Matrix Games Forums

A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Civil War 150th

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: Walloc
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Civil War 150th Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/14/2012 5:15:05 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

Events began to move more and more quickly. In Kentucky, Confederate forces came to Munfordville, a station on the Louisville & Nashville Railroad and the location of an important railroad bridge. The Rebels under Brigadier James Chalmers attacked, but unsuccessfully. Chalmers then sent a note announcing that he had a much bigger Confederate army at his call (true), and the Federals should surrender "to avoid further bloodshed". The Union Colonel promptly sent a note back saying, "If you wish to avoid further bloodshed keep out of the range of my guns." Reluctantly, Chalmers contacted Braxton Bragg and requested the remainder of the Army of Tennessee to come up.

At Harpers Ferry, Stonewall Jackson's force had completed the surrounding of the town. The Union commander had decided to concentrate his forces inside the town, since the heights nearby were not connected, and he feared having parts of his force cut off. It was a fatal mistake. The Confederates occupied all three high points, posted artillery, and began their bombardment. It was quickly discovered that the Union cannon did not have the range to reach the Confederate batteries, but with the advantage of elevation, the Confederates could hit anywhere in town.

The Southerners did make one slip. A single road was left poorly guarded, allowing the 1,300 Union cavalry to escape. Worse, along the way they encountered a Confederate supply column and captured roughly sixty of the scarce transport wagons.

In Maryland, McClellan's Army of the Potomac had to march through the gaps in a line of hills to confront Lee's army. There were three useful passes, Turner's Gap, Fox's Gap, and Crampton's Gap. The Yankees attacked them all. Only at the Battle of Crampton's Gap were the Yankees really successful. With odds of 12,800 against 2,100 , the result was pretty much foregone -- the Rebels were routed and the Federals streamed through to the valley beyond. But the Union commander had lost three invaluable hours assembling his forces before the assault, and now there was not enough time to attack Maryland Heights and come to the relief of the Harpers Ferry garrison.

In London, Prime Minister Lord Palmerston reacted to the news of Second Manassas and wrote the Foreign Secretary, Lord Russell:

94 Piccadilly - September 14, 1862-

My dear Russell,

The detailed accounts given in the "Observer" today of the battles of August 29 and 30 between the Confederates and the Federals show that the latter got a very complete smashing ; and it seems not altogether unlikely that still greater disasters await them, and that even Washington or Baltimore may fall into the hands of the Confederates.

If this should happen, would it not be time for us to consider whether in such a state of things England and France might not address the contending parties and recommend an arrangement upon the basis of separation?

Yours sincerely,
Palmerston





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 661
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/15/2012 12:21:36 AM   
radic202


Posts: 402
Joined: 6/7/2012
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
OMG! This is an awesome thread and for a Canadian like me reading up on all this US Civil War History, Battle stories etc is so enriching and educating. A huge Thanks for those who have added pieces of history here.

But can I ask for one favour please? Can you add the dates that these events occurred (some do have dates but not all) it would put it so much more in context for me to have a date/time/place.

Again a huge thanks for the History lessons here.

Gosh I wish I was able to put something like this together on the War of 1812 or even the French/English of War (Montcalm vs Wolfe)(Battles of Fort Louisbourg etc.) of New France/Canada.

Encore une fois un Gros Merci mon ami!

_____________________________

It is much harder to think about doing something than actually doing it!

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 662
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/15/2012 5:29:29 PM   
planner 3

 

Posts: 618
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline
radic202....Note name of Forum "150 years ago today" ....I'm sure we both use same calendar, just to be sure today is Saturday, Sept. 15, 2012, subtract 150 years and it would be 1862, Sept15, etc....

Now SMILE

_____________________________

"As Pogo said, 'We have met the enemy and he is us' "

(in reply to radic202)
Post #: 663
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/15/2012 8:03:50 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

But can I ask for one favour please? Can you add the dates that these events occurred (some do have dates but not all) it would put it so much more in context for me to have a date/time/place.


If you take a look at the blue border above each post it gives the date. (I've scrambled to try to give each post on the 150th anniversary of the date, but occasionally I haven't quite made it, and that's when I give the date in the post.)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to radic202)
Post #: 664
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/15/2012 8:23:46 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

At Harpers Ferry, early in the morning, the Union Colonel in command sent out a white flag. Since the Confederates were divided into three separate positions, some of the cannoneers received the word to cease firing later than others. One of the last shells fired shredded the Union colonel's legs, and he died minutes later. (There is a rumor that the shell was actually detonated by his own men, disgusted at his poor defense tactics.) His replacement had to deal with the surrender negotiations, which consisted of a demand for unconditional surrender. He gave it, and then Stonewall Jackson proceded to grant generous terms much like those that Grant would eventually accord to Lee. Officers were permitted to retain side-arms and other personal property, and the men would be paroled instead of taken into captivity.

By this time, Harpers Ferry was almost a ghost town. The bridges and railroads to it had been thoroughly wrecked, and all the civilians who had anywhere else to go had left. To be fair, most of the Confederate soldiers and Jackson himself presented a seedy appearance upon marching into town. One captured Union soldier gazed at the Rebel commander and called out to his fellows, "Boys, he's not much for looks, but if we'd had him we wouldn't have been caught in this trap!"

Once again, Jackson's force had made a noble haul of weapons and other supplies. There were 73 cannon still in operating condition, 12,000 small arms, the usual piles of rations and clothing, and potentially the most important, over 200 wagons in better condition than any in Lee's army. This more than made up for the 60 wagons the Union cavalry had taken the day before. Jackson quickly sent word to Lee that he would soon be bringing his force back to Lee's main body. (Which was why he had granted parole to the Yankees.) A much-cheered Lee decided to stand firm and fight McClellan's army instead of retreating.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 9/16/2012 1:59:51 AM >


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 665
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/16/2012 8:43:41 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

Large armies were being assembled. At Munfordville, Kentucky, Braxton Bragg was getting his Army of Tennessee in position for a siege. He gave special care to the siting of his heavy artillery, since the Yankee fortifications had proven resistant to the light artillery of the failed attack of the 14th. Bragg was short-tempered at the best of times, but he was especially annoyed at that moment. He needed to worry about the large Union army under Don Carlos Buell which was attempting to engage him.

Fortunately for Bragg, Buell was under instructions from Washington to save the major city of Louisville, Kentucky. The Yankees would march north of Munfordville without going to its relief.


Map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com


Of much greater importance, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and McClellan's Army of the Potomac had made contact near Sharpsburg, Maryland. There was a stream to the east of the town called Antietam Creek, which McClellan needed to get over, and he spent much of the day getting his infantry and artillery across two bridges in the north. One bridge in the south was covered by Southern troops, and McClellan decided to storm it the next day.

McClellan was still under the delusion that the Confederates had more troops than he did. His estimate was that he faced 120,000 Rebels. In truth, the day had started with Lee having pulled together perhaps 25,000. McClellan was missing a near-certain victory. To give him credit, a heavy morning fog helped to keep the advance Union troops from discovering the truth. Meanwhile, Stonewall Jackson's force began to arrive. They were none too many for what the morrow would bring.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 9/16/2012 9:17:30 PM >


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 666
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/17/2012 1:58:45 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

In London, the Foreign Secretary replied to the Prime Minister:

Gotha: September 17, 1862.

My dear Palmerston, - Whether the Federal army is destroyed or not, it is clear that it is driven back to Washington, and has made no progress in subduing the insurgent States. Such being the case, I agree with you that the time is come for offering mediation to the United States Government, with a view to the recognition of the independence of the Confederates. I agree further, that, in case of failure, we ought ourselves to recognise the Southern States as an independent State. For the purpose of taking so important a step, I think we must have a meeting of the Cabinet. The 23rd or 30th would suit me for the meeting.

We ought then, if we agree on such a step, to propose it first to France, and then, on the part of England and France, to Russia and other powers, as a measure decided upon by us.

We ought to make ourselves safe in Canada, not by sending more troops there, but by concentrating those we have in a few defensible posts before the winter sets in.

I hope to get home on Sunday, but a letter sent to the Foreign Office is sure to reach me.

Yours truly,
Lord Russell



In Kentucky, Braxton Bragg generously allowed the Union Colonel in command at Munfordville to tour his gun emplacements. Counting 46 cannon in the largest but by no means the only Confederate battery, the Northern commander surrendered the town and its garrison of 4,000 men.


But the day is known for what happened near Sharpsburg, Maryland. McClellan's plan of attack was reasonable on paper. His thought was to overwhelm the Confederate left while making a diversionary attack over a bridge on the right. However, where Lee had not paid enough attention to security, McClellan paid too much. He gave his sub-commanders only their specific orders, rather than the overall plan. What might have been coordinated attacks did not happen, and the end result was essentially three separate actions.


Map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com

In the morning, "Fighting Joe" Hooker's bluecoats attacked the Confederate left, which was largely camped in a cornfield next to a small "Dunker" church. The Union artillery went first, pounding the cornfield with shell and grapeshot and inflicting serious losses. Hooker later reported 'In the time I am writing, every stalk of corn in the northern and greater part of the field was cut as closely as could have been done with a knife, and the slain lay in rows precisely as they had stood in their ranks a few moments before.' But there were still enough men to put up a fight against the Federal infantry attack that followed, and the Rebels were reinforced by a brigade of Texans under John Bell Hood. The Texans had fallen out to cook their first decent meal in three days when the urgent call had come. Understandably, they were enraged, and they took it out on the Yankees they held responsible. From then on, it became a furious see-saw battle, with each side feeding in reserves:

"Before the corn were open fields, beyond which was … the Dunkard church. As we appeared at the edge of the corn, a long line of men in butternut and gray rose up from the ground. Simultaneously, the hostile battle lines opened a tremendous fire upon each other. Men, I can not say fell; they were knocked out of the ranks by dozens. But we jumped over the fence, and pushed on, loading, firing, and shouting as we advanced. There was ... eagerness to go forward, and a reckless disregard of life, of everything but victory. . .
Men and officers of New York and Wisconsin are fused into a common mass, in the frantic struggle to shoot fast. Every body tears cartridges, loads, passes guns, or shoots. Men are falling in their places or running back into the corn. The soldier who is shooting is furious in his energy. The soldier who is shot looks around for help with an imploring agony of death on his face...
Another line of our men came up through the corn. We all joined together... The men are loading and firing with demoniacal fury and shouting and laughing hysterically, and the whole field before us is covered with rebels fleeing for life, into the woods. We push on over the open fields half way to the little church. The powder is bad, and the guns have become very dirty. It takes hard pounding to get the bullets down, and our firing is becoming slow. A long and steady line of rebel gray, unbroken by the fugitives who fly before us, comes sweeping down through the woods around the church. They raise the yell and fire. It is like a scythe running through our line. "Now, save who can." It is a race for life that each man runs for the cornfield.
-- Major Rufus R. Dawes, 6th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry.

(Dawes served with the Army of the Potomac from Bull Run to the Siege of Petersburg. After the war, Dawes returned to a number of the battlefields he had fought on -- but never Antietam.)

Neither side could break through, and after four hours of slaughter, Rebel and Yankee were too exhausted to continue in that sector. When asked by a fellow officer where his division was, Hood replied, "Dead on the field."

At 10:00 a.m. the Union corps under General Sumner attacked Lee's center. The Confederates there were posted in a sunken road which provided an improvised but effective fortification, which is now known to history as Bloody Lane. Instead of back-and -forth charges and counter-charges, here the Confederates stood and for a time held off repeated assaults by the Federals. The cost was staggering for both sides, and each called for reinforcements.

Eventually one Rebel unit misundertood an order and pulled back from its position. The Yankees dashed up to the spot, and found that they could now deliver an enfilading fire down virtually the entire length of Bloody Lane. What had been a strong point now became a death-trap. The Confederate survivors fell back, and the center of Lee's postion had been broken. And by this time Lee had committed his last reserves of infantry.

At this moment of crisis, James "Old Pete" Longstreet stepped up. He sent every cannon he could find into line, even holding the horses of the cannoneers and correcting the ranges himself when their spotters went down. The cost was heavy, for the veteran Union artillerists quickly started a powerful counter-battery fire, but the advancing Union infantry hesitated. General D.H. Hill seized the moment, and called for volunteers for a counter-charge. No one stepped up until Hill himself grabbed a musket and went forward, and was followed by a mere two hundred men. They were driven back in a matter of moments, but the Federal advance stopped -- and did not start up again.

A full corps under Fitz-John Porter was ready to exploit the break in the Southern lines, which might very well have meant the destruction of Lee's army and soon, the end of the Civil War. But, Porter is said to have told McClellan, "Remember, General, I command the last reserve of the last Army of the Republic." Those were the exact words to make McClellan hold off, and that is what he did. By 2:00 the fighting in the center had sputtered out, leaving nearly 6,000 men dead and wounded at Bloody Lane.

To the south, Ambrose Burnside had taken nearly the entire day to solve the problem of getting his men on the other side of the bridge and to the crest of the hill beyond. For once, McClellan got a taste of his own medicine: his repeated orders to Burnside to attack were obeyed half-heartedly, and with much delay. At last, a straight-on charge across the bridge plus other units wading across lower down brought Burnside's Yankees to a position ready to advance on the Confederate left. Most of the men there had been sent off in the desperate attempts to save the Cornfield and Bloody Lane, but the remaining Southerners fired furiously:

“…As the range grew better, the firing became more rapid, the situation desperate and exasperating to the last degree. Human nature was on the rack, and there burst forth from it the most vehement, terrible swearing I have ever heard. Certainly the joy of the conflict was not ours that day. The suspense was only for a moment, however, for the order to charge came just after. Whether the regiment was thrown into disorder or not, I never knew. I only remember that we rose and started all the fire that had been held back so long was loosed. In a second the air was full of the hiss of bullets and the hurtle of grape-shot. The mental strain was so great that I saw at that moment the singular effect mentioned, I think, in the life of Goethe on a similar occasion - the whole landscape for an instant turned slightly red."
-- David Thompson, 9th New York Volunteers


Now Lee's army was in grave danger. The charge to the flank and rear could have rolled up the entire position, and left north as the only direction to retreat, after which starvation would be only a matter of time. The Southerners desperately needed reinforcements -- and Lee had none to give. But in one of the most dramatic moments of the war, just then A.P. Hill's division arrived from Harpers Ferry. Hill had set out with 5,000 men, but had only 3,000 left in formation after marching 17 miles (28 km) as fast as he could get his men to move in the late-summer heat. They might not have been enough to do the job had a number not been wearing captured blue uniforms from Harpers Ferry. This allowed them to close with the Federals, and deliver close-up volleys that broke the Union lines and sent them back to the heights next to the bridge.

Nearly one-third of McClellan's army had not fired a shot. But the units that had engaged on both sides were stunned by the losses they had suffered. The fighting was over by 5:30 p.m. even though there was still daylight. The Union had sustained at least 2,100 dead, 9,500 wounded, and 750 missing. The Confederates had lost over 1,500 dead, 7,700 wounded and 1,100 missing. This gives a total of roughly 23,000 casualties including 3,600 killed. Yet, the positions of the two armies were little different from what they had been at the beginning of the day.

Surpassing even Pearl Harbor or 9/11, Antietam remains the greatest one-day loss of American life in history. May the record never be broken.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 9/17/2012 4:47:54 PM >

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 667
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/18/2012 4:58:17 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

Nothing happened. Which was amazing when it is realized that the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac faced each other from shouting distance. But both Lee and McClellan seemed to believe the other would attack, and remained on the defensive. What Lee was thinking is difficult to know, since he had full reports of the carnage of the day before. Over 30% of his army was killed, wounded, or missing, and there were no reinforcements to be had other than a single brigade still holding Harpers Ferry. What McClellan was thinking is much easier to guess. He still believed the Southerners had him outnumbered, and was doing what he did best: calling for more troops.
As the day wore on, Lee reluctantly realized the waiting game favored the Northerners. His supply line was dangerously exposed, and even if it were not broken, he could not receive enough supplies through enemy territory to keep his army there indefinitely. In eastern Maryland there were numerous Southern sympathizers, but western Maryland had proved to be firmly pro-Union. When the dust columns of two additional Union divisions marching to join the Federals were seen, it was clear that a retreat back to Virginia was necessary. Lee gave the orders to move out during the night, leaving behind a number of bonfires to make it look as if the Southerners were still encamped.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 668
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/19/2012 5:45:12 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

Lee's Army of Northern Virginia successfully retreated across the Potomac. Surprisingly, McClellan sent out a pursuit. Less surprisingly, he did it half-heartedly, sending only two divisions from Fitz John Porter's V Corps, which he had famously refused to commit at the height of the battle two days before. The bluecoats did manage to drive off a rearguard and seize four Southern cannon. A panicked sub-officer woke up Lee and told him that all of the Confederate reserve artillery had been captured. Lee decide to wait for daylight, but Stonewall Jackson was not the man to wait, and had one of his divisions immediately sent northward again.

At Iuka, Mississippi, U. S. Grant had a plan to trap Sterling Price's Rebel force in its entirety. But coordination was hard to achieve in the Civil War, and only the Union force under William Rosecrans delivered the attack. After a full afternoon's fighting, the Confederates retreated out of the town by a road left unblocked. It was a definite Union victory, for the Northerners had re-taken the town at a cost of 144 killed, 598 wounded, and 40 captured/missing while inflicting 263 killed, 692 wounded, and 561 captured/missing on the Southerners. But Price and his army had escaped, and now sought to combine with another force under Earl Van Dorn.

Map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 669
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/19/2012 7:33:36 PM   
radic202


Posts: 402
Joined: 6/7/2012
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
Capt Harlock:

Thanks for lightening me on the dates much appreciatred.

One queation though (and please do not mean to derail the Thread) but in one of your post you quote a British Politician in a letter and it says this:

"
The detailed accounts given in the "Observer" today of the battles of August 29 and 30 between the Confederates and the Federals show that the latter got a very complete smashing"

I have never seen the term "Federals" used for the Union before. Is this a regular term or simply a term used by the British to describe the Union Army/States? I know what the word Federal means and what it entitles but used for the Union is completely news to me.

Thanks in advance,

_____________________________

It is much harder to think about doing something than actually doing it!

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 670
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/19/2012 8:18:26 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

I have never seen the term "Federals" used for the Union before. Is this a regular term or simply a term used by the British to describe the Union Army/States? I know what the word Federal means and what it entitles but used for the Union is completely news to me.


"Federals" is derived from the U. S. Federal government, and so was used frequently during the war to refer to Union troops. Many a historian (your humble correspondent included) has also used the term in writing about the war.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to radic202)
Post #: 671
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/19/2012 8:52:56 PM   
radic202


Posts: 402
Joined: 6/7/2012
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

Thanks for the response. Just I have never heard that term used in that context before but can simply be a miss on my part plus I am no specialist on the US Civil War in any way, it is when I hear it either Blue or the Grey, the North or the South or the Yanks and the Confederates and even the Blue Coats and the Rebels but never Federals.

Thanks again for the mini-historical lesson.

_____________________________

It is much harder to think about doing something than actually doing it!

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 672
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/20/2012 5:34:49 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

Stonewall Jackson had spent the night getting nearly a division of Confederate troops into position. Just after daybreak he sent them forward against the Yankee brigade who had rudely captured the four guns from the retreating Southern army. (They would have taken more, but the Southerners had hidden a number of their cannons in nearby woods.) The bluecoats were caught unprepared, and one regiment which had been in service only three weeks, broke and ran. The remaining Northerners soon followed, scrambling to get back to the other side of the Potomac.

The battle, known as Boteler's Ford or Shepherdstown Ford, was small enough compared with Antietam. Union losses were 71 killed, 161 wounded, and 131 missing, against Confederate total losses of 261 men. But it raised the battered morale of the Army of Northern Virginia. And more important, it seems to have completely dissuaded George McClellan from further pursuit. Lee would be given time to rest and reinforce.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to radic202)
Post #: 673
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/22/2012 4:44:29 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

President Lincoln called a meeting of his Cabinet. He warmed up with a story about Artemus Ward, then got to the issue. Antietam, and the retreat of the Confederates, had given him the victory he needed, and now he was going to proclaim Emancipation. The Southerners would have until New Year's day to rejoin the Union, otherwise, all slaves in rebelling states would be declared free:

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.


I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States, and each of the States, and the people thereof, in which States that relation is, or may be, suspended or disturbed.

That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress to again recommend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all slave States, so called, the people whereof may not then be in rebellion against the United States and which States may then have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily adopt, immediate or gradual abolishment of slavery within their respective limits; and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent, or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the Governments existing there, will be continued.

That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

That the executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States, and part of States, if any, in which the people thereof respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof shall, on that day be, in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States, by members chosen thereto, at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.

That attention is hereby called to an Act of Congress entitled "An Act to make an additional Article of War" approved March 13, 1862, and which act is in the words and figure following:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter the following shall be promulgated as an additional article of war for the government of the army of the United States, and shall be obeyed and observed as such:

"Article-All officers or persons in the military or naval service of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor, who may have escaped from any persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due, and any officer who shall be found guilty by a court martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from the service.

"Sec.2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect from and after its passage."

Also to the ninth and tenth sections of an act entitled "An Act to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate property of rebels, and for other purposes," approved July 17, 1862, and which sections are in the words and figures following:

"Sec.9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such persons found on (or) being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude and not again held as slaves.

"Sec.10. And be it further enacted, That no slave escaping into any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, from any other State, shall be delivered up, or in any way impeded or hindered of his liberty, except for crime, or some offence against the laws, unless the person claiming said fugitive shall first make oath that the person to whom the labor or service of such fugitive is alleged to be due is his lawful owner, and has not borne arms against the United States in the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid and comfort thereto; and no person engaged in the military or naval service of the United States shall, under any pretence whatever, assume to decide on the validity of the claim of any person to the service or labor of any other person, or surrender up any such person to the claimant, on pain of being dismissed from the service."

And I do hereby enjoin upon and order all persons engaged in the military and naval service of the United States to observe, obey, and enforce, within their respective spheres of service, the act, and sections above recited.

And the executive will in due time recommend that all citizens of the United States who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout the rebellion, shall (upon the restoration of the constitutional relation between the United States, and their respective States, and people, if that relation shall have been suspended or disturbed) be compensated for all losses by acts of the United States, including the loss of slaves.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.

[Signed:] Abraham Lincoln
By the President

[Signed:] William H. Seward
Secretary of State



By now, the entire Cabinet supported Lincoln. Seward even recommended the proclamation be made a little stronger, adding "and maintain" to "recognize", the freedom of the slaves. (This may be why Seward got to sign the Proclamation.) The all-important question was how America, and indeed the world, would react.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 674
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/22/2012 9:47:58 AM   
nicwb

 

Posts: 275
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline
Talk about a near run thing ! - given Lord Palmerston's letter to the Foreign Secretary, Great Britain seems to have been hair's breadth from recognising the Confederacy. I can't see Lincoln acceding to a negotiated settlement on the basis of separation but it could have had a enormous affect on the course of the war. I had no idea the time frames had been that close.

There's also a surprising irony that the victory was delivered by McClelland.

I'd never read the proclamation in full before - thanks Captain Harlock once again.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 675
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/23/2012 6:23:28 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

The Emancipation Proclamation was printed in the Northern newspapers, and the message quickly spread to the Southern states. The reaction ran across the entire spectrum. Jefferson Davis would denounce it as " the most execrable measure recorded in the history of guilty man", and many other Southerners argued that the real purpose was to cause slave insurrections and massacres across the Confederacy. Oddly, General George McClellan agreed with this reasoning, and wrote to his wife that he "could not make up my mind to fight for such an accursed doctrine as that of a servile insurrection." Others in the North had a more moderate but still negative view, pointing out that those in the loyal states were to be allowed to keep their slaves. Thus, the proclamation was only to be effective in places were Union power was ineffective, and would not actually free anybody.

But the abolitionists supported it wholeheartedly. A Union victory now would mean the elimination of slavery in the "cotton states", and without the profits that cotton brought, slavery would no longer be economically viable. Frederick Douglass, who had been highly critical of Lincoln for not doing enough against slavery, would write:

We shout for joy that we live to record this righteous decree. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy, in his own peculiar, cautious, forbearing and hesitating way, slow, but we hope sure, has, while the loyal heart was near breaking with despair, proclaimed and declared: "That on the First of January, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty-three, All Persons Held as Slaves Within Any State or Any Designated Part of a State, The People Whereof Shall Then be in Rebellion Against the United States, Shall be Thenceforward and Forever Free." "Free forever" oh! long enslaved millions, whose cries have so vexed the air and sky, suffer on a few more days in sorrow, the hour of your deliverance draws nigh!
[...]
But will not this measure be frowned upon by our officers and men in the field? We have heard of many thousands who have resolved that they will throw up their commissions and lay down their arms, just so soon as they are required to carry on a war against slavery Making all allowances for exaggeration there are doubtless far too many of this sort in the loyal army.



That was indeed a potent question. While McClellan was pondering his answer, others made up their own minds. Perhaps the best expression was an Indiana Colonel who wrote that his men wanted to:

"destroy everything that in aught gives the rebels strength ... this army will sustain the emancipation proclamation and enforce it with the bayonet."




Attachment (1)

(in reply to nicwb)
Post #: 676
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/25/2012 8:57:28 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

Although the Union was slowly but surely shutting the ports on most of the Confederate coast, they were making little progress on those in Texas. A landing at Corpus Christi had been repulsed earlier, and other places such as Galveston continued to host blockade runners.

After a cannon duel the previous day producing no known casualties, the town at Sabine Pass surrendered on this date to a Union squadron of three ships. However, the Northerners did not have men for an occupying force, so the port soon re-opened after the trio of ships departed.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 677
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/26/2012 4:57:10 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

The Loyal War Governors' Conference was the first formal test of the Emancipation Proclamation. Called by Governor Andrew Curtin of Pennsylvania (image below), it was held at the Logan House Hotel in Altoona. Thirteen governors or representatives of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Michigan, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Indiana, loyal Virginia, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Ohio, Maine, and Illinois came together to discuss the war.

There were two days of extensive debate (and a substantial amount of time was spent advocating the removal of General George McClellan). On this date a final address was prepared supporting the Emancipation Proclamation. All the states present except Maryland signed up to the address, and it was delivered to the White House before the end of the day. Lincoln welcomed the suggestions on recruitment and transport of troops. However, when the subject of removing McClellan came up, Lincoln did not commit himself.

The address was sent to the states that had not found it convenient to attend. It was approved by the governors of Vermont, Connecticut, Kansas, Minnesota, and Oregon. The governors of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri rejected it. (There does not seem to be a record of the response of California.) With this majority, Lincoln now had some much-needed political support.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 678
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/27/2012 4:56:12 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

The first all-black regiment in United States history was mustered. Benjamin Butler, still running New Orleans efficiently if unpopularly, formed the unit from "free Negroes". While the official name was the First Regiment Louisiana Native Guard, they called themselves "Chasseurs d'Afrique" (French for "Hunters of Africa"). This may have been because there was a 1st Louisiana Native Guard of Confederate militia earlier in the war, which had been disbanded when the Union captured New Orleans.





In Richmond, the Confederacy also dealt with its manpower shortage. Jefferson Davis signed into law a second conscription act, which raised the draftable age up to 45. This, of course, started to include men who had achieved considerable wealth and political power. It was also feared that this might leave too few white men back on the plantations to deal with slave insurrections. The Confederate Congress quickly got to work on an exemption act.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 9/27/2012 8:14:23 PM >


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 679
RE: Civil War 150th - 9/29/2012 5:03:46 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

Another general was killed -- but this time by a fellow general. The Union army under Don Carlos Buell had won the race to Louisville, Kentucky. (Actually the Confederates were not planning to seize it.) Having had his force virtually wiped out at Richmond, Kentucky, General William "Bull" Nelson was not in the best of moods. The unfortunately named Union General Jefferson C. Davis found himself a junior to Nelson, and the two got on each others' nerves.



On this date, the personality clash came to a head. After a heated argument, Davis threw a card into Nelson's face, and Nelson promptly slapped Davis. This was a great insult in the days when dueling had not entirely died out. Since "Bull" Nelson had got his nickname by being nearly 300 pounds and fairly strong, Davis looked for an equalizer. Asking around the lobby of the hotel they were staying at, he finally found an acquaintance to loan him a pistol. He returned to confront Nelson.



There are different versions of what happened next. Some say that Davis shot Nelson as soon as the latter turned in his direction. Shelby Foote's account is that Nelson moved towards Davis, Davis warned him to come no closer, and then fired when Nelson did not stop. What is certain is that Nelson took a bullet in the chest, and died in less than half an hour.

General Buell, being the overall commander in the area, quickly had Davis put under arrest. But Buell was about to be relieved of his command for having allowed not just one but two Rebel armies to invade Kentuckly, and very little else would happen.




Attachment (2)

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 9/29/2012 4:05:07 PM >


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 680
RE: Civil War 150th - 10/1/2012 9:02:04 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

In Washington, Secretary of the Navy Wells selected David Dixon Porter to command the Union vessels on the Mississippi. It was a controversial choice, for Porter was promoted over several more senior officers to become the second Rear Admiral in the U. S. Navy after Farragut.

In Richmond, President Davis selected Major General John Pemberton to replace General Earl Van Dorn to command of the reorganized Department of Mississippi and East Louisiana. This made no difference at the time, for Van Dorn was busy in the field. He had combined his army with that of Sterling Price, and maneuvered so as to confuse the Union commanders as to his real target -- the key city of Corinth, Mississippi. The trouble was that he had confused Union general William Rosecrans enough so that Rosecrans decided to fall back on his base -- in Corinth. The Southern army of 22,000 men was about to clash with the Northern army of 23,000.



map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 10/2/2012 5:00:50 AM >


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 681
RE: Civil War 150th - 10/2/2012 8:26:59 PM   
Prestige

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 10/2/2012
Status: offline
love that great history

(in reply to parusski)
Post #: 682
RE: Civil War 150th - 10/2/2012 8:27:08 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
London, early October 1862:

Prime Minister Lord Palmerston was having second thoughts about British intervention and recognition of the Confederacy. The news of Antietam, though it was tactically a draw, clearly meant that the Southern invasion in the east had failed. This threw into question the invasion of Kentucky and the offensive in the Mississippi/Tennessee theater. Palmerston now leaned towards waiting and watching.

But the next big piece of news to arrive was political rather than military. The preliminary version of the Emancipation Proclamation stirred up tremendous public debate, just as it had in America. The upper classes, still favoring the Confederacy, heaped scorn on it. The conservative London Times editorialized:

Where he has no power Mr. LINCOLN will set the negroes free; where he regains power he will consider them as slaves. 'Come to me,' he cries to the insurgent planters, 'and I will preserve your rights as slaveholders; but set me still at defiance, and I will wrap myself in virtue and take the sword of freedom in my hand, and, instead of aiding you to oppress, I will champion the rights of humanity. Here are whips for you who are loyal; go forth and flog or sell your black chattels as you please.


Likewise, cartoonist John Tenniel portrayed Lincoln as playing a last card against a winning Jefferson Davis.


(Although Tenniel's name is now little remembered, he is the man who did the immortal illustrations for "Alice in Wonderland".)

But among the lower classes, which inconveniently meant the majority of voters, the Proclamation was applauded. The freeing of slaves was now to be an explicit war goal, and support for the North climbed steeply. Henry Adams, the son of Ambassador Charles Francis Adams, recorded: "The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us than all our former victories and all our diplomacy."


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 10/2/2012 8:32:09 PM >


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 683
RE: Civil War 150th - 10/2/2012 9:01:38 PM   
johnsilver


Posts: 183
Joined: 2/7/2012
From: Florida
Status: offline
quote:

That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free;


The key piece of note in that speech that was of great importance and has been white washed by Lincoln supporters for a century and a half, is that he left a status quo with regards to ALL slaves residing in neutral/border states and took no regard to their sufferings.. it was a purely, 100% political speech to fire up his "base" and start as much of an insurrection as possible behind the lines of his "enemy".

Nice how winners and losers in all wars are always allowed to write history is it not?

_____________________________

Sailing The 7 Seas...

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 684
RE: Civil War 150th - 10/3/2012 8:22:06 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

he left a status quo with regards to ALL slaves residing in neutral/border states


Like it or not, the U. S. Constitution as originally drafted recognized slavery and gave the slave-holders certain rights. Lincoln believed that he could not lawfully emancipate slaves belonging to law-abiding citizens of the Union. (It seems appalling that such could be law-abiding, but occasionally "the law is a ass".) The Emancipation Proclamation was issued as a war measure, by Lincoln's authority as commander-in-chief, and so could only be applied to those levying war against the United States.

The complete abolition of slavery could only come by Constitutional amendment, which process was begun on January 11, 1864. (In other words, I'll have to wait about a year and a half before I start blogging it.)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to johnsilver)
Post #: 685
RE: Civil War 150th - 10/3/2012 8:39:22 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

For once, Confederate general Earl Van Dorn had done almost everything right. He had combined all the available Rebel troops into a powerful and experienced army, and had marched it around to attack Corinth from the north, blocking U. S. Grant's attempts to reinforce the city. The one disadvantage was that the Southerners themselves had built extensive entrenchments to the north of Corinth to defend the city earlier in the year. These were now available for the Union troops to use.

Van Dorn had planned an enveloping attack, but it suffered the usual fate of plans after first contact with the enemy. The Confederates found the enemy and went for him, issuing the Rebel Yell. The Federals let their cannon do much of the shouting for them, and Southern casualties were heavy.

But in one aspect the straight-on attack worked well for Van Dorn. Much of the Union right wing was unengaged as the Rebels went for the left and center. The Yankees at the points of contact were over-matched by numbers and sheer determination, and slowly fell back from their outer entrenchments to a set of inner defenses. With its flank exposed, the Union right retreated as well. (Though it could easily have attacked the Confederate flank.)

The attack ran out of daylight, which was a mercy for both sides given the hot weather. As darkness fell, both sides paused to consolidate their positions. Pleased with his troops' advance, Van Dorn decided to continue the frontal attack the next day. There was no time for siege operations; Northern reinforcements were on the way, and he could not block them for long.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 686
RE: Civil War 150th - 10/4/2012 12:08:42 AM   
parusski


Posts: 4758
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Wyoming, Even Liberals Welcome
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

he left a status quo with regards to ALL slaves residing in neutral/border states


Like it or not, the U. S. Constitution as originally drafted recognized slavery and gave the slave-holders certain rights. Lincoln believed that he could not lawfully emancipate slaves belonging to law-abiding citizens of the Union. (It seems appalling that such could be law-abiding, but occasionally "the law is a ass".) The Emancipation Proclamation was issued as a war measure, by Lincoln's authority as commander-in-chief, and so could only be applied to those levying war against the United States.

The complete abolition of slavery could only come by Constitutional amendment, which process was begun on January 11, 1864. (In other words, I'll have to wait about a year and a half before I start blogging it.)


Great response and perfect explanation.

_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 687
RE: Civil War 150th - 10/4/2012 5:35:38 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

The Southern sympathizers in Kentucky had already set up a "shadow" government and passed an ordinance of secession. With the state capital, Frankfort, now in Confederate hands they now were able to more formally claim to be the rightful government of Kentucky. Unfortunately their first selection as governor had been unwise enough to join the Confederate army and had been mortally wounded at Shiloh. The second man to be chosen, Richard Hawes, was inaugurated on this date.

But it didn't last long. The inaugural festivities were inconsiderately cut short by the sound of Yankee artillery. Having secured the city of Louisville, the Union army under Don Carlos Buell was marching to re-take the capital. Knowing themselves outnumbered, the Confederates skedaddled to join Braxton Bragg's army, which was moving towards a showdown with the Northerners.




At Corinth, Mississippi, the Confederates began their do-or-die effort with an artillery barrage before dawn. The Federals soon replied in kind, and although one Union officer wrote that he enjoyed the distinctive sounds of the different sizes of guns, little damage was done to either side.

That changed rapidly when the Southern infantry charged. The fighting became intense as the Rebels went for the guns, and the Yankees used everything from grapeshot to hand grenades to repel them. The carnage at Battery Robinett was especially brutal, with the Southerners finally managing to seize the position, only to be driven back out by Northern reserves.

The difference this day was that Union commander William Rosecrans was actively involved. Some later said that he inspired the men with his example and encouraging words, while others wrote that he had beaten those attempting to flee back into line with the flat of his sword. What seems clear is that he fed reinforcements to the places they were needed, and he had just a few more men than his opponent, Earl Van Dorn.

At one point, a group of Confederates from Arkansas managed to pierce the Union line and enter the streets of Corinth. But there was nothing available to support them with, and they found themselves enveloped on three sides. They turned and fought their way out, though not without loss.

It was another hot Mississippi day, with the temperature reaching 94 F (34.5 C). By noon, Van Dorn realized that his men could do no more. They had fought nearly all day yesterday, and undergone hard marching for several days before that. Sadly, he gave the order to retreat. (Fellow general Sterling Price is reported to have had tears going down his face.)

Corinth had been a costly battle for the relative sizes of the two armies. Union losses were 355 killed, 1,841 wounded, and 324 missing, while Confederate casualties were 473 killed, 1,997 wounded, and 1,763 captured or missing) This was nearly a fifth of the Southern army. With U. S. Grant sending more Northern troops to the area, the remainder were in jeopardy as well.

map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com





Attachment (2)

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 10/4/2012 8:45:38 PM >


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to parusski)
Post #: 688
RE: Civil War 150th - 10/5/2012 8:31:59 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

Union General Edward Ord was leading a detachment of Grant's troops, trying to trap the combined Confederate force of Earl Van Dorn and Sterling Price. Early in the morning, Ord's bluecoats met another Union force led by general Stephen Hurlbut. Ord had seniority and took over command of their quickly joined forces.

It was not long before they encountered Rebels. Sterling Price's Southerners were the forefront of the Confederate retreat, and had occupied Davis' Bridge across the Hatchie River. Since the Northerners were fresh and not falling back from a defeat, they managed to push the Confederates back and seize control of the bridge.

But now the Northerners were in danger. They had about 4,000 men, no match for the over 17,000 troops of the combined Southern force. U. S. Grant had foreseen this and had ordered William Rosecrans to march out of Corinth in pursuit of the Confederates. This would have turned the scales completely, catching the Southern army between the hammer and the anvil -- but Rosecrans did not move the day of the battle, and on this date he took the wrong road. In the meantime, General Ord had been wounded in the lower leg, and command passed back to the less experienced Hurlbut.

Luckily for the Northerners, the Confederates were happy to let them keep the bridge if they could only get back to their base. Rebel scouts found a ford across the river, and Van Dorn's entire army was soon marching away. The action produced distinct unhappiness on both sides. Grant decided he did not want Rosecrans as a subordinate, and looked for a separate command to send Rosecrans off to. Sterling Price decided he did not want Van Dorn as a superior, and would eventually go to Richmond to ask to be restored to independent command.



< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 10/8/2012 4:50:03 AM >


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 689
RE: Civil War 150th - 10/7/2012 2:38:49 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4289
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

In Kentucky, the Confederates under Braxton Bragg were encountering frustration. The cavalry raid under John Hunt Morgan earlier in the year had seemed to promise lots of recruits to the Southern cause. But the extra muskets that the invading Rebels had brought with them were going mostly unused. The majority of Kentuckians willing to join the Southern army had already done so in 1861, when the state was officially neutral and both sides recruited energetically. More, the Confederate conscription acts had also unilaterally extended the one-year volunteers' time of service to three years. Men began to suspect that once they put on the gray uniform, they would wear it for however long the war might last. (And in time they would be proved right.)

More immediately, they were now marching in search of the Yankees, instead of waiting for the Northerners to expose themselves as Bragg had originally planned. It was not a good time for marching; a hot dry summer, still lingering into autumn, had caused a serious shortage of water in the area. What had been creeks were now isolated pools strung along creek-beds, and frequently covered with algae. The Southerners might have been happier had they known that the Federal troops under Don Carlos Buell were encountering the same problem. (Buell had been restored to command after Washington discovered there was no one else in the area with his experience at handling a large army.) Word reached both sides that water was available near the town of Perryville in northern Kentucky.

Buell had sent a good part of his army to chase the Rebels away from Frankfort, and had spread out the remained to find what water they could. His cavalry detected the Southerners moving into Perryville, and he determined to attack. The stage was set at last for the showdown in Kentucky -- but first Buell had to get his forces back together.



map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 10/8/2012 4:52:11 AM >


_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 690
Page:   <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Civil War 150th Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.145