The Civil War and the Limits of Destruction

Alright, if you haven't been on this blog before I will come out and say it. I am a Unionist through and through and feel that too much blame is thrown on the feet of the yanks and not enough of the blame taken by the rebs for their own actions. And I was looking forward to a read that finally tries to prove the Federals were not a bloodthirsty and lawless as described.

(Force Mind Trick) But....this is not the book you're looking for. And I will give a few thoughts on why I disagree.

This book's defense is based on three premises: The two sides weren't willing to take off the gloves because of the fact they were fighting whites as well. The discipline level was higher. And the later Union troops were more focused on proving themselves the equals to the Confederates.

1. Being the same race stayed their hands: This statement is not as accurate as he paints for the reader. Sure, during the beginning they tried to be less brutal. But, you read of Confederate troops right after First Manasass digging up a Union soldiers body to mutilate it. You read of Union troops after killing General Zollicoffer during the early part of the war and tearing out hairs of his beard for souvenirs. Lee's second invasion of the north saw Confederates look away as many Confederates all but robbed the northerners, Lee even going as far as saying to a woman complaining that everything has been taken, "Now you know something of what the people of Virginia have endured."

2. The Discipline was higher: Yes, it was, but discipline has a way of breaking down when soldiers capture cities. Fredericksburg being one example, even if the officers tried to stop their men from looting. One case sticks out quiet well in my mind. There's a story of the Overland Campaign where a Union officer told his soldiers he don't want to see them pulling apart fences, then turned around and looked away until his soldiers had dismantled an entire fence. And both sides officially authorized bushwhacking units.

3. Glory more important than revenge: There is a story of during the Georgia Campaign where Sherman's men captured a mill where 400 women were working. He kidnapped them and sent them north. Even despite the quicking an end to the war aim to do the Overland Campaign and March to the Sea and all the other maneuvers in the late part of the war was specifically meant to give the troops a chance to enact revenge against the South for their taking up arms. And meanwhile, as I pointed out, Confederate officers while they tried to limit the destruction caused by their troops in Pennsylvania, would look away at acts of revenge as long as they didn't get out of hand. You even hear of Stuart's cavalry shelling Chambersburg until they pay a ransom to be spared.

In short, this is really a book bent on not so much changing how people look at the war as to diverting their focus away from the war and looking at what other people did. It's the same as a kid who get's caught in trouble and says: "But everyone is doing it, and that kid is so much worse than I am."

Recounting the dead

So, after two days of being unable to get on my computer, I finally jumped on and headed over the the Civil War Gaming site: MadMinute Games BBS and I saw there was a new post in the Civil War section. So, I went over there and there was a new topic called Recounting the Dead. The initial post from the author said this:

Interesting article on the possibility that the accepted number of deaths in the Civil War may be underestimated.

Listed was a link to an article written J. David Hacker associated professor of history at Binghamton University. In it he argues, with a strong argument, that the deal toll of the Civil War or directly related to it was actually between 750,000 to 850,000. High number right? Well, actually, he states that even when the 1870 census was created, it wasn't by no means accurate. Most of the Confederate records had been destroyed, and unlike the Union widows and orphans, southern women got no benefits from their loved ones pensions and didn't report the loss of family members. Also, the US population had increased 34-36% every decade. But, in 1870, the increase was only 21%, or three million less then it should have been.

Well, to make a long story short, I agree with the article. I think as a society we have accepted too low a number. Heck, most people are under the impression that the 620,000 was all losses, dismissing the 400,000 wounded that lived out their natural lives. Also, rebel troops were very ill-fed and ill-clothed. The mortality rate had to be higher. Makes logical sense.

Several months ago I read an article that claimed civilian losses were 80,000. Too high a number in my opinion. That probably included all deaths, natural or otherwise. But, many civilians were killed, and we know of 400 women in the South who disappeared when they were kidnapped by Union soldiers under Sherman's command. Also, hundreds, even thousands died during the guerrilla warfare wagged in the Border States. I myself estimate the total losses in deaths closer to 730,000 at least.

But, a link to the article is here, just click the name: Recounting the Dead.

Lincoln and Lee at Antietam: The Cost of Freedom

So, I recently purchased the documentary Lincoln and Lee at Antietam: The Cost of Freedom. I had been looking forward to since 2009. And finally, I got it off of iTunes and watched it on my iPod.

It was well written and well delivered by the historians. The reenactments were fun to watch on it.

And besides, my good friend James McPherson makes an appearance on the show. Not every day I get to see him doing his thing.

One thing that surprised me was the defense of Burnside delivered by one of the historians. How he was the only person to take his assigned target, clear the area out of enemies entirely, and almost cut off the escape of the Army of Northern Virginia. Only problem; he hadn't yet paid up his gambling debt to AP Hill, who also lost his girl to McClellan. So, Hill had a bone to pick with him.

But, I certainly say you should go out and get this show. Very nicely done.

Nathanial Lyon

What I think about this general is simple.

He was quiet a general and even in his short career did amazing things.

He only lived until August, and that was only like 6 months into the war.Despite he didn't have alot of time to build up a good reputation, he already did several incredible things, and probably would have done better, but, I don't really want to get into the what-ifs.

Army of the Potomac

So, anyways, despite the fact that I haven't been on for a while, I have several updates on my Civil War Experience. Those of you whom know what I mean, it is anything that happens that I am involved someway to the Preservation of the legacy of the American Civil War, which has not only defined America, but how the whole world views America in times of crisis.

The Major ones at this time is my doing in the Civil War gaming communities.

On MadMinute Games BB, they have been doing simulations for the game. Interesting though, for it is strictly a one player game. What happens is one person plays the game, and is the Facilitator. The man who has been doing the past two is called Motubu, from Africa. He's been doing one heck of a job I must say.

He only does anything though, depending on the orders he receives. So, the other players involved in this are commanders. We take a historical OOB and from there we take the positions of the historical person who we want to be. But, these aren't historical settings.

The turns go like this: we issue out orders to those below us and the the facilitator, they then carry out the orders. Then, we get written reports on the actions of the different people and the facilitator. Then, we issue out orders based upon the new information received.

There have been three total, but, I've only been able to participate in two.

The first one was a simulation called Longstreet verses Sickles. It was to show what would have happened if the I Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia commanded by James Longstreet, supplied with a division from the III Corps, randomly meet the III Corps of the Army of the Potomac, commanded by Sickles. We played as Longstreet.

My character was Cadmus M. Wilcox, and I original was assigned the first brigade from the III Corps Division. But, my commanding officer, General Anderson, was killed, and so I replaced him most of the battle. My division ended the battle after five turns. with a smashing all-out attack on the units near us. My division received the highest scores of the simulation.

The second one, being played out right now, is called Burnsides' Gambles. It based upon the assumption that Burnside received his pontoon bridges on time and crossed the river on November 19. It also shows how much different it would have been, if two Corps were not present, used to keep the Army of Northern Virginia in place. And what would have happened if most of the Army of Northern Virginia had slipped past them and still arrived at Fredericksburg, but, without having the time to prepare themselves in a strong fortified line.

I am General Ambrose Burnside. It amazing leading the Army of the Potomac into battle. There is a set fixed limit of 10 turns, and we have completed turn 8. Half of the army was on the town side of the Rappahanock. The other half on the other side of the river. We learned only after intense fighting The I Corps was virtually mauled twice when trying to enter Fredericksburg from the south (or north on the map given us), and it has only 6,000 men left out of 13,000. The enemy set up a massed artillery base ontop of a hill, fixing us in place until we had drained enough of thier manpower to launch an attack on the hill.

The enemy crossed the river with a battery and seven brigades, but they were annihilated. Jackson's Corps is nearly wiped out and we are still in fairly good condition. But, the battle isn't over yet. No one knows what will happen next.

New Strategy

So, anyways, there is so much on the subject of the war, that, from now on, I am going for a different approach. I am very active in several civil war/military history message boards, and so, I am going to start posting posts about different topics I have or am participating in.

The rules of engagement will still be the same, my opinions on the topics. But, this way, I can keep on my toes when it comes to new ideas. Have I exhausted my list of topics? By no means. But, this will keep them coming in a timely manner.

Would Jackson have won at Gettysburg?

No. Absolutely not.

These are reasons why Jackson would not have won:

1. The Confederates were worn out. To have continued the attack would have taxed thier strength to the point that it would have snapped. Even Jackson would have given his men a few minutes rest, and by then, the Union defense on the hills would have been solidified.

2. Terrain was not in his favor. The Yanks were on a hill, and had good fields of fire that would have killed many troops before even getting within rifle range.

3. The Confederates had taken massive casualties. July 1 was the bloodiest of the 3 days, because entire units were destroyed and the casualties were high.

4. Yanks were pouring in every minute. The build up of forces would have slowed Jackson down sugnificantly, allowing the Union time to press thier advantage of troops.

5. True, the 2nd Corps would not have been broken into two corps, allowing Jackson more men on the field under his personal command. At most, he would have only had 30,000 men at the start of the battle, and he would have been facing several Union Corps (at least 2, if not more) numbering about 15,000 if there was only 2 Union Corps. Even a succesful attack would have cost the Confederates so dearly, that they would have needed a day to rest, more then enough time for Meade to form good defenses at Philidelphia and Baltimore.

Most people consider Jackson would have succedded where Ewell failed. Would he have? He would have done a better performance. But, if he had failed to carry the heights, then, think of how less men there would have been to attack the following days.