0
   

The American Civil War in 4 Minutes

 
 
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2007 06:40 am
Here she is, America, torn and in flames.

Joe(watch in full screen if you can)Nation
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,307 • Replies: 27
No top replies

 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 12:48 am
Hey! Thats super cool!

---------------------------------------------

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

Abraham Lincoln, March 17, 1865, Speech to 140th Indiana Regiment.
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 8.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself."

Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 2.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 07:44 am
I hope Set sees this. The film directors include Taylors Surrender after Johnson as significant. (Of course I would have added Stand Wadies surrender also). Smile

Cool Joe Im gonna send this one out to some re-enactor friends.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 11:54 am
After Johnston surrendered at Durham, North Carolina on April 26, 1865, anything else was just a case of rounding up the strays.

The news was officially announced at Washington City (as it used to be known) on April 29, 1865, and veterans of the Civil War always saw that date as the end of the war. When John A. Logan conducted the first (unofficial) memorial day service in Woodlawn Cemetary in Carbondale, Illinois, it was observed on April 29, 1866.

Wikipedia's article wrote:
Logan had been the principal speaker in a citywide memorial observation on April 29, 1866, at a cemetery in Carbondale, Illinois, an event that likely gave him the idea to make it a national holiday. On May 5, 1868, in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, a veterans' organization, Logan issued a proclamation that "Decoration Day" be observed nationwide. It was observed for the first time on May 30 of the same year; the date was chosen because it was not the anniversary of a battle. The tombs of fallen Union soldiers were decorated in remembrance of this day.


The holiday became official in 1882 (although it was often not observed in the South for lamentable but obvious reasons). Known originally, and for long after, as Decoration Day (because the graves of soldiers were decorated), it was officially known as Memorial Day beginning in 1882.

*****************************************

Leaving all of that aside, for veterans of the war, Johnston's surrender near Durham in 1865 was seen as the end of the war, as FM correctly points out.

Since the successfully hagiography of R. E. Lee, almost all history texts in the United States, and incredibly, this includes in the North, have listed Lee's surrender at Appomattox as the end the war. This despite the fact that Lee's army had melted away to fewer than 10,000 men, and could no longer feed itself. Johnston still disposed of as many as 30,000 effectives (some people claim more, although i doubt it), and was marching for Durham because he still had a reliable supply system then based on Durham. Johnston basically surrendered after reaching Durham because he then knew that Lee had surrendered, and that Jefferson Davis was a fugitive, but he would not discuss terms until his men had been fed, and issued rations so they wouldn't starve going home.

Sacrilege though it be, i consider that the South had few general officers of genuinely high caliber (same goes for the North), and i would rank Joseph Eggleston Johnston above Robert Edward Lee. I would rate the Virginian, who fought for the North, George Henry Thomas, above them all.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 12:02 pm
Very cool, thanks Joe.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 12:07 pm
I love to continue this discussion as we also recognize that skirmishes continued until the last of the combatants officially surrendered or ran out of steam to continue.
Quote:
"The final campaign of the Army of Northern Virginia began March 25, 1865, when Gen. Robert E. Lee sought to break Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's ever-tightening stranglehold at Petersburg, Va., by attacking the Federal position at Fort Stedman. The assault failed, and when Grant counterattacked a week later at Five Forks, 1-2 April, the thin Confederate line snapped, and Lees skeleton forces abandoned Richmond and Petersburg. Although fighting would continue for the next week, it would be to no avail. Lee was beaten and would ask for surrender terms on April 9."

This is what most consider to be the end of the Civil War. However, while the war in the East was over, there were still Confederate armies under arms elsewhere. When Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox he only surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia. The Confederacy itself could not surrender because by now there was no "Confederacy." Richmond had fallen, the government officials had fled, and many of the papers had been burned. It would be up to each commander in the field to surrender his army as the news from the East reached him. The following are brief descriptions of how each Confederate fighting force surrendered.

Gen. Robert E. Lee

April 9, 1865. Having arranged a truce and sent notes to Lt. Gen. Ulysses. S. Grant requesting a meeting, Confederate Gen. Robert E. lee awaited his response. Shortly after noon, 9 Apr. 1865, Grants reply came and Lee rode into the village of Appomattox to prepare for Grants arrival. Lees aide selected the home of Wilimer Mclean. Lee waited in the parlor.
At about 1:30 p.m. Grant arrived with his staff. The 2 generals exchanged greetings and small talk, then Lee brought up the object of the meeting. Grant wrote out the surrender terms himself in an order book and handed it to Lee to read.
The terms, proposed in an exchange of notes the previous day, were honorable: Surrendered officers and their troops were to be paroled and prohibited from taking up arms until properly exchanged, and arms and supplies were to be given over as captured property. After Lee had read the terms and added an omitted word, he ordered his aide to write a letter of acceptance. This done, at about 3:45 p.m. the generals exchanged documents.
Riding back to his lines, Lee was swarmed by his adoring troops, many nearly hysterical with grief. Trying to soothe them with quiet phrases--you have done all your duty. Leave the results to God...-- he rode slowly on, followed by many who wept and implored him to say that they should fight on. The next day he issued his eloquent farewell to his army.
On the morning of 11 Apr., following a spartan breakfast and tearful good-byes from his staff, the general mounted his warhorse, Traveler, and with a Union honor guard left Appomattox for home.

Gen. Joseph E. Johnston

April 26,1865. Following its strategic defeat at Bentonville, N.C., March 21, 1865, the Confederate army of Gen. Joseph E. Johnston was reduced to perhaps 30,000 effectives, less than half the size of Union Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman's Federal command. Though the Confederates had fought well at Bentonville, their leader had no illusions about stopping his adversary's inexorable march through North Carolina. When Maj. Gen. John M. Schofield's force, joining Sherman at Goldsborough March 24, swelled the Union ranks to 80,000, Johnston saw the end approaching. Dutifully, however, he followed Sherman's resumed march northward April 10. En route the Confederate commander learned of the evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond and of Gen. Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox. This ended his long-held hope of joining Lee to oppose the invaders of the Carolinas.
Arriving near Raleigh, Johnston at first attempted to have North Carolina Gov. Zebulon B. Vance broach surrender terms to Sherman. On April 12 Johnston went to Greensborough to meet with fugitive Confederate Pres. Jefferson Davis, whom he persuaded to authorize a peace initiative. Sherman was immediately receptive to peace negotiations, and on the 17th, under a flag of truce near Durham Station, met General Johnston for the first time "although we had been interchanging shots constantly since May, 1863."
The 2-day conference at the James Bennett home produced peace terms acceptable to both generals. But since these intruded on matters of civil policy (for example, recognition of the existing Southern state governments), officials in Washington quickly rejected the agreement and criticized Sherman's imprudence.
Disappointed, the Federal leader informed Johnston that unless more widely acceptable terms were reached, a 4-day armistice would end on the 26th. That day, however, the war-weary commanders met again at the Bennett home and thrashed out an agreement confined to military matters. At once Gen-in-Chief Ulysses S. Grant wired his approval, and May 3 Johnston's once-proud army laid down its arms, closing hostilities east of the Mississippi River.

Lt. Gen. Richard Taylor

May 4, 1865. At the wars end Confederate Lt. Gen. Richard Taylor, son of former U.S. president Zachary Taylor, held command of the administrative entity called the Department of Alabama, Mississippi, and East Louisiana, with some 12,000 troops.
By the end of Apr. 1865 Mobile, Ala., had fallen and news had reached Taylor of the meetings between Gen. Joseph E. Johnston and Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman. Taylor agreed to meet Maj. Gen. E.R.S. Canby for a conference a few miles north of Mobile. On 30 Apr. the 2 officers established a truce, terminable after 48 hours notice by either party, then partook of a "bountiful luncheon ... with joyous poppings of champagne corks ... the first agreeable explosive sounds," Taylor wrote, "I had heard for years." A band played "Hail Columbia" and a few bars of "Dixie."
The party separated: Canby went to Mobile and Taylor to his headquarters at Meridian, Miss. 2 days later Taylor received news of Johnston's surrender, of Pres. Jefferson Davis's capture, and of Canby's insistence that the truce terminate. Taylor elected to surrender, which he did 4 May 1865 at Citronelle, Ala., some 40 miles north of Mobile. "At the time, no doubts as to the propriety of my course entered my mind," Taylor later asserted, "but such have since crept in." He grew to regret not having tried a last-ditch guerrilla struggle.
Under the terms, officers retained their sidearms, mounted men their horses. All property and equipment was to be turned over to the Federals, but receipts were issued. The men were paroled. Taylor retained control of the railways and river steamers to transport the troops as near as possible to their homes. He stayed with several staff officers at Meridian until the last man was gone, then went to Mobile, joining Canby, who took Taylor by boat to the latters home in New Orleans.

Lt. Gen. E. Kirby Smith

May 26, 1865. From 1862 until the wars end Confederate Lt. Gen.. E. Kirby Smith commanded the Trans-Mississippi Department. By early May 1865 no regular Confederate forces remained east of the Mississippi River. Smith received official proposals that the surrender of his department be negotiated.
The Federals intimated that terms could be loose, but Smiths demands were unrealistic. Smith then began planning to Continue the fight. Lt. Gen. U. S. Grant took preliminary steps to prepare a force to invade West Texas should that prove necessary. It did not.
The wars last land fight occurred May 12--13 May at Palmito Ranch, where 350 Confederates under Col. John S. "Rest in Peace" Ford scored a victory over 800 overconfident Federals under Col. Theodore H. Barrett. But afterward the Confederates learned that Richmond had fallen and Gen. Robert E. Lee had surrendered more than a month earlier. The news devastated their morale, and they abandoned their lines.
A similar decay in morale occurred all over the department. On May 18 Smith left by stagecoach for Houston with plans to rally the remnants of the departments troops. While he traveled, the last of the departments army dissolved. On 26 May, at New Orleans, Lt. Gen. Simon B. Buckner, acting in Smiths name, surrendered the department. Smith reached Houston May 27 and learned that he had no troops.
Not all of the Trans-Mississippi Confederates went home. Some 2,000 fled into Mexico; most of them went alone or in squad-sized groups, but one body numbered 300. With them, mounted on a mule, wearing a calico shirt and silk kerchief, sporting a revolver strapped to his hip and a shotgun on his saddle, was Smith.

Brig. Gen. Stand Watie

June 23, 1865. When the leaders of the Confederate Indians learned that the government in Richmond had fallen and the Eastern armies had been surrendered, they, too, began making their plans to seek peace with the Federal government. The chiefs convened the Grand Council June 15 and passed resolutions calling for Indian commanders to lay down their arms and for emissaries to approach Federal authorities for peace terms.
The largest force in Indian Territory was commanded by Confederate Brig. Gen. Stand Watie, who was also a chief of the Cherokee Nation. Dedicated to the Confederate cause and unwilling to admit defeat, he kept his troops in the field for nearly a month after Lt. Gen. E. Kirby Smith surrendered the Trans-Mississippi May 26. Finally accepting the futility of continued resistance, on June 23 Watie rode into Doaksville near Fort Towson in Indian Territory and surrendered his battalion of Creek, Seminole, Cherokee, and Osage Indians to Lt. Col. Asa C. Matthews, appointed a few weeks earlier to negotiate a peace with the Indians. Watie was the last Confederate general officer to surrender his command.
Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 12:50 pm
You left out Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest (it was apparently become easy to get a commission as Lieutenant General in the late stages of the war), who surrendered at Gainesville, Alabama on May 9, 1865. As well as Forrest, you left out Sterling Price, who lead the ghost of the Missouri State Guard to Mexico after the war, refusing to surrender. There was briefly a Confederate colony at Vera Cruz, but the survivors filtered back to the United States when they learned to a certainty that a general amnesty was in effect. Price himself returned, and died at St. Louis in 1867.

Like i said, the war was over when Johnston surrendered. The rest was just rounding up the strays.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 01:40 pm
The best short book on the Civil War (and i do mean short) is A Bird's Eye View of Our Civil War, by Theodore Ayrault Dodge. Dodge served in the Civil War as a Federal officer, and lost a leg at Gettysburg. He first began writing military history when he was asked by the Massachusetts Military Historical Society to write a paper on the Chancellorsville campaign (in which he participated). Since Jubal Early began the hagiography of Lee, one would think that most civil war battles were a case of the Yankees waiting around in an awkward place, waiting to be whipped. Dodge's The Campaign of Chancellorsville was published in 1881, and was the beginning of the career of the man regarded in the 19th century (and by many historians since) as the greatest American military historian. When i first read the book on the Chancellorsville campaign, i found it most enlightening, because it gave so much detail not only on the specific movements of the Federal forces, but on the plan, and how it unfolded, for good or ill. If all one read had been Freeman (R. E. Lee, Lee's Lieutenants), one would have thought that the Federals simply trudged across the rivers and milled around waiting to be undone.

Dodge's two works on the Civil War have somewhat of a Federal point of view--understandably--but i find them to be more balanced than what has become the popular conception of Civil War history in this country, which focuses on Souther officers and Southern campaigns and plans.

Dodge went on to write biographies of Alexander III of Macedon, Hannibal, Iulius Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus and Napoleon. He also wrote a multi-volume History of the Art of War. I know that the Chancellorsville book, the Bird's Eye View book and his life of Gustavus Adolphus have been recently released in paperback. I greatly enjoyed the Gustavus Adolphus book because it included thumbnail sketches of the other commanders in the Thirty Years War, of Condé and Turenne, and of Prince Eugene of Savoy and the Duke of Marlborough.

I highly recommend A Bird's Eye View of Our Civil War, and it shouldn't be difficult to find. As an outline history, it is invaluable in the library of anyone interested in military history.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 02:17 pm
Of course, Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants is a must read for any student of the Late Unpleasantness. J.E. Johnson and George Thomas have both tended to be under-rated. Both Lee and Grant fully deserve their reputations, but neither was without major flaws as commanders. Were Johnson and Thomas less flawed? Perhaps, but the fact is that each of the commanders, both North and South, played their own part in the whole drama. Some were incompetent, glory seeking rascals, and others were highly competent professionals. Some with great promise died early, like A.E. Johnson, and others survived and wrote their own versions of the War right up until the end of the century. Lee became a Southern Saint, and Grant's reputation was sullied by his foray into national politics.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 02:33 pm
I have Dodge's book in my Civil War shelves. It is Federalcentric, but no more than "Grant TAkes Command"

N B Forrest was responsible for raising a mounted battalion at his own expense in 1861, and he was, as was custom, made a Lt Col. THen his first General (as B. G.)commission was in 2nd quarter of 62, then he was made Maj Gen in 63 and was the one person that Sherman said"we must hunt down that Devil Forrest and kill him if it costs 10000 lives and bankrupts the Treasury" His promotion to Lt Gen in 65 was more(IMHO) a recognition of his skills. After all, he did work his way up the ranks>

I was always under the understanding that he surrendered WITH Taylor having failed at stopping Wilson's RAid on Selma(his only defeat in the entire war). His later life , as Grand Wizard of the KKK may have a slight smudge on his accolades as a military leader.


Yes I did not include Price, but as he escaped to Mexico after his disastrous Mo raids before the end of 64 , I didnt include him as a significant belligerent.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 02:37 pm
That should be Albert Sidney Johnson, not A.E. ... have to be quick or Setanta will take me over the coals for the typo. Sorry...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 02:41 pm
I have to add to Ashermans observations re: sets position on SOuthern Generalship. As I recall, it was Catton who stated that

"THE NORTH DIDNT SUFFER FROM A LACK OF GOOD LEADERSHIP, RATHER , IT SUFFERED MORE FROM AN OVERABUNDANCE OF BAD LEADERSHIP".
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 07:51 pm
I'm so glad you guys have finally started to comment on this (It is always better to read Setanta and Farmerman than any other sources.)

I was attracted to this video because 1) I had never seen anything like it before and 2) it finally made me understand how important the fall of Vicksburg was.

I also looked up the battle of Pilot Knob which I had never heard of. (One of my ancestors was an overseer for a slave-holding Virginia man, a Captain Carter, who had a farm just a few miles North of St. Louis. I am sure he had an interest in the War's outcome.)

Joe(My ancestor survived the war and lived to be 102)Nation
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 11:46 am
farmerman wrote:
His later life , as Grand Wizard of the KKK may have a slight smudge on his accolades as a military leader.


A few years back, i got a bio of Forrest which was a reprint of a late 19th century bio. It was most panegyric, but it was the most detailed account i have seen. It was interesting in this context for two things. The first was that it dissected in detail the Fort Pillow "massacre." It pointed out a few obvious things. One was that the claim that wounded were buried alive by their comrades contradicts the contention that Forrest ordered all the survivors to be slaughtered out of hand. Another was that if survivors stated (as they did) that they were marched away from Fort Pillow carrying their wounded, then that contradicts both the claim that those who surrendered were slaughtered, and that the wounded were buried alive. But the author went into more detail, and cited testimony before the Congress' conduct of the war committee which supports Forrest's version of events.

The other interesting thing was the portion on the KKK. Forrest did indeed found the KKK, in 1867. He also formally disbanded the organization in 1870, when it became associated with "night riders." Interestingly, it presents the testimony at congressional hearings on the night riders in which Forrest and John Gordon of Georgia (both of whom were accused as leaders of the night riders) were exonerated, and that by a reconstruction era congressional committee.

Unfortunately, i don't recall the exact title and the authors name. However, it is a reprint, and shouldn't be that hard to find. I passed it along to a friend, but as the friend lives in London, i'm not likely to see it again.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 11:50 am
Asherman wrote:
That should be Albert Sidney Johnson, not A.E. ... have to be quick or Setanta will take me over the coals for the typo. Sorry...


Actually, i had decided not to comment (not about A.E., nor about the misspelling of the last name).

At the same time that i found the reprint of the Forrest biography that i mentioned above, i found a reprint of the biography of A. S. Johnston by William Preston Johnston, his son. (Another book which i mailed off to London, and so will likely never see again.) W. P. Johnston is also an important source for R. E. Lee, because Johnston was an instructor at Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) when Lee was the President there until his (Lee's) death in 1870. Johnston recorded several crucial conversations with Lee in which Lee commented on his campaigns, about which he had previously been silent, other than in official reports. In official reports, Lee almost never criticized subordinates, and he always studiously avoided controversy and personalities.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 12:08 pm
farmerman wrote:
I have to add to Ashermans observations re: sets position on SOuthern Generalship. As I recall, it was Catton who stated that

"THE NORTH DIDNT SUFFER FROM A LACK OF GOOD LEADERSHIP, RATHER , IT SUFFERED MORE FROM AN OVERABUNDANCE OF BAD LEADERSHIP".


This could be applied equally well to southern officers: George Porterfield, Braxton Bragg, Lee himself in western Virginia (particularly with reference to Cheat Mountain--he was called "Granny Lee" for months after that campaign), Braxton Bragg, John Bell Hood, Robert Garnett, Pierre Gustave Toutant (the self-styled "Beauregard"), Braxton Bragg, John McCown (although the ubiquitously incompetent Beauregard put him in his untenable position), Earl Van Dorn, Sterling Price (i remain unimpressed), John C. Pemberton (a Pennsylvanian who took a Confederate commission and who defended Vicksburg against and surrendered it to Grant), Henry Sibley (who heroically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in New Mexico), Leonidas Polk (one of my favorites, the Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana, he was followed everywhere by a wagon-load of slaves, who served him his meals at a table, with linen table cloth, linen service, china service, true silverware and crystal glasses), Braxton Bragg, John B. Floyd, Henry Wise, Simon Buckner--did i mention Braxton Bragg?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 01:49 pm
I would like to reprise my comments about Lee and Grant which i once posted at Abuzz. One of the members there, who was rather condescending and claimed to be a working historian came into the thread and disparaged my remarks, but when i asked him to respond to them point by point, he said he had some history to write and disappeared from the thread. I was unimpressed.

Robert Lee

One of the English historians (AJP Taylor, i believe, although i don't recall for certain) said that the Confederacy should just have assembled a Grand Armée in Chattanooga and then have marched into the "old" Midwest of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Illinois, and thereby cripple the Federal war effort (which it assuredly would have done). It has been pointed out that the North could simply have assembled their own Grand Army, of larger size and better equipment, and confronted them in the field. I consider that a good response to that nonsense.

However, the point has been made that by attempting a strategic area defense, the South squandered many of its resources defending places which were not under attack. This criticism was advanced as early as the 1870s. A former Federal staff officer (i don't recall his name--i read his paper in a collection of contemporary critiques of the conduct of the war) pointed this out, and used as an example the 15,000 troops who sat out the war in Florida, a state which the Federals made no attempt to take and hold (one small invasion was repelled, and the effort was abandoned), and for which there was no reason to invade and occupy. I believe that Lee saw the foolishness of this policy. For example, Governor Brown of Georgia had 40,000 stand of muskets and and equal number of uniforms and pairs of boots which were never used by the South, and which Sherman looted and burned when he took Milledgeville in 1864.

When Lee was in disgrace as a field commander (after Cheat Mountain), he was Davis' military adviser. It was Lee who advised Albert Sidney Johnston to strip the Gulf coast of garrisons to create an army to attack Grant--just one of the reasons i think Lee understood the strategic situation. Johnston did attack at Shiloh, and on paper, his army was only a little smaller--42,000 as opposed to 44,000. But Grant's third division, under the command of Lew Wallace (author of Ben Hur), the largest with 7,000 men, was miles to the north of the battlefield. Wallace immediately began marching to the sound of the guns, and would have come to a bridge over Owl Creek, in the rear of the Confederate attack. But Grant's aides insisted that he reverse his march, and come down by the road along the Tennessee River. Wallace had already done his scouting, as a competent commander should, and he considered that an idiotic order for someone not on the spot (i agree). So, in a fit of pique, he reversed his entire division in the road, and marched back to his encampment, and then marched down to Pittsburgh Landing, arriving well after night fall.

Therefore, Johnston actually only faced 35,000 effectives, and those scattered across miles of rough terrain. The Confederates, with little more experience than their Federal counterparts, rolled up the enemy everwhere. Of course, Confederate officers did their damnest to ruin things. Braxton Bragg (did i mention Bragg?), for example, sent his three divisions in to attack "the Hornet's Nest" at the sunken road, one brigade at a time, each brigade unsupported. The Confederates managed to run off or capture the defenders, though, despite Bragg's best efforts. Just as the 2000 captives were being rounded up, and after Johnston had sent his surgeon to look after Federal wounded, he was hit behind the knee by a spent musket ball which did little damage. However, he bled to death, because there was no one there with a knowledge of tourniquets. The command then devolved on our good buddy, Beauregard. Like Sibley in New Mexico, Beauregard managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory--the one remaining Confederate brigade which had not yet been engaged, Johnson from Bragg's corps, was preparing to attack the line of guns protecting Pittsburgh landing when Beauregard called off the attack. Overnight, Wallace arrived with his division of 7000 men, and the advance of Don Carlos Buell's Army of the Ohio arrived, when William "Bull" Nelson ferried his monster division of 10,000 over the river just after nightfall (Ambrose Bierce was in that army, and describes the nightmare march Buell's army made to come to Grant's aid). The outcome was in no doubt the next day (Bierce describes a part of that action, too).

So, to me, not only did Lee understand the strategic necessities, but in the case of Johnston's last campaign, his doctrine was justified. However, one of the best friends of the North, P. G. T. Beauregard was there to save Grant's career. It was also Lee who suggested that as Ben McCulloch (Texas Rangers, Arkansas Mounted Rifles) and Sterling Price (Missouri Stage Guard) had proven they could not get along and work together, someone else should be given overall command, and sent to attack the Federals in Missouri. Unfortunately, the choice fell on Earl Van Dorn, who was one of those commanders who froze when entrusted with any formation larger than a brigade. All his presence did was to force Price and McCulloch to fight in the same army, without enforcing any cooperation on them. The battle of Pea Ridge proved this, as Pea Ridge itself separated McCulloch and Price, and when McCulloch was killed, and Albert Pike's Cherokee ran from Federal artillery, Curtis was able to concentrate on defending his small force from Price's attack. Van Dorn's presence had done nothing to improve the logistics of this force (their logistics were non-existent), and Price's men went into the battle with just 8 rounds in their cartridge boxes. They took the woodlot at Elkhorn Tavern with the bayonet, and forced Curtis to retreat, but when Franz Sigel came up, Curtis was able to form another line.

Van Dorn decided he should retreat. He had marched around Curtis and was attacking from the north, which meant that Curtis had to turn and face north to defend himself. This meant, essentially, that both armies had cut off the communications of their opponents before the battle began. However, Curtis was well-supplied, and he successfully defended his trains even when his line was thrown back in confusion by the Missouri State Guard. Van Dorn had arrived without his trains, and without even basic supplies. The men had been issued three days rations for the march, two days before the battle. Most of the army had no ammunition and no food. Stand Watie launched a cavalry charge to discourage Curtis from attacking during the retreat (completely unnecessary--Curtis had no intention of going anywhere near those nasty, violent men), and the Missouri State Guard trudged off. Van Dorn was probably justified in retreating, but a modicum of military competence should have allowed him to deal with Curtis pretty swiftly.

There are other, smaller examples, but overall, i would say Lee's record while the adviser to Davis shows he well understood the military necessities of the strategic situation.

***************************************************

I have said that i rate Joe Johnston over Lee, and i continue to do so. However, i think that precisely because Johnston was so competent, and understood the overall situation, he was usually paralyzed when faced with action. This should not detract, however, from his accomplishments. If he had not been at Manassass when Beauregard lost his nerve, i think McDowell would have run right over the Confederates. He also handled the retreat from Fortress Monroe to Richmond brilliantly--"Prince" John Magruder convinced McClellan that he faced a large and dangerous force. That was not a difficult accomplishment, because McClellan always took counsel of his fears--but it didn't happen to be true. By the time Jubal Early showed his tactical ineptitude at Williamsburg, Johnston's army had already escaped McClellan's feeble clutches. (A young staff officer once began a report to Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson by saying: "General, i fear . . . ", at which point Jackson interrupted to say: "Never take counsel of your fears, son.")

Johnston was defending Richmond with about 70,000, and McClellan had an army of 130,000 available to him, and the initiative. Davis finally prevailed upon Johnston to attack, which he did along the Nine Mile Road in the battle which became known as Fair Oaks, or Seven Pines. It was not a bad plan, but Johnston's belief that McClellan could reinforce his line more quickly and with more men was justified. Johnston was badly wounded, and Gustavus Smith took command, and proved that no Southern officer could take the palm from him when it came ordering useless slaughter.

It was after Seven Pines that Lee took command of the army, which he immediately began referring to as the Army of Northern Virginia. Using his excellent strategic sense, he called on Jackson to come to Richmond to join him with his Army of the Valley (in Virginia at the time, "the Valley" or "the Valley of Virginia" meant the Shenandoah Valley), as soon as he could disengage. Jackson concluded his brilliant Valley campaign of 1862 with the twin battles of Cross Keys and Port Republic (the latter a somewhat useless slaughter because he failed to keep control of his forces, but it achieved the purpose of convincing General Shields to retreat, and join his forces with John Frémont, who had been mauled at Cross Keys, after failing to trap Jackson because of sterling incompetence (Frémont was working very hard to end his military career, and he succeeded in the fiasco in the Valley). Jackson was able to evacuate all of the literally millions of dollars of Federal stores, including badly needed medical supplies, which he had captured at Harper's Ferry, and to disengage his army and put them on the march and "on the cars" (the railroad) for Richmond. Jackson had his men march along, with a train carrying about a third of his force. The train would deposit that part of the force, which would then begin marching at the head of the army, and the train would back up to pick up the troops at the rear. He managed to bring his men over the mountains and 100 miles from the mountain passes with all the captured supplies, their stores and their wounded and hospital and supply trains in just ten days--a remarkable accomplishment in those days.

Lee was now in a position to attack. When Johnston had attacked at Seven Pines, two corps of McClellan's army were across the Chickahominy River. McClellan had mended his line, but the result was that Fitz John Porter now commanded about a third of McClellan's army on the other side of the Chickahominy. To correct the error of having too small a force west of the Chickahominy, McClellan had moved most of his army, and left too small a force on the east side of the river. With reinforcements from North Carolina, and the arrival of Jackson, Lee was in a position to throw as many as 70,000 (some people say 80,000) men at McClellan and still keep about 15,000 or 20,000 in the trenches before Richmond.

Lee, whose strategic vision was undoubtedly clear and acute, now began to demonstrate his operational failings. Lee never maintained an adequate staff--he had fewer staff officers than most brigade commanders, although he commanded the largest army in Confederate service. This did not mean that he was not competent about engineering (which in the army begins with reconnaissance, and ends with reconnaissance), he had entered the Corps of Engineers after leaving the USMA at West Point, and had been Winfield Scott's chief staff engineer in the invasion of Mexico. So he called in James Ewell Brown Stuart (whom absolutely nobody called "Jeb") and told him that he wanted him to do a reconnaissance of Porter's position north and east of the Chickahominy. Stuart immediately began dreaming of glory, and when he suggested a vainglorious and unnecessary "ride around McClellan," Lee attempted to discourage him.

Which leads us to the second significant flaw in Lee's conduct as the commander of an army. He simply could not bring himself to criticize or discipline his officers, attempted to resolve personality conflicts as though dealing with a minor quarrel among friends, and adopted a "what's done is done" attitude when his subordinates did not do what had been ordered, or disobeyed orders. His orders to Stuart, written in his own hand, were very clear about what was expected of him:

Quote:
You will return as soon as the object of your expedition is accomplished, and you must bear constantly in mind, while endeavoring to execute the general purpose of your mission, not to hazard unnecessarily your command or to attempt what your judgment may not approve; but be content to accomplish all the good you can without feeling it necessary to obtain all that might be desired. I recommend that you take only such men as can stand the expedition, and that you take every means in your power to save and cherish those you take. You must leave sufficient cavalry here for the service of this army, and remember that one of the chief objects of your expedition is to gain intelligence for the guidance of future operations. . . . Should you find upon investigation that the enemy is moving to his right [i.e., to the north, toward Porter's position], or is so strongly posted as to render your expedition inopportune--as its success, in my opinion, depends upon its secrecy--you will, after gaining all the information you can, resume your former position.


(From Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants, in which Freeman does not criticize either Stuart or Lee, as i will do.)

Lee's notion of secrecy and Stuart's cannot reasonably be said to have been consonant. Stuart took 1500 troopers and a section of horse artillery, for what was to have been a reconnaissance of the right (northern) flank of McClellan's army. And he rode completely around McClellan's army. He discovered that the Federals were evacuating their supply base at White House (a Lee property which he had inherited from his father-in-law and given to his son) on the Pamunkey River, and moving their base south to the James River. He also tipped his hand, badly. McClellan was already badly spooked, especially after Johnston's attack. Alan Pinkerton had been telling him that there were 200,000 Confederates in Richmond (no record remains of the source or sources upon which Pinkerton based this fantasy), and McClellan believed what he was disposed to believe--that he was badly outnumbered and that Johnston (he did not yet know Lee had taken over, which certainly would not have consoled him) could attack with superior force and still leave the Richmond defenses well manned.

Lee never criticized Stuart's silly ride around McClellan, although his refusal to discuss it with William Preston Johnston after the war speaks volumes. Stuart was dead, and Lee was loathe to speak ill of the living, never mind the dead. But McClellan was working up a slow but effective panic, and consulting with those of his favorite high-ranking officers who were inclined to agree with him that they were in an impossible position. By the time Lee was to launch his attack, McClellan had already switched his base to James River, and Porter was preparing to evacuate his position north of the Chickahominy when the first suicidal attack was launched.

More later . . .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 03:56 pm
IM OWN a HAVTA print that sucker out at 125%, these ole eyes dont read all that typin that small anymore without eyeburn. Ill get me a cuppa Rooiboos and sit with that by the faarplace set.
Ill mull it over. Keep ercoming though
0 Replies
 
tycoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 06:54 am
Setanta wrote:
farmerman wrote:
His later life , as Grand Wizard of the KKK may have a slight smudge on his accolades as a military leader.


A few years back, i got a bio of Forrest which was a reprint of a late 19th century bio. It was most panegyric, but it was the most detailed account i have seen. It was interesting in this context for two things. The first was that it dissected in detail the Fort Pillow "massacre." It pointed out a few obvious things. One was that the claim that wounded were buried alive by their comrades contradicts the contention that Forrest ordered all the survivors to be slaughtered out of hand. Another was that if survivors stated (as they did) that they were marched away from Fort Pillow carrying their wounded, then that contradicts both the claim that those who surrendered were slaughtered, and that the wounded were buried alive. But the author went into more detail, and cited testimony before the Congress' conduct of the war committee which supports Forrest's version of events.

The other interesting thing was the portion on the KKK. Forrest did indeed found the KKK, in 1867. He also formally disbanded the organization in 1870, when it became associated with "night riders." Interestingly, it presents the testimony at congressional hearings on the night riders in which Forrest and John Gordon of Georgia (both of whom were accused as leaders of the night riders) were exonerated, and that by a reconstruction era congressional committee.

Unfortunately, i don't recall the exact title and the authors name. However, it is a reprint, and shouldn't be that hard to find. I passed it along to a friend, but as the friend lives in London, i'm not likely to see it again.


Did this book offer any explanation why Forrest was over a quarter mile away when the Fort Pillow massacre occurred? This has struck me as being too convenient an excuse. One could almost say it was his MO.

Same for the "night riders". Did the author present a compelling case that Forrest quit the KKK due to their excesses? That strikes me as a bit of apologetics.

Re: Reconstruction era congressional committee. It has been my feeling that this committe was more interested in putting the war behind them and attempting to heal the nation than in digging for the ugly truth. I wish I had something to back this up with, but I don't. What are your thoughts on this? Was Forrest's exoneration justified?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 08:09 am
tycoon. Forrest was 2 days behind his BG who was sent in to Fort Pillow to initiate its capture. When Forrest arrived (as was his philosophy of "get there first with the most and never let the enemy dfine the battle"). Forrest took command. There were guns at the fort and a swivel turret gunboat "The NEw Era" , so 1/4 mile isnt bad. He tried to keep his men out of gun range until the commander of the fort refused surrender. I pretty much agree with sets facts , the original work by CAstleton had the same take on Fort Pillow.

As far as the KKK, Forrest may have been more a victim of bad press. Remember, this was Reconstruction, a period that was not favorable to the South. as Forrest called them, the "League of Union Loyalists", he and three others founded the Klan as a political and police force to interdict and protect the locals from thievery and Carpetbagger excesses. Forrest was responsible for pursuing several "night Riders" for crimes against blacks . HE saw to their hangings as part of Klan tribunals. Gradually he had lost his fervor as the Night Riders became more and more racist. ALthough he left the Klan, biographers were split about his motives. So we may never have a consensus.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The American Civil War in 4 Minutes
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 04:57:32