Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!
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: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Civil War 150th Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/17/2011 8:44:57 AM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

150 Years Ago Today:


One response from the special session of Congress was the Act of July 17, 1861 which allowed for $250,000,000 to be borrowed on the credit of the United States. Of this sum, up to $50,000,000 was authorized as non-interest bearing Treasury Notes, payable upon demand. These were called "Demand Notes" to distinguish them from the interest-bearing Treasury Notes then in use. The green ink used on the backs of the Demand Notes would lead to them being called "greenbacks".

In West Virginia, Union forces under General Jacob Cox had begun a push up the Kanawha Valley from Ohio. Opposing them were a few thousand men commanded by General Henry A. Wise. Battle occurred when several Union regiments came into contact with a Confederate outpost. Captain George S. Patton (grandfather of the famous George S. Patton) commanded a line behind Scary Creek, several miles from the main Confederate camp. A heated firefight took place in which Captain Patton was wounded. But after several Union attempts to charge across the bridge over the creek failed, the Union troops pulled back.

For a time, the Confederates thought that Union reinforcements were arriving, and also retreated. The Southerners realized their mistake, however, and returned to claim the battlefield. The battle of Scary Creek had been fought fiercely, but casualties were light. The Union lost 14 killed, approximately 30 wounded, and several missing. The Confederates lost no more than five killed, and six wounded.

As happened on several occasions in the Civil War, the greatest importance was the decisions taken after the battle. General Wise decided to withdraw back up the Kanawha Valley toward his supply bases. This resulted in most of the Kanawha Valley going under Union control.



I apreciate your tidbits from 150 years ago, pray continue.

Some more on Patton can be found here:http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/2008/05/19/colonel_george_smith_patton


< Message edited by Hanny -- 7/17/2011 8:45:42 AM >

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 181
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/17/2011 7:18:54 PM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Man, I love this thread.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Hanny)
Post #: 182
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/17/2011 7:59:42 PM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I researched and wrote an article on the "90% of southerners never owned slave" position a few years ago. I was surprised by what I learned.

It's true that approximately 90% of white southerners didn't owned slaves, but that is a misleading statistic for at least three reasons.


US 1860 census, 1.4% nationaly owned one or more slaves, from slave states that rose to 4.8%. Also(http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ajac/biggest16.htm)The last U.S. census slave schedules were enumerated by County in 1860 and included 393,975 named persons holding 3,950,546 unnamed slaves, or an average of about ten slaves per holder. The actual number of slaveholders may be slightly lower because some large holders held slaves in more than one County and would have been counted in each County. Excluding slaves, the 1860 U.S. population was 27,167,529, with about 1 in 70 being a slaveholder. It is estimated by this transcriber that in 1860, slaveholders of 200 or more slaves, while constituting less than 1 % of the total number of U.S. slaveholders, or 1 out of 7,000 free persons, held 20-30% of the total number of slaves in the U.S.

quote:


First, while only 10% of white southerners owned slaves, another 40% to 60% of white southerners were either married to, or the children of, that 10%.


Family unit size of the nation was 6 persons, so the ratio of family uits that owned slaves is a better measurement of ownership. Socio economic historians have worked out that 30% of all whites income from negro labour, be it owned of leased.

quote:


I researched two Confederate infantry companies in this regard - one drew men primarily from a major town in a slave-owning area; the second came from a remote mountain valley were there were relatively few slaves. In both instances, the percentage of the soldiers who owned slaves in those two companies was nominal (10% or less). However, the percentage of their fathers who owned slaves was much, much higher - about 25% for the mountain company, and nearly 50% for the town men. And those statistics were on the low side - if I couldn't find proof postive that a soldier owned a slave or was the son of a slave owning father, I assumed he he wasn't. If I had been able to track down more of those who I couldn't confirm, I got a strong feeling that the percentages would actually be much higher - probably more like 50% to 75% of Confederate soldiers had a direct interest in the perpetuation of slavery, either because they owned a slave, their fathers did, or because they were involved in a directly related occupation (one soldier, for instance, was the son of an overseer on a large plantation).


Such micro evidence will at best only indicate a single states ownership, so does not will suit a macro statement due to the high imbalance of slave population of some states compared to others.
Example, GA compared to VA gross population of white to slave shows a large difference, so a sample from one would not extrapolate to the other at state level.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

quote:


2. Nearly all southerners had a vested interest in the perpetuation of slavery. The economy was highly dependent upon slavery, so a threat to it was a threat to the welfare of the southern people - even those who weren't members of slave-owning families. And that threat had really rattled southerners. Population growth in the north was threatening to unbalance political power. If more free states were admitted to the Union than slave, the South would have a minority in the United States Senate, the only political body that stood between it and political impotence (the North already controlled the House of Representatives, had just taken the Presidency, and had the power to appoint anti-slavery justices to the Supreme Court. So the South was about to lose the political strength to protect itself from the North, and this scared most southerners to death.


All correct, i would add that slavery had the highest legal protection possible in law, the Constitution protected it over the entire Union, and the states were ratifieng an unamendable amendment the original 13th, that would protect slavery where it existed for all time.

Oddly McPherson (What they Fought for)sought the 450 diary of CS slave owners to see if they expressed pro slavery reasons for fighting, and found they did not,( stunning small % even mention it asa reason) non slave owners expressed even lower incidence, what they both expressed was states rights. Northern comparisos showed thaey were fighting for Union, or rather reservation of Union.

quote:


3. While slave owners were only 10% of the white southern population, they dominated political office in the south. In other words, nearly all political power was excercised by slave owners. It should come as no surprise, then, that when a grave threat to political balance and the economy arose, southerners reacted with passion and ultimately violence.


Indeed, its that section of the social pyramid that allowed/dictated state policy ( but Free states had similar sectionlist political control, but in GA for instance it allowed the state to seccede or rather a low vote, as those that counted found the number not helpfull, so ignored/supressed it.


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 183
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/17/2011 8:17:30 PM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

150 Years Ago Today,

South Carolina Governor Francis Pickens gave his orders. All courtesies to the Sumter garrison would stop, and no one from the fort would be allowed to land on shore.

It made little difference, for the situation in the fort was already serious. General Beauregard had sent bottles of expensive brandy and boxes of cigars to Major Anderson as generosity to a fellow commander, but Anderson had returned them, fearing the appearance of impropriety. Likewise, the garrison has been counting on its own rations rather than anything from Charleston. These would last for only two more weeks.



http://www.americascaesar.com/
Since all of Anderson's communications with his government in Washington, D.C. had to go through the authorities in Charleston, he knew that this threat to close the Charleston harbor would be read by Governor Pickens. Nevertheless, on 19 January 1861, less than a month after this threat was made, South Carolina Secretary of War D.F. Jamison sent the following message from the Governor to Anderson: "Sir, I am instructed by his excellency the governor to inform you that he has directed an officer of the State to procure and carry over with your mails each day to Fort Sumter such supplies of fresh meat and vegetables as you may indicate."(52) Anderson's response is interesting: "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of this date.... I confess I am at a loss to understand the latter part of this message, as I have not represented in any quarter that we were in need of such supplies. As commandant of a military post, I can only have my troops furnished with fresh beef in the manner prescribed by law, and I am compelled, therefore, with due thanks to his excellency, respectfully to decline his offer."(53)
Not having waited for a reply from Anderson, Secretary Jamison had arranged for "two hundred pounds of beef and a lot of vegetables" to be sent over to the fort,(54) which Anderson refused to accept. At this point, Anderson was given free access to the Charleston markets to purchase provisions at his own discretion. This amiable arrangement having been established, Anderson realized that interference from Washington would be a grave mistake and even wrote to Adjutant-General Cooper on 30 January 1861, "I do hope that no attempt will be made by our friends to throw supplies in; their doing so would do more harm than good."(55) On the seventeenth of March, Anderson indicated that he was "satisfied with the existing arrangement"(56) and on the first of April, Second Lieutenant Norman J. Hall reported to Anderson that there was "at least thirty-five days of comfortable subsistence for the command."(57) Thus, the U.S. Government's own records not only prove that Anderson's men were well-provisioned all along, but it also shows the popular caricature of the South Carolinians as "fire eaters" set to inaugurate bloodshed at the slightest provocation to be utterly false.


http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/FinalOrder/FinalOrder_intro.html
Final Orders

By the end of March, Lincoln had made certain key decisions involving Forts Sumter and Pickens. He had set in motion preparations for a relief mission to Sumter, and placed Gustavus V. Fox in charge. He had also established April 6 as the approximate date for the expedition to get under way, if sent, so as to arrive in time to help Anderson's garrison.


http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/FinalOrder/FApr2S_B.html
General Beauregard was ordered to "remit in no degree" his efforts to prevent the reinforcement of Fort Sumter. He was informed that the Confederate government placed no reliance on any assurances by the Lincoln administration that the fort would be abandoned. Indeed, because of the delays and vacillations of Washington in withdrawing from Sumter, Beauregard was directed to cease extending courtesies to Anderson, such as permitting him to procure supplies from the city.





(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 184
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/17/2011 8:37:33 PM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

I have not been able to find the exact date, but somewhere around March 12, 1861, General Winfield Scott informed Lincoln of his estimate of the Fort Sumter situation. Scott believed that 5,000 regular troops and 20,000 volunteers would be needed to relieve the fort. Six to eight months would be required to assemble the men, plus the fleet to carry them.


Intresting, we know when Lincoln asked the question. We know Scott opinion of the situation.
http://wbts-calendar.blogspot.com/2011/03/gen-scott-to-lincoln-surrender-sumter.html
"I now see no alternative but a surrender, in some weeks," Scott argued. "Evacuation seems almost inevitable . . . if, indeed, the worn out garrison be not assaulted & carried in the present week."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50153125/Lincoln-Request-and-Cabinet-Opinions-on-Sumter-March-1861
attacking force could leave Northern ports. The harbor would be closed; a landing must beeffected at some distance from our guns, which could give no aid. Charleston harbor would be aSebastopol in such a conflict, and unlimited means would probably be required to ensure success,before which time the garrison of Fort Sumter would be starved out.”
2
General Scott, in his reply to the question, addressed to him by the President, on the 12th instant,what amount of means and of what description, in addition to those already at command, itwould require to supply and reinforce the fort, says, “I should need a fleet of war vessels andtransports, which, in the scattered disposition of the Navy (as understood) could not be collectedin less than four months; 5000 additional regular troops, and 20,000 volunteers -- that is, a forcesufficient to take all the batteries, both in the harbor (including Fort Moultrie) as well as in theapproach or outer bay. To raise, organize and discipline such an army (not to speak of necessarylegislation by Congress not now in session) would require from six to eight months. As apractical military question, the time for succoring Fort Sumter, with any means at hand hadpassed away nearly a month ago. Since then, a surrender under assault, or from starvation, hasbeen merely a question of tim


Fort Sumter.
The President has done me the honor to address to me certain professional questions, to which he desires answers. I proceed with them categorically.

"1. To what point of time can Major Anderson maintain his position, at Fort Sumter, without fresh supplies or reinforcements?"

Answer. In respect to subsistence, for the garrison, he has hard bread, flour & rice for about 26 days, & salt meat (pork) for about 48 days; but how long he could hold out against the whole means of attack which the South Carolinians have in, & about the city of Charleston & its Harbour, is a question that cannot be answered with absolute accuracy. Reckoning the batteries troops at 3,500 (now somewhat disciplined) & the batteries at 4 powerful land, & at least one floating -- all mounting guns & mortars of large calibre, & of the best patterns; -- & supposing those means to be skillfully & vigorously employed -- Fort Sumter with its less than 100 men -- including common laborers & musicians -- ought to be taken by a single assault, & easily; if harrassed perseveringly for several previous days & nights by threats & false attacks, with the ability -- from the force of overwhelming numbers -- of converting one out of every three or four of those, into a real attack.

"2. Can you with all the means now in your control, supply or reinforce Fort Sumter within that time?"

Answer. No: Not within many months. See answer to No. 3.

"3. If not, what amount of means, & of what description, in addition to that already at your control, would enable you to supply & reinforce that fortress within the time?"

Answer. A fleet of war vessels & transports, 5,000 additional regular troops & 20,000 volunteers, in order to take all the batteries in the Harbor of Charleston (including Ft. Moultrie) after the capture of all the batteries in the approach or outer Bay. And to raise, organize & discipline such an army, would require new acts of Congress & from six to eight months.

Respectfully submitted.

Winfield Scott.

Head Qrs. of the Army,

Washington, Mar. 11, 1861.
http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/?q=node/25261

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 185
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/17/2011 9:01:17 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

This amiable arrangement having been established, Anderson realized that interference from Washington would be a grave mistake and even wrote to Adjutant-General Cooper on 30 January 1861, "I do hope that no attempt will be made by our friends to throw supplies in; their doing so would do more harm than good."(55) On the seventeenth of March, Anderson indicated that he was "satisfied with the existing arrangement"(56) and on the first of April, Second Lieutenant Norman J. Hall reported to Anderson that there was "at least thirty-five days of comfortable subsistence for the command."(57) Thus, the U.S. Government's own records not only prove that Anderson's men were well-provisioned all along,


Interesting, but the records from the early days of the Lincoln administration point in the opposite direction. Several sources I've read say that Lincoln received a message from Major Anderson informing him that he had only six weeks of rations, on his first full day in office, March 5. This does not seem to have substantially changed over time, for Anderson offered to evacuate Fort Sumter on April 15 if he had not been re-supplied by then. (See the communications earlier in this thread.) It is hard to imagine why a man of Anderson's integrity would have offered to surrender his fort unless he had to.

_____________________________

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 Hanny)
Post #: 186
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/17/2011 9:03:19 PM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline

When Lincoln asked the questions Scott replied:
Lieutenant General Scott: Executive Mansion, March 9, 1861.

My dear Sir: On the 5th inst. I received from the Hon. Joseph Holt, the then faithful and vigilant Secretary of War, a letter of that date, inclosing a letter and accompanying documents received by him on the 4th inst. from Major Robert Anderson commanding at Fort Sumpter [Sumter] South Carolina; and copies of all which I now transmit. Immediately on the receipt of them by me, I transmitted the whole to you for your consideration; and the same day you returned the package to me with your opinion endorsed upon it, a copy of which opinion I now also transmit to you. Learning from you verbally that since then you have given the subject a more full and thorough consideration, you will much oblige me by giving answers, in writing, to the following interrogatories:

1st To what point of time can Major Anderson maintain his position at Fort Sumpter [Sumter], without fresh supplies or reinforcement?

2d. Can you, with all the means now in your control, supply or re-inforce Fort Sumpter [Sumter] within that time?

3d If not, what amount of means and of what description, in addition to that already at your control, would enable you to supply and reinforce that fortress within the time?

Please answer these, adding such statements, information, and counsel as your great skill and experience may suggest. Your obedient Servant A. LINCOLN.
http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/25262

Example from the OR of how that translated in action.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.
Lieutenant Colonel HENRY L. SCOTT, A. D. C., New York:
SIR: This letter will be landed to you by Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-enforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter-indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take-with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.
The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.
Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery implements, fuses, cordage, slow-march, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.
Consult, also, if necessary, confidentially, Colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.
Respectfully, yours,
WINFIELD SCOTT.

< Message edited by Hanny -- 7/17/2011 9:17:38 PM >

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 187
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/17/2011 9:16:12 PM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Interesting, but the records from the early days of the Lincoln administration point in the opposite direction. Several sources I've read say that Lincoln received a message from Major Anderson informing him that he had only six weeks of rations, on his first full day in office, March 5. This does not seem to have substantially changed over time, for Anderson offered to evacuate Fort Sumter on April 15 if he had not been re-supplied by then. (See the communications earlier in this thread.) It is hard to imagine why a man of Anderson's integrity would have offered to surrender his fort unless he had to.


Thats for a number of reasons, firstly in DC they read ex post facto information for current computation, ie they worked forwards from a known to work out what supplies were on hand at any time, as they knew the CS were reading all comms and did not want to ask a question of such importance in the clear.

The other reason is that post war those records were misrepresented to demonstarte a different picture from the actual reports themselves from Anderson and the garriosn QM show to be the case.

American Caeser G Durrand: Admittidly pro Southern, but the facts are that the QM report, and Andersons report, show no abscence of provisions, and transfer of dry and fresh goods from the Harbour was only stopped when the details of Lincolsn resupply of Ft Pickens, was passed to the CS leaders.

The myth of Sumter's "starving garrison" has been perpetuated with a nearly unanimous voice by Northern historians and Lincoln biographers. For example, Ida Tarbell, in her widely acclaimed work entitled The Life of Abraham Lincoln, wrote: "Almost the first thing brought to his attention on the morning of his first full day in office was a letter from Major Anderson, the officer in command of Fort Sumter, saying that he had but a week's provisions, and that if the place was to be reinforced so that it could be held, it would take 20,000 good and well-disciplined men to do it.... What was to be done? The garrison must not be allowed to starve."(40) The reader is invited to compare this paraphrase of Anderson's report with what was actually written: "I confess that I would not be willing to risk my reputation on an attempt to throw re-enforcements into this harbor within the time for our relief rendered necessary by the limited supply of our provisions, and with a view of holding possession of the same with a force of less than twenty thousand good and well-disciplined men."(41) Somehow, "limited supply of our provisions" translated into Tarbell's narrative as "a week's provisions." Another example of this loose dealing with important historical data, which is prevalent in Northern accounts of the war, is the following quotation from John T. Morse, Jr.: "On the same day [4 March 1861] there came a letter from Major Anderson.... There were shut up in the fort together a certain number of men and a certain quantity of biscuit and of pork; when the men should have eaten the biscuit and the pork, which they would probably do in about four weeks, they would have to go away. The problem thus became direct, simple, and urgent."(42) In his Diary, Secretary Welles likewise mentioned "certain intelligence of a distressing character from Major Anderson at Fort Sumter, stating that his supplies were almost exhausted, that he could get no provisions in Charleston, and that he with his small command would be wholly destitute in about six weeks."(43)
Modern accounts of the Sumter affair have relied upon these contradictory sources to spin a fanciful tale of a "nearly hopeless" situation in which a "woe-filled" Anderson and an "undernourished" command were forced "to choose between starvation and surrender."(44) The fact of the matter, however, is that in his genuine communiqué of 28 February 1861, Anderson made no mention of "a week's provisions," (Tarbell), did not discuss "a certain quantity of biscuit and of pork" which would be exhausted "in about four weeks" (Morse), and certainly gave no indication that he and his men would be "wholly destitute in about six weeks" (Welles). To the contrary, on the twenty-fifth of February, J.G. Foster, Captain of Engineers with the Sumter garrison, wrote to General Joshua G. Totten in Washington that "the health of the command is very good, with no sickness among the officers or men of sufficient importance to take them from a single day's duty. Major Anderson is and has been well, and there is no foundation for the report of his illness."(45) Certainly, if the condition of the garrison was as desperate as it was alleged to have been a week later when Lincoln took office, Foster's letter would certainly have indicated such. Would not starvation or even undernourishment have been "of sufficient importance" to mention in his report if such were really the condition of Anderson's men? Secretary Welles also claimed that Anderson "could get no provisions in Charleston," and yet Foster contradicted this statement in his letter to Totten dated the twenty-sixth of February that "our supplies and mails come from town [Charleston] as usual."(46)
Foster's testimony requires closer examination. As Jefferson Davis pointed, "It should not be forgotten that, during the early occupation of Fort Sumter by a garrison the attitude of which was at least offensive, no restriction had been put upon their privilege of purchasing in Charleston fresh provisions, or any delicacies or comforts not directly tending to the supply of the means needful to hold the fort for an indefinite time."(47) A statement which appeared in the New York Herald of 8 March 1861 supports Davis' assertion: "The War Department today received letters from Major Anderson dated the 4th but they contain nothing of especial importance. The most friendly feelings exist between him and the South Carolina authorities. Postal facilities are still open to him, and privileges of marketing, to a limited extent, continue."(48) Anderson's access to provisions and the delivery of mail to the fort was not terminated until the seventh of April — only after it had become known to the Confederate Government that a war expedition had been secretly launched and would soon arrive at the Charleston harbor. The historical record clearly indicates that, contrary to the propaganda put forth by Lincoln, spread by the Northern press, and then later perpetuated by Northern historians after the close of the war, Anderson and his men were by no means starving. In his report of 26 December 1860, Anderson announced that he had "one year's supply of hospital stores and about four months' supply of provisions" for his command.(49) Three days later, he wrote in a letter to Robert N. Gourdin, a prominent citizen of Charleston, "I have supplies of provisions, of all kinds, to last my command about five months, but it would add to our comfort to be enabled to make purchases of fresh meats and so on, and to shop in the city."(50)
Even though Anderson had caused resentment from the South Carolinians by transferring his command from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter — an act which the State authorities viewed as a breach of the pledge of the U.S. Government not to reinforce Sumter — they were still willing to attempt to pacify the situation by offering to provision the garrison now set in hostile array against them. It should be noted that on 28 December 1860, Anderson had sent this message to Adjutant General Cooper: "[The Governor] knows not how entirely the city of Charleston is in my power. I can cut his communication off from the sea, and thereby prevent the reception of supplies, and close the harbor, even at night, by destroying the lighthouses."(51) Since all of Anderson's communications with his government in Washington, D.C. had to go through the authorities in Charleston, he knew that this threat to close the Charleston harbor would be read by Governor Pickens. Nevertheless, on 19 January 1861, less than a month after this threat was made, South Carolina Secretary of War D.F. Jamison sent the following message from the Governor to Anderson: "Sir, I am instructed by his excellency the governor to inform you that he has directed an officer of the State to procure and carry over with your mails each day to Fort Sumter such supplies of fresh meat and vegetables as you may indicate."(52) Anderson's response is interesting: "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of this date.... I confess I am at a loss to understand the latter part of this message, as I have not represented in any quarter that we were in need of such supplies. As commandant of a military post, I can only have my troops furnished with fresh beef in the manner prescribed by law, and I am compelled, therefore, with due thanks to his excellency, respectfully to decline his offer."(53)
Not having waited for a reply from Anderson, Secretary Jamison had arranged for "two hundred pounds of beef and a lot of vegetables" to be sent over to the fort,(54) which Anderson refused to accept. At this point, Anderson was given free access to the Charleston markets to purchase provisions at his own discretion. This amiable arrangement having been established, Anderson realized that interference from Washington would be a grave mistake and even wrote to Adjutant-General Cooper on 30 January 1861, "I do hope that no attempt will be made by our friends to throw supplies in; their doing so would do more harm than good."(55) On the seventeenth of March, Anderson indicated that he was "satisfied with the existing arrangement"(56) and on the first of April, Second Lieutenant Norman J. Hall reported to Anderson that there was "at least thirty-five days of comfortable subsistence for the command."(57) Thus, the U.S. Government's own records not only prove that Anderson's men were well-provisioned all along, but it also shows the popular caricature of the South Carolinians as "fire eaters" set to inaugurate bloodshed at the slightest provocation to be utterly false.







(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 188
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/17/2011 10:00:06 PM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline
On returning from the inugriation, Lincoln was presented with this from anderson report.[4 March 1861] there came a letter from Major Anderson to John T. Morse, Jr "There were shut up in the fort together a certain number of men and a certain quantity of biscuit and of pork; when the men should have eaten the biscuit and the pork, which they would probably do in about four weeks, they would have to go away. The problem thus became direct, simple, and urgent."

Catton lists on inagriation day the QM report passed on by Anderson (Catton This Hallowed ground page 17) "there were 6 barrells of flour, 6 more or hard tack,3 of sugar, 2 vinager,24 salt pork and odds and ends".


Dailly rations are 18 ounces meat, 20 flour per man, 82 men therfore predicts a know half or full ration limit to those stores. Barrels are 240lbs capacity, hard tack might be the only unkown without a little work, i can worth out the calorific contect on bread (3lbs is 3500 calories or so from memory)etc to see if they were starving, which is what Northern papers purport but not from Andersons and his QM do you read this level, besides, he had the ability to procure any and all stores from charleston untill these were stopped.

So, Flour 6*240=1440 pounds *16=23040 ounces, Consumption at 20*82men per day =1640, which is 14 days full ration of bread.
24 Salt pork: 24*240*16=92160. Consumption 18*82=1476, which is 62 days.
6 hard tack: 6*240=1440*16=23040 ounces.Consumption at 16*82=1312. Which is 18 days.
Sugar 3*240*16=11520, Consumption 82*1.5=123, Which is 93 days.

Information given by the QM report to Lincoln and cabinet, on 4th March, shows that the Garriosn had 62 days of meat at full rations and grains for 32 days and sugar for 93.

irst of April, Second Lieutenant Norman J. Hall reported to Anderson that there was "at least thirty-five days of comfortable subsistence for the command."

What the as politicians then did with that information is the problem.

Rations were slightly different in 61 to 63 but my link for that is dead.
http://www.visit-gettysburg.com/civil-war-rations.html

< Message edited by Hanny -- 7/17/2011 10:28:50 PM >

(in reply to Hanny)
Post #: 189
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/17/2011 10:14:18 PM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline
Double post.

< Message edited by Hanny -- 7/17/2011 10:16:52 PM >

(in reply to Hanny)
Post #: 190
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/18/2011 3:52:41 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

The initial engagement of what would become the First Battle of Bull Run took place on Wilmer McLean's farm, the Yorkshire Plantation.

Union Gen. Daniel Tyler's advance brigade arrived near Blackburn's Ford on Bull Run Creek. Spotting a Confederate battery across the valley, Tyler had two of his cannon fire upon the Rebel position and sent two regiments and a squadron of cavalry down towards the ford to reconnoiter. The Union men advanced down the hillside and closed on the ford, and then they were suddenly under fire that erupted from the trees on the other bank. Unknowingly, they had gone towards Wilmer Mclean's house, which was being used as a headquarters for Confederate commander P. G. T. Beauregard.

And here two more names appeared which would become famous. The concealed Southerners were led by Confederate Col. James Longstreet. Longstreet received reinforcements from General Jubal A. Early's brigade and launched a counterattack that drove the Union troops back from the ford.

Because Tyler had been ordered not to bring on a general engagement, he withdrew his advance guard and ended the skirmish. The Union soldiers had suffered 19 killed, 38 wounded, and 26 missing. The Confederates had 15 killed and 53 wounded. There had been one interesting near-miss, however: the two Northern cannons had fired toward Wilmer McLean's house. A cannon-ball dropped through the kitchen fireplace, which ruined the stew being prepared for the dinner of Beauregard and his staff, and understandably upset McClean.

In the Shenandoah Valley, Joseph Johnston received orders to bring his forces to Beauregard's aid. With energetic help from the newly promoted General Jackson, he had the bulk of his men on the move out of Winchester within hours. General Patterson's Union army failed to detect the movement.


< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 7/18/2011 3:53:44 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 Hanny)
Post #: 191
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/18/2011 4:34:38 PM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Their stew was ruined.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 192
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/18/2011 5:15:08 PM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

150 Years Ago Today:

The initial engagement of what would become the First Battle of Bull Run took place on Wilmer McLean's farm, the Yorkshire Plantation.


quote:

Wilmer Mclean


W McLean was so shocked at the carnage of Bull Run1 and 2, fought over his home, he moved to Apottomax, where he also held property, it was here in 1865 Grant and Lee met for the surrender of the ANV, Custer rode of with Wilbers table the surrender was signed on.http://www.nps.gov/apco/historyculture/key-civilians-at-appomattox.htm

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/articleview.cfm?aid=37

One of the more bizare coincidences of the WBTS.



< Message edited by Hanny -- 7/18/2011 5:29:02 PM >

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 193
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/18/2011 9:40:47 PM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Even in the Civil War Custer was arrogant and rude. I remember reading somewhere that he was once lectured by a Confederate General for his lack oc respect near the end of the war.

I remember now, it was in one of the Time Life Civil War volumes.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Hanny)
Post #: 194
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/19/2011 3:20:51 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

W McLean was so shocked at the carnage of Bull Run1 and 2, fought over his home, he moved to Apottomax, where he also held property, it was here in 1865 Grant and Lee met for the surrender of the ANV


Awww -- you spoiled the surprise!

_____________________________

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 Hanny)
Post #: 195
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/19/2011 8:50:33 AM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

W McLean was so shocked at the carnage of Bull Run1 and 2, fought over his home, he moved to Apottomax, where he also held property, it was here in 1865 Grant and Lee met for the surrender of the ANV


Awww -- you spoiled the surprise!


I apologise, i just could not wait the 4 years to get to it!.

You may like this as well btw:http://civilwardailygazette.com/category/battles-campaigns-raids/campaigns/01-charleston-harbor-campaigns/page/2/

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 196
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/20/2011 5:06:49 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

July 20, 1861. -- The great battle which is to arrest rebellion or to make it a power in the land is no longer distant or doubtful. McDowell has completed his reconnaissance of the country in front of the enemy, and General Scott anticipates that he will be in possession of Manassas tomorrow night . . .
Some senators and many congressmen have already gone to join McDowell's army or to follow in its wake in the hope of seeing the Lord deliver the Philistines into his hands . . . Every Carriage, gig, wagon, and hack has been engaged by people going out to see the fight . . . The French cooks and hotelkeepers, by some occult process of reasoning, have arrived at the conclusion that they must treble the prices of their wines and of the hampers of provisions which the Washington people are ordering to comfort themselves at their bloody Derby . . .
-- William Howard Russell for the London Times



What was not visible to Russell, or anyone on the Northern side, was that General Beauregard's army was being rapidly reinforced by Johnston's men. In one of the first large-scale troop movements by rail in history, Johnston's units were boarding trains for an eight-hour ride to Manassas Junction. The trains had to shuttle back and forth, but Beauregard's forces were approaching numerical parity with McDowell's. Like most Southern generals, Beauregard was not a man to back down from a fight, and he planned a spoiling attack for the next day.

But McDowell had not been completely idle. Taking heed from the reverse at Blackburn's Ford, he had indeed completed his reconnaissance, and his scouts had found an undefended crossing of Bull Run. McDowell planned his move for first light.

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 7/20/2011 5:08:06 AM >

(in reply to Hanny)
Post #: 197
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/21/2011 4:38:06 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

The Battle of First Bull Run, or Manassas, became a classic example of "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy". Beauregard's plan for a spoiling attack evaporated when McDowell's men began crossing the river at 5:00 am. But McDowell's plan for a surprise attack on the Confederate left flank was foiled as well by an alert Southern commander, who realized that the firing in front of him was a diversion, and moved his troops just in time to meet the Federals coming over Sudley ford.

During the morning the Union generally had the upper hand. Greater numbers at the points of contact drove the Confederates slowly back. But although some of the inexperienced units on each side broke, there was no major break in the overall lines. The battle turned into a test of endurance as the hours wore on and both McDowell and Beauregard rushed troops piecemeal to the places where the fighting seemed to be fiercest.

Eventually, the Southerners were driven back to the crest of Henry House Hill. But there, Thomas Jackson's brigade of Virginians made a stand. Confederate General Barnard Bee commanded a nearby unit that had given way, and he attempted to re-group his men, pointing to Jackson's brigade and shouting something like: "There is Jackson standing like a stone wall! Rally behind the Virginians!" Exactly what Bee said is uncertain, for he was mortally wounded that afternoon -- but from that day on, Jackson was "Stonewall" Jackson.

Other names that would be famous were on both sides of the fighting. Ambrose Burnside and William Tecumseh Sherman were among the Union leaders, while the Confederates had Johnston, Jackson, Jubal Early, and "Jeb" Stuart.

Around 4:00 pm, the last of the Confederate train-riding reinforcements arrived. The Union right flank was already crumbling, partly because uniforms were not as standard as they would be later in the war, and some of the rebels wore blue, badly confusing the Union artillery. Beauregard odered a general counter-attack, and the rebels went forward, screaming like banshees. This was the first use of the "rebel yell", and it unnerved many a Union soldier, as it would would many other times to come. The Federals retreated, and it rapidly deteriorated into a rout. The chaos was magnified by the spectators from Washington who had come expecting a Union victory, and now drove their carriages back north as fast as their horses could manage.

President Jefferson Davis had taken the risk of riding to the scene, and now he got into a debate with Beauregard and Johnston over whether or not to pursue the beaten Northern army. Although victorious, the nature of the fight had left the Confederate forces almost as disorganized -- Johnston would later claim they were even more so. Eventually it was decided to let the Yankees go. (All three leaders survived the war, and defended their versions of the decision in speech and writing.)

Total casualties for the Union were 2900, with 460 killed. Confederate casualties were just under 2000, with 387 killed. Although these figures would pale in comparison with later battles, the losses were a quantum leap beyond anything the two sides had seen before. Before the war, it had been said that "a lady's thimble would hold all the blood that would be shed" because of secession. That had been proved tragically wrong, and both North and South began to realize the magnitude of the efforts they would have to make.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 198
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/21/2011 7:22:02 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
The Rebel Yell. Woot!

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 199
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/22/2011 4:53:00 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

"22d -- I awoke from a deep sleep this morning about six o'clock. The rain was falling in torrents and beat with a dull, thudding sound on the leads outside my window; but louder than all came a strange sound as if of the tread of men, a confused tramp and splashing and murmuring of voices. I got up and ran to the front room, the windows of which looked on the street, and there, to my intense surprise, I saw a steady stream of men covered with mud, soaked through with rain, who were pouring irregularly, without any semblance of order, up Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol . . . I ran downstairs and asked an officer who was passing by, a pale young man who looked exhausted to death and who had lost his sword, for the empty sheath dangled at his side, where the men were coming from. "Where from? Well, sir, I guess we're all coming out of Virginny as far as we can, and pretty well whipped, too."
. . .

There is no provost guard, no patrol, no authority visible in the streets. General Scott is quite overwhelmed by the affair and is unable to stir. General McDowell has not yet arrived. The Secretary of War knows not what to do, Mr. Lincoln is equally helpless, and Mr. Seward, who retains some calmness, is, notwithstanding his military rank and militia experience, without resource or expedient . . . Why Beauregard does not come I know not, nor can I well guess. I have been expecting every hour to hear his cannon. Here is a golden opportunity."
-- William Howard Russell, for the London Times



Russell appears to have exaggerated the situation. (The New York papers would later derisively nickname him "Bull Run" Russell.) At least a few members of the Lincoln administration were still working: the order went out to western Virginia for General George McClellan to take command of the Union army in Washington.

At sea, a complication had developed: runaway slaves were not only crossing into Union-controlled areas by land, but a fair number managed to come aboard Union naval vessels when they had anchored near the Southern coasts or on the rivers. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Wells directed his ship captains:

"It is not the policy of this Government to invite or encourage this kind of desertion and yet, under the circumstances, no other course...could be adopted without violating every principle of humanity. To return them would be impolitic as well as cruel...you will do well to employ them."

In Missouri, the example of western Virginia caught on, with the advantage that the pro-Northern side now held the state capital. The Missouri Convention re-convened in Jefferson City. 20 of the original members were now in retreat with Governor Jackson and General Price, so the remainder were overwhelmingly in favor of Union. All state offices were declared vacant, and the Convention set about appointing its people to fill them.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 200
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/22/2011 6:08:07 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
I read that letter twice. It was almost like I was there.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 201
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/22/2011 11:51:10 PM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline
Bull run was fought between the Army of the Potomac (B-regaurd CSA) and the Army of Northern Virginia (McDowel US)

Wierd neh.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 202
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/23/2011 1:06:56 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Dang Hanny, I never knew that.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Hanny)
Post #: 203
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/23/2011 2:12:41 AM   
Hanny

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline
Your welcome, thats one reason i love all the 150th blogs, there is always something new, people have to share with their readers.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 204
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/23/2011 2:49:40 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 772
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanny

Bull run was fought between the Army of the Potomac (B-regaurd CSA) and the Army of Northern Virginia (McDowel US)

Wierd neh.



The Union force at First Bull Run was called the Army of Northeastern Virginia.

(in reply to Hanny)
Post #: 205
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/25/2011 6:05:02 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

The U.S. Congress passed the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution on the aims of the war:

Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on their part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.


The "established institutions" meant, of course, slavery. Kentucky senator John Crittenden, the co-sponsor of the resolution, had been a third-party candidate for president in 1860 and was a force to be reckoned with. (He was also the main author of the (thankfully) failed Crittenden compromise.) The resolution helped to boost pro-Union sentiment in Missouri and Maryland, and especially in Kentucky, which was still very much in the balance.

But it weakened support for the Union internationally. Above all, Great Britain was the key to foreign intervention. The Royal Navy could easily break the Northern blockade that was still shaky at best in July 1861. Oddly, the upper classes in Britain tended to favor the South, viewing its society as more civilized, while the working classes tended to favor the North. But slavery was now seen as an evil everywhere in Britain, and intervention to uphold slavery would not have happened. Since slavery was officially not the issue, however, the upper classes pushed to at least recognize the Confederacy and so trade with it.

In the Shenandoah Valley, General Patterson was, not surprisingly, relieved of command for his failure to keep Johnston's army pinned down.

_____________________________

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 ckammp)
Post #: 206
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/25/2011 10:02:12 PM   
andym


Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/12/2006
From: Kings Lynn UK
Status: offline
I found this and thought you might find it interesting.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14283527

_____________________________

Press to Test...............Release to Detonate!

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 207
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/26/2011 2:35:35 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
I love the political history of the Civil War. 

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to andym)
Post #: 208
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/26/2011 5:13:01 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
Washington, July 26, 1861

Dear Sir . . . The dreadful disaster of Sunday can scarcely be mentioned. The imbecility of this Administration culminated in that catastrophe--an irretrievable misfortune and national disgrace never to be forgotten are to be added to the ruin of all peaceful pursuits and national bankruptcy as the result of Lincoln's "running the machine" for five months . . . It is not unlikely that some change in the War and Navy Departments may take place, but none beyond those two departments until Jefferson Davis turns out the whole concern.

The capture of Washington seems now to be inevitable--during the whole of Monday and Tuesday it might have been taken without any resistance. The rout, overthrow, and utter demoralization of the whole army is complete. Even now I doubt whether any serious opposition to the entrance of the Confederate forces could be offered. While Lincoln, Scott, and the Cabinet are disputing who is to blame,the city is unguarded, and the enemy at hand. General McClellan reached here last evening. But, if he had the ability of Caesar, Alexander, or Napoleon, what can he accomplish?
[. . .]

Yours truly,

Edwin M. Stanton

His Excellency, James Buchanan


(Stanton had been Attorney General during the administration of Buchanan. He was correct about a change in the War Department; he himself would be made Secretary of War, and eventually one of Lincoln's most loyal Cabinet members.)

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 7/27/2011 5:21:05 AM >

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 209
RE: Civil War 150th - 7/27/2011 5:29:20 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
150 Years Ago Today:

George B. McClellan received the orders appointing him commander of the Department of the Potomac, including McDowell's defeated army. (McClellan would name his main army the Army of the Potomac later on.) U. S. Grant would later call McClellan "one of the great mysteries of the war", demonstrating great raw talent as a commander, but not the ability to put that talent into a successful campaign. At this particular moment, however, the Union needed above all a man who could organize an army into an efficient fighting machine, and this task McClellan would perform remarkably well.

_____________________________

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 #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Civil War 150th Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

0.148