Gettysburg

[32Bravo]

I have often been fascinated by the decisons made by Robert E Lee and his fellow officers to turn away from their alliegance to the Union and support the Confederacy. It could not have been easy. I sometimes consider whether their sense of loyalty to the South was truly strong enough to enable them to fight whole-heartedly against the Union to the point that, if they succeeded, their would be a permanent seperation. For years they must have believed in the Union, expanding it in the MexicanWar and devoting themselves to its preservation.

I ask myself: was Lee able to think decisively at Gettysburg (as it was without doubt a decisive battle); did he truly wish the South to suceed?
His objective was: to destroy the Army of the Potomac; march on Washington, and force Lincoln to accept terms which would allow the Confederacy to become permanently independant of the Union.

Lee had been successful fighting defensive battles in the south, allowing the Union forces to waste themselves at places such as Chancellorsville and Fredricksburg. However, invading the North, which he was reputedly against, was a whole different prospect. He might have succeeded if he had fought yet another defensive battle and once again allowed Union forces to waste themselves, but, instead, he became drawn into an encounter-battle situation and it was he that was having his forces drained at a higher rate of attrition (we're probably all familiar with Little Round Top, Seminary Rige and Willoughby Run)

Should he have broken contact and withdrawn to ground of his choosing, or did he do the right thing?

What were his motives for not doing so?

http://www.army.mil/gettysburg/flash.html

http://www.gettysburg.com/

[Firefly]

I would say he fell foul to overconfidence. He hadnt been beaten and had inflicted a fair few short sharp defeats on the Union. He just believed that his boys could do anything. They almost did and had it payed off, who knows. Shelby Foote said that Gettysburg was the price that the South paid for having Lee and from my reading on the subject, I have to agree with Mr Foote.

Incidentally his 3 volume epic of the US Civil war is amoungst the best you can read of this conflict.

[Nickdfresh]

I have to say that there is a perception that the Confederate soldier was qualitatively superior to his Federal counterpart "man-for-man." There is also a perception that the South enjoyed better leadership in their Army. While these may have had some basis in truth, people tend to forget that the confederacy tended to enjoy a massive advantage in tactical intelligence as the Union Armies operating in the South were in a land of informants typically, with some notable exceptions.

Gen. Lee had grown used to having an advantage in real time battle intelligence and information on his enemies troop movements. When the Army of Northern Virginia went north across the Mason-Dixon line into Pennsylvania, they lost this critical advantage when facing a hostile populace, and were almost blinded in comparison to operations in Virginia against what were effectively Union invaders. This loss of a key advantage coupled with hubris, and the fact that Lee lost contact with his "eyes and ears," Gen. Stuart's cavalry that went galloping around southern Pennsylvania rather than coordinating with Lee and Pickett, cost Lee the battle...

[32Bravo]

I would say he fell foul to overconfidence. He hadnt been beaten and had inflicted a fair few short sharp defeats on the Union. He just believed that his boys could do anything. They almost did and had it payed off, who knows. Shelby Foote said that Gettysburg was the price that the South paid for having Lee and from my reading on the subject, I have to agree with Mr Foote.

Incidentally his 3 volume epic of the US Civil war is amoungst the best you can read of this conflict.

Shelby Foote is indeed very excellent.

I also have Camfire & Battlefields - An Illistrated History of the Campaigns and Conflicts of the Great Civil War by Rossiter Johnson, first published in 1894. My Aunt brought this when she came visiting from the States, she must have paid a small fortune for the excess weight. However, if you're able to get hold of it, it's well worth it.

This is no bedtime reading, as it's a huge oversized hardback.

[George Eller]

-

Gettysburg was not the first time that Lee went on the offensive on northern soil. In 1862, during his Maryland Campaign he was fought to a standstill at the Battle of Antietam, which was the bloodiest single-day battle of the American Civil War. It was a strategic victory for the Union.

IIRC, copies of his invasion plans had been discovered by Federal soldiers from Indiana at an abandoned Confederate campsite wrapped around some cigars (apparently dropped from a Confederate officers pocket).

Battle of Antietam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antietam

The Battle of Antietam (also known as the Battle of Sharpsburg, particularly in the South), fought on September 17, 1862, near Sharpsburg, Maryland, and Antietam Creek, as part of the Maryland Campaign, was the first major battle in the American Civil War to take place on Northern soil. It was the bloodiest single-day battle in American history, with almost 23,000 casualties.

Result: Tactical: inconclusive; strategic: Union victory

While McClellan's 90,000-man Army of the Potomac was moving to intercept Lee, two Union soldiers (Corporal Barton W. Mitchell and First Sergeant John M. Bloss of the 27th Indiana Volunteer Infantry) discovered a mislaid copy of Lee's detailed battle plans—Special Order 191—wrapped around three cigars. The order indicated that Lee had divided his army and dispersed portions geographically (to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, and Hagerstown, Maryland), thus making each subject to isolation and defeat if McClellan could move quickly enough. McClellan waited about 18 hours before deciding to take advantage of this intelligence and reposition his forces, thus squandering an opportunity to defeat Lee decisively.

No other campaign and battle in the war had such momentous, multiple consequences as Antietam. In July 1863 the dual Union triumphs at Gettysburg and Vicksburg struck another blow that blunted a renewed Confederate offensive in the East and cut off the western third of the Confederacy from the rest. In September 1864 Sherman's capture of Atlanta reversed another decline in Northern morale and set the stage for the final drive to Union victory. These also were pivotal moments. But they would never have happened if the triple Confederate offensives in Mississippi, Kentucky, and most of all Maryland had not been defeated in the fall of 1862.

– James M. McPherson, Crossroads of Freedom

-

[32Bravo]

On balance, would you not say that, once they got themselves going, the Union Army was a much more disciplined and better trained 'War Machine' than that of the South, which appears to have never developed beyond that of an enthusiastic militia?

[George Eller]

On balance, would you not say that, once they got themselves going, the Union Army was a much more disciplined and better trained 'War Machine' than that of the South, which appears to have never developed beyond that of an enthusiastic militia?
-

Sam Houston ( March 2, 1793 – July 26, 1863 )


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

Governor of Texas

He twice ran for governor of Texas, unsuccessfully in 1857 and successfully against Hardin R. Runnels in 1859 as a Unionist, making him the only person in U.S. history to be the governor of two different states. Despite Houston's being a slave owner and against abolition, he opposed the secession of Texas from the Union. In 1860, he offered the following prediction: "Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives you may win Southern independence, but I doubt it. The North is determined to preserve this Union."

Despite Houston's wishes, Texas seceded from the United States on February 1, 1861, and joined the Confederate States of America on March 2, 1861. This act was soon branded illegal by Houston, but the Texas legislature nevertheless upheld the legitimacy of seccession. The political forces that brought about Texas's secession also were powerful enough to replace her Unionist governor. Houston chose not to resist, stating that, "I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her. To avert this calamity, I shall make no endeavor to maintain my authority as Chief Executive of this State, except by the peaceful exercise of my functions...." He was evicted from his office on March 16, 1861, for refusing to take an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy, writing,

"Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies....I refuse to take this oath."


Here's a little quote From Sam Houston on The Civil War...
http://www.lone-star.net/mall/texasinfo/shouston.htm

"To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country-the young men."

"In the name of the constitution of Texas, which has been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her."

"I declare that civil war is inevitable and is near at hand. When it comes the descendants of the heros of Lexington and Bunker Hill will be found equal in patriotism, courage and heroic endurance with the descendants of the heroes of Cowpens and Yorktown. For this reason I predict the civil war which is now at hand will be stubborn and of long duration."


The Life of Sam Houston
http://www.graceproducts.com/houston/life.html

Governor--In 1859, two years before the start of the War Between the States, Houston ran for Governor of Texas on an antisecession platform, which meant he was opposed to having Texas secede from the Union. However, in 1861, Texas voted to secede anyway. Houston refused to take an oath of allegiance to the new Confederacy, and he was removed as governor. There were rumors that Houston would fight to keep Texas in the Union. Abraham Lincoln wrote him to say that Federal troops could be transported to the Texas coast to support his cause. But he refused Lincoln's offer.

Some of you laugh to scorn the idea of bloodshed as the result of secession, but let me tell you what is coming....Your fathers and husbands, your sons and brothers, will be herded at the point of the bayonet....You may after the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, as a bare possibility, win Southern independence...but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of state rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction...they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.
[Sam Houston, with a prophetic warning at the time of the secession of Texas from the Union]

Pretty prophetic wasn't it. A pity that he didn't live long enough to see his words come to fruition.

-

[32Bravo]

-

Sam Houston ( March 2, 1793 – July 26, 1863 )







Pretty prophetic wasn't it. A pity that he didn't live long enough to see his words come to fruition.

-

From my limited knowledge of U.S. history, I would think it was a part of the natural progression from a group of independenten states to the United States. Those poltiicians of the time, with vision, must have seen the inevitability of struggle for Federal supremacy. Hence my argument that issues of slavery were merly the trigger, much the same as the assassination of that individual in the balkans was the trigger for WW!, but not the cause.

[Nickdfresh]

On balance, would you not say that, once they got themselves going, the Union Army was a much more disciplined and better trained 'War Machine' than that of the South, which appears to have never developed beyond that of an enthusiastic militia?


Only after about 1863. No one would call the rabble routed at Bull Run a "disciplined and better trained War Machine" than the Confederates...

But what I am saying is that the Union forces fought much of the war with a handicap the South did not have, as they had the advantage of the defender and that the Union Army tends to be overly criticized while the Confederates where overrated...

[32Bravo]

Only after about 1863. No one would call the rabble routed at Bull Run a "disciplined and better trained War Machine" than the Confederates...

But what I am saying is that the Union forces fought much of the war with a handicap the South did not have, as they had the advantage of the defender and that the Union Army tends to be overly criticized while the Confederates where overrated...

Well, I did speak of when the Union got themselves going.

There appears to be one or two parallels with the English civil war, in as much as the landed gentry (Royalists) were much more competent in the early days on account of hunting and riding skills etc. However, once the Parliamentarians got their act together and formed a better trained and better equipped 'New-model Army' things began to turn around.

The aforementioned Shelby Foote, says that the North fought with one arm behind their backs throughout the duration of the war, and implied that if the North got really serious, they'd have trounced the South in no time?

[32Bravo]

By the way. I had the story of 'Taps' explained to me once, quite interesting - anyone know it?

[George Eller]

From my limited knowledge of U.S. history, I would think it was a part of the natural progression from a group of independenten states to the United States. Those poltiicians of the time, with vision, must have seen the inevitability of struggle for Federal supremacy. Hence my argument that issues of slavery were merly the trigger, much the same as the assassination of that individual in the balkans was the trigger for WW!, but not the cause.
-

Perhaps so, but it seems to me that few foresaw the great cost and long duration of the coming conflict.

William Tecumseh Sherman

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

University superintendent
In 1859, Sherman accepted a job as the first superintendent of the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning & Military Academy in Pineville, Louisiana, a position offered to him by Major D. C. Buell and General G. Mason Graham. He proved an effective and popular leader of that institution, which would later become Louisiana State University (LSU). Colonel Joseph P. Taylor, the brother of the late President Zachary Taylor, declared that "if you had hunted the whole army, from one end of it to the other, you could not have found a man in it more admirably suited for the position in every respect than Sherman."

On hearing of South Carolina's secession from the United States, Sherman observed to a close friend, Professor David F. Boyd of Virginia, an enthusiastic secessionist, almost perfectly describing the four years of war to come:

“ You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing!

You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it ...

Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors.

You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."

William Tecumseh Sherman
About North Georgia

http://ngeorgia.com/ang/William_Tecumseh_Sherman

In October, 1861, Sherman relieved Anderson. Filling quotas for Kentucky volunteers was extremely difficult. The State was split on their beliefs and where their allegiance should be placed. Later that month, Sherman told Secretary of War Cameron that if he had 60,000 men, he would drive the enemy out of Kentucky, and if he had 200,000 men, he would finish the war in that section. When Cameron returned to Washington, he reported that Sherman required 200,000 men. The report was given to newspapers and a cry of indignation arose from the public. A writer of one of these newspapers even went as far as saying that Sherman must be "crazy" in demanding such a large force. The public accepted this insinuated statement as a valid one, thus writers have always declared that he was crazy. Due to the pressure of the press and politicians that believed the insinuation, on November 12, 1861, Brigadier-General Don Carlos Buell relieved Sherman of his command, and Sherman was assigned to the Department of the West, in St. Louis, Missouri under Major-General Halleck.


William Tecumseh Sherman

http://old-photos.blogspot.com/2007/03/general-william-tecumseh-sherman.html

General William Tecumseh Sherman is famous for his March to the Sea in the Civil War, and for burning Atlanta and everything else in his path. He followed, if not perfected, the concept of total warfare. He believed you waged war not only against the opposing army, but that you did everything possible to eliminate the enemy's will to fight. He is famous for the quote, "War is Hell".
Prior to his destruction of Atlanta, he sent the following message to its inhabitants, "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it".
Many thought Sherman crazy at the outbreak of the war when he stated the war would last for many years and lead to hundreds of thousands of casualties. Most thought it would be over in a matter of months.

William T. Sherman Quotes (William Tecumseh Sherman Quotes)
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_t_sherman.html

-

On the issue of the abolition of slavery, many of the Federal soldiers had volunteered for the purpose of preserving the union. After the Emancipation Proclamation was anounced in 1863, there were some cases of resentment among the troops who felt that they were fighting to preserve the union, not free the slaves. But others were inspired by it.

Abraham Lincoln


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

Emancipation Proclamation

In July 1862, Congress moved to free the slaves by passing the Second Confiscation Act. The goal was to weaken the rebellion, which was led and controlled by slave owners. While it did not abolish the legal institution of slavery (the Thirteenth Amendment did that), the Act showed that Lincoln had the support of Congress in liberating slaves owned by rebels. This new law was implemented with Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation."

Lincoln is well known for ending slavery in the United States. In 1861 – 1862, however, he made it clear that the North was fighting the war to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Freeing the slaves became, in late 1862, a war measure to weaken the rebellion by destroying the economic base of its leadership class. Abolitionists criticized Lincoln for his sluggishness over slavery per se, but on August 22, 1862, Lincoln explained:

“ I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not under Union control. As Union armies advanced south, more slaves were liberated until all of them in Confederate hands (over three million) were freed. Lincoln later said: "I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper." The proclamation made the abolition of slavery in the rebel states an official war goal. Lincoln then threw his energies into passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to permanently abolish slavery throughout the nation.

In September 1862, thirteen northern governors met in Altoona, Pennsylvania, at the Loyal War Governors' Conference to discuss the Proclamation and Union war effort. In the end, the state executives fully supported the president's Proclamation and also suggested the removal of General George B. McClellan as commander of the Union's Army of the Potomac.

For some time, Lincoln continued earlier plans to set up colonies for the newly freed slaves. He commented favorably on colonization in the Emancipation Proclamation, but all attempts at such a massive undertaking failed. As Frederick Douglass observed, Lincoln was, "The first great man that I talked with in the United States freely who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color."

Emancipation Proclamation

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

In the military, the reaction to this proclamation varied widely, with some units nearly ready to mutiny in protest, and desertions were attributed to it. Other units were inspired with the adoption of a cause that seemed to them to ennoble their efforts, such that at least one unit took up the motto "For Union and Liberty".

Abraham Lincoln on slavery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery

-

States' rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Rights

-

[Nickdfresh]

Well, I did speak of when the Union got themselves going.

There appears to be one or two parallels with the English civil war, in as much as the landed gentry (Royalists) were much more competent in the early days on account of hunting and riding skills etc. However, once the Parliamentarians got their act together and formed a better trained and better equipped 'New-model Army' things began to turn around.

The aforementioned Shelby Foote, says that the North fought with one arm behind their backs throughout the duration of the war, and implied that if the North got really serious, they'd have trounced the South in no time?


I recall reading about something of a yacht or rowing contest at Harvard University that would have taken place about 1864. The story goes that someone expressed a slight disgust that the young, healthy (presumably well off) men were engaged in a frivolous contest while their countrymen were fighting in the south, and the retort was that they basically weren't needed and that the Union Army already had enough men, if they didn't have too many...

Really, despite the fact that many criticize Meade or McClellan for not being aggressive and ruthless enough, they certainly took their time to train and produce a pretty good Army of the Potomac which would later set the stage for successive commanders like Grant and Sherman.

[Nickdfresh]

By the way. I had the story of 'Taps' explained to me once, quite interesting - anyone know it?

I don't remember actually...

Do you know the story of Arlington National Cemetery?

[32Bravo]

-

Perhaps so, but it seems to me that few foresaw the great cost and long duration of the coming conflict.
-

I doubt you not, George - the boys rarely do make it home for Christmas!

[32Bravo]

I don't remember actually...

Do you know the story of Arlington National Cemetery?

My understanding is that Arlington was Lee's home and it was the price he had to pay for his treason?

'Taps' As I recall (somebody told me this story a few years ago), was written by a young man serving in one of the armies, and his father (I think) was on the opposite side. One day they came into contact and father killed said son. He then found the composition for Taps in his dead sons pocket.

[32Bravo]

The "Taps" Military Bugle Tune Came From a Confederate Soldier Whose Body was Discovered By His Father, a Union Soldier in the Civil War-Fiction!


Taps with echo:
http://home.att.net/~militarysalute1/music/echotaps.wma


Summary of eRumor:
A Union Captain in the Civil War named Robert Ellicombe hears the moan of a soldier in the distance one night near Harrison's Landing in Virginia. He decides to investigate and discovers that the solider, who is wearing a Confederate uniform, has died. By the light of his lamp, he realizes to his surprise and horror that the dead solider is his own son. The son had studied music in the South and without telling his father, had enlisted in the Confederate army. The grief-stricken father requests a military burial for his son, complete with an army band. His superiors decline, however, because his son was an enemy soldier, but give him the choice of one musician. The caption chooses a bugler and using a short piece of music he found in his son's uniform, the tune for "Taps" comes into being and has been used ever since for military funerals.


The Truth:
According a researcher at West Point, there is no historical evidence that anyone named Robert Ellicombe even existed in the Union army. Master Sergeant Jari Villanueva is a part of the United States Air Force Band and is not only a historian about the tune "Taps," but is working on an exhibit for Arlington National Cemetery about bugle calls. Both he and Kathryn Shenkle, Historian for Arlington National Cemetery, agree that "Taps" came from Brig. General Daniel Butterfield at Harrison's Landing in Virginia in 1862. Sgt. Villanueva has found correspondence from both General Butterfield and a bugler which confirm the origins, although there are some minor discrepancies in their letters.

edited to add: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/taps.htm


Thank you for that. Rumour control is always difficult, and people will believe what they want to believe.

Could it not also have been a subterfuge to demonstrate the folly of brother fighting brother (metaphorically speaking)?

[Nickdfresh]

My understanding is that Arlington was Lee's home and it was the price he had to pay for his treason?
...


Correct, although it was more poetic as the the dead were buried there to show the consequences of Lee's actions...

[32Bravo]

Correct, although it was more poetic as the the dead were buried there to show the consequences of Lee's actions...


Yes, get your meaning poetic justice!

In England, we still have the death sentence for treason. Cromwell's decomposing corpse was dug up and hung, a year or so after his death.
(If you're interested in British history, try the film 'To Kill A King!".

[George Eller]

Yes, get your meaning poetic justice!

In England, we still have the death sentence for treason. Cromwell's decomposing corpse was dug up and hung, a year or so after his death.
(If you're interested in British history, try the film 'To Kill A King!".
-

Charles I of England (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England_and_Scotland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England_and_Scotland#Execution
Charles was beheaded on 30 January 1649, though at the time the new year did not occur until March, so his death is often recorded as occurring in year 1648. At the execution it is reputed that he wore a heavy cotton shirt as to prevent the cold January weather causing any noticeable shivers that the crowd could have mistaken for fear or weakness. He put his head on the block after saying a prayer and signalled the executioner when he was ready; he was then beheaded with one clean stroke. His last words were, "I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be."

-

Hanged, drawn and quartered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged%2C_drawn_and_quartered

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged%2C_drawn_and_quartered#Stuarts
Over six days in October of 1660, after the Restoration of Charles II, nine of those convicted of the regicide of Charles I in 1649 were executed in London in this manner. Those executed were: Thomas Harrison, John Jones, Adrian Scroope, John Carew, Thomas Scot, Gregory Clement, Daniel Axtel, Hugh Peters, and John Cooke. Three more regicides suffered the same fate within two years: John Okey, John Barkstead and Miles Corbet. Additionally, the corpses of Oliver Cromwell, John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton were disinterred and hanged, drawn and quartered in posthumous executions for their involvement in the regicide.

-

Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#Death_and_posthumous_execution
In 1661, Oliver Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution, as were the remains of John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton. Symbolically, this took place on January 30; the same date that Charles I had been executed. His body was hanged in chains at Tyburn. Finally, his disinterred body was thrown into a pit, while his severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Abbey until 1685. Afterwards the head changed hands several times, including the sale in 1814 to a man named Josiah Henry Wilkinson, before eventually being buried in the grounds of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, in 1960.

-

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=103261&postcount=31

-

[32Bravo]

So, George, am I to understand that, in your opinion, Lee's fate should have been somewhat the same as that of Cromwell? :)

(An interesting time in Englsih history. I think that if Americans saw the demands that Cromwell and his 'Levelers' put before the King, before they beheaded him for not agreeing, naturally, they would see much that is similar in spirit to their own Constition and Bill of Rights.)

http://www.tlio.org.uk/history/index.html

http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1949/05/english-revolution.htm

CLR James, a Trinidadian, is one of my favourite historians, as well as being a great cricket comentator. However, he does lean somewhat to the left - a child of his times.

[32Bravo]

....the record of the trial of Thomas Wallcot, John Rouse, William Hone and William Blake for offences against the king, on 12 July 1683 concludes as follows:

"Then Sentence was passed, as followeth, viz. That they should return to the place from whence they came, from thence be drawn to the Common place of Execution upon Hurdles, and there to be Hanged by the Necks, then cut down alive, their Privy-Members cut off, and Bowels taken out to be burnt before their Faces, their Heads to be severed from their Bodies, and their Bodies divided into four parts, to be disposed of as the King should think fit."

[32Bravo]

Presumably, the rebel flag is allowed to be flown, in places, in order to placate those that would still wish to Cecede? Is this a sign that the divisions between North and South remain precarious? Are there Americans that are as offended by it, as there are, obviously, those that take pride in it? Or, is it just history and, therefore, harmless?

[George Eller]

So, George, am I to understand that, in your opinion, Lee's fate should have been somewhat the same as that of Cromwell? :)

(An interesting time in Englsih history. I think that if Americans saw the demands that Cromwell and his 'Levelers' put before the King, before they beheaded him for not agreeing, naturally, they would see much that is similar in spirit to their own Constition and Bill of Rights.)

http://www.tlio.org.uk/history/index.html

http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1949/05/english-revolution.htm

CLR James, a Trinidadian, is one of my favourite historians, as well as being a great cricket comentator. However, he does lean somewhat to the left - a child of his times.
-

Well, I don't think that I would have been that severe with Lee...either while he was living or post-mortem (as in Cromwell's case). :D

Lee was just too beloved in the South and throughout the world. It probably would have hindered the process of reconciliation between North and South.

I seem to recall that Jefferson Davis on the other hand was vilified in both the North and South after the war... :D

IIRC, wasn't Cromwell looked upon as somewhat of a tyrant after the monarchy was deposed and government replaced by Parliament?

Robert E. Lee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E_Lee

http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis93.html


...Then, in 1970, a Civil War buff obtained permission to research old State department files stored in the National Archives. During his research, he came across a cardboard box labeled "Virginia." While rummaging through this box, he spied an aged sheet of paper containing a faded pen and ink inscription. Upon examination, he was stunned to learn that he was actually holding the notarized pledge of allegiance to the United States that Robert E. Lee had executed in 1865. Considering the numerous changes in administrations over the years, changes in State department staffing and relocations of offices and files, it is almost miraculous that this single sheet of paper survived for over a century, first in the State department and then in the National Archives.

Upon learning of the discovery of the lost pledge, Virginia Senator, Harry F. Byrd proposed a congressional resolution for a posthumous pardon and restoration of citizenship for Robert E. Lee. Normally the approval of such a resolution would have been routine. But there were a few members of Congress who did not want the federal government to take any action that would benefit the memory of the great General. One of these Congressmen, the Democratic Representative from Michigan, John Conyers, strongly and vocally opposed the measure. Conyers referred to the resolution as "neither healing nor charitable."

But Congress, to its credit, overwhelmingly voted in favor of the resolution and President Gerald Ford indicated his willingness to sign it. The signing ceremony took place on August 5, 1975, at Arlington House, the former home of General Lee’s family. The room was filled with distinguished citizens and dignitaries including Virginia’s Governor, its Senators and its Representatives. These excerpts from the comments President Ford made at the signing ceremony are a fitting tribute to Robert E. Lee.

"I am very pleased to sign Senate Joint Resolution 23, restoring posthumously the long overdue, full rights of citizenship to General Robert E. Lee. This legislation corrects a 110-year oversight of American history. It is significant that it is signed at this place.

Lee's dedication to his native State of Virginia chartered his course for the bitter Civil War years, causing him to reluctantly resign from a distinguished career in the United States Army and to serve as General of the Army of Northern Virginia. He, thus, forfeited his rights to U.S. citizenship.

Once the war was over, he firmly felt the wounds of the North and South must be bound up. He sought to show by example that the citizens of the South must dedicate their efforts to rebuilding that region of the country as a strong and vital part of the American Union.

As a soldier, General Lee left his mark on military strategy. As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox.

General Lee's character has been an example to succeeding generations, making the restoration of his citizenship an event in which every American can take pride.

In approving this Joint Resolution, the Congress removed the legal obstacle to citizenship which resulted from General Lee's Civil War service. Although more than a century late, I am delighted to sign this resolution and to complete the full restoration of General Lee's citizenship."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/Lee.Crypt.jpg
Robert E. Lee's crypt


Jefferson Davis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis

Oliver Cromwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

-

[32Bravo]

Very intersting, George. I have always found American history fascinating, almost as much as my own country's is to me.


Believe it or not, George, it is illegal to celebrate Christmas in England, to this day, on account of legislation introduced by Cromwell.

But, it's about the spirit of the law (is it not?) not the letter of the law.

[George Eller]

Very intersting, George. I have always found American history fascinating, almost as much as my own country's is to me.

Believe it or not, George, it is illegal to celebrate Christmas in England, to this day, on account of legislation introduced by Cromwell.

But, it's about the spirit of the law (is it not?) not the letter of the law.
-

Well, you'll find in various places in the US, old laws that are on the books that just aren't enforced anymore. :)

BTW, I wasn't trying to slight Oliver Cromwell. I think that he was remarkable leader. He lived during an era when brutal wars were being fought over religion (the Thirty Years War was contemporary). Attrocities were committed by both sides (Protestant and Catholic) and sometimes against each other. IIRC, Puritans in New England sometimes hanged Quakers. I think their overzealous policies caused a negative backlash in succeeding generations.

As you said, it's about the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. :)

-

[32Bravo]

Well, we had lots of Christmas spirit this year. :)

I believe that England missed an opportunity when Charles was executed. Just hadn't the right people around to carry it through in a just way.

[32Bravo]

-



I seem to recall that Jefferson Davis on the other hand was vilified in both the North and South after the war... :D


-


The people like a little retribution. It helps with closure. :)

[BriteLite]

Presumably, the rebel flag is allowed to be flown, in places, in order to placate those that would still wish to Cecede? Is this a sign that the divisions between North and South remain precarious? Are there Americans that are as offended by it, as there are, obviously, those that take pride in it? Or, is it just history and, therefore, harmless?

Speaking for myself, I fly the Confederate flag at my home to recognise my ancestors who fought for it. For the most part they were not slave owners(1 exception of 19 who fought). They responded to the State of Georgia when called. IMHO many who fly the flag today do so to honor a family members. That is not to say there are some(minority) who wish to secede.

Many Afro-Americans see the flag as a symbol of slavery. I respect that but do not agree. My view is the primary cause of the War was political. The agrarian South was in the political minority. The country's westward expansion would likely worsen the situation. The Emancipation Proclamation made slavery illegal in the States of Secession bit did not include States that remained loyal to the Union.

One's perspective determines an individual's view of history. I was born in Georgia, raised in the South and choose to live here today. In my youth I was exposed to racial prejudice including several uncles who were active KuKluxKlan members. I was fortunate to have parents who did not subscribe to the bigotry dominant in the South in the 1950-1960's.

The flag is a part of US history and certainly is a part of mine. I view the struggle and associated symbols as important towards learning the lessons history can teach.

BTW my first post here. Great site.:)

[Nickdfresh]

Welcome to the site...

Lemme throw this out there without doing any research, but the Confederate "Stars and Bars" wasn't actually the flag of the Confederacy but was more a battle ensign. Am I correct?

[BriteLite]

Welcome to the site...

Lemme throw this out there without doing any research, but the Confederate "Stars and Bars" wasn't actually the flag of the Confederacy but was more a battle ensign. Am I correct?

The "Stars and Bars" was the flag originally adopted in 1861 and is not the flag we see today. This flag was designed to be similar to the Stars and Stripes and had 13 stars arranged in a circle in the upper left quadrant. It was used until 1863 when a new banner was adopted. Several other designs were used before war's end.

You are correct. The flag recognised as "the" Confederate flag never officially represented the CSA as a nation. It is actually a combination of army battle flags and naval "jacks"(ensign).

[32Bravo]

Speaking for myself, I fly the Confederate flag at my home to recognise my ancestors who fought for it. For the most part they were not slave owners(1 exception of 19 who fought). They responded to the State of Georgia when called. IMHO many who fly the flag today do so to honor a family members. That is not to say there are some(minority) who wish to secede.

Many Afro-Americans see the flag as a symbol of slavery. I respect that but do not agree. My view is the primary cause of the War was political. The agrarian South was in the political minority. The country's westward expansion would likely worsen the situation. The Emancipation Proclamation made slavery illegal in the States of Secession bit did not include States that remained loyal to the Union.

One's perspective determines an individual's view of history. I was born in Georgia, raised in the South and choose to live here today. In my youth I was exposed to racial prejudice including several uncles who were active KuKluxKlan members. I was fortunate to have parents who did not subscribe to the bigotry dominant in the South in the 1950-1960's.

The flag is a part of US history and certainly is a part of mine. I view the struggle and associated symbols as important towards learning the lessons history can teach.

BTW my first post here. Great site.:)


An interesting perspective.



The Emancipation Proclamation made slavery illegal in the States of Secession bit did not include States that remained loyal to the Union.
Double standards?


In my youth I was exposed to racial prejudice including several uncles who were active KuKluxKlan members. I was fortunate to have parents who did not subscribe to the bigotry dominant in the South in the 1950-1960's.


Do you feel that your views are typical of those of the people of the southern states today, or do you remain, as your post implies, a part of a minority?

[BriteLite]

An interesting perspective.



Double standards?




Do you feel that your views are typical of those of the people of the southern states today, or do you remain, as your post implies, a part of a minority?

Racial bias blatantly exists in some areas, typically rural counties. Beginning in the 1960's, development and expansion of urban areas "forced" people to work/live together. No matter the skincolor, many realized we are not so different from each other.

The majority of people I am in contact with(business and personal) have discarded race as a predicator for association.

[32Bravo]

Racial bias blatantly exists in some areas, typically rural counties. Beginning in the 1960's, development and expansion of urban areas "forced" people to work/live together. No matter the skincolor, many realized we are not so different from each other.

The majority of people I am in contact with(business and personal) have discarded race as a predicator for association.


Would you say that there are many mixed-race marriages, or no?
I find it a useful indicator regarding integration.

[BriteLite]

Sorry for long delay in response.

Mixed relationships are certainly more prevelant today than in the past and I would say publicly acceptable even in the Deep South. It does not appear to be a widespread phenomona tho.

Inexpicably mixed couples I have observed are invariably an Afro American male and Caucasian female. Seldom have I seen the reverse. A small percentage are gay mixed couples, male and female.

The time I spent in military service revealed what I had suspected as a youth: Skin color makes no difference when appraising the honor, integrity and character of an individual.

My apologies to the members for the off topic nature of my contributions to date. I have been a student of military history for many years and hope I can provide useful information in my future postings.

[BriteLite]

I have often been fascinated by the decisons made by Robert E Lee and his fellow officers to turn away from their alliegance to the Union and support the Confederacy. It could not have been easy. I sometimes consider whether their sense of loyalty to the South was truly strong enough to enable them to fight whole-heartedly against the Union to the point that, if they succeeded, their would be a permanent seperation. For years they must have believed in the Union, expanding it in the MexicanWar and devoting themselves to its preservation.

I ask myself: was Lee able to think decisively at Gettysburg (as it was without doubt a decisive battle); did he truly wish the South to suceed?
His objective was: to destroy the Army of the Potomac; march on Washington, and force Lincoln to accept terms which would allow the Confederacy to become permanently independant of the Union.

Lee had been successful fighting defensive battles in the south, allowing the Union forces to waste themselves at places such as Chancellorsville and Fredricksburg. However, invading the North, which he was reputedly against, was a whole different prospect. He might have succeeded if he had fought yet another defensive battle and once again allowed Union forces to waste themselves, but, instead, he became drawn into an encounter-battle situation and it was he that was having his forces drained at a higher rate of attrition (we're probably all familiar with Little Round Top, Seminary Rige and Willoughby Run)

Should he have broken contact and withdrawn to ground of his choosing, or did he do the right thing?

What were his motives for not doing so?

http://www.army.mil/gettysburg/flash.html

http://www.gettysburg.com/


Southerners at the time perceived their states as their country, more so than the United States. Many Confederate higher ranks prior to the onset of war held commissions the the US Army. Lee himself was offered command of the US forces. IIRC he spent several weeks soul searching, finally refusing instead offering his sword to Virginia, not to the CSA. This was the same for the average soldier. When enlisting, allegiance was sworn to the state of birth/residence rather than the CSA.

When war began, the majority opinion for both sides was this would be a short campaign that would be decided in 1 to 2 years at most. Few foresaw the privation and cost in blood.

Regarding the Battle of Gettysburg, perhaps the most revealing document as to how and why the engagment occurred is a letter written by Major General Harry Heth, AP Hill's Corps, ANV. You may read it here:

http://www.aphillcsa.com/accountgettysburg1.html

Heth states why he ordered his division to Gettysburg " Hearing that a supply of shoes was to be obtained in Gettysburg, eight miles distant from Cashtown, and greatly needing shoes for my men, I directed General Pettigrew to go to Gettysburg and get these supplies.".

Heth states "A short time before General Grant crossed the Rapidan, in the spring of 1864, General Lee said to me: "If I could do so -- unfortunately I cannot -- I would again cross the Potomac and invade Pennsylvania. I believe it to be our true policy, notwithstanding the failure of last year. An invasion of the enemy's country breaks up all of his preconceived plans, relieves our country of his presence, and we subsist while there on his resources. The question of food for this army gives me more trouble and uneasiness than every thing else combined; the absence of the army from Virginia gives our people an opportunity to collect supplies ahead. The legitimate fruits of a victory, if gained in Pennsylvania, could be more readily reaped than on our own soil. We would have been in a few days' march of Philadelphia, and the occupation of that city would have given us peace". This clearly quotes Lee's reasoning for the invasion of Pennsylvania.

Heth continues " The failure to crush the Federal army in Pennsylvania in 1863, in the opinion of almost all the officers of the Army of Northern Virginia, can be expressed in five words -- the absence of our cavalry.". Many have argued this to be the case and JEB Stuart bears the blame by depriving Lee of his "eyes". This is unfair to the reputation of arguably the greatest commander of cavalry who ever lived. Lee had ordered Stuart on this operation. Unfortunately for the Confederates, Federal forces had detected Lee's move into Pa. Meade unknowingly positioned his forces between Stuart and Lee resulting in the loss of communication from the cavalry.

Assigning blame for the failure is at once simple and complex. Ultimately Lee, as the commanding general, must bear the responsibility. Lee's command system and style failed him at Gettysburg. Jackson's death and the subsequent restructuring from 2 to 3 corps, along with the loss of many able commanders in previous actions resulted in officers promoted to positions they were not to excel. Before the Pa campaign, Lee would provide impetus for a plan of action depending on his staff/generals to provide the action required. The entire operation at Gettysburg lacked cohesion. Pickett's Charge, to succeed, required the following: left wing make a simultaneous diversionary attack; heavy artillery fire to disrupt the Union front and silence batteries that would respond to the assault; support the attacking troops left and right.

The left wing attacked Culp's Hill at about 6-7 AM and continued the assault for 7 hours. This action was over before Pickett advanced. This effort did not cause Fedral units to be moved from the center as Lee had hoped.

The artillery commenced firing at 1 PM. Porter Alexander was in command of 170 guns for the bombardment. Shelling was vigorous however firing upward to an elevated target Alexander could not judge effectiveness as he could not see impacts. Lee's artillery chief, Gen Pendelton had little positive effect on the barrage by not allowing the placement of additional batteries that were available and more importantly not replenishing ammunition supply from the previous day's expenditure causing Alexander to reduce his fire.

At 3 PM(much too late) Pickett began the advance with 9 brigades across 1 mile of front. Some of the brigades had been engaged on the previous days and were not at full strength. The left most brigade under heavy cannon and musketry broke and retreated. On the right 2 support brigades did not advance until after Pickett was broken. Due to losses advancing, Pickett's front was reduced to 1/2 mile allowing Union fire to concentrate. It was over in 45 minutes. Pickett's division suffered as casualties all 3 brigade and all 13 regimental commanders.

Lee also ordered Stuart to attack the Union rear. This also failed.

Lee expected too much of his men. The attack plan required too many component actions. Lee carried a huge mental strain but one also must consider his physical condition. He was recovering a fall off his horse and it is suspected he was already feeling the effects of the heart ailment that eventually killed him.

He would have fared better to retreat to favourable terrain and compell Meade to attack. I believe Longstreet's suggestion to march to his right attacking up the Taneytown Road had the most to offer.

[Rising Sun*]

My apologies to the members for the off topic nature of my contributions to date. I have been a student of military history for many years and hope I can provide useful information in my future postings.

No need to apologise.

You're making interesting and informative contributions, so keep going.

[Rising Sun*]

One's perspective determines an individual's view of history. I was born in Georgia, raised in the South and choose to live here today. In my youth I was exposed to racial prejudice including several uncles who were active KuKluxKlan members. I was fortunate to have parents who did not subscribe to the bigotry dominant in the South in the 1950-1960's.

Was there really a single shared attitude that you could call 'the South' even in the 1950's - 60's, as distinct from some fairly common attitudes about certain issues? I'm wondering if the different histories and sources of populations and economic circumstances produced a range of different states with their own attitudes which, like the US today, fits a certain stereotypical picture in the minds of outsiders but which doesn't recognise the vast diversity within.

You mentioned that in the Civil War southerners enlisted essentially to their state's colours rather than the CSA, which suggests that there wasn't any unified notion of being 'the South' as distinct from fighting a common cause against a common enemy, although issues about raising state militias might have been more responsible for the state enlistments.

Did Southerners' identification with 'the South' precede the Civil War, or was it forged by and followed that war, and strengthened by a united resentment of the North and its treatment of the South after rather than during the war?

[Nickdfresh]

As an aside, I am ashamed to say that I have driven by Gettysburg many times, and have never stopped :confused: This summer, that will be rectified...

[32Bravo]

As an aside, I am ashamed to say that I have driven by Gettysburg many times, and have never stopped :confused: This summer, that will be rectified...

Don't be ashamed. I drove by it also, and I'm unable to recitfy this summer.

Good post Britelite. Food for thought.

I'm still getting my head around the idea of loyalty to the state first, but then, I would suppose that if one considers the early history and the emergence fo the US as a whole - the federal and state legislation which lends it self to the State being upper most would have made sense when the US was younger, but I have always understood that Americans are always Americans first and foremost. Then again, perhaps that is just my misunderstanding. I imagine that it has been a part of the mending of the nation which had to be done after the civil war, to be American above all?

As I understand it, the President is not allowed to make use of the National Guard, without the permission of the individual State Governor?

[Rising Sun*]

I'm still getting my head around the idea of loyalty to the state first ...

As a Pom, unlike me with states in a federation that don't always agree on what's best for the national commonwealth, that makes sense to you because you don't have provinces or states, but if you think of the regional allegiances of the Welsh or Scots or Irish, it's not so different to the American situation.

If the UK had a civil war today where everything got thrown in the pot, what would be the likely geographical divisions (ignoring the lowland Scots, who have always been a bit unreliable ;))?

[Nickdfresh]

Don't be ashamed. I drove by it also, and I'm unable to recitfy this summer.

Good post Britelite. Food for thought.
...

You might want to plan a trip fairly soon. Corporate, soulless whores have talked on and off about turning the site into one goddamned more shopping mall and parking lot that America doesn't really need, especially on such hallowed ground...

As I understand it, the President is not allowed to make use of the National Guard, without the permission of the individual State Governor?

The President is allowed to Federalize the National Guard, which is exactly what both Ike and Kennedy did.

[BriteLite]

Was there really a single shared attitude that you could call 'the South' even in the 1950's - 60's, as distinct from some fairly common attitudes about certain issues? I'm wondering if the different histories and sources of populations and economic circumstances produced a range of different states with their own attitudes which, like the US today, fits a certain stereotypical picture in the minds of outsiders but which doesn't recognize the vast diversity within. Segregation of race was quite prevalent into the 60’s. Support for the civil rights initiative grew slowly and painfully. Black activists were, for the most part, peaceful men and women asking to be given fair and equal treatment as citizens, rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The movement gained impetus when John and Robert Kennedy recognized the injustice. This culminated in 1964 with the ratification of the Civil Right’s Act and became the turning point with the Federal government’s official support. White Southern legislators and officials refused to acknowledge Federal authority resulting in violent assaults on demonstrators throughout the South. National Guard(state) troops were mobilized and deployed. Federal officials responded with US Army units. The country was near the onset of Civil War. Thankfully states backed down averting another tragedy. No unification of the states took place other than to say state governments dealt with the issue in similar fashion. Southern states were primarily agrarian economies. Agriculture is still a major economic component but manufacturing and technology have resulted in a diverse business base.

You mentioned that in the Civil War southerners enlisted essentially to their state's colours rather than the CSA, which suggests that there wasn't any unified notion of being 'the South' as distinct from fighting a common cause against a common enemy, although issues about raising state militias might have been more responsible for the state enlistments. The CSA was the mechanism that allowed states to present a united front against the Federals. The enemy was the commonality. Interestingly the CSA adopted the US Constitution less the amendments dealing with slavery.

Did Southerners' identification with 'the South' precede the Civil War, or was it forged by and followed that war, and strengthened by a united resentment of the North and its treatment of the South after rather than during the war? In the years following the War Northerners(a few Southerners also) known as carpetbaggers exploited the South for profit. The economy was wrecked as a result of the war. Cotton the most valuable pre-war export, was no longer in great demand. Citizens equated exploitation to Yankee domination. Members of my family were discussing this perceived aggression in the 1970’s. You don’t here much resentment expressed publicly today but occasionally I will hear a remark.

The “wounds” of the War refused to heal due to this exploitation. Many Southern political and military leaders promoted unification. Those efforts were largely negated. IMHO the South as a whole only recovered from the effects of the War and aftermath during the WWII years. The attack on Pearl Harbor provided the South with a “dignified” method of rejoining the Union.

The constitutionality of the act of secession has been discussed with proponents of both sides well represented. If a citizen or group of citizens have the inalienable right to join then they must also have the right to “unjoin”. The critical error for the South was the attack on Fort Sumter. The South became the initial aggressor. European nations hesitated supporting the CSA, support critical and necessary for the South to win an extended conflict. Many leaders foresaw the abolition of slavery as a requisite for foreign intervention and publicly stated the need for action. Sadly no action took place.

Militarily, the CSA had an advantage early. Secession denied the Union Army many of the best leaders. The qualitative edge in leadership skill gave the South victories during the first years of war. The death of Jackson in 1863 sounded the death knell of the Confederacy. The loss of Jackson had a negative effect but it also represented the time when the loss of many of it’s leaders by attrition was beginning to show. After Chancellorsville and prior to Gettysburg, Lee was forced to reorganize his army. The formation of 3 corps from 2 created positions to be filled. Brave and dedicated men they were, but some were not qualified and it began to show. Officer losses sustained at Gettysburg were staggering. The CSA could never hope to recover militarily.

Picketts’ Charge really was the ”high tide” of the Confederacy.

[32Bravo]

Picketts’ Charge really was the ”high tide” of the Confederacy.[/I]


Or its demise?

[George Eller]

-

Some images from my visits to the Gettysburg National Military Park in May 1994 and July 2000.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/8748/01gettysburgcoupleuh8.jpg
Some mood music to play in background - John Hartford - Lorena ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjhp93XG0SU
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/913/02gettysburgbaseballyj7.jpg
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/8397/06gettysburgcoehoornmorwr2.jpg
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/2896/07gettysburgconfcavalrysw9.jpg
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9583/05gettysburgartilleryye0.jpg
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/7199/04gettysburgcavalryle4.jpg
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/1027/08gettysburgfedinfartbv7.jpg
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6421/09gettysburgfedinfartgt9.jpg
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3165/10gettysburgfedinfartup9.jpg
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/7228/11gettysburgdevilsdenlipe3.jpg
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/4906/12gettysburgdevilsdenliee1.jpg
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/3134/schargehg8.jpg

-

Maps of each of the three days of the Battle of Gettysburg, 1 - 3 July 1863.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4752/gettysburgbattlemapday1yq6.jpg

-

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9753/gettysburgbattlemapday2iy2.jpg

-

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/4009/gettysburgbattlemapday3wt0.jpg

-

[32Bravo]

Excellent pictures, George. Thank you very much. The one of the Confederate soldiers taken prisoner is one of my favourites of the war (captured, but undefeated). However much attention to detail that the re-enactors put into their dress and accoutrements (and they do it most spledidly), they can never fabricate that look in the eyes which comes from having been in a hard place.

I have the docu/drama DVD of the battle. I think it tells the story really quite well, what do you think?

[George Eller]

Excellent pictures, George. Thank you very much. The one of the Confederate soldiers taken prisoner is one of my favourites of the war (captured, but undefeated). However much attention to detail that the re-enactors put into their dress and accoutrements (and they do it most spledidly), they can never fabricate that look in the eyes which comes from having been in a hard place.

I have the docu/drama DVD of the battle. I think it tells the story really quite well, what do you think?
-

Thanks 32Bravo, I'm glad that you like them :)

I assume that you mean the movie Gettysburg with Jeff Daniels and Martin Sheen? I have the movie and thought that they kept pretty close to the historical events. Some things were glossed over because of the need to keep a time limit for theatre viewing. Long as the movie was, I think a mini-series would be needed to cover the battle more thoroughly. I have other movies on the Civil War like Glory, Gods and Generals, Ironclads, Hunley, Andersonville, Raintree County, Cold Mountain and also the documentary series Civil War Journal and Ken Burns' The Civil War.

One thing that I have noticed in viewing many of the portraits of Civil War veterans that had "seen the elephant" is a deep sadness in their eyes.

Eyes that had seen so much:

-

Bvt. Maj. Gen. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain
Congressional Medal of Honor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Chamberlain

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4701/joshuachamberlainqt2.jpg

-

Col. Robert Gould Shaw
Congressional Medal of Honor
http://www.medalofhonor.com/RobertGouldShaw.htm

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/4563/robertgouldshawl01jy8.jpg

-

Civil War Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
Gen. Arthur MacArthur
http://www.medalofhonor.com/ArthurMacArthur.htm

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/5244/arthurmacarthur01dx4.jpg

Civil War General Arthur MacArthur, father of General Douglas MacArthur .
24th Wisconsin

-

Medal of Honor - Captain Thomas Ward Custer, United States Army
http://www.medalofhonor.com/ThomasCuster.htm

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2351/thomascustermedalsox6.jpg

Civil War Congressional Double Medals of Honor Recipient
Brother of Civil War General George Armstrong Custer

-

Ulysses S. Grant

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6319/ulyssessgrant01rs9.jpg

-

Robert E. Lee

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5158/robertelee01px9.jpg

-

Confederate General John Brown Gordon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_Gordon

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9017/generaljohnbrowngordon0ol9.jpg

-

Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3447/nathanbforrestkn4.jpg

-

Medal of Honor - Sergeant Robert Pinn
http://www.nps.gov/rich/historyculture/pinn.htm

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1241/robertpinnis6.jpg

Library of Congress
Robert Pinn, 1st Sergeant, Co. I, 5th USCT. In addition to the Medal of Honor, Pinn is wearing two other medals earned during his Civil War service.

-

Medal of Honor - Color Sergeant James Drury
http://www.weldonrailroad.com/medalofhonor.html

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/904/drury1fx9.jpg

-

Medal of Honor - Sergeant William Carney
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/bhd2/william_carney.htm

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5537/sergeantwilliamcarney01jl2.jpg

William Carney was born in New Bedford, Massachusetts. He was a member of Company C, 54th Massachusetts Colored Infantry. On July 18, 1863, during the Battle of Fort Wagner, South Carolina, nearly 37 years after the Civil War, he was cited for military valor. During the engagement by the all-Black 54th and 55th Massachusetts Colored Regiments, Commander Robert G. Shaw was shot down. A few feet from where he fell laid Sergeant Carney. Summoning all of his strength, Carney held aloft the colors and continued the charge. Having been shot several times, he kept the colors flying high, and miraculously retreated his regiments. Although he made it, many of his comrades did not. For in the deadly battle, over 1,500 Black troops died. On this day in 1900, Sergeant William H. Carney was issued the Congressional Medal of Honor, making him the first Black to ever win the coveted award. It should be noted that sixteen other Black soldiers and four Black sailors eventually received the Congressional Medal of Honor for their heorics during the tragic epic in American history.

-

Medal of Honor - John H. Lawson
Civil War Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
http://www.medalofhonor.com/JohnLawson.htm

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6208/johnlawson1dt2.jpg

Landsman John H. Lawson, US Navy

A portrait of John H. Lawson wearing his decorations, including the Congressional Medal of Honor awarded to him for heroism while wounded on duty as a U.S. Navy landsman during the Civil War.

-

Clara Barton, 1821-1912
Civil War Nurse
Founder American Red Cross
http://americancivilwar.com/women/cb.html
http://wneo.org/WebQuests/TeacherWebQuests/women/clarabarton.html

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9372/clarabarton01bd0.jpg

-

Confederate troops in Frederick, Maryland
http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/exhibition/zoomify.asp?id=802&type=g&width=640&height=480&color=&hideAlt=1

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/3976/confederatetroopsfrederhm2.jpg

-

[32Bravo]

I have the Gettysburg and Gods and Generals films, and the missus has Cold Mountian. I saw the TV series Civil War, which as I recall was the Ken Burns on. The others you mention, I haven't seen at the store etc.

I consider the Civil War is a rather fascinating subject. I have an abriges copy of Grants memoirs, which I picked up for pennies in some bookstore or other, and I also have a copy of Campfire & Battlefields, which was first published in the nineteenth sentury, with many contributions from some of the people that took part in this conflagration. Oh, one mustn't forget The Red Badge of Courage, which is a very good novel.

[Moreheaddriller]

I don't remember actually...

Do you know the story of Arlington National Cemetery?

well the story behind arlington is that g.washingtons nephew inherited the property from george and later his nephews daughter married general lee and later on when the war broke out it was seized as a out post for the union and when injured troops where brought in some died and they were buried their making it a cementary to this day.and if im not mistaken their are both union and confederate troops buried their

[32Bravo]

Arlington House

On a Virginia hillside rising above the Potomac River and overlooking Washington, D.C., stands Arlington House. The 19th-century mansion seems out of place amid the more than 250,000 military grave sites that stretch out around it. Yet, when construction began in 1802, the estate was not intended to be a national cemetery.

The mansion, which was intended as a living memorial to George Washington, was owned and constructed by the first president's adopted grandson, George Washington Parke Custis, son of John Parke Custis who himself was a child of Martha Washington by her first marriage and a ward of George Washington. Arlington won out as a name over Mount Washington, which is what George Washington Parke Custis first intended calling the 1,100-acre tract of land that he had inherited at the death of his father when he was 3.


Between 1841 and 1857, Lee was away from Arlington House for several extended periods. In 1846 he served in the Mexican war under Gen. Winfield Scott, and in 1852 he was appointed superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, his alma mater. After his father-in-law died in 1857, Lee returned to Arlington to join his family and to serve as executor of the estate.

Lee deeply regretted the loss of his home at Arlington. During the early stages of the war, foreseeing the probable loss of his home and belongings, Lee wrote to his wife about Arlington:

"It is better to make up our minds to a general loss. They cannot take away the remembrance of the spot, and the memories of those that to us rendered it sacred. That will remain to us as long as life will last, and that we can preserve."

Lee continued to feel responsible for the estate and earnestly hoped that the slaves who were left behind would be educated and freed, according to the provisions of George Washington Parke Custis' will.

The property was confiscated by the federal government when property taxes levied against Arlington estate were not paid in person by Mrs. Lee. The property was offered for public sale Jan. 11, 1864, and was purchased by a tax commissioner for "government use, for war, military, charitable and educational purposes."

The property was confiscated by the federal government when property taxes levied against Arlington estate were not paid in person by Mrs. Lee. The property was offered for public sale Jan. 11, 1864, and was purchased by a tax commissioner for "government use, for war, military, charitable and educational purposes."

Arlington National Cemetery was established by Brig. Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, who commanded the garrison at Arlington House, appropriated the grounds June 15, 1864, for use as a military cemetery. His intention was to render the house uninhabitable should the Lee family ever attempt to return. A stone and masonry burial vault in the rose garden, 20 feet wide and 10 feet deep, and containing the remains of 1,800 Bull Run casualties, was among the first monuments to Union dead erected under Meigs' orders. Meigs himself was later buried within 100 yards of Arlington House with his wife, father and son; the final statement to his original order.

The federal government dedicated a model community for freed slaves, Freedman's Village, near the current Memorial Amphitheater, on Dec. 4, 1863. More than 1,100 freed slaves were given land by the government, where they farmed and lived during and after the Civil War.