civil war quote question

[nagant_m44]

can anyone here tell me where and when general Lee made this quote about General Grant?


When hearing Grant referred to as a "Military Accident," with no distinguishing merit, one who had achieved success through a combination of fortunate circumstances, Lee responded by saying, "Sir, your opinion is a very poor compliment to me. We all thought Richmond protected, as it was, by our splendid fortifications and defended by our army of veterans, and could not be taken. Yet Grant turned his face to our capital and never turned it away until we had surrendered. Now, I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general. I doubt his superior can be found in all history." -- General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army of Northern Virginia

[Hollis]

Grant was a exceptional General. Like today, the copperheads and those who would prosper at his removal as a General slandered him severely.

Gen. Lee, as with many Confederate Officers, had a great deal of respect for Grant. One of his pall bearers at his funeral was a Confederate General. Among those who also attended his funeral where Confederate Veterans.

That remark was from a conversation with General Lee, from the biography of Grant by James Grant Wilson.

One of the most noticable acts of humanity by Gen. Grant's was in the terms of Surrender he offered to Gen. Lee.

[history nut]

Indeed, HOLLiS, this was a post-war comment from Lee. The honor that the US and CS forces paid each other after and even during the war has never been seen since. There were many fine tacticians and leaders during the American Civil War (there were some very stupid ones too) - Grant was unrelenting in the Virginia overland campaign of '64-'65 and, combined with Sherman's Georgia campaign and the crushing defeat of Hood at Nashville by Thomas, simply ground down the southern ability and will to wage war.

Perhaps though, the finest compliment and honor should be paid to Lee for insisting that the southern troops did not disperse to the countryside and wage a guerilla war (yes, some did... but by and large they listened to Lee). Though Reconstruction was long and painful, it would have been far, far worse had the bushwacking and guerilla activities (I think we call them low intensity conflicts now) been more widespread.

[mudbunny]

There was an abundance of great leaders on the Grey side of the line, not so much on the Federal side (Mcllellan and Meade come immedietly to mind). Most of the officers went to school with one another and saw combat in Mexico, so the closeness is not all that unusual.

[Hollis]

There was an abundance of great leaders on the Grey side of the line, not so much on the Federal side (Mcllellan and Meade come immedietly to mind). Most of the officers went to school with one another and saw combat in Mexico, so the closeness is not all that unusual.


I have no problem with McCellan he had the worse case of the slows, he was all parade and no fight. Meade, I think got a bum rap on *****sburg. I would not have persued Lee either. Green troops were a big unknown. Lee's troops were very disciplene and seasoned. He served and was promoted under Grant. He was a pretty fiesty Warrior too.

[history nut]

Ahh... Little Mac. Always outnumbered. Always slow. Great organizer and loved by his men. On another note, he closely parallels some modern generals in his military career and subsequent attempts at politics (election of 1864).

As for the grey side and good leaders - absolutely. They certainly had the better officers corps, especially early in the war (Longstreet is a personal favorite of mine as is Alexander - Les's artillery chief). The US side had some great leaders that never made it that "high" in the command structure but more than held their own on the field like Hanc-ock (the purity police on the site won't allow the correct spelling of his name - spell it right and you get ******* - what gives? (2nd Corps, AOTP), Chamberlain (not just with the 20th Maine at G'burg, but beyond), Hazen in the West... The Federal troops often had great regimental and brigade commanders that were poorly lead by the political appointees at the top of the totem pole.

Meade is often maligned for his slow pursuit of Lee after G'burg, but after being savaged on the first two days of battle, especially with the near decimation of the 1st, 11th and 3rd Corps it's no wonder that he was slow to react. In fact, it was until the '64 Virginia campaign (Grant again) and Sherman North George Gampaign that ultimately took Atlanta where the near-policy of the armies resting and refitting after a large engagement stopped. These cats just kept coming at the CS forces, regardless of setbacks and outcomes of battles. 1-2 years earlier and they would have stopped and regrouped just like everyone had done before. They realized the North was growing weary of war and that the only way to finish the conflict was to move relentlessly against their opponents (does anyone wish we could act in such a way today? Perhaps things would be different. Alas, it's a different time and a different kind of war).

Another oft-maligned Union General was Rosecrans. After Stones River he deftly out manuvered the CS forces, pushing Bragg out of Middle Tennessee without a pitched battle, captures Chattanooga and goes into North Gerogia to Chickamaugua. One of his brigade (i think) commanders (Gen Wood if memory serves me) follows a deployment order that he knows to inconsistent with the reality on the line. The order, based on faulty troop positions, opens a huge hole in the Federal line. AND just to prove his point, Wood makes it personal saying something to the effect of "I'll show Rosecrans...". Wood moves his troops as ordered, when he knows he shouldn't, and Longstreet's men pour through the Federal lines and the route ensures. Thomas "the rock of Chickamaugua" holds his ground and saves the US Army and becomes a hero. Rosecrans becomes the goat. Wood would later take the credit for leading his men up Missionary Ridge and breaking the seige of Chattanooga when it was the randk and file who initiated the charge WITHOUT orders. Such is the fog and fortune of war.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

There was an abundance of great leaders on the Grey side of the line, not so much on the Federal side


There were some pretty bad ones on the southern side too. John Bell Hood and Braxton Bragg virtually ensured the defeat of the Confederacy through their actions in 1864.

Hood insisted on attacking Sherman head on, took heavy losses and then when Sherman began his march to the sea Hood took off in the other direction (:cantbeli:) and marched into Tennessee with the intent of invading Kentucky (:cantbeli::cantbeli:), and the got his army crushed at the battle of Nashville. Yes, you heard me...he let Sherman cut a swath through the heart of the South unopposed while he tried to launch an offensive over several states, pressing a salient deep into enemy lines with no back-up and no hope for reinforcement.

Braxton Bragg was in command of CSA troops around Wilmington, and refused to attack Union forces that he outnumbered from the rear as they assaulted the battlements of Fort Fisher on Jan 15 1865. Union troops captured the fort, controlled the mouth of the Cape Fear, controlled the approaches to the last open southern port and a month later captured Wilmington itself. End result - no more supplies flowing to Robert E. Lee's Army, Lee retreats from Petersburg, game over.

[Midav]

My personal opinion, forced on no one, was that Grant was less of a brilliant general and more of a realist. He basically had to do what he had to do and employed a war of attrition. It shocked many at the time, but it got the job done.

If Lee had taken the job, as Abraham Lincoln wanted, I do believe the war would have been over in a much shorter period of time.

But, that is a matter of opinion.

[California Joe]

Excellent discussion fellas. Who, in your opinions would be some of the better cavalry commanders during the war? Was J. E. B. Stuart overrated?

Off the top of my head I'd have to say Nathan Bedford Forrest, Alfred Pleasonton, John Buford, Phil Sheridan, Turner Ashby, John Mosby....

[mudbunny]

I'll use this write-up of J.E.B Stuart from Michael Shaara's "Killer Angels":
"J.E.B Stuart, Lieutenant General, thirty. The laughing banjo player, the superb leader of cavalry who has ridden rings around the Union Army. A fine soldier, whose reports are always accurate, but a man who loves to read about himself in the Richmond newspapers. His mission that month is to keep Lee informed of the movement of the Union Army. He fails."

My opinion of Stuart is very high, the guy was damn good at his job and Lee knew it but gave him WAY too much leeway and did not reel him in time at *****sburg until it was too late. He was basically out joyriding thru the Pennsylvannia mountains while a large Union force was moving North and digging in at *****sburg in parallel to Lee's Army. The old man's (Lee) biggest strength was the freedom that he gave his excellent commanders in the field and it came back to bite him, but he was also under enormous pressure from Jefferson Davis to take the fight to the North and deliver a big blow to the Federals will to keep fighting. It was a big gamble that didn't pay off, but one that the Confederacy had to make due to the thrashing that they were also taking in Vicksburg. I could read about Robert E Lee all day, great stuff, great stuff.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

EOff the top of my head I'd have to say Nathan Bedford Forrest, Alfred Pleasonton, John Buford, Phil Sheridan, Turner Ashby, John Mosby....

James Wilson doesn't get his due.

Wilson led a brilliant campaign in 1865 which defeated Forrest and captured most of Alabama, all with only 13,500 men.

[Hollis]

My personal opinion, forced on no one, was that Grant was less of a brilliant general and more of a realist. He basically had to do what he had to do and employed a war of attrition. It shocked many at the time, but it got the job done.

If Lee had taken the job, as Abraham Lincoln wanted, I do believe the war would have been over in a much shorter period of time.

But, that is a matter of opinion.

I think you are "MAYBE" underestimating Grant. Also if Lee would have taken the Job for Lincoln, he would not have to have to fight against himself. (Hope that makes sense).

Adding to the Cavalry Commanders. Stuart was flamboyant. Phil Sheridan is another good commander. Forrest as a small unit commander probably among the best if not the best.


Probably the biggest aspect is the Cavalry was never effectively used/or it's days were numbered. Most sat out the war as Bridge guards.

To deploy on foot the Cav would automatically loose 25% of it's men as "horse" tenders.

[history nut]

A good thread indeed....

CS Cavalry - Forrest, was in my opinion, the best regardless of side. "Get there first with the most men" and "war means fighting and fighting means killing" are two of the best quotes - that actually mean something and ring true - to come from a general during the American Civil War. I also favor Joe Wheeler, though his effectiveness waned as the years went on (later was a US general in the Span-Am war).

US Cavalry - I agree that Wilson is often overlooked and underapprecaited - great job at Nashville and into Alabama. Buford was another good one, but his untimely death makes me wonder how he would have done after G'burg. Burford certainly knew how to manuver and fight dismounted/delaying actions.

As a whole the US Cavarly was poorly managed early on, especially in the east. It wasn't until Hooker reorganized the cavalry and made them their own corps that the US started to equal their CS counterparts on the field. I think it was Brandy Station that marked a new beginning of the quality of US horse soldiers. There is a great book about the organization and campaigns of US cavalry in the east. I'll dig out the title and post it later.

Back to Grant - smart or not - as someone else mentioned earlier he knew what he had to do for the nothern people to continue support the war effort. Show forward motion. His simple "shift to the left" approach after every engagement in Virginia in '64 kept the armies in contact (which despite his heavier losses weakened the depleated CS ranks more) AND kept up some semblance of forward progress to help Lincoln and Congress.

Lee was probably a better and smarter commander (maybe the best at the time) and certainly exemplified what a general of that era should embody. Lee was great but not infalable -as many want to think. Malvern Hill on the penninsula and the obvious - Picket's Charge - come to mind. Also, the near belief that his men could not fail and/or would not be defeated caused by an amazing string of victories created an overconfidence. BUT perhaps Lee's greates asset was the corps commanders and his belief that they would get the job done (Jackson's brilliant flanking march and attack at Chancellorsville).

American Civil War leaders are a study in paradox. Hooker - good corps commander, decent organizer, terrible army commander, redeemed in the west at Lookout Mountain. Burnside (best know for sideburns and designing a decent breech loading carbine that bears his name) - good job in coastal NC, decent corps commander, terrible army commander, partly redeemed at Knoxville and in East Tennessee. Stonewall Jackson - fierce fighter, drove his men to the brink of exhaustion, but did all he could to observe the sabbath (didn't want to march or fight on a Sunday) - who knows what might have happened if he was more open to "soldiering" on Sundays? Custer - not well liked, glory seeker, bold leader, good under Sheridan - years later committed the cardinal sin of the time and split his forces in the face of a numerically superior enemy at Little Big Horn. Hardee (family opened a burger chain a couple generations later) - developed the tactics and literally wrote the book that trained the armies of the day, under appreciated by all but Sherman (they admired each other so much that Hardee was a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral. It was raining and out of respect he wouldn't wear a hat, contracted pnemonia and died as a result).

Is there enough interest out there to create an American Civil War sub-section in the "history" portion of MP.net or does anyone know of a similar board where more specific discussions could take place?

[nagant_m44]

A good thread indeed....

CS Cavalry - Forrest, was in my opinion, the best regardless of side. "Get there first with the most men" and "war means fighting and fighting means killing" are two of the best quotes - that actually mean something and ring true - to come from a general during the American Civil War. I also favor Joe Wheeler, though his effectiveness waned as the years went on (later was a US general in the Span-Am war).

US Cavalry - I agree that Wilson is often overlooked and underapprecaited - great job at Nashville and into Alabama. Buford was another good one, but his untimely death makes me wonder how he would have done after G'burg. Burford certainly knew how to manuver and fight dismounted/delaying actions.

As a whole the US Cavarly was poorly managed early on, especially in the east. It wasn't until Hooker reorganized the cavalry and made them their own corps that the US started to equal their CS counterparts on the field. I think it was Brandy Station that marked a new beginning of the quality of US horse soldiers. There is a great book about the organization and campaigns of US cavalry in the east. I'll dig out the title and post it later.

Back to Grant - smart or not - as someone else mentioned earlier he knew what he had to do for the nothern people to continue support the war effort. Show forward motion. His simple "shift to the left" approach after every engagement in Virginia in '64 kept the armies in contact (which despite his heavier losses weakened the depleated CS ranks more) AND kept up some semblance of forward progress to help Lincoln and Congress.

Lee was probably a better and smarter commander (maybe the best at the time) and certainly exemplified what a general of that era should embody. Lee was great but not infalable -as many want to think. Malvern Hill on the penninsula and the obvious - Picket's Charge - come to mind. Also, the near belief that his men could not fail and/or would not be defeated caused by an amazing string of victories created an overconfidence. BUT perhaps Lee's greates asset was the corps commanders and his belief that they would get the job done (Jackson's brilliant flanking march and attack at Chancellorsville).

American Civil War leaders are a study in paradox. Hooker - good corps commander, decent organizer, terrible army commander, redeemed in the west at Lookout Mountain. Burnside (best know for sideburns and designing a decent breech loading carbine that bears his name) - good job in coastal NC, decent corps commander, terrible army commander, partly redeemed at Knoxville and in East Tennessee. Stonewall Jackson - fierce fighter, drove his men to the brink of exhaustion, but did all he could to observe the sabbath (didn't want to march or fight on a Sunday) - who knows what might have happened if he was more open to "soldiering" on Sundays? Custer - not well liked, glory seeker, bold leader, good under Sheridan - years later committed the cardinal sin of the time and split his forces in the face of a numerically superior enemy at Little Big Horn. Hardee (family opened a burger chain a couple generations later) - developed the tactics and literally wrote the book that trained the armies of the day, under appreciated by all but Sherman (they admired each other so much that Hardee was a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral. It was raining and out of respect he wouldn't wear a hat, contracted pnemonia and died as a result).

Is there enough interest out there to create an American Civil War sub-section in the "history" portion of MP.net or does anyone know of a similar board where more specific discussions could take place?

It was Joe Johnston, not Hardee, that was a pallbearer:)

[nagant_m44]

The most incopetent General in the Union Army has to be john C. fremont. I think the most underappreciated general in the fed army was Gen. Thomas. I guess since grant never had a good relationship with thim (and since he was a Virginian) history has made him look like a slow, lumbering general.

[history nut]

Good catch nagant_m44. You are correct it was Joe Johnston who died after the funeral. My bad. The correct info/facts went through my brain about 20 minutes after posting when I was in the car.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Burnside (best know for sideburns and designing a decent breech loading carbine that bears his name) - good job in coastal NC, decent corps commander, terrible army commander, partly redeemed at Knoxville and in East Tennessee.

"Decent corps commander" I would challenge. Remember Burnside's Bridge at Antietam. Tried for hours to send his men across a bridge into enemy fire over a river that was a few inches deep.

[California Joe]

Growing up in Vermont you could see how I might be inclined to have Pleasonton in my list...:) I was fortunate to live outside Fredericksburg VA for 15 or so years so I had the pleasure of being right in the middle of 5 or 6 large Civil War battlefields. The Civil War has always been one of my interests because of the wealth of characters involved as well as the technology improvements that had such a huge impact on commanders still using Napoleonic tactics in the face of said improvements. These kinds of threads actually bring out the good in the forum.

[rjbhutton]

OK... so there are a lot of mentions of *****burg... which 'burg is that? (Sorry, I'm a Limey and I'm not so familiar with all the Civil War battle sites... I also know no swear words, so I can't even imagine what the **** are replacing!). Thanks all... indeed a very good thread... I have read a book on Grant (one of a series on great commanders, cheap from Barnes & Noble.. Rommel, Napoleon)... that is the extent of my CW reading. I read Shaara's "Glorious Cause" and loved it, and want to read Killer Angels. (Reading back through the threads, is the *****sburg, *****sburg? why is it ******? Why is G_ettysburg ***** out?)

[Midav]

I think you are "MAYBE" underestimating Grant. Also if Lee would have taken the Job for Lincoln, he would not have to have to fight against himself. (Hope that makes sense).

Adding to the Cavalry Commanders. Stuart was flamboyant. Phil Sheridan is another good commander. Forrest as a small unit commander probably among the best if not the best.


Probably the biggest aspect is the Cavalry was never effectively used/or it's days were numbered. Most sat out the war as Bridge guards.

To deploy on foot the Cav would automatically loose 25% of it's men as "horse" tenders.

By no means am I. He was not incompetent... one only needs to look at how he too Vicksburg. He also was good at organizing. However, in the end, he (the North in general) had the advantage of manpower, industry, transportation etc.

In the latter part of the war, Grant took high casualties when fighting Lee. However, he could replace losses and get them there faster whereas Lee could not.

And granted, Lee would never have taken the top spot. However, in the very remote likelihood had he done so, I do believe the war would have been over with sooner. When I read about Lee, he was a good strategist and did a lot with little. And no, am not saying he was infallible.... *****sburg comes to mind right away.

[California Joe]

Because G-etty Images does not like when people hotlink or otherwise use their copywrited images on other websites without permission...

As a Limey you would like the quote in Killer Angels attributed to Gen. Longstreet when speaking about a member of the Colstream Guards that was traveling with his Corps...forgive me if I screw it up but I believe it was something to the effect "The British are a strange people, they speak like women but fight like tigers..."

[rjbhutton]

Because G-etty Images does not like when people hotlink or otherwise use their copywrited images on other websites without permission...

As a Limey you would like the quote in Killer Angels attributed to Gen. Longstreet when speaking about a member of the Colstream Guards that was traveling with his Corps...forgive me if I screw it up but I believe it was something to the effect "The British are a strange people, they speak like women but fight like tigers..."

"By George! Take that back, Sir!" : ) I think I will enjoy reading it... The Glorious Cause was a great read. Thanks for the info about G... ; ) A new swear word I can get away with!

[California Joe]

"Fremantle notes that Virginians are different than other Southerners. Honor is everything to Virginians. The two men speak of Garnett, and Fremantle just accepts without question that Garnett will die to restore his honor." He's an interesting character in the book, he speaks with Longstreet often...

[mudbunny]

"Fremantle notes that Virginians are different than other Southerners. Honor is everything to Virginians. The two men speak of Garnett, and Fremantle just accepts without question that Garnett will die to restore his honor." He's an interesting character in the book, he speaks with Longstreet often...

"Killer Angels" was required reading for one of my history classes and I'm a big fan of the book; Shaara does excellent work. Fremantle's observations about the similarity between the Confederate's and the English, as well as his many insights, are very interesting. The English would have been one helluva an ally for the Greys if it weren't for that slavery thing.
I'll try and dig up some quotes from Fremantle if I can find them.

[California Joe]

I really like that book. It makes sense. While there were a substantial amount of Irish in the Southern ranks including men like Gen. Patrick Cleburne, I would say that a great deal of the Southern "aristocracy" and thus their officer corps, at the time was of direct English descent. These men weren't that far removed from their relatives back in the old country...

As far as Grant goes, I've read that, like Sherman (whom he appointed to a command and his good friend) he embraced the idea of total warfare, in that regard he was largely ahead of his time. He was also right.

[history nut]

Megaraptor;2549160']"Decent corps commander" I would challenge. Remember Burnside's Bridge at Antietam. Tried for hours to send his men across a bridge into enemy fire over a river that was a few inches deep.

True about Antietam. But he was a corps commander under Grand/Meade in Virgina of '64 (still the 9th Corps I think) and had the foresight to approve the tunnel/mine at Petersburg. Even though the attack failed (for a lot of reasons) you've got to give them credit for trying.

Burnside's biggest blunders, of his many, had to Fredricksburg and the Mud March attempt at flanking Lee. Fredricksburg might have ended differently if Meade (on the Union left) had pushed harder when he breached the CS lines.

I can't remember for certain, but didn't he accept command of the Army of the Potomac reluctantly?

[nagant_m44]

I really like that book. It makes sense. While there were a substantial amount of Irish in the Southern ranks including men like Gen. Patrick Cleburne, I would say that a great deal of the Southern "aristocracy" and thus their officer corps, at the time was of direct English descent. These men weren't that far removed from their relatives back in the old country...

As far as Grant goes, I've read that, like Sherman (whom he appointed to a command and his good friend) he embraced the idea of total warfare, in that regard he was largely ahead of his time. He was also right.

Many people in the South think that he and sheridan were monsters for burning up the country. They also think grant was just a drunk that relied on human wave attacks:)

[history nut]

Cali Joe mentions Patrick Cleburne - certainly one of the best on both sides. He died less than a mile (as the crow flies) from our home in Franklin, TN.

Another great Irishman was Thomas Francis Meagher leading his Irish Brigade in the east.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Cali Joe mentions Patrick Cleburne - certainly one of the best on both sides. He died less than a mile (as the crow flies) from our home in Franklin, TN.

Cleburne had the idea of giving slaves their freedom in return for enlisting in the CS Army. Who knows if that would have happened if he had lived?

[history nut]

Many people in the South think that he and sheridan were monsters for burning up the country. They also think grant was just a drunk that relied on human wave attacks:)

Yet we southerners quickly forget about the burning of Chambersburg, PA in '63 - a year prior to Sherman and Grant's "total war". Of course burning Chambersbug was in retaliation for the destruction of VMI.... Face it no one can shake the blame. Modern "total war" was born in the American Civil War and has been used ever since. It just so happened that Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan (in the Valley) did it with zeal AND effect. Of course with most of the war taking place in the southern states, the CS didn't have a lot of opportunities to try it.

[history nut]

Megaraptor;2549517']Cleburne had the idea of giving slaves their freedom in return for enlisting in the CS Army. Who knows if that would have happened if he had lived?

Didn't the CS Gov't decide to do this near the end (long after Cleburne's recommendation was dismissed)? I forget.

[Hollis]

Many people in the South think that he and sheridan were monsters for burning up the country. They also think grant was just a drunk that relied on human wave attacks:)


Many people in the South/Southern style heritage also think the CSA Naval Jack/Cracker flag is the battle Flag of the CSA too.

The most popular flag made to day in the US, is the CSA Naval Jack, it is rectangle compare to the Battle Flag which is square.

What was also funny Trudeau (Doonesbury fame) thought the Stars and Bars (1st CSA National) was the battle flag.

People market "kepis" calling them CW hats, with cross rifles on them, The Infantry had the Hunting Horn.

Then there is some strange popular notion the CW was about Freeing the Slaves.

I guess history gets lost in the revision of time.

[Hollis]

Didn't the CS Gov't decide to do this near the end (long after Cleburne's recommendation was dismissed)? I forget.


First Black units that were raised was New Orleans Home Guard. But then NO was more like Europe in many ways than the South.

A good book is the "Southern's View of the War", by William Pollard who was the editor of the Richmond Journal during the War.

[history nut]

The Civil War battlefield must have been a surreal site, if you could see it through the smoke. 100,000 guys shooting at each other for a couple days makes a lot of smoke and noise. The tactics of the day were based on a combination of two main things: command and control and volume of fire. If your men couldn't see you (terrain, smoke, etc) or hear you (including drums and bugles) you couldn't command them - hence the rank and file, shoulder to shoulder, in the face of rifled small arms and massed artillery. Volley fire, fire by file, etc from two ranks sent more lead downrange. They weren't necessarily being suicidal, it's just the way they fought. There are exceptions to everything...CW soldiers dug in a lot (towards the end they dug in at almost every stop, at least some rudimentary breastworks). Heck, they even hid behind trees and rocks, contrary to some beliefs and kneeled or fired from the ****e position. They weren't stupid. They fought as they trained based on the technologuy of the day... just like armies around the world do now.

[mudbunny]

I really like that book. It makes sense. While there were a substantial amount of Irish in the Southern ranks including men like Gen. Patrick Cleburne, I would say that a great deal of the Southern "aristocracy" and thus their officer corps, at the time was of direct English descent. These men weren't that far removed from their relatives back in the old country...

Exactly. ...

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Many people in the South/Southern style heritage also think the CSA Naval Jack/Cracker flag is the battle Flag of the CSA too.

The most popular flag made to day in the US, is the CSA Naval Jack, it is rectangle compare to the Battle Flag which is square.

The battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia was square, however the battle flag of the Army of Tennessee was a rectangle. Same design, different shape.


Didn't the CS Gov't decide to do this near the end (long after Cleburne's recommendation was dismissed)? I forget.

A few slaves were forced into units and drilled at bayonet point before the capture of Richmond but they never saw combat.

By 1865, it was too late for that idea to work. It would have had to come before the Emancipation Proclamation for it to have worked in the Confederacy's favor.

[mudbunny]

Megaraptor;2549633']The battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia was square, however the battle flag of the Army of Tennessee was a rectangle. Same design, different shape.



A few slaves were forced into units and drilled at bayonet point before the capture of Richmond but they never saw combat.

By 1865, it was too late for that idea to work. It would have had to come before the Emancipation Proclamation for it to have worked in the Confederacy's favor.

The EP was as much about pulling the moral rug out underneath the feet of the Confederacy as it was about freeing human beings from servitude. Just as the Feds needed the South to fire the first shots of the war at Sumter.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

The EP was as much about pulling the moral rug out underneath the feet of the Confederacy as it was about freeing human beings from servitude. Just as the Feds needed the South to fire the first shots of the war at Sumter.

True, but what I meant was that no slave would fight for the south in return for his freedom, if by the Union winning the war he would be free without fighting plus all his friends and family would be free.

Pre-EP, the Union winning would have left slavery legal, and I would imagine that many slaves would have signed up for the CSA in return for their freedom.

[mudbunny]

Megaraptor;2549646']True, but what I meant was that no slave would fight for the south in return for his freedom, if by the Union winning the war he would be free without fighting plus all his friends and family would be free.

Pre-EP, the Union winning would have left slavery legal, and I would imagine that many slaves would have signed up for the CSA in return for their freedom.

Yeah, I agree. At the end of the day those folks were looking for, what they thought was freedom, and could care less under whose banner they fought.

[Hollis]

Megaraptor;2549633']The battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia was square, however the battle flag of the Army of Tennessee was a rectangle. Same design, different shape.




The war is most notible in the Eastern Theatre, the west was pretty unknown. Yes, lots of variations in the West.

ANV is probably what most people think about the CS Army. Anyway, the story of the Cracker flag goes back a long way and is supported by Union Artists who drew the CSA Battle flag like the National Colors. Same with the famous European artist who painted scenes of the battle of G-berg and Inserted European style hay stacks where "G-berg style hay stacks were.

[Hollis]

In regard to slaves, MANY were very loyal to their master.... No different than in Feudal Europe. It is just not PC to say they where loyal to their masters. Most plantations where runned by slaves when their white masters went to war.

Loyalty transcends many inequities.

Also note some personal servants took up arms agains the Union to defend their masters.

[California Joe]

Hollis probably knows better than I but I'd say more people fought for the Confederacy under the Bonnie Blue flag than the Battle Guidon that people remember.....

[aclark79]

Issac I. Stevens, killed at the battle of Chantilly (or Ox HIll for you southerners) leading the 79th NY against the Confederates. He was an amazing man and an amazing general.

http://www.pbase.com/aclark79/image/39454349.jpg



Isaac Stevens was born on March 28, 1818, in North Andover, Massachusetts. He attended Phillips Academy in Andover and graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1839, the first in his class. In 1840 he was commissioned second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Stevens spent most of 1847 with the engineer corps in General Winfield Scott’s Mexico campaign. After the siege of Vera Cruz, he was made adjutant to Major John L. Smith, commander of the engineer corps attached to Scott’s army. The nine-member engineer corps selected sites for fortifications, constructed field works, and provided information about unfamiliar terrain and enemy positions. The contributions of corps members Robert E. Lee, P.G.T. Beauregard, and George B. McClellan to the success of the Mexican campaign are well known, but Stevens’s contributions have received less attention. Stevens saw action at Cerro Gordo, Contreras, Churubusco, and Chapultepec, where he was seriously wounded on September 13. He was promoted to brevet captain for gallant and meritorious conduct at the Battles of Contreras and Churubusco and brevet major for the wound he took at Chapultepec.

When the Civil War began, Stevens entered the Union Army as colonel of the 79th Regiment of New York Volunteers, known as the Highlanders. His success in bringing discipline to the mutinous regiment contributed to his commission as brigadier general from Washington Territory in September 1861. Assigned to the command of General Thomas W. Sherman, Stevens spent the first year of the war in coastal South Carolina and took part in the bombardment of Port Royal, near Charleston, in November 1861. On June 16, 1862, he commanded the main assult force in the Battle of Secessionville, fought on St. James Island. In August 1862, he joined General John Pope's forces at Culpeper Courthouse, Virginia, passing through Newport News and Fredericksburg on his way. He commanded a division at the Second Battle of Bull Run and the Battle of Chantilly, where he was killed on September 1, 1862.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

In regard to slaves, MANY were very loyal to their master.... No different than in Feudal Europe.

Well, like European serfs that was probably the case simply because that's how they were taught from birth...that doesn't mean they didn't appreciate their freedom once they got it.

[history nut]

Some men (mostly officers) in several northern regiments, especially from Kentucky, brought their slaves with them to war as man-servants and valets. I've read many letters and diaries of men of the 9th Kentucky (US) that reference this up to Stones River in December of 1862. The 9th discouraged this practice when their baggage trains were attacked by Wheeler's CS cavalry and their man-servants/valets were executed. During the same campaign, some men of the 9th KY US came upon a CS picket post near present day Smyrna, TN and attacked killing a couple of the CS troops - one being black and in uniform. Very rare for late 1862. Many of the US troops out west were fighting for the preservation of the Union and could care less about slavery. I'm not saying that this wasn't true elsewhere, but there was certainly a stronger anti-slavery populace in the east.

[Hollis]

Megaraptor;2550019']Well, like European serfs that was probably the case simply because that's how they were taught from birth...that doesn't mean they didn't appreciate their freedom once they got it.


I think the important part is what you just stated, "...that's how they were taught..." The field slave only had two role models, the master or the slave. The carpetbaggers took advantaged of that fact, which exacerbated developing "civil rights" in the South. A conflict develop between the carpetbaggers and the Southerner who was trying to keep the carpetbaggers from looting the South. The Victim was the newly freed people who felt the rise and viciousness of southern anti-race groups, such as the Klan.

This time demonstrates that true freedom is in the mind, how we believe we are in relation with others around us. A person just cannot be liberated physically alone when all they ever known was slavery/repression. They need to also be liberated in their minds. The old expression, "Bars a prison do not make", is another example. There are some excellent writtings on liberation theology in the South and the underground black culture in the South (out of view of whites).

There were some who after the war, preferred to stay with their previous owners and actually felt liberation was a bad turn. Probably some serf felt the same when they gained freedom. I really is what a person as grown accustomed too. (also like today in parts of the world)

[ElHombre]

My personal opinion, forced on no one, was that Grant was less of a brilliant general and more of a realist. He basically had to do what he had to do and employed a war of attrition. It shocked many at the time, but it got the job done.

Hardly fair to Grant. Grant always tried to outmaneuver his foes. Take the Vicksburg campaign. He outmaneuvered one Confederate army after another. Frontal assaults were a last resort. I've got a ACW magazine in my library with an article with a dozen leading military historians. They were all asked to rank the various generals, irrespective of which side. Grant always led the list.

[Midav]

Hardly fair to Grant. Grant always tried to outmaneuver his foes. Take the Vicksburg campaign. He outmaneuvered one Confederate army after another. Frontal assaults were a last resort. I've got a ACW magazine in my library with an article with a dozen leading military historians. They were all asked to rank the various generals, irrespective of which side. Grant always led the list.

Isn't that what I said about Vicksburg?

Look at the larger campaign and read what I post...........

[nagant_m44]

Yet we southerners quickly forget about the burning of Chambersburg, PA in '63 - a year prior to Sherman and Grant's "total war". Of course burning Chambersbug was in retaliation for the destruction of VMI.... Face it no one can shake the blame. Modern "total war" was born in the American Civil War and has been used ever since. It just so happened that Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan (in the Valley) did it with zeal AND effect. Of course with most of the war taking place in the southern states, the CS didn't have a lot of opportunities to try it.

in all fairness, Union Gen David Hunter did ransack and burn alot of the Shenandoah before the burning of Chambersburg

[history nut]

Cali Joe -

Check out "Lincoln's Cavalrymen: A History of the Mounted Forces of The Army of the Potomac, 1861-1865" by Edward G. Longacre. Stackpole Books, 2000.

If you're into Federal Cavalry you'll find this to be a good one.