Stone

[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