was the decision of the English scion of the Rothschild family to bankroll England's war chest - like the Jewish people generally, the Rothschilds were great internationalists, so he didn't have to -rather than Napoleon's never-ending blood-spilling throughout Europe, that made it possible for us to win the Napoleonic wars. I don't think most people understand how important a war chest has been in the waging of conventional or mostly conventional wars.

Likewise, a young Irish officer fighting in our army under Wellington wrote a book demonstrating that it wasn't Wellington who had won the battle of Waterloo at all. Nobody on the Continent ever believed it. It was Blucher. But Wellington's establishment friends made sure the young officer was ruined, a particularly vicious campaign being waged against him.

Incidentally, a reader of the Guardian's Notes and Queries column asked other readers what the French should call one of their large mainline stations in Paris, if they wanted to be as crass and pitiable (my words) as the person who named one of our large London railway stations, Waterloo. One reader's reply, La Gare Margaret Thatcher, had me in hysterics at the time. But I see now with great bitterness, that, however satirically he meant it, it would be all too apt a response.

Incidentally, in view of the likely part played by the SAS in Iraq and Afghanistan and the part played by successive UK governments over the 28 years in creating young thugs, I've hesitated to publish this little anecdote related by Piers Morgan in a Sunday Mail supplement, but, at least in the UK, it does make a change from reading about the epidemic of mindless thuggery by young people here, with relative impunity.

"I heard a wonderful story from a local military gentleman. It involved a genuine incident in a Glaswegian fish and chip shop a few months ago, where two local scumbags decided to mug a bloke as he came out with his food.

Pulling out knives, they demanded: 'Gi'us yer cash or we'll kill yer.' The victim responded by punching one so hard he broke his assailant's nose and jaw, and the other so hard he broke his own wrist.

He then calmly walked off, leaving his attackers in a pool of blood and battered bones.

But then he was a senior member of the SAS for the past 20 years."

And the reason the whole British army is currently revelling in this anecdote is that he apparently did all the punching with his right hand, while not dropping a single chip from the open bag in his left."

[NoPasaran]

87. Paris does have the Gare d'Austerlitz

So the French can be just as crass as the English, especially if one is Austrian or Russian.

[Joe Chi Minh]

94. Well, perverse as it may sound, it's a little comforting to know that our leaders

have not been uniquely crass. Thank you for the information.

[NoPasaran]

18. A study of the entire war would show

Both sides could display monumental incompetence and breathtaking brilliance in equal measure. But from what I recall of the early campaigns in Western Virginia, you are right, there's not much to brag about on the Confederate side. Congratulations on your first foray into the O.R.s!

[martymar64]

46. For me, the real star was U.S. Grant

He started the war as impoverished and then won in Tennessee and then Vicksburg, cutting the South in half. Lincoln was wise to then send him to N VA where he wore Lee down.

[I work for workers]

47. Your post is the truth. There is a reason Grant is considered

one of the greatest Generals of the 19th century. He is the only Union general to have consistently defeated Lee in battle.

[HawkerHurricane]

51. Grant's main skill...

was realizing that, no matter how badly Lee outmanuevered him, he STILL had more troops and supplies.

McClellan kept on giving when outmanuevered. Grant stayed and fought.

"I cannot relieve this man, he fights"

[knight_of_the_star]

61. He was as good at manuever as well though

Just look at his campaigns in Tennessee and leading up to Vicksburg, he employed some beautiful positioning and maneuvers in both of those campaigns against the Confederate forces facing him. Virginia's terrain and the targets of the campaign kept him from doing a repeat of that, but unlike Lee Grant was just plain relentless as his biggest asset. Lee when beaten (like Gettysburg and on his counter-attacks against Grant) would pull back, Grant on the other hand even if he lost would load his guns and go in again. Ultimately when you look at their styles Lee was fighting a war like Napoleon and Wellington would have, Grant's style was much more similar to what would happen in WWI.

[ieoeja]

83. Wore Lee down? In 13 days?

Grant first took the field in the east 13 days before Lee's surrender.

[Thothmes]

89. Grant took the Field May 4 1864

With the beginning of the Army of the Potomac offensive against the Army of Northern Virginia. Grants headquarters was always within a couple of miles of General Meades headquarters. Meade Commanded the Army of the Potomac, but it was General Grant that gave him daily orders as to what to do with it.
Grant remained in the field against the Army of Northern Virginia until April 9, 1965 when General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia.

[mmonk]

49. I wouldn't bank on that analysis too much

Most generals from both sides knew each other from West Point, had the same training and many were the best of the time. There were plenty of blunders from both sides.

[Wiley50]

54. You must mean "The War Between the States". There's no such thing as a "Civil" war. n/t

[ThomWV]

76. Would it have been OK if I had called it "The War of Northern Agression?

it is appropriate to use the words with describe something such that everyone knows what you are talking about. "Civil War" does exactly that in this context.

[Dan]

56. when both sides are evenly matched via technology, leadership

then it becomes an issue of resources... the North never really put all there resources into the engagement... the South never had a chance.

[Solon]

62. The Confederacy knew they were doomed in a drawn out war...

but that wasn't the initial goal. They wanted to win just enough battles to force the Union into recognizing their independence. Or, failing that, to gain recognition from France and Great Britain, who would then force the United States to recognize the Confederacy's independence.

[hootinholler]

65. They wanted England to recognize them and provide support. n/t

[pamela]

66. This isn't about the Civil War but...

I'm interested in your book about West Virgina. My Dad grew up in Point Pleasant and the history of that area is fascinating.

[tabasco]

67. Once England decided not to help the South, it was over.

The Battle of Antietam convinced England not to jump in for the Confederacy.

I live in Pocahontas County.

[Thothmes]

75. Do not forget that France was going to act in unison

with what every the British did. They also leanded toward recognition of the Confederate State.

[ieoeja]

84. Actually, France had their military force already in the Americas and marching north.

They landed in Mexico first planning to crush that rebellion on the march north. But on the 5th of May the Mexican rebel army fought the French to a standstill ending that threat to the United States.

So the United States has almost as much reason to celebrate Cinco de Mayo as does Mexico.

[ChazII]

77. Interesting thread. Thanks. n/t

[sampsonblk]

88. The War was vast, and many things changed

Within that compressed time frame, things changed quickly. What was true one month was different the next. On the Union side, many veteran soldiers felt the exact opposite of what you describe - and with good reason.

I think its safe to say that if Lee had been in command of US forces, the War would have been very short.

The miracle of the CSA is that they were able to win so many battles with such a lack of resources. They did a lot with what they had.

[avenger64]

91. Read Marx's essays...

... he wrote for some newspaper (I think in London). An economic analysis of the whole thing. As a southerner, the scales fell from my eyes - slavery was the 'growth market' for the Southern states.

[DearAbby]

93. Thank you for the link, I love American History

Particularly the Civil War