TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog » Ray B

Grant Finally Underestimates the South

Ray B — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:34:09 +0000

I never quite grasped where such strong feelings towards the Confederacy come from. Some southerners (certainly not all) pine for and bemoan a government that barely existed 150 years ago- a country founded in war and never tested for its mettle outside that war. As a “northerner” born and raised in the heart of Yankee territory, I probably never will understand the proclamation that they are southerners first, and Americans only by happenstance.

I’ve tried to rationalize- for my own understanding- that people are merely honoring the soldiers that fought and died for what they believed would be a better way of life. I have also come to realize that for many people, it is so much more. Almost form the conclusion of the war, there have been those who would cry for their lost cause, and even attempt to claim victory from defeat. Throughout the course of the last 145 years, there have been southern movements by groups such as the SCV that have made every attempt to glorify their ancestors, and put the best possible light on the reasons for secession in the first place. Some have done so to the point of distorting history in favor of their own views, while accusing others of doing just that!

General Grant, one of the greatest generals of the war, and perhaps history, almost always snatched victory from the hands of the enemy. He had an almost uncanny sense in determining the personalities and the military prowess of those he was going up against. He smashed the confederate armies time after time, executing some of the boldest campaigns in history. He never underestimated his foe, and because of that, he was never defeated. But he was an American, and a loyal unionist. He believed that in time the southerners would be again as well, while also understanding that it would take time; the wounds were too fresh to be healed in his time.

As I struggle to understand the strong CS sentiments of the south, I realize that far more enlightened men than I have struggled over this same question. For, even with his military genius, in this subject even Grant finally underestimated the true tenacity of the south.

“I would not have the anniversaries of our victories celebrated, nor those of our defeats made fast days and spent in humiliation and prayer; but I would like to see truthful history written. Such history will do full credit to the courage, endurance and soldierly ability of the American citizen, no matter what section of the country he hailed from, or in what ranks he fought. The justice of the cause which in the end prevailed, will, I doubt not, come to be acknowledged by every citizen of the land, in time. For the present, and so long as there are living witnesses of the great war of sections, there will be people who will not be consoled for the loss of a cause which they believed to be holy. As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man”

“Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant”

“In time”, he says. How much time? Isn’t 150 years time enough?

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

Grant Finally Underestimates the South

Supermen

Ray B — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:00:26 +0000

I think that sometimes as we are looking back on the war we tend to get lost in the research and in the controversy. We look at things from a detached view. We see the general, or the army, or the campaign. THE CAUSE! Every so often I think it is important that we sit back, relax, and look at the individuals who fought this great war. Be they Federals, or Confederates, the men who fought and died on both sides are real supermen.

In the past few years I have gotten into the hobby of Civil War reenacting. As much as I enjoy the events and the camaraderie, I am utterly exhausted at the end of the weekend! On the rides home I have plenty of time to think about the weekend, and how tired I am, and what we are trying to represent. How tired I am… after about 48 hours of sitting in a camp and a couple hours of drill. Wow…

Invariably, on these long drives home, I come to the realization that what I just experienced is nothing compared to what these men did. For 4 years, these men marched hundreds… thousands of miles, fought pitched battles after marching 18 hours strait, in the pouring rain, Fought tooth and nail for every inch of ground, sometimes went days without a single bite to eat and still answered the call when it came. When I stop to think about all this, I can’t help but wonder how in the world they were able to go on. Exhausted, starving, drenched in sweat or rain, injured, bleeding, being shot at, shoeless (even the ones with shoes I feel for, those shoes aren’t very comfortable anyways) hour after hour, day after day. Summer’s stifling heat, the brutal cold in the winter camps. And what was the reward when they made it back to camp or stopped to rest after a battle? A few less men in the ranks. Empty tents, missing buddies who they had walked besides mile after mile. And 2 hours later when it was time to go, did they complain? Did they ask the officers for five minutes more to sleep? Where was their snooze alarm? “Wait just a minute Captain my coffee is almost done!” No… they stood up, grabbed their muskets, strapped on their accouterments and stormed the bridges.

So when you are reading the next book, pondering what you would have done differently, or arguing over why the war was fought on some online forum, just take a breath, sit back and think about the little guy. Think about the supermen.

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

Supermen

Thoughts on Winter Weather

A Small Lesson in Tactics Part II

Ray B — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:00:41 +0000

2. Buying Time

One of the reasons there were only 300 Spartan’s at the battle of Thermopylae was that the king could not win support of his constituents to go to war, and so took his own “bodyguard” of 300 off for a stroll. Apart from winning support for the war at home, Leonidis’ actions gave time for the rest of the Greek city states to react.

Xerxes knew that in order to gain control of Greece, the capitol state of Athens must fall. Athens was his primary goal. Once the Athenians finally believed that Xerxes could not be stopped, they needed time to react. They could not let Xerxes, with his army of 5 million, just walk into Athens, and they were powerless to stop them. An overall evacuation of Athens was ordered, and the citizens and Armies of Greece assembled on the small Island of Salamis just west of Athens. It was close enough that they could watch as the Persians looted and pillaged their city from across the water.

Now, the only way Xerxes could truly defeat the Greeks, was to land his army on the island and try to take it by force. But first he had to destroy the Greek navy. The Greeks seemingly had already learned from Leonidas and his Spartans at Thermopylae, and arranged their much smaller fleet in such a way that it narrowed the fighting area, choking the Persian Fleet between two jutes of land, and defeating them in detail.

Evacuation of the entirety of lower Greece, and assembly of the fleet off of Salamis, could not happen overnight. If Leonidas had failed to delay Xerxes at Thermopylae, Athens would surely have been overrun before they could evacuate, and forced into servitude, (which is exactly how Xerxes had such a large army in the first place.)

Fast forward again to Burnside’s damnable bridge. An entire corps on the Confederate right would have caught the Confederate army in a vice, and squeezed them together against the Union corps already north of Sharpsburg. The entire Confederate army would have no choice but to flee to Sharpsburg, and be caught against the river much like Hooker at Chancelorsville. The inevitable outcome would have been utter destruction, or surrender of, the entire Confederate army.

Gen. Toombs, in delaying the fight at the bridge for three hours, allowed A.P. Hill to come up with his forces from Harper’s Ferry just in time to check the Union attack at a crucial moment. (The Union stopping for lunch did not help matters much). All though Antietam itself was a marginal Union victory (more like a stalemate), if Toombs had not been able to hold his position as long as he had, it is quite possible that the majority of the Confederate forces would have been lost that day. A small victory, snatched from almost certain defeat.

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

A Small Lesson in Tactics Part II

A Small Lesson in Tactics Part 1

Ray B — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:00:03 +0000

Lessons of Thermopylae

The battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC has long stood as the premier example of defending against a force that largely outnumbers the defenders. Fought in a small pass in the northern province of Greece, Analyzing this battle can teach many aspects of tactical planning and development that can be used even in military applications today.

A total force of some 7000 Greek and Spartan allies was able to hold off an invading force of perhaps millions. (Xerxes’ Persian army consisted of a little over 5 million, but not all were present at Thermopylae. Estimates range anywhere from 300,000-800,000 actually took part in this battle.)
Through use of a mountain pass, Leonidas was able to narrow the battlefront between two cliffs. He was then able to consolidate his 7,000 man army into tighter formations, without sacrificing security on his flanks. By doing this, he decreased Xerxes army from hundreds of thousands, to only a few thousand effectives at any single time, a number much easier to handle. After 3 days, all but 2000 of the Allied Greek fighting force were dismissed. Ultimately, after 4 days of fighting, the vastly outnumbered forces were defeated, but with a terrible cost;. 7000 Defenders had inflicted 25,000 casualties on the invading force.

1. The Choke Point and the Numbers Game

Throughout the Civil War, many battles and skirmishes can be used as examples of different aspects of what can be learned from the Spartans at Thermopylae, but first I would address the most vital lesson to be learned; effective use of a choke point to increase defensive capabilities. Burnside’s Bridge at the battle of Antietam proves a very good example for employing this tactic.

Brig. General Toombs had only 520 men from the 2nd, 20th and 50th GA at his disposal to hold off what was supposed to be the entire IX corps. Knowing he could not hold off a full scale attack, he positioned 400 men from the 2nd and 20th at the mouth of the bridge. He also used 120 men from the 50th GA in a skirmish line opposite the Union approach. Using the bridge as a choke point, Toombs ensured that Burnside could not attack with more than a few hundred at any one time. He also ensured that any of those who were to attack, would be severely harassed before they ever got across the bridge. It is also important to note that the Union troops could not cross this bridge in line of battle, but would have to cross in line of columns. Once on the bridge, the Line of Columns formation would not permit the union to stop and fire to fight there way across. They would only be able to cross 4 or 8 wide and so tightly packed that no man past the second row would be able to fire to the front. This left only a dozen or so men at any one time vulnerable to the fire from across the bridge from a force of 400. Roughly 3000 Union troops attempted to take the bridge over a 3 hour period.

Like the battle of Thermopylae, the defenders could not possibly hold forever. As the Spartans were betrayed, the Georgians, after 3 hours of constant assaults, began running out of ammunition. The Georgians retreated, and the 51st NY and PA advanced across the bridge, but like the Persians, victory had come at a terrible price for the Union. The 11th CT lost 33% casualties, the 2nd MD 44%. 500 men all together suffered on the Union side, while, as testament to their excellent tactical advantage, the Confederate forces only lost 120.

Many more lessons from Thermopylae can be applied to the Civil War, and there were other advantages to losing Burnside’s Bridge and Thermopylae that will be addressed in later entries. Part II will be posted after the weekend!

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

A Small Lesson in Tactics Part 1

Review: “What this Cruel War was Over”

Ray B — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:45:58 +0000

In the great debate of Slavery Vs. State’s rights, there is a new recruit on the field. One who immensely researched letters, diaries, and journals from soldiers on the front line to get, straight from their own mouths, what they as individuals were fighting over.

Chandra Manning’s What This Cruel War was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War is a must have for any serious student of our Civil War. In her book, Manning has combed through thousands of interviews, letters home, diaries and journals to follow the typical Union and Confederate soldier throughout the war, and show how attitudes changed as battles, political and military, were won or lost. In it, she attempts to explain, once and for all, why it is that a southern man with no land, or a man from Maine who has never laid eyes on a black man would fight on his behalf.

Rather than looking at the debate from both sides, Manning takes an exclusive look at soldier’s viewpoints on slavery, addressing why the individual felt it his solemn duty to keep or abolish slavery. Because of such a one sided presentation, I fear that the book itself may be only preaching to the choir, and will fall on deaf ears for those who do not share the views.

One who already shares Manning’s views, will surely learn new connections between slavery and the common foot soldier, but in the end it will only stand to reinforce what he already believed in, and supply more sources to draw on to make get his point across. Although I would hope persons of all viewpoints will learn from this, I believe that many of the “State’s Rights” persuasion will dismiss Manning’s observations as too heavily biased towards the northern cause, or as whitewashing the administration.

For me, however, I think it is an important addition to any body’s library, no matter what their own beliefs may be. In order to understand the war more fully, we must understand why it was fought. Not why the history books say it was fought, not why politicians of the time say it was fought, but why the every day grunt out in the trenches and battlefields say they fought. This is who Chandra Manning addresses, and they are who ultimately paid the price.

Did you enjoy this blog entry? Subscribe to TOCWOC’s RSS feed today!

Read more Civil War Book Reviews here at TOCWOC!

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

Review: “What this Cruel War was Over”

The Ground is Red… My Induction into This Great Conflict

Ray B — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:26:29 +0000

They say you are a green troop, a rookie if you will, until your baptism by fire. “See the elephant” and you will truly be inducted into the great armies of the world. My first glimpse at this elephant was when I was about 7 or 8 years old.

My aunt moved to Virginia from Rhode Island when I was about that age. Being very close to my parents, we would visit her in Virginia pretty regularly over the summers. Just about every summer from age 7 until at least age 14 was spent in Virginia with my cousin who was but a couple years younger than I. So what exactly do you do with a couple of rowdy boys over a hot Virginia summer to keep them from tearing down the house around your ears? The answer to this question lay in a quiet rural town called New Market. Some of my first child hood memories involve me and my cousin running in front of those canons.

Now, I don’t know how many of you have been to Virginia, but the ground is almost invariably red from all the clay in the ground. Of course, being only 7 or so when I first noticed this, I had to ask my mom why. “The ground is red from the blood of all the soldiers who died here.” Wow.. way to go Mom. Is there anything that would peek a little boy’s interest more than soldiers, and blood? Even if there is, it was enough for me. Shortly after that I received my first Civil War book, Golden Book of the Civil War. Ever since that day it was books, books, more books, followed by kidnapping my parents and making them take me on all sorts of Civil War battlefield tours. Hours of boredom for them and my poor sister who had no interest in history whatsoever!

So here I am 20 years later, slightly more educated, and I still believe the ground is red from all the blood. I have also narrowed my “expertise” to the Shenandoah Valley campaigns of 1862 and 1864, and the Wilderness campaign of 1864, where the unstoppable force meet the immovable object for the first time. Having lived in Virginia for about 6 or 7 years (Front Royal and Winchester) made it very easy to stay focused on the Eastern Theater. As such, I am sorry to say my experience with the Western Theater at this point is sadly lacking, but I still have plenty of time to concentrate on that!

Ray B

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

The Ground is Red… My Induction into This Great Conflict