ALL THINGS CIVIL WAR

The Greek word was "kuklos" (to render a Greek word in Roman letters), and yes, it meant circle. Forrest withdrew from the organization after he and Gordon had been investigated by a congressional committee, and cleared, for involvement in the notorious "night riders." Far from being some sort of heroic militia, they were men who hid their faces because they knew they were going to be committing criminal acts, and they lynched people, and burned them alive in their houses. Essentially, they were murderous cowards.

I don't think of Forrest as a "whackadoo," either. At the same time, i don't think of him as being as militarily brilliant as he was often portrayed, and he preyed on the people of western Tennessee like a brigand, stealing their livestock and produce in the name of the Confederacy and dragging off any able-bodied man they could round up. Most of his contribution to the war effort was the nuisance value of operating, in relative safety, behind the lines of battle in an era when that pretty much gave one free range. To describe him as a "ranger" only applies in the sense of ranger as bandit.

However, you need to learn something more about the Klan. The modern Klan was "re-founded" by a de-frocked preacher in Georgia in 1915. It had nothing to do with the original organization. A Jewish factory owner, Leo Frank, was accused of murdering an adolescent girl (modern investigators are fairly certain that she was murdered by the prosecution's star witness), and was taken from the jail by a mob and lynched. At the same time, the racist motion picutre, The Birth of a Nation, was popular throughout the country, and William Simmons, the de-frocked preacher, used the lynching and the symbolism of the movie in his recruiting efforts. Below is a movie poster from The Birth of a Nation:



I can see that one might argue in good faith about his value as a military commander, but calling the Klan a guerilla organization, as though they were some heroic bulward against tyranny is just more bullshit than anyone need expect me to swallow. I'm not, of course, accusing you of that--we both know who's peddling that horseshit.

I refuse to commit myself to that,
but I remain unaffected by the effusion of your emotions.





David

On this date in 1861, Robert Lee resigned from the United States Army. Contrary to a commonly held belief, he did not wait for Virginia to secede from the Union. The convention passed an ordinance for secession on April 17, 1861, to offered be to the voters of that state for a yes or no vote in May, 1861.

On April 20th, Lee wrote to his fellow Virginian, Winfield Scott (then the ranking Major General and general officer in the United States Army):

General:

Since my interview with you on the 18th instant I have felt that I ought not longer to retain my commission in the Army. I therefore tender my resignation, which I request you will recommend for acceptance.

It would have been presented at once, but for the struggle it has cost me to separate myself from a service to which I have devoted all the best years of my life & all the ability I possessed.

During the whole of that time, more than 30 years, I have experienced nothing but kindness from my superiors, & the most cordial friendship from my companions. To no one Genl have I been as much indebted as to yourself for uniform kindness & consideration, & it has always been my ardent desire to merit your approbation.

I shall carry with me to the grave the most grateful recollections of your kind consideration, & your name & fame will always be dear to me. Save in the defense of my native State, I never desire again to draw my sword.

Be pleased to accept my most earnest wishes for the continuance of your happiness & prosperity & believe me most truly yours

R. E. Lee

It is worth noting that, prior to the formal adoption of secession by the voters of Virginia, troops from Virginia moved to seize the Federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry. Federal troops there fired the buildings, but the Virginia forces were able to extinguish the flames, and the valuable equipment there was saved, and eventually shipped to Richmond. The Navy Yard at Gosport (usually incorrectly described as the Norfolk Navy Yard) was seized by Virginia forces on April 18th, and even though the Chief Engineer had proclaimed that USS Merrimac was ready for sea on April 14th, the Navy Yard commander would not issue orders for her to proceed. With local citizens putting obstructions in the fairway leading to the open ocean, and the Navy Yard commander continuing to dither, unknown members of the U. S. Navy detachment at the yard fired Merrimac rather than let her fall into southern hands.

The usual story that Lee resigned his commission when Virginia seceded, and that he did so before hostilities commenced, but because his home state was threatened, is not only not true, it is a grossly disingenuous statement of the case.

Bookmark

For an interesting and well-written history of the Federal arsenal at St. Louis, click here.

While John Floyd of Virginia was Secretary of War in the Buchanan administration, he shipped 115,000 stand of arms to southern arsenals in 1860, and then resigned in the last week of December, 1860. Little note was made of these transfers until after Floyd had resigned, returned to Virginia and accepted a commission as Brigadier of state forces. A congressional investigation revealed the extent of the Secretary's actions after the war had well begun. Prior to 1860, of the more than 600,000 stand of muskets and rifles in more than two dozen locations in the nation, fewer than 50,000 were in southern states, and more than 500,000 were in northern states which could pose an immediate threat to southern states. Secretary Floyd's shipments of arms more than tripled the number of stands of arms of Federal provenance in southern states, quite apart from stands of arms alreay in militia control in those states.

The link will provide all of the detail of the events leading up to April, 1861, and thereafter. Captain Nathaniel Lyon was then in command of the Arsenal (an active officer, he would, unfortunately, be killed at the battle of Wilson's Creek in August, 1861, an action usually referred to as "the Bull Run of the West"). He had arrived with a company of the Second United State Infantry, and used what local influence he had to get an appointment to command the arsenal. He then began patrolling the streets of St. Louis, which was to stir up local emnity. Brigadier William Harney was then commanding the Department of the West, and Lyon considered him suspect--a mistake. Harney's orders to Lyon were intended to keep the state calm, and Lyon was carrying it with a high hand already.



Nathaniel Lyon

Reporting to Lincoln earlier in April, Governor Yates of Illinois has sufficiently alarmed Secretary of War Cameron and Mr. Lincoln that Lincoln asked him to send troops to St. Louis to protect what remained in the arsenal--also an important site because it was a manufactory of munitions, including artillery ammunition. Lyon was informed that these troops would be arriving from Illinois. Because of his patrols in the city streets, which had infuriated the police and the governor of Missouri, the situation was already very tense. On April 20, secessionist militia in the west of Missouri launched an unexpected attack on an arsenal there, seizing 1500 stand of arms. This encouraged St. Louis secessionists, and increased Lyon's already somewhat exaggerated alarm. Lyon now, in defiance of Gen. Harney's orders, sent mounted patrols into the streets of the city once again, having been informed that secessionists planned to attack the arsenal that night (which they did not).

I recommend taking the time to read the linked material, which is well cited from the OR and other reliable sources. Little is known of this period of the war in that part of the country--it was very important at the time, although later events in the west would eclipse the affairs at St. Louis. The events of late April and of May, 1861, would lead to the creation of the Missouri State Guard, commanded by the aggressive, ill-tempered but nevertheless competent Sterling Price.



Sterling Price

One other result of the regrettable incidents spirally out of control in St. Louis was Lincoln's decision to replace Harney with John Frémont, army officer, explorer, Senator and failed Republican presidential candidate in the 1856 election. Licnoln later stated that relieving Harney was one of the biggest mistakes he had made. Frémont decided to run Governor Jackson of Missouri out of the governor's mansion, and sent Lyon (by then a Brigadier) to hunt him down. Frémont imposed martial law after Lyon was killed at Wilson's Creek, confiscated private property of people alleged to be secessionists and emancipated the slaves of Missouri by proclamation. Lincoln repudiated Frémont's actions, rescinded the emancipation, and transferred Frémont to West Virginia (which had recently seceded from the state of Virginia). Frémont's military swan song was his failure to catch Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in the Valley of Virginia, and his failure to defeat Jackson's divided forces at the battle of Cross Keys in June, 1862. Lincoln had to handle Frémont with kid gloves, as he represented the radical, abolitionist wing of the Republican party, so he was offered command of a corps in the Army of Virginia forming under John Pope. Frémont declined, claiming that he outranked Pope, and had a personal aversion to him. He then went home to await the call to another high command. It never came. That was likely just as well, Frémont had already done enough damage to Lincoln's cause.



John C. Frémont

It might be useful here to list some of the principle secondary sources for the American Civil War. This is based on my personal reading, and is not offered as a comprehensive list. Where the original publication date is not the same as the current edition in print, it is shown in parentheses, and the publisher and publishing date of the current edition in print follows. All publishing citations are from the Library of Congress online catalogue. Grant's memoirs are, of course, a primary, not a secondary source. There may well be newer editions of these works, but i'm only going to go so far providing the publishing information. Every title should be readily available from any good library system.

Bierce, Ambrose, Ambrose Bierce's Civil War, (William McCann, Ed.) Regnery Gateway, New York, distributed by Kampmann, 1982.

Bierce was a writer and journalist, best known for his short story "An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge" set during the Civil War, and his satrical lexicon, The Devil's Dictionary. At the age of 18, he enlisted in an Indiana volunteer infantry regiment, and participated in the West Virginia campaign, where his heroism under fire earned him a commission as lieutenant. and he then served on the staff of General Hazen in Buell's Army of the Ohio. He was present at Rich Mountain in West Virginia, at Shiloh, and at Chickamauga, where he joined George Thomas' command when the rest of the army broke and fled. He served in the United States Army until late 1866, when he began his career as journalist upon reaching San Francisco, where he resigned his commission.

Catton, Charles Bruce, Mr. Lincoln's Army (1951) Anchor Books, New York, 1990.

Catton, Glory Road; the bloody route from Fredericksburg to Gettysburg. (1952) Anchor Books, New York, 1990.

Catton, A Stillness at Appomattox (1953) Anchor Books, New York, 1990.

The three volumes above constitute the Army of the Potomac trilogy--Catton won the Pulitzer Prize for A Stillness at Appomattox, which was a huge commercial success allowing him to devote himself full-time to the subject which so fascinated him.

Catton, The Coming Fury (1961) Phoenix Press, London, 2001.

Catton, Terrible Swift Sword (1963)--I believe that Phoenix Press, London also published this in 2001, but have not found the citation. All original editions are Douibleday, New York, and the appropriate year.

Catton, Never Call Retreat (1965) Phoeix Press, London, 2001.

These three volumes comprise his Civil War Centenniel trilogy.

Bruce Catton is probably the best known and biggest selling popular historian of the American Civil War, at least until Shelby Foote came along. He attended Oberlin College (Ohio), but entered the United States Navy during World War I and never completed his degree. As with several others of the writers here, he became a newspaperman.

His scholarship is careful, but nothing notable. He has the unfortunate habit of going with dramatic or even melodramatic anecdote, without taking the time to confirm his sources. Essentially, he wrote his histories as though they were stirring novels. I would be at pains to point out that i don't know him to be flat wrong in his historical narratives as regards any major or essential events. As with Freeman (see below), his books should be read with a few grains of salt to hand. No hagiographer, nor proponent of any particular historical myth, he nevertheless displays a mild bias toward the Union cause. He wrote several other books on the war, all of which are equally as entertaining. He began by writing the second and third volumes of a trilogy biography of Ulysses Grant, the first volume--Captain Sam Grant--having been written by Lloyd Lewis, whose widow asked Catton to complete the work, providing him all of Mr. Lewis' notes and research papers.

Dodge, Theodore Ayrault, A Bird's Eye View of Our Civil War, (1883), available from Da Capo Press, New York, 1998.

Dodge, The Campaign of Chancellorsville, (1881), available from Da Capo Press, New York, 1999.

Dodge, On campaign with the Army of the Potomac : the Civil War journal of Theodore Ayrault Dodge (Stephen W. Sears, Ed.), Cooper Square Press, New York, 2001

Dodge was a Federal Officer who served with the Army of the Potomac, and was present at the battles of Chancellorsville and Gettysburg (where he lost his right leg). The Massachusetts Military Historical Society commissioned a paper from him on the Chancellorsville campaign, which he expanded into book length and published, beginning a new career (he had retired from the army in 1870) as a military historian. His Bird's Eye View is the best short (very short) account of the war.

Foote,Shelby, Shiloh: a Novel (1952), Random House, New York, 1976

Foote, The Civil War: a Narrative (1958-1976), Vintage Books, 1986.

Shelby Foote began his public career as a novelist, whose works were not necessarily widely popular, but which recieved the praise of, among others, Eudora Welty and William Faulkner. Faulner once told a university class that Foote showed promise, if he would "just stop trying to write Faulkner, and will write some Shelby Foote." Moving to Memphis in 1952, the reception of his novel Shiloh: a Novel encouraged him to take up the pen as a military historian. Foote's comments on mid-19th century politics are highly unreliable, and in fact might be considered to be biased in favor of the South. However, as a military historian he has few peers, and this Narrative is the best comprehensive account of the war in such a brief form (about one and a quarter million words).

Freeman, Douglas Southall, R.E. Lee : a Biography, Scribner's London and New York, 1937-40. (I do not know if it has been re-issued, but this classic work will be available from any good library system.)

Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants, a Study in Command, Scribner's, New York and London, 1942-44. (Ditto the publishing caveat)

Freeman was an historian and journalist, whose most famous work (among historians, at least) is his seven volume birography of George Washington, the final volume finished by his graduate assistants as he died while writing it. He was the editor of a Richmond newspaper for more than 30 years. He had received his PhD in history from Johns Hopkins University in 1908, aged just 22 years. His father had served in the Army of Northern Virginia in the Civil War. Early in the 1930s, Freeman published a modest paper which very concisely criticized the military failings of the Confederate States. Either he realized that this would not sell, or someone tipped him wise, because he completely turned his attitude around when he began writing about Lee and his officers. He is today considered by historians to be a subtle revisionist, quietly promoting the "Lost Cause" hagiography of Lee and his officers. It is necessary to have many grains of salt at hand when reading Freeman, but no one could ever fault his scholarship. For a useful example of his biased point of view, compare his accounts of the battle of Chancellorsville in his Lee biography and in Lee's Lieutenants to Dodge's account of the campaign in his book on the subject.

Grant, Ulysses David, Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant (1885) Dover Publications, New York, 1995.

Grant needs no introduction, but i will add some comments from my personal view. Christened Hiram Ulysses, his given name was changed to Ulysses David, but he was recommended to the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, by an Ohio congressman who was a friend of his mother's family, so the application gave his name as Ulysses Simpson (Simpson being his mother's maiden name). Naturally, U. S. Grant stuck, and, referring to "Uncle Sam," he was known ever after to his comrades in the "old army" as Sam Grant. Grant's memoirs don't rise to the sin of hagiography, but like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles or the legendary history of Rome, he takes no notice of defeat. He can still be ingenuously candid, however. Assigned to the Fourth United States Infantry Regiment as a quartermaster, he nevetheless was expected to go into the line with one of the companies, as was usual in those days. He served throughout the Mexican War from the very beginning to the fall of the city of Mexico. At one of Taylor's first battles in the disputed territory between Texas and Mexico--either Resaca de la Palma, or Palo Alto, he recounts how he wandered off into the chapparal only returning to his regiment as they were withdrawing. (Although not showing false modesty, he also does not blow his own horn--he arrived in time to help rally that battalion of his regiment, and lead his company foward against the Mexican cavalry, his company commander having apparently wandered off, too.) Grant later served at Monterey, Buena Vista and with Scott's army at Molino de Rey and Chapultepec. Known at West Point as a superior horseman, he rode though the streets of Monterey (a vicious battle fought in the streets of the city) delivering dispatches with such panache that he was mentioned in Taylor's report, and Zachary Taylor was always very stinting of praise.

At the battle of Belmont, his first in the Civil War, he recounts how he rode off alone into the wood lots and fields between the landing place and the Confederate camp, and just barely escaped a trio of southern horsemen, arriving at the landing place just as the last troops were boarding the U. S. Navy transports, and preparing to leave without him. (In the interim, the Confederates had rallied, and scattered the Federal troops, who had fallen to looting when they had originally run the southerners from their camp. The Federal force was saved by John A. Logan and the 31st Illinois Regiment of United States Volunteer Infantry, whom Logan had not allowed into the camp, and who formed a rear guard as their companions ran for the transports. Some contemporaries alleged that Logan would not allow the Navy officer in command to leave until Grant was found, but neither Grant nor Logan ever commented on the anecdote.)

Basically, Grant's Memoirs are a good read, well written if not great literature, and very candid, so long as he doesn't have to admit to a blunder (C.f. his comments on Cold Harbor). Grant very clearly expresses his opinion that the Mexican War was fought to extend slave territory, and he comments that "I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day, regard the war which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation." Nevertheless, there is no evidence that he was a great opponent of slavery, and he voted for Buchanan in 1856 in the hope of preventing secession.

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

These two books are well-written and fascinating, the first a compilation of essays, and the second a series of biographical vignettes:

The Gettysburg Nobody Knows, (Gabor S. Boritt, Ed) Oxford University Press, New York, 1997.

This series of essays from nine contemporary historians are well written, and is of particular interest to those who know about the Chamberlain controversy, which it discusses in detail. Joshuah Chamberlain took command of the 20th Maine Regiment of United States Volunteer Infantry in the spring of 1863, and commanded that regiment at the battle of Gettysburg. He was on the far left flank of Colonel Strong Vincent's brigade from the Fifth Corps of the Army of the Potomac. The culmination of the fight on the second day was the desparate fight by Hood's division to take Little Round Top. Strong Vincent was mortally wounded, and never submitted a report, but Chamberlain did, even though he was not the senior colonel (i belive, in fact, that he was the junior regimental commander in his brigade), and in defiance of military protocol. After the war, he entered politics, and his accounts of the battle of Gettysburg became more and more florid, until he and his supporters were billing him the "Hero of Gettysburg" and the "Savior of the Union." The obvious objection to this claim is that if any other of the regiments of Vincent's brigade had broken, the 20th Maine would have been involved in the disaster--but by the time Chamberlain was doing the rubber chicken circuit in Maine, and running for governor, there were few to chellenge him. But challenges were made, by both officers and private soldiers of the 20th Maine. Chamberlain had begun to claim that he had ordered the bayonet charge with drove off Oates' 15th Alabama Regiment (of Hood's division) and saved the day, and the army, and the union. Officers who were there with the 20th Maine came forward with a different account, to the effect that one of the companies in the center of the line had asked permission to recover their wounded who lay before them, as the regiment had been driven back to the crest of Little Round Top by Oates' attacks. Their company commander would only allow it by telling them they would have to do it in regular army fashion, "advancing bayonets" to cover the retreival of their comarades. The companies on either side saw this, and fixed bayonets to join them, the "advance bayonets" turning into a spontaneous bayonet charge with drove back Oates' regiment. Colonel William Oates supported their account. This book reviews the controversy in detail.

Buell, Thomas, The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War, Crown Publishers, New York, 1997.

I found Buell's formula more than a little strained. He attempts to "type" each of the commanders he reviews, and rather like Plutarch's thumbnail biographies of "the noble Greeks and Romans," portrays each of them as a "moral type," exemplary of a virtue or a vice. Nevertheless, he is a careful scholar, and has considered a wide variety of sources for each officer for whom he provides the short biography. It is set in three pairs, of a northern and a southern general officer, who faced one another in battle. It's good history, and it is entertaining reading.

Might it not also be useful to not simply allow oneself to be dazzled by tales of the glorious exploits of one's forbearers? Why, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary, might there not be reflection upon more than fireworks, the raising of flags and the concomitant wiping of tears and endless rounds of mutual backpatting. What of the real history of the US Civil War, which was anything but 'civil'.

"All things Civil War", really?

Is,

War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Cisco part of your primary, secondary "anydary" reading list?







[All quotes are from the following page.]

http://www.amazon.com/War-Crimes-Against-Southern-Civilians/dp/158980466X

I just finished Catton's Mr Lincoln's Army and enjoyed it very much. Unlike other Civil War narratives, it doesn't cram a million facts down your throat. It IS a novelistic approach, thank goodness.

I would never fault Mr. Catton on his "readability," and i suspect that he made the subject interesting to millions of Americans who were bored by history in school.

That list is nowhere near a list of all i've read--but i've read many books whose exact titles i do not now recall, and many biographies where it would be difficult to choose one over the other.

whats JTT all hopped up over?

PS, I was thillrd to read Cattons "Grant Series" which presented Grant as a human being with faults to overcome and how he did skirt the edges of discipline and order to gain strategic ends (like Vicksburg)
Also, As a kid I read Cattons "road to Civil War" which was written wioth his kid as a 15 year lead up to the Civil War. He told the story from the eyes of both Lincoln and Davis

Not hopped up about anything, Farmer. Just trying to encourage those who tend towards the grandiose to maintain some perspective.

And you do that How?

By providing sources that presents a more accurate portrayal of history.

more accurate? really? Where does your source line up as to the credibility scale?

Youseem to be merely sour on everything AMerican> Does that not color your sopurce choices?
While we have many warts, we have done some fairly intelligent things through history.

Im sure Europe is thankful to USA and Russia for their sacrifices

You tell me, Farmer. That's all part and parcel of discussing "All things Civil War".



If that IS the case, does not the reverse apply to you and others?



No doubt about it. The US has "done some fairly intelligent things through history". That doesn't mean that you should ignore history or the facts.

I think that you may not get any value from this thread then. Weve been attempting to provide source material that SEEMS accurate. All you seem to do is to automatically take a contrary position. Hows that working out for you?
This will be my last contact with you if you dont try to ADD something other than revisionism.

The Civil war was a great tragedy, noone seems to be denying that. If you havent noticed, last week was the 150th anniversary of the withdrawal of the Union garrison from Ft Moultrie to Ft Sumter and the shelling of Ft SUmter by the SCarolinians who were in the process of negotiating a withdrawal with the Ft Sumter Garrison commander and just decided to move up shelling dates from April 15 (when Anderson promised to have his garrison cleared) to APril 12.

This shelling is usually called the "official start" of the Civil war although there are events in history (Such as the Christiana MAssacre , or the Firing on "The Star of the West " or capture of other Union property) that could have served as opening shots.

If you feel that someone is lying about some point in history or is not giving the complete story, please give us the real deal and not present mere vague references and accusations. They dont make much sense to me.

I don't read posts by that creature, and haven't done for years. You'd have to apply elsewhere for an explanation of his psychosis.

By the way, there are several other books by Catton which are very readable and entertaining, and good narrative history for the non-specialist. But i wanted to limit that list to the war in general, to Shiloh, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, and to Lee and Grant. I intentionally avoided other biographies of Grant and Lee, and biographies of other commanders, because i don't want to supply a list that claims to be exhaustive. The last two books i included as of interest, both because one deals with Gettysburg, and the other because it contains brief biographies of a half dozen commanders. Perhaps as this thread progresses we can all add the titles of biographies and particular histories which we have enjoyed or consider well-written or instructive (the two don't often appear in the same book). That was why i included the collection of Bierce's memoir pieces, for example--both instructive and well-written. For example, in the beginning, Bierce offers a confusing and apparently bewildered account of marching and countermarching, up the moutains and down again, until i realized he was speaking of West Virginia (i did not know at that time that he had served there). It is an excellent protrayal of how little the soldier on the march really knows (or cares) about where he is going and why.

Farmer, please, that is so lame. You know why it's lame. Because you do everything you can to distance yourself and the discussion from what you euphemistically call "warts". War crimes, instances of mass murder, terrorism, ... are not warts.

I guess what you're trying to tell us is that you've had a chance to read the book and check all the author's sources to verify its accuracy.

Heaven forbid that you, an academic, should have to encounter any contrary positions.