NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the costliest war in American lives in US history. Over 600,000 Americans were killed, compared to around 200-400 thousand in WWII and 50,000 in Vietnam.
The war started after decades of sectionalism. The US was split between North and South during this time. The North was extremely anti-slavery and industrial. The South depended on slavery and was heavily agricultural. After years of heated debates and contraversy, the South decided to suceed. The war officially started after the South attacked and defeated Fort Sumpter, which was still Union(North) property. Instead of recignizing the South as a new nation, Lincoln treated the assault on the fort as an act of war.
Important people:
Abraham Lincoln: 16th President of the United States. He was extremely anti-slavery and no-doubtly hated the idea of the South quitting the Union, but he was willing to accept the South back into the Union without a single charge of treason.
accomplishments:
Gettysburg adress(which contained the famous line "Four score and seven years ago".
Emansipation Proclamation. Freed all slaves within the US and helped justify the high cassualties.
Ulyses S. Grant: The most successful Union General. He later was elected president. Signer of the paper that ended the war.
Robert E. Lee: The best Confederate General. Was the one to officially surrender.
Jeferson Davis: Confederate President.

-The Civil War was the first official modern war. It was this war in which muskets were officially replaced with more accurate cone-shaped ammo rifles.
-First battle between two metal-sided ships.
-Before this war, the standard tactic was to stay in neat rows and fire vollies of musket fire. The reason was that since the muskets had a pathetic accuracy, you needed to get close and fire alot of guns. This tactic was replaced with trench warfare.
-Attrition, or wearing down the enemy through constant attacks or harrassment, became a standard tactic.
-Offically had the worst food. Most of the meat the soldiers ate literally came from their bread, if it wasn't too hard. The hardtack bread lived up to its name, at least the hard part.
-Was one of the bloodiest wars during the nineteenth century. Surgery usually just meant sawing off arms and legs with saws, often without anything to dull the pain.

Famous battles:
Bull Run(first one[first battle and first Bull Run])-Before this battle, many thought the war would be over quickly. They soon realized that it wouldn't be so quick...or bloodless.
Shiloh
Gettysburg-one of the bloodiest battles in the war.
Wilderness

What are your thoughts?

What is your point?

This is the costliest war in American lives in US history. Over 600,000 Americans were killed, compared to around 200-400 thousand in WWII and 50,000 in Vietnam.
The war started after decades of sectionalism. The US was split between North and South during this time. The North was extremely anti-slavery and industrial. The South depended on slavery and was heavily agricultural. After years of heated debates and contraversy, the South decided to suceed. The war officially started after the South attacked and defeated Fort Sumpter, which was still Union(North) property. Instead of recignizing the South as a new nation, Lincoln treated the assault on the fort as an act of war.
Important people:
Abraham Lincoln: 16th President of the United States. He was extremely anti-slavery and no-doubtly hated the idea of the South quitting the Union, but he was willing to accept the South back into the Union without a single charge of treason.
accomplishments:
Gettysburg adress(which contained the famous line "Four score and seven years ago".
Emansipation Proclamation. Freed all slaves within the US and helped justify the high cassualties.
Ulyses S. Grant: The most successful Union General. He later was elected president. Signer of the paper that ended the war.
Robert E. Lee: The best Confederate General. Was the one to officially surrender.
Jeferson Davis: Confederate President.

-The Civil War was the first official modern war. It was this war in which muskets were officially replaced with more accurate cone-shaped ammo rifles.
-First battle between two metal-sided ships.
-Before this war, the standard tactic was to stay in neat rows and fire vollies of musket fire. The reason was that since the muskets had a pathetic accuracy, you needed to get close and fire alot of guns. This tactic was replaced with trench warfare.
-Attrition, or wearing down the enemy through constant attacks or harrassment, became a standard tactic.
-Offically had the worst food. Most of the meat the soldiers ate literally came from their bread, if it wasn't too hard. The hardtack bread lived up to its name, at least the hard part.
-Was one of the bloodiest wars during the nineteenth century. Surgery usually just meant sawing off arms and legs with saws, often without anything to dull the pain.

Famous battles:
Bull Run(first one[first battle and first Bull Run])-Before this battle, many thought the war would be over quickly. They soon realized that it wouldn't be so quick...or bloodless.
Shiloh
Gettysburg-one of the bloodiest battles in the war.
Wilderness

What are your thoughts?

Replace that bolded bit with Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. ;)

And don't forget the aftermath.
- Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, was one of the worst (and IMHO the single worst) president of the US. He was the first VP to succeed to the U.S. Presidency upon the assassination. Also the first to be impeached. And his diabolically evil mishandling of reconstruction left permanant scars on the US.

Much more to say, but have to run catch the train for work.

"Stonewall" Jackson didn't live long enough. He was mortally wounded by his own men. Talk about irony.

Those inbred Southerns sure were stupid:

"Hey, Clem. Looky 'ere at dat big, tough, federal."
"Yeah, Billy Bob. Let's kill 'em!"
*Shots fired
"Oh shit, you shot me dumbasses! I'm Stonewall Jackson, your boss..."
*Dies
"Ah crap... so much for dat promotion, eh, Clem?"
"Yep... well, we should probably get outta 'ere before anyone starts to get suspcisous. S-suspicous. S-u-s-p-i-c-i-o-u-s... finally got it right."
*They run away

ROFLMAO at my own joke.

Uh, the major reason this war was the costliest in American lives is because All the casualties were American, we were fighting ourselves for chrisake.

You need to compare total casualties of major conflicts to get a real picture of it's magnitude. WWI was worse, far worse.

Bull Run (First and Second), Gettysburg and Wilderness were not the only big and famous battles. I believe Vicksburg was another, as was Chickamauga, Chancellorsville, etc...

~ Romandeos.

This is the costliest war in American lives in US history. Over 600,000 Americans were killed, compared to around 200-400 thousand in WWII and 50,000 in Vietnam.
The war started after decades of sectionalism. The US was split between North and South during this time. The North was extremely anti-slavery and industrial. The South depended on slavery and was heavily agricultural. After years of heated debates and contraversy, the South decided to suceed. The war officially started after the South attacked and defeated Fort Sumpter, which was still Union(North) property. Instead of recignizing the South as a new nation, Lincoln treated the assault on the fort as an act of war.
Important people:
Abraham Lincoln: 16th President of the United States. He was extremely anti-slavery and no-doubtly hated the idea of the South quitting the Union, but he was willing to accept the South back into the Union without a single charge of treason.
accomplishments:
Gettysburg adress(which contained the famous line "Four score and seven years ago".
Emansipation Proclamation. Freed all slaves within the US and helped justify the high cassualties.
Ulyses S. Grant: The most successful Union General. He later was elected president. Signer of the paper that ended the war.
Robert E. Lee: The best Confederate General. Was the one to officially surrender.
Jeferson Davis: Confederate President.

-The Civil War was the first official modern war. It was this war in which muskets were officially replaced with more accurate cone-shaped ammo rifles.
-First battle between two metal-sided ships.
-Before this war, the standard tactic was to stay in neat rows and fire vollies of musket fire. The reason was that since the muskets had a pathetic accuracy, you needed to get close and fire alot of guns. This tactic was replaced with trench warfare.
-Attrition, or wearing down the enemy through constant attacks or harrassment, became a standard tactic.
-Offically had the worst food. Most of the meat the soldiers ate literally came from their bread, if it wasn't too hard. The hardtack bread lived up to its name, at least the hard part.
-Was one of the bloodiest wars during the nineteenth century. Surgery usually just meant sawing off arms and legs with saws, often without anything to dull the pain.

Famous battles:
Bull Run(first one[first battle and first Bull Run])-Before this battle, many thought the war would be over quickly. They soon realized that it wouldn't be so quick...or bloodless.
Shiloh
Gettysburg-one of the bloodiest battles in the war.
Wilderness

What are your thoughts?

The Emancipation Proclamation did NOT free ALL the slaves...just the slaves in Confederate territory that were still in the rebellion.

Union controlled territory (such as Tennessee and New Orleans) was specifically exempt, as were the border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware) as well as the newly created West Virginia.

There was a considerable political risk involved with the Proclamation, since the war had been started on the basis of reunification.

It was, perhaps, the best political action of the war, since the committment of the North to end slavery effectively ended any chance of European support for the Confederacy.

---

I wouldn't necessarily call Grant a "successful" general...he was just willing to accept higher casualties in order to get the job done than anyone who had held the position before him.

---

Trench warfare? Maybe when attacking cities (Vicksburg, Richmond), but on the whole there was no trench warfare.

Other interesting things to come from the war...

- Balloons for artillery spotting
- First "machine gun"
- Use of cartridge rifles (8 shots, I believe, and mostly used only by cavalry)
- Helped usher in railroads and the telegraph as the key logistical means.

---

You make a list of well-known battles, and forget Antietam???

Antietam was the bloodiest day of the war.
Gettysburg was the bloddiest battle of the war (but the battle lasted three days).

This tactic was replaced with trench warfare.

Sorry, but trench warfare was invented by the Ottomans several hundred years earlier, and used most famously in the final Ottoman siege of Vienna*. Trenches were used as ways of getting closer to walls, with the intention of then laying down mines. Easy way of bringing down walls and other defences, when compared to catapults, trebuchets and cannon.

*Famous mainly because it led directly to the invention of the croissant, by Viennese bakers.

Replace that bolded bit with Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. ;)
And don't forget the aftermath.
- Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, was one of the worst (and IMHO the single worst) president of the US. He was the first VP to succeed to the U.S. Presidency upon the assassination. Also the first to be impeached. And his diabolically evil mishandling of reconstruction left permanant scars on the US.

Much more to say, but have to run catch the train for work.

There's a good arguement for Pete Longstreet for that honor.

Sorry, but trench warfare was invented by the Ottomans several hundred years earlier, and used most famously in the final Ottoman siege of Vienna*. Trenches were used as ways of getting closer to walls, with the intention of then laying down mines. Easy way of bringing down walls and other defences, when compared to catapults, trebuchets and cannon.

*Famous mainly because it led directly to the invention of the croissant, by Viennese bakers.

But the intent was different as you have pointed out.

The trenches used at Petersburg were purely defensive and it allowed for a smaller force to fight over superior numbers.

Longstreet was the father of "modern" trench warfare.

Replace that bolded bit with Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. ;)

Much more to say, but have to run catch the train for work.

Jackson was gifted. But don't forget he only fought commanders that were subpar. We never got to see what happened with a "worthy" opponent.

Little Bill was highly underated.....

And don't forget the aftermath.
- Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, was one of the worst (and IMHO the single worst) president of the US. He was the first VP to succeed to the U.S. Presidency upon the assassination. Also the first to be impeached. And his diabolically evil mishandling of reconstruction left permanant scars on the US.


I am not going to say that Andrew Johnson's administration didn't have problems, or that he was a good president, or even a good man, but I do respect the way he stood firm about the powers of the presidency in the face of the radical republicans.

Let's not forget the Sherman's march to the sea has, not only made him one of the most hated men in Georgia, but also caused major problems for Georgia that are probably still being felt today.

Let's not forget the Sherman's march to the sea has, not only made him one of the most hated men in Georgia, but also caused major problems for Georgia that are probably still being felt today.

My opinion is that the March to the Sea ended the Civil War sooner than it would have ended otherwise, and prevented a lot of useless suffering, odd as it may sound to some of you out there.

~ Romandeos.

But the intent was different as you have pointed out.

The trenches used at Petersburg were purely defensive and it allowed for a smaller force to fight over superior numbers.

Longstreet was the father of "modern" trench warfare.
Fair enough. But the way it was stated in the OP made it look like the Americans invented the entire concept of trench warfare, and I wanted to set the record straight.

Let's not forget the Sherman's march to the sea has, not only made him one of the most hated men in Georgia, but also caused major problems for Georgia that are probably still being felt today.

Serious question: What problems exist today?

Serious question: What problems exist today?

I would like to second that inquiry. What problems did General Sherman's campaign cause that are still felt in the South today?
~ Romandeos.

The American Civil War played another important role that wasn't mentioned here. It demonstrated that the end of the infantry/horse cavalry offensive was nigh. Hell, the Confederates threw a massive force at the center of the Union line (one of the weakest points in the line) at Gettysburg, and they were repelled with a combination of lightly fortified rifles and field artiller firing anti-infantry loads. And the Union threw vast quantities of men at Confederate positions repeatedly. The lesson learned by Pickett and several Federal Generals would have been well heeded by the European powers in World War I.

Replace that bolded bit with Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. ;)



Agreed, with the exception of the 7 days campaign. His performance there is a textbook example of the effects of combat fatigue on a commander, not surprising since he had just finished the Valley campaign then marched straight to Richmond to attempt the most difficult manouvre in warfare, the joining of two armies on the battlefield in the face of the enemy. If he had had a week or two to rest himself and his men before the march the war may well have ended then and there.

IMO, the biggest mistake made by the confederacy in the war (other than starting it in the first place) was in not transferring Jackson to command one of the major armies in the western theater. I doubt very much if Grant would have ever taken Vicksburg (or Chattanooga for that matter) if he had been facing Jackson instead of Pemberton (or Bragg.)

And force Lee to give up his Right Hand? Good luck there, I don't know what Jackson could've done in the West to drastically alter the chain of events.

The lesson learned by Pickett and several Federal Generals would have been well heeded by the European powers in World War I.

Indeed. Horse cavalry was dying out, but I think that, as in many cases, the traditionalists just couldn't understand the facts that were right in their faces. Heck, in the US Armed Forces right now, tanks are starting to be moved out a bit, and some people find that a bit hard to deal with.

~ Romandeos.

Agreed, with the exception of the 7 days campaign. His performance there is a textbook example of the effects of combat fatigue on a commander, not surprising since he had just finished the Valley campaign then marched straight to Richmond to attempt the most difficult manouvre in warfare, the joining of two armies on the battlefield in the face of the enemy. If he had had a week or two to rest himself and his men before the march the war may well have ended then and there.

IMO, the biggest mistake made by the confederacy in the war (other than starting it in the first place) was in not transferring Jackson to command one of the major armies in the western theater. I doubt very much if Grant would have ever taken Vicksburg (or Chattanooga for that matter) if he had been facing Jackson instead of Pemberton (or Bragg.)

I agree with you on the what-if regarding Jackson. However, I think it is safe to say that his behavior on the 7 Days campaign was also indicative of the effects of combat fatigue on a commander. His decisions there were generally poor - in fact, he behaved more like McLellan during that period than at any other time.

I think Lee rightly deserves the moniker of best Confederate General - had Lee not been given command when Johnston was shot outside Richmond, more than likely the war would have ended there. Jackson was relentless, and Longstreet a better tactician, but Lee was able to pull the best of the skills from each of his commanders - a rare ability.

As for best Union General, I think the best arbiter of that would be Lee. And, in his opinion, McLellan was the best he faced. The truth is, Grant never actually defeated Lee conclusively in any major battle after he took over the Army of the Potomac. Hunger, lack of provisions and materials, and lack of manpower are what defeated Lee, not Grant.

I would go into more detail but it sounds like the original poster is trying to get us to do a homework assignment for him - and that's no fun. History is fun. Go read Shelby Foote's "The Civil War - A Narrative". Its long, but worth it.

And force Lee to give up his Right Hand? Good luck there, I don't know what Jackson could've done in the West to drastically alter the chain of events.

That was exactly the confederate government's line of thought, and thus it was never done. To them protecting Richmond was THE most important objective of the war (another stupid mistake, the capitol should have been in Atlanta instead of a mere 100 miles from Washington) and I think in their minds Jackson was considered absolutely necessary to achieve that goal. And in a way I think it was true considering Lee's belief (at least until after Gettysburg) that the best defense was a good offense. I doubt that Lee could have won the Chancellorsville at all had Jackson not been present to lead the flank attack.

But then come the intangibles. After his exploits in the Valley, and even more so after Second Manassas, the union feared no commander more than Jackson. Even the rumor that he and his men were on the prowl struck fear into the hearts of his enemies. But in the eastern theater there was only so much room for manouvre, in the west there was almost unlimited space.

Picture the panic that would have gone through the union high command (not to mention the average soldier) had they learned that Jackson had taken command of Pemberton's troops in Mississippi. I doubt very much that even Grant would have risked coming across the Mississippi like he did and attempted a campaign of manouvre against Jackson, who's greatest attribute was his ability to vanish, move quickly, and pop up out of nowhere to strike at the enemy's weakest point. Jackson surely would not have committed Pemberton's fatal mistake of allowing himself to get hemmed in and besieged in Vicksburg. Oh whatever force he decided to leave there to defend the city may have been but what union commander would have been foolish enough to lay siege to the city with Jackson lurking out there somewhere? Or for that matter to even attempt crossing the river below the city and trying a fast moving campaign like Grant did against someone like Jackson in the first place? It would have been suicide.

But even without getting into the specific what-ifs of Jackson being in any particular place in the west, my point is that had he been sent there he would have provided the one thing that was lacking in the confederacy's western generals, a truly relentless drive to get at the enemy and defeat him at all costs. By putting Joe Johnston, who was a superb defensive general, in overall command of the west the confederacy essentially committed itself to a more or less passive defensive attitude that lasted until Hood's final campaign on Nashville, by which time it was too late. Had a drive such as Hood's been made much earlier there is no telling how it would have changed the complexion of the war.

I agree with you on the what-if regarding Jackson. However, I think it is safe to say that his behavior on the 7 Days campaign was also indicative of the effects of combat fatigue on a commander. His decisions there were generally poor - in fact, he behaved more like McLellan during that period than at any other time.



Agreed, as I said in my original post. His behavior is a textbook example of combat fatigue.

The war was anything but civil. :(

The war was anything but civil. :(


They should have used paintball guns and nerf bombs.

The war was anything but civil. :(

Hehe... true, but probably not in the way you are thinking.

In a civil war you have one or more groups of people fighting for control of the government. But in this particular war you had a group of people setting up a totally seperate government and telling the old one to just go away and leave them alone. In truth this war was, as the confederates referred to it at the time, a second revolution.

Hehe... true, but probably not in the way you are thinking.

In a civil war you have one or more groups of people fighting for control of the government. But in this particular war you had a group of people setting up a totally seperate government and telling the old one to just go away and leave them alone. In truth this war was, as the confederates referred to it at the time, a second revolution.

Debatable, but not worth it.

As for best Union General, I think the best arbiter of that would be Lee. And, in his opinion, McLellan was the best he faced. The truth is, Grant never actually defeated Lee conclusively in any major battle after he took over the Army of the Potomac.
McLellan? You MUST be joking! Gen George "I got the enemy's battle plans right here but all I can manage is a stalemate" McLellan goes high on the list of WORSE generals. Grant was much better.

Hunger, lack of provisions and materials, and lack of manpower are what defeated Lee, not Grant
To that, General Grant said himself, "I have heard of these criticisms before, and there is only one answer that I wish to make. General Lee surrendered to me. He did not surrender to any other Union General, although I believe there were several efforts made in that direction before I assumed command of the armies in Virginia."
http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/page125.html

Hell, the Confederates threw a massive force at the center of the Union line (one of the weakest points in the line) at Gettysburg, and they were repelled with a combination of lightly fortified rifles and field artiller firing anti-infantry loads.

I would hardly say that 8,000 infantry who'd been marching all day and all night for two days to get to the battle plus an addition of 6,000 men whose units had already been decimated on the first day, like Archer's and Brockenbrough's brigades from Heth's Division under any special circumstances could defeat 7,000 rested, confident troops plus the largest concentration of artillery known to have existed on the planet until then after marching almost a mile in line formation, trying to execute an extremely hard maneuver (an en-echelon attack) all the while taking casualties from said concentration of 120 guns.

They should have used paintball guns and nerf bombs.

And pies. Lots of pies. *nod*

But then come the intangibles. After his exploits in the Valley, and even more so after Second Manassas, the union feared no commander more than Jackson. Even the rumor that he and his men were on the prowl struck fear into the hearts of his enemies. But in the eastern theater there was only so much room for manouvre, in the west there was almost unlimited space.

Picture the panic that would have gone through the union high command (not to mention the average soldier) had they learned that Jackson had taken command of Pemberton's troops in Mississippi. I doubt very much that even Grant would have risked coming across the Mississippi like he did and attempted a campaign of manouvre against Jackson, who's greatest attribute was his ability to vanish, move quickly, and pop up out of nowhere to strike at the enemy's weakest point. Jackson surely would not have committed Pemberton's fatal mistake of allowing himself to get hemmed in and besieged in Vicksburg. Oh whatever force he decided to leave there to defend the city may have been but what union commander would have been foolish enough to lay siege to the city with Jackson lurking out there somewhere? Or for that matter to even attempt crossing the river below the city and trying a fast moving campaign like Grant did against someone like Jackson in the first place? It would have been suicide.

But even without getting into the specific what-ifs of Jackson being in any particular place in the west, my point is that had he been sent there he would have provided the one thing that was lacking in the confederacy's western generals, a truly relentless drive to get at the enemy and defeat him at all costs. By putting Joe Johnston, who was a superb defensive general, in overall command of the west the confederacy essentially committed itself to a more or less passive defensive attitude that lasted until Hood's final campaign on Nashville, by which time it was too late. Had a drive such as Hood's been made much earlier there is no telling how it would have changed the complexion of the war.

You forget, sir, that the Armies of the Tennessee and West in the Confederate Armed Forces were significantly smaller than what Jackson was used to commanding out East. Jackson's aggressive style wore out men, horses, and materiel on his long, fast marches for which he was so famous, afterwards throwing men into the cauldron of war with little or no rest. Jacksons casualty figures for the first day at Chancellorsville and Second Mannassas are appalling. almost worse than Grants on a scale level.

The war was anything but civil. :(

If the people of the Southern States did not want to suffer, they should not have fired on Fort Sumter in the first place. I feel no pity for the people of the South.

~ Romandeos.

If the people of the Southern States did not want to suffer, they should not have fired on Fort Sumter in the first place. I feel no pity for the people of the South.

~ Romandeos.
I concur. It's ironic that the fort was assaulted instead of doing plan A because the South was trying to avoid war. I guess it's like air-bags killing people. Ironic. Yes, I did forget some battles.

I agree that McClellan sucked. It is well known today that McClellan was an inbecile, unwilling to use his strengths to his advantage, and was incredibly slow. I'm sure Lee did like him, because he could get away with whatever he wanted with George McClellan on the watch.


I would argue that George Armstrong Custer was the most successful General. He led men in nearly every major battle that the Army of the Potomac fought in from Gettysburg on, and most of the skirmishes as well. He was basically undefeated. He routed J.E.B. Stuart's "Invincibles" at Gettysburg, which may have been the saving grace for Meade's defense against Pickett's charge.

He recieved Lee's surrender flag at Appomattox Station, and his service was so impressive that Gen. Sheridan gave the table that Lee signed his surrender on to Custer's wife.

Meade I think would be a close second, as he was the only Commander of the Army of the Potomac who could understand Lee, and react accordingly.


Of course, the greatest tragedy of the civil war is the hostilities that still remain between the north and south. Southerners still think "Damn Yankee" is one word, and northerners think that southerners are ignorant rednecks. Not at all what Lincoln had in mind.

Another thing that should be remembered is that this was a second revolution. Not for the south, but for freedom-loving peoples around the world. Keep in mind that America was still very much an experiment in democracy, and if the North had lost, it would confirm the belief that a democratic republic the size of the united states could not survive. The victory of the Union gave hope to people around the world who wished to one day have democracy. Also, lets not forget the freeing of the slaves. Not neccessarily by the emancipation proclaimation, but by the war itself, and the civil war amendments passed afterward.

I think you forgot that one of the reasons the US was successful in the American Revolution was our "jungle warfare" (we even stole the Native American fighting style) tactics that took the Brits by surprise as they fought in their neat rows while US troops took cover.

If you want to read a great novel on the battle of Gettysburg - "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. An all time favorite of mine. The movie Gettysburg was based on this novel.

You forget, sir, that the Armies of the Tennessee and West in the Confederate Armed Forces were significantly smaller than what Jackson was used to commanding out East. Jackson's aggressive style wore out men, horses, and materiel on his long, fast marches for which he was so famous, afterwards throwing men into the cauldron of war with little or no rest. Jacksons casualty figures for the first day at Chancellorsville and Second Mannassas are appalling. almost worse than Grants on a scale level.

Not true, as far as the army sizes are concerned. In the Valley campaign, Jackson's only stint as an independent army commander he only had something like 20-25,000 men, and only about 10,000 when it began. As commander of one of the 2 corps in the Army of Northern Virginia he had a bit more. I don't have the exact totals in my head and unfortunately all my books are still in storage from moving but the whole army never numbered more than about 75,000 max and for most of the war was less than 60,000 (and at Antietam/Sharpsburg it was only about 30,000)... Jackson had command of roughly half of it. The western armies fluctuated greatly as troops were transferred around but the Army of the Tennessee was roughly the same size at the ANV. The Army of the Mississippi was a bit smaller than the other two but still roughly the equivalent of Jackson's command in the ANV.

Your other observations are correct though. Jackson's command style was very wasteful of men and material... you just can't drive men to march 30+ miles a day without losing an awful lot of them in the process. And he was given to launching attacks with whatever men were on hand without waiting for the rest of his troops to show up. Several times it cost him, once in the Valley he sent 2 or 3 regiments against a union position of several brigades and they got slaughtered. But the advantage given by fast movement and therefore the ability to strike weak points with a locally superior force before his oponnet could react made up for it. He did after all enable Lee to win stunning victories in both the battles you mentioned... at Chancellorsville because he was able to hit the weak spot and roll up the union line and at Second Manassas because he was able to pin down the union army and allow Longstreet to do the same thing.

In fact the Second Manassas campaign is the classic example of what I believe Jackson could have done had he commanded one of the western armies. In that campaign he first disappeared from around Richmond, suddenly reappeared behind Pope's army and destroyed it's supply base, disappeared again, sat tight while Pope ran his men all over the countryside looking for him until they were hopelessly confused, reappeared again in an almost impregnable position, and slaughtered Pope's men as they came in piecemeal to attack him. And all the while Lee and Longstreet were coming up on the flank while Pope was fixated first on finding and then on defeating Jackson.

In the west what could have stopped Jackson from doing the same thing on a larger scale? Like say leaving a small force to hold Vicksburg, vanishing with the rest of his men, and suddenly popping up around Memphis or Nashville? (Which would have been possible without wearing them out too badly since rail transport could have been used, as was done when Longstreet was sent to help Bragg around Chattanooga later on.) Grant would have been yanked straight out of the Mississippi swamps and been sent back to repel him and Vicksburg would not have fallen. Even Grant admitted the impossibility of attacking Vicksburg from the eastern side of the Mississippi, he tried that route first and found it impossible to keep supply lines open in the face of confederate cavalry attacks on them.

People to read about:

U.S. Grant
Robert E. Lee
Abraham Lincoln
Jefferson Davis
Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson
E.P. Alexander
A.P. Hill
Robert Gould Shaw
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain
L.A. Armistead
William T. Sherman
J.E. Johnston

If the people of the Southern States did not want to suffer, they should not have fired on Fort Sumter in the first place. I feel no pity for the people of the South.

~ Romandeos.

I completely agree. It was a case of them making their bed and then being surprised they had to sleep in it. War brings suffering. If you're not willing to suffer over something, then you shouldn't start a war over it.

Antietam was the bloodiest day of the war.
Gettysburg was the bloddiest battle of the war (but the battle lasted three days).

How many people died that day? (Antietam)

Of course, the greatest tragedy of the civil war is the hostilities that still remain between the north and south. Southerners still think "Damn Yankee" is one word, and northerners think that southerners are ignorant rednecks. Not at all what Lincoln had in mind.


As I've said before, and at least implied earlier in tthis thread, Andrew Johnson was an evil SOB, the worst president the US has ever seen, and a man whose policies resulted not just in awful regional relations but were directly responsible for much of the racial discord of the 20th century (IMHO one of the greatests problem for the US even today. And those who know my stand on "race" will most likely agree.)

As much as I dislike and disagree with Lincoln's handling of the war (my final paper in my senior level college poli sci course on American political thought though the Civil War slammed Lincoln as a complete and total traitor to the "spirit of '76", which was the topic of the essay), he certainly had the welfare of the nation at his heart. Andrew Johnson absolutely did not.

How many people died that day? (Antietam)

from the wiki:

Losses for the day were heavy on both sides. The Union had 12,410 casualties with about 2,100 dead. Confederate casualties were 10,700 with about 2,700 dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antietam#Aftermath

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. Abraham Licoln, first 1958 debate with stephan douglas.

As a brit studying this period of American history from outside the American education system , it's quite strange how most Americans dont realise "honest abe" was also a white supremesist.

Of course after and during the war, he'd say to the contary, to get support of abolitionists.

As a brit studying this period of American history from outside the American education system , it's quite strange how most Americans dont realise "honest abe" was also a white supremesist.

Of course after and during the war, he'd say to the contary, to get support of abolitionists.

He was a product of his times is the best I can say. I don't know that either you or I would not have been the same....

Lincoln was fully prepared to leave the slaves enslaved if he had to. His goal was to preserve the Union. He knew that slavery would eventually die without any outside pressure.

~ Romandeos.

Great debate. Glad I started it.

How many people died that day? (Antietam)

From the Antietam National Battlefield Website:


Approximate Numbers.....Union.....Confederate....Total
Killed...........................2,100.........1,550........3,650
Wounded.....................9,550.........7,750.......17,300
Missing/Captured.............750.........1,020.........1,770
Total.........................12,400.......10,320.......22,720

These are the approximate numbers for September 17th, 1862. No one knows the actual number of men who would later die of their wounds or the number of missing who had been killed. If you take a conservative estimate of 20% of the wounded dying of their wounds and 30% of the missing killed, the approximate number of soldiers that died as a result of this battle are 7,640.

I think the estimate for 20% of soldiers dying from their wounds would be extremely conservative. Probably more like 30-40% would be more realistic once deaths due to infection from wounds are counted in.

As a brit studying this period of American history from outside the American education system , it's quite strange how most Americans dont realise "honest abe" was also a white supremesist.

Of course after and during the war, he'd say to the contary, to get support of abolitionists.

True, but almost every white person in that day and age was, including the europeans. While the south was the last real bastion of chattel slavery I don't believe a society where blacks and whites had equal rights and status existed anywhere.

oh how the war would of been like if the south had freed the slaves before firing on fort Sumter - Yes I know it probably of happened but the question sometimes does need reaising occasionally

What are your thoughts?
It's called history class.

oh how the war would of been like if the south had freed the slaves before firing on fort Sumter - Yes I know it probably of happened but the question sometimes does need reaising occasionally

It never would have happened, at least not within a decade or two. But I am convinced that slavery would have collapsed in the south even without the war. Not because of the slave-owning aristocracy suddenly developing a concience but rather for economic reasons. Slaves were expensive to own and were only used because cotton and rice were very labor intensive crops to grow. But the new technology of steam-driven ships meant that cotton and rice could be imported from north africa and from the far east much more cheaply than in the era of wind-driven ships. So within 10-20 years slavery would have become economically unfeasable... and you can bet the rich southern plantation owners would have found something else to do to make money.

True, but almost every white person in that day and age was, including the europeans. While the south was the last real bastion of chattel slavery I don't believe a society where blacks and whites had equal rights and status existed anywhere.

True but the attitude in Europe was far better, who had banned slavery almost 50 years earlier.

And sure, Abe's views were in tune with the times. But it seems the majority of americans dont realise his views, my fiancee (from south dakota) actually didnt speak to me for a while when i told her that.

As for the American Civil war, a VERY interesting war, at the beaginning napoleonic era tactics were used, by the end, that doctrine was becoming obselete.

One question, how do you chaps think the south would of handled independence if they got it? say they never fired on fort sumpter and freed there slaves and lincoln allowed the confederacy to succeed peacefully. One interesting viewpoint is it woudent be as poor as it is.

The war was mostly faught in the south, destroying its infrastructure, and after the war, northern businesses came and baught the land very cheaply, and cut down forests etc, impoverishing the south (im currently studying from a southern point of view if i have a bias) this poverty lasts today.

But, with independence, how long would they of lasted? the British was keen to trade with the confederates, as it meant low cotten prices. But, anyway, "what-if's" are all;ways fun.

One question, how do you chaps think the south would of handled independence if they got it? say they never fired on fort sumpter and freed there slaves and lincoln allowed the confederacy to succeed peacefully. One interesting viewpoint is it woudent be as poor as it is.

The war was mostly faught in the south, destroying its infrastructure, and after the war, northern businesses came and baught the land very cheaply, and cut down forests etc, impoverishing the south (im currently studying from a southern point of view if i have a bias) this poverty lasts today.

But, with independence, how long would they of lasted? the British was keen to trade with the confederates, as it meant low cotten prices. But, anyway, "what-if's" are all;ways fun.

See my post above about the freeing of the slaves without the war. With the Confederacy's staunch devotion the the principles of state's rights it is hard to talk about the south as a whole as each state would have had it's own policies... the Confederacy was originally set up to be essentially a collection of independent states loosly bound together, similar to the US in the time before the drafting of the Constitution. So let me confine my discussion to my home state of South Carolina (who some yankee (Horace Greely maybe?)), after hearing about the secession and firing on Fort Sumter, said was "too small for a country and too big for an insane asylum."

Assume my theory about slavery's demise is true and it would have collapsed on it's own within a couple of decades for economic reasons. The wealthy southerners would have turned to something else to keep making money. The aristocracy in SC were rabidly obsessed with an export economy, taking advantage of the excellent harbor at Charleston. (It was this obsession that led to the first railroad in the US being built inland from Charleston, to bring goods to the port for shipment.) Also the lands here were exhausted from decades of constant cotton farming and the landowners were already looking around for fertilizers to restore the land's fertility. In the upstate region (where I live now) there were many rivers and streams suitable for damming to supply water power for factories.

So what you would have seen here I believe would have been the rapid industrialization of the upstate and piedmont regions to set up textile mills, the development of a chemical industry near the coast (both to take advantage of the phosphate deposits around Charleston and to use the harbors there and at Georgetown to import other raw materials) to provide fertilizers to restore the productivity of the lands. The coastal plains would probably remain dedicated to farming, particularly of cotton, to provide raw materials for the mills. Then the development of an expansive rail network to connect all of it together. This is essentially what happened here anyway, other than the development of a chemical industry, it just took much longer to bring about after the devastation of the economy in the war. But leaving the wealthy plantation owners in possession of their fortunes would, I think, have driven them to develop the industry to keep their competitive edge.

Unfortunately, I think this setup would not have lead to a tremendous improvement to the lives of the common people, particularly the freed slaves. We would have wound up with essentially what we had here until after World War II, a small wealthy ruling class and a huge number of poor dirt farmers and wage slaves.

As for the fate of the Confederacy, I don't think it would have lasted until the present day. The states were already semi-independent under the CSA constitution and I believe that before long the national government would do something or other that would tick off one or more individual states, which would in turn try to seceed again. Almost certainly any attempt to increase the national government's power at all would have triggered this off, Georgia in particular was close to doing this even while the war was going on as the needs for a common defense gave them less and less autonomy. What we would have wound up with is a dozen or so small independent countries dwarfed by the superpower United States to the north.

Oh and just as a footnote, since I see this error all the time. The fort in Charleston harbor. although pronounced like 'Sumpter' is properly spelled 'Sumter', named for the Revolutionary War General Thomas Sumter.

I would argue that George Armstrong Custer was the most successful General. He led men in nearly every major battle that the Army of the Potomac fought in from Gettysburg on, and most of the skirmishes as well. He was basically undefeated. He routed J.E.B. Stuart's "Invincibles" at Gettysburg, which may have been the saving grace for Meade's defense against Pickett's charge.

He recieved Lee's surrender flag at Appomattox Station, and his service was so impressive that Gen. Sheridan gave the table that Lee signed his surrender on to Custer's wife.

Meade I think would be a close second, as he was the only Commander of the Army of the Potomac who could understand Lee, and react accordingly.

Joshua Chamberlain received the surrender, actually. Get the facts straight. And let's remember how Custer basically commited suicide fighting against the plains Indians about a decade later. (1877? I forget, either way, I could care less.)

Meade? Meade basically took orders from Grant. And if you think it was Meade who won at Gettysburg, it wasn't. Sure, he didn't mess up, but the Union victory had a lot of characters, one of the most notable being, (again), Joshua Chamberlain. He was on the far flank of the Union lines and it was only because of his command that the entire Union army wasn't routed on day 2.

Joshua Chamberlain received the surrender, actually. Get the facts straight.

Actually you are both correct. Custer received the flag of truce sent by Lee when he decided to ask for terms. But it was Chamberlain who accepted the formal surrender of arms of the Army of Northern Virginia three days after Lee signed the surrender document.

True but the attitude in Europe was far better, who had banned slavery almost 50 years earlier.

And sure, Abe's views were in tune with the times. But it seems the majority of americans dont realise his views, my fiancee (from south dakota) actually didnt speak to me for a while when i told her that.

As for the American Civil war, a VERY interesting war, at the beaginning napoleonic era tactics were used, by the end, that doctrine was becoming obselete.

One question, how do you chaps think the south would of handled independence if they got it? say they never fired on fort sumpter and freed there slaves and lincoln allowed the confederacy to succeed peacefully. One interesting viewpoint is it woudent be as poor as it is.

The war was mostly faught in the south, destroying its infrastructure, and after the war, northern businesses came and baught the land very cheaply, and cut down forests etc, impoverishing the south (im currently studying from a southern point of view if i have a bias) this poverty lasts today.

But, with independence, how long would they of lasted? the British was keen to trade with the confederates, as it meant low cotten prices. But, anyway, "what-if's" are all;ways fun.


Another interesting what if: What if Lincoln had survived and carried out his plans for a quick, non-punishing reconstruction? I think Johnson's punishing reconstruction did almost as much damage as the actual war.