Stone

[Andy]

Now wait just a minute. Butler wasn't that bad. He was the one who came up with the idea that slaves in Yankee hands were contraband and thus free. Also, I've been to New Orleans and a lot of those ladies are "business women", at least in the French Quarter.
He wasn't a bad general, not compared to being Governor. Oh yes, he was Governor of Massachusetts 15 year after the war, after he had been in the House and tried to get rid of Johnson.

Nathan Banks was also from Mass. and hung out in New Orleans. Funny, no one ever talks about him but he was to the Union Army what Boss Tweed was to New York City.

Hey, lets change the subject, what about Gen. Bragg. Or even better, exactly why was Longstreet made a scapegoat after Gettysburg? Was the marble man flawed?

Stay healthy,
Andy
PS: It was the Great Rebellion, says so on the plaque on City Hall.

[Andy]

The previous post was supposed to be sent to you. I though we were getting off the subject of the $10,000 so it seemed like a good idea for a new thread. Hope at least a few of you followed that.

One other thing, after First Bull Run, why didn't Pierre G. T. Beauregard take Washington and end the war in '61? Did he have a date?

Stay healthy,
Andy

[StoneDogDave]

That is one of the eternal questions! Why Not? Suppose He had ? But before that.. What if McDowell had moved his troops into Bull Run before Johnson had a chance to bring up his from the valley? Or what if Lincoln had chosen to Reinforce Ft. Sumter and make a stand there instead supplying the outer forts to downplay the tension?
Thats what makes history so facinating.. So people like us can ponder on it for the rest of our life..:D

[chilidog]

Andy,
You really brought up a pair there.
Banks hung out in my 'hood a good bit back then. He came up here about 8 miles from my house.....oh yeah, he brought 30,000 of his buddies with him.....to call on Mr. Pemberton and 6,000 of his buddies. Then there was the time he went up north of T.L. Breaux's house in central LA. Walker's Greyhounds sent him scurrying back to Baton Rouge.

Its been a lot of years since I read "Lee's Lieutenants," so you may have to help my foggy memory. I think there is mention in there about Bragg sending memos to himself. He had an arguement going on with himself on official memos about the procurement of certain supplies.

chilidog

[Andy]

I've read "Lee's Lt.'s" but don't have it. Do have "Jefferson Davis and his Generals" and the masive work done by Shelby Foote. Seems Bragg did argue with himself quite often. Seems his wife even wrote him a letter saying he was blowing it while in Tenn.
The event I always remember about Bragg was that he got into an argument with N.B. Forrest which ended with Forest saying to Bragg, If you ever cross me again, I WILL kill you. No doubt Bragg took him seriously.

I think one of the reasons that war lasted as long as it did was in both the North and South many generals obtained their rank through politics. It seems that by mid-'63 the north weeded out some of the real loosers, decided it would be a war of attrition, and let Grant, Sherman and others do their thing. An abundance of men, manufacturing, and a sea culture are what won the war.
The CSA Alabama being an exception.

Just the same, some of those generals were "colorful".

Stay healthy,
Andy

[usmcsgt65]

A political general, I think all would agree. Until Lincoln and Grant could shove him into a backwater area, the Union needed his political pull. Even in the backwater areas he was losing to small Confederate commands.
The heart of the 1st Bull Run I believe is the citizen armies of both sides did not understand the nature of the Civil War.

[Packo]

After Manassas, we should have taken Washington right away. Kinda like Bagdad. It would have ended the war immediately.

Also, to my northern friends on this forum, Seccession is NOT the same as REBELLION. Please refrain from using the word rebellion, or I'll kick your ass.

Packo

[Packo]

Sharpsburg was a DRAW, not a yankee victory. If anything, it was a Confederate victory, but closer to a tie.

I needed to say that cause' on the Quiz it was mistakenly listed as a yankee victory.

Ya'll stand corrected.

Packo

[usmcsgt65]

A Union victory by night fall. Your Confederate forefathers stopped and returned to Virginia. Lee's objectives were not met.

[Packo]

the Union objectives of destroying Lee's Army of Northern Virginia were not met either, and the Yanks lost a considerable more amount of men. Well, the winners write history and that will always be the case. I think McClellend was fired after this battle.

Packo

[Andy]

Dear Mr. Packo:

It was a Rebellion, I can prove it, it says so on our Town Hall, over the marble stone that lists all the war dead. You will see it and I will have a bucket of crab apples with which to do battle. (We could use .357's but the town does have a noise ordinance.)

As far as Bull Run, read the post "$10,000". I asked that question too.

Stay healthy,
Andy
PS: There is a large photo of W.T. Sherman (and Longstreet) in my den. Open for viewing, no charge.

[usmcsgt65]

McCellend was fired after every major battle he command. Maybe he should be our next topic. Was McCellend important to the North or a god sent for Lee?

[Timothy R. Kuhr]

Oh well, let's try McClellan. Seems he pretty much organized the first real Union army -- training, logistics, and a pretty good morale. Just couldn't figure out where to use it.
Was it poor Union cavalry that caused him to over-estimate Lee? Yeah, I'll buy some of that.
Was it the need to protect his reputation as another Napoleon so that he needed a "sure thing"? I"ll buy alot of that.
Maybe he was already thinking of the next elections. Hell, I might swallow that one whole - the man did have an ego that woud match Patton's, unfortunately without the competence.
So let's do a "what if". Suppose Lincoln got tired of trying to borrow the army. who would have met Lee at Antietam/Sharpsburg? The competent northern generals hadn't become known yet and most were in the West. What would the ANV done to a Union army under Burnsides, Hooker, Banks or (God help us) Fremont? (Hey! It coulda happened. Fremont had some clout.)
MY vote. Lee would not have had his back to the Potomac but the war would not have been over if Abe had faced the problem of political generals, but there would have been alot more battles in Maryland and Pennsylvania. But Abe acting fast would be another if - a Southern victory would be probable.

[Andy]

By '62 John Reynolds had an excellent rep. You'll recall he was offered command of the Union Army before Gettysburg but turned it down. However, an order is an order, if he were ordered to take command I believe he would have done a much better job than any of the names you mentioned.

As far as Gen. Little Mac, in '61-'62 the South should have voted him MVP. He did organize his army well but some folks just can't fight. Mac being a great example.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[Keith_Hixson]

Now what were the questions you wanted me to look up?

I have a theroy about most wars: (of course there are exceptions), those who have the population and industrial might will almost always win.

In WW II Hitler was doomed when Russia and U.S. became involved. It was over.

When the South was not able to obtain a quick victory the war was over.

The South just didn't have the population and industry to substain a war without European Alliances, even though they had for the most part better leadership. Grant and Lincoln understood that the South couldn't sustain a long war.

Germany taking on the Rest of Europe and Russia, they were doomed! When USA came into the War it was over. There may have been more D-days if the original had failed but eventually a beach head would have been established. When Germany lost Air Superiority and couldn't invade England it was lost for Germany. It was all a manner of time. 500 million vs 80 million the numbers and industrial might of the USA.

When Grant took over and began with his total war plans, it was all over.

Keith

[Packo]

that Lee was a great commander, with or without McClellan, but it sure made his work easier. McClellen could fit a good fight, but would always stop short. He was too cautious. Unlike Grant who just kept feeding his boys into the meat grinder. Grant knew the South could never stand a war of atrition. You have to admit, for a bare foot army, we sure gave ya'll fits for quite a while.

Andy! Wow, that's amazing. I also have a picture of Sherman! Mine is not in the den, it's taped to the bottom of the toilet. Above the fireplace in our living room we have a print of Sheldon Church. Just one of the "military objectives" burned to the ground here in Beaufort. The ruins are a tourist attraction and lots of people also get married there. It was first burned by the British during the nations only rebellion. It was not rebuilt after Sherman. Isn't it odd that both sets of INVADERS felt it necessary to burn a harmless church. Guess His Truth Marches On in mysterious ways also.

I am very fasinated by all of ya'lls discussions and the knowledge you posess. I am not the historian of the WBTS like you guys. I will continue to read, learn, and only believe Chilidog. (LOL) Keep up the good work.

[Timothy R. Kuhr]

was that good then or I would have suggested him - probably would change my vote, too. I know he was against the retreat at Chancelleorsville but I haven't read anything great about him before. Which brings me to PACO: hang with chilidog and ignore me; calling me a dabbler is too much.

[Andy]

Tim: I can?t tell you what book to read about Reynolds. My younger son lives 30 miles from Gettysburg. I?ve spoken with numerous history buff?s from the area who talk of Reynolds reverently. He was offered command of the Army of the Potomac prior to Gettysburg, I?ve forgotten why it is said he turned it down. But clearly that man was willing to fight, which of course is what Lincoln was looking for.

Packo: You know history is just a hobby of mine. I hope you?ll recall my great respect for Lee the general, even if he did have a few bad days, errors in judgment, in July of ?63. Further Lee was a great man. He could have told his boys to flee to the hills and fight a gorilla operation but he was a good Christian gentleman and knew when enough blood had been spilled.

I do recall a few burned Buddhist Pagodas and a few Cow Die churches that were burned in III Corps. Would that make us a generation of Sherman?s? Like I've said, Sherman was careless with matches. About your toilet and the picture in the bottom. Is it really a picture of Uncle Billy or do it just look like him?

Chili: It?s been a while since I read about the southern Mississippi campaign. Did Banks ever win a battle? Also how far North are you from New Orleans?

Keith: You know too much about the military to be a Sky Pilot. Does that book of yours have anything nice to say about Ewell???

Stay healthy,
Andy

[Packo]

that ya'll would be also talkin' bout Hancock....who seemed to know what he was doing. Hoping that you guys can fill me in. Was he as good of a Union General as I think he was? I think he was killed at Gettysburg, we were just there last summer, but if he wasn't, could he have led the Army of the Potomac better than Grant??

Andy, we never burned any pagodas or other religous things when I was there. Not saying it didn't happen, but were the ones you saw burning because Chuck took refuge or because you guys were following Shermans lead? I could understand it if our Army was fighting from this church, but basically Beaufort was surrendered early in the war and no Confederates were hiding there. It also wasn't the only chuch he burned. One other thing about Sherman. How long after the Emancipation Proclimation did it take him to free his slaves, even though he wasn't required to because the Proclimation only freed slaves in the Confederate States. Slaves were sold in Baltimore until the end of the war. (just a stones throw from the White House) Lee freed his in 1853 or 1856 I forget which one. Same question for Grant.

Sic Semper Tyranis

Packo

[Andy]

Pack:
I tend not to see the Civil War in black and white. Lots of no good B@stard did no good B@stardly things on both sides; cite Fort Pillow. Incompetence was the norm in many areas. Many a paradox came from that war as it did throughout our history.

As far as Handcock goes, he was wounded at Gettysburg but not killed. Afterwards he fought at the wilderness. (He was already a general during Little Mac?s debacle on the Peninsula Campaign.) After the war he ran for the Presidency in ?80 or ?84 as a democrat. He was a very good commander of troops but a little too brave, always putting himself in harm?s way. (Mom?s favorite Civil War general.)

Grant seems to have read Clausewitz and really took the total war concept to heart (as did Billy). His entire concern, once he got to the East coast was attrition. Seems that even old crazy Mary Lincoln called him a butcher. But he did win and being a smoker and whiskey drinking man, I can?t hate him.

As far as the slave thing, we both know that the Proclamation only freed slaves that Lincoln had no authority to free. Slaves who were in states or areas of rebellion over which he had no control. His intent (to my way of thinking) was to start a revolt among the blacks in the south, to tie up Southern troops and take them away from the battle with the Union. Emancipation was a sham until the 13th Amendment was passed in ?67(?). Even then it took until the 1960's before the Free At Last thing really began to happen.

Our company, while fighting in a vill just south of Trang Bang took some heavy fire from a pagoda. 2 squads from 3rd platoon dismounted and snuck up on the building. They threw grenades, to include WP through a window and ripped off several mags of 16 fire. The place caught on fire and burned. Air burned or blew up several other religious buildings. Yes, that probably was not the same as Sherman. But can you say that it?s not possible that one or more men sniped at Sherman?s people from a church? Not saying that happened cause I don?t know for sure. But is it possible?

When I think of evil generalship I think of the Russians who fought into Germany and eventually took Berlin. 10's of thousands of German women reported the fact they were sexually assaulted by Russian troops. If I remember correctly only two southern women said they were assaulted by Union troops under Sherman's command while he was in Georgia. I received that information while attending a rape class at U. of Mass. a number of years ago and cann't site a source but I was shocked at the numbers and do recall what Dr. Merlow said.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[Packo]

I think things were a little different then. I would imagine that the rapers from the Union Army were dealt with fast and were probably shot. At least I hope and the same would go for us if we did any of that stuff....but never heard tell of any.

You had a valid reason for destroying the pagoda. Like I said, that's different. In either case here, both with the English and the Yankees, the Church was just burned.

I agree and don't really see things in just black and white, although I hate grey areas, which is why I like the clairity of WWII. I guess, and not from you guys, I get real defensive over Southern things and the bad rap we get. Still got a bad taste in my mouth over that damned flag flap and it's still going on. There is a contingincy in this country that won't be happy until all things uniquely Southern are branded as racist and destroyed. Even Dixie is a racist term today. Give me a break. Some reenactors are not even allowed to carry Southern Battle Flags. Revisionist history is taking over where they teach history. I liken the South and the Southern soldier to the Vietnam Vet. There are many paralells.

So back to history, Thanks for the info on Hancock. Think he would have made a good president. I like brave guys running things.

Have you ever been to Sharpsburg when visiting your son in Pa.? The battle field is more pristine than Gettysburg but Gettysburg is far more interesting and fun to tour.

Packo

[Andy]

Tom,
Think it was Churchill who said, ?In defeat defiance, in victory magnanimity?? Of course you have the right to be defiant and I have some obligation to be magnanimous. However, there is no doubt that any objective person should be able to see that on the whole, Lee, Jackson, Forrest, Longstreet and others were very good generals. I would add a few other names which you would object to, so be it.

There were some southern A**holes who misused emblems of the CSA and now those who are politically correct want to abolish them. I?m not as bad as my cousin but see nothing wrong with flying the Confederate flag. I feel the same way about flying the pennant of my infantry Bat. which no longer exists.

Regarding rape, yes it was a different time and I?m sure some ladies were reluctant to come forward in 1864, more so than today. However only two were reported. An extremely small number. 25th Division had a man who was accused of rape in 1967, arrested for rape, found guilty of rape and sent to LBJ. He was turned in my his fellow soldiers. I wonder if Oliver Stone knew that?

Handcock never had a chance at being President. After the Grant administration and all it?s scandals I don?t think the country was ready for another ex-general.

Never been to Sharpsburg. Wanted to several times but either wives or liquor got in the way. Then again whiskey?s been blamed for lots if things it didn?t do. Next time I?m in PA. I?ll suggest the trip Again.

Stay healthy,
A foot soldier

[chilidog]

Andy,
I live on the northern fringes of Baton Rouge which is about a 1-1/2 hour drive to Nawlins. I am about 15 miles from I-10.

Yes, Lee's Lt.s does have a few good things to say about Dick Ewell. He had such respect for his wife's first husband that he introduced her as, "My wife, widow Brown." Sadly though, Lee's Lt.s also says that Ewell lost his fire and zeal when he lost his leg.


chilidog

[39mto39g]

#9

[Tamaroa]

Hi Andy, I fell that Butler was pretty bad. Don't forget that his command was the one that screwed up the attack on the crater at Petersburg. Also, A bunch of Ragtag Confeds were able to keep him bottled up at Bermuda Hundred for the last three months of the war. The Rebs pretty much kicked him out of the party so to speak.

As for McClellan, I think it can be pretty much proven that he whipped the army into shape for more abler generals to use it. I think Mac's tenure as an observer during the Crimean War may have colored his opinion of soldier's deaths and as a consequence, he didn't want to see his men die. Lee was just the opposite and Sharpsburg was an excellent example of that:

Rough numbers: Union 80,000, Rebs 40,000
Casualties were almost equal with 12k and change on each side. However, the Confeds % was much higher because of Lee's aggressive use of a defensive posture. Little Mac screwed up by attacking the Upper Bridge area first than the middle bridge than the lower bridge soon to be known as Burnside's bridge. So Lee met the first attack and parried it incurring casualties. Later in the day, McClellan shifted a completely new attack to the center of the line. Lee took men who survived the first attack and used them to bolster the center of the line for the second attack.

Again he parried Mac's thrust. Mac later in the day ordered Burnside to cross the lower bridge. Now some men who had been exposed in two earlier attacks were exposed once more. In other words, many of the Rebs were exposed three times more than his Yank counter part. In fact, Burnside finally did succeed in crossing the bridge and pushed the Georgian sharpshooters back. At the Reb left flank behind the crest of the hill where the Georgians were dug in, was Pickett's Division, They started to give way as well. It was only the timely arrival of A.P. Hill's Light Division from Harper's Ferry that saved the day for the Confeds. Strategically, I suppose you could say the Yanks won, But tactically it was a draw. Both sides left the field with pretty much the same positions that they had at the beginning of the fight.


Bill

[Zinzendorf]

Originally posted by Keith_Hixson Now what were the questions you wanted me to look up?

I have a theroy about most wars: (of course there are exceptions), those who have the population and industrial might will almost always win.

.........

Keith"God is on the side with the largest battalions." (Who said that?)

[Zinzendorf]

If RE Lee was such a great general, they why did he sent his troops against cannon massed hub-to-hub, as he did at Malvern Hill? And then do virtually the same thing 1 year later at Gettysburg? He didn't seem to have learned too much from Malvern Hill. (If you've ever been there, it's more like Malvern Slope than Malvern Hill.)

I didn't see any mention of perhaps the greatest general on either side, Patrick Cleburne, aka "the Stonewall of the West." Only politics kept him at the relatively low rank that he had. (Politics in the Army of Tennessee? Perish the thought!)

And speaking of Stonewall (Jackson, that is), at the end of The War, he was just as popular (perhaps more so) that Lee. It was only in later years that the PR campaign of ex-Reb generals, lead by that dimwit Jubal Early, elevated Lee to icon status.

My vote of worst general (either side) would probably go to John B Hood. Remember Franklin! If the CSA hadn't gone out of business, Hood would most definitely have been court-martialed, and deservedly so.

To quote the final part of The Yellow Rose of Texas:

You may talk about your Beauregard,
and sing of Bobby Lee,
but the gallant Hood of Texas,
he played hell in Tennessee!

[Keith_Hixson]

Grant wasn't that bad of a general. And there were times when he should have used a little more tactics than might but other times he showed some excellent leadership skills. He certainly was a cut above average for a general. Lee wasn't perfect! He threw men into the meat grinder for no purpose also, ie Malvern Hill and Gettysburg were really bad decisions. The Pickett's charge probably lost the war for South. George Pickett, "what division, sir."

Keith

P.S.

Can you imagine how villianized Lee would have been after Gettysburg if the modern press had been there?
Or . . . George W needs to get a good press secretary like Lee. :D

[Tamaroa]

Zinzendorf, I like Patrick Cleburne myself. However, I believe that the guy everybody loves to hate is the best General on either side. That guy being Nathan Bedford Forrest. No matter what anyone may think of the Fort Pillow affair, no one can deny his genius in driving Sherman and other Union Generals absolutely nuts. The man had no fear and had an absolute natural grasp of tactics without any formal training.

I think his escape from Fort's Henry, Donelson says it all when he refused to surrender.

Bill

[DMZ-LT]

" Get there first with the most men". I went to college in TN in 1965 and the ROTC building was named after him and at football games The MTSU Raiders were led on the field by a Conferate clad Forrest with a sword. Some where in the last41 years they got politically correct and removed his name from the building and the horseman is no more. No conferate flags allowed at games either :t:

[Arrow]

Well you boys brought me down the path aways when you gave me the list of civil war books, at least the names of Jubal Early, Longstreet, and McClellanare familiar to me.I've got a late start atsixty twoand will never be able to catch up enough to have an intelligent discussionwith you all. It doesn't bother me to run at the back of thepackespecially this one.

[SEATJERKER]

Originally posted by Arrow Well you boys brought me down the path aways when you gave me the list of civil war books, at least the names of Jubal Early, Longstreet, and McClellanare familiar to me.I've got a late start atsixty twoand will never be able to catch up enough to have an intelligent discussionwith you all. It doesn't bother me to run at the back of thepackespecially this one. ...

...Any conversation with you included, includes intelligence,...

...

[Tamaroa]

It never ceases to amaze me how little today's kids know about our nation's history. Once I got so disgusted at one of my employees (Anthony) lack of knowledge that I told him I wasn't going to approve his request for days off until he answered 4 questions relating to the Civil War correctly.

Then using the socratic method, I asked him the following:

Which famous American General was Robert E. Lee related to by marriage - A. Washington

What famous American was portrayed on the Great Seal of the Confederacy - A. Washington.

What date was the Confederacy officially Founded?

A. February 22, 1862.

When is Washington's Birthday

February 22nd

Another series of questions I ran him through was:

Who was Sarah Knox Tyler?
A. Daughter of John Tyler, future President.

Who did she marry,
A. Army officer Jefferson Davis .

Who is generally considered to be one of our nation's finest Secetaries of War?
A. Jefferson Davis.

Jefferson Davis was elected President of the Confederacy.
John Tyler was elected President of the United States. Sense of Irony here, maybe?

To make a long story short he got a kick out of the interrelationships of the dates and people. I told him the point of the exercise was to show him that the south using the father of the U.S. as their symbol was attempting to demonstrate that they themselves were not straying from the constitution. That each side thought they were right.

Now we make a game of it. Whenever a new guy is hired, Anthony tells them to bone up on their history.

At any rate Anthony is appreciating American history more and more. But the guy who sits next to me will require a lot more work. He says I'm a font of useless information.

Granted these questions are a bit specific but one of the things about the Civil War that truly fascinates me is how everything seems to be related and these types of questions really point out how similalr we were as opposed to how different. Oh well one at a time, right!!



Makes for some interesting conversations. :-)

Bill

[Zinzendorf]

Originally posted by Tamaroa Zinzendorf, I like Patrick Cleburne myself. However, I believe that the guy everybody loves to hate is the best General on either side. That guy being Nathan Bedford Forrest. No matter what anyone may think of the Fort Pillow affair, no one can deny his genius in driving Sherman and other Union Generals absolutely nuts. The man had no fear and had an absolute natural grasp of tactics without any formal training.

I think his escape from Fort's Henry, Donelson says it all when he refused to surrender.

Bill
Oops...I forgot about Bedford Forrest! My favorite saying of his is "War means fightin' and fightin' means killin'" There are some modern politicos who should know this...