New name

To give the blog an uplift, I've done few twicks, which should give this a better feel and a cooler look. I've also changed my name to my alias on another site, "Youn' Fighting Joe Hooker".

Which Side Washington Would Have Been On

There has been some debate on which side our friend Mr. Washington would have been on if he was alive at the time of the Civil War. It was and is the opinion of many that Washington would have been with ths South, seeing as he owned slaves.

He would have joined them as soon as he would have joined the British in 1812. In other words, that's chrap!

He stated on several occassions that those who sought to tear down the United States would be condemned by the Almighty, and he pitied them for their foolishness.

Many still would claim he was for the South due to the Revolution. He, however, le troops against the Whiskey Rebillion. To believe he woud be against the Union is wrong. He would have defended it to the death.

According to many from the Confederate side during the attack on Little Round Top, many, hundreds claimed seeing George Washington's spirit during Chamberlains' Charge. Was the general there? No one knows. But, it is sure to be understood and clear as mud that he would have perserved the Union.

Sherman: Hero or Monster

Was Sherman a hero or monster? That has haunted the Civil War historian for nearly 2 centries. Let us look at the facts:

1. According to Rules of War established, Sherman was actually permitted to "borrow" from the natives. When an invading army entered enemy territory, they were suppose to write a long letter to the local authorities, describing thier needs, and the authorities were suppose to give them all the food and items they needed. When none was found, the invaders were allowed to take as much as needed. Sherman followed this.

2. The rule of combat is for every defender, 3 attackers will die. This is true with the Civil War. If Lee had over 40,000 men when Grant attacked, it's probable that 15,000 would be shot in a vigoruos assualt. By scaring and harassing the locals, many men felt compelled to leave the front lines to protect thier famalies. Desertions were rampant in both the ANV and AOT. Many thousands were saved, and maybe a couple months of war was skimmed off.

3. Most of the destruction was done by vagabonds and deserters. Sherman was not really for too much wanton destruction, but, the bummers (deserters who wanted to loot and plunder) did. Only 40% of the damage was really Sherman evoked. The rest was lawlessness.

4. If a family was present, thier homes didn't get burned down.

5. Of course, many things were entirely Sherman's fault, as not putting out the fire in Charleston until a little while after the fact is a big example.

Conclusion: Sherman did what he needed too. Was there a better way? There always is. But, he ended the Civil War sooner then any other general on either side.

Lee vs. Grant: Who is the Better One

This is probably the greatest contreversy of them all. Who was better, Lee or Grant. I've decided to do it an intresting way. I will compare the results throughtout the entire war.

Battles Won
Grant: 18 battles
Lee: 8 Battles

Captured (Cities, Forts, Armies)
Grant:2 Forts, 5 major cities, 3 Confederate Armies
Lee: Nothing

Time as Overall Commander
Grant: 1 year and 5 months
Lee: 3 months; lost

Men Lost
Grant: 136,000 men.
Lee: 168,000 men.

Overall, Grant proved superior in every aspect of the war. He captured more, won more and did everything more.

Now, I am not saying Lee was a bad general. Lee was a superb general. He outwitted army after army. But, in the end, Grant won.

As was once said: Lee was the best tatician in the war (even in his battles with Grant, Grant rarely broke the Confederate lines), but Grant was the best stratigist. Taticians win battles, strategists win wars.

Civil War Controversies

I was originally going to do a few more books, but, it has become more and more obvious to me that we need to go in a new direction now, and look more into the Contrevrsities of the Civil War. I plan to do the following:

Lee vs. Grant: Who is the Better One
Sherman: Hero or Monster
Which Side Washington Would Have Been On
Was Hooker Drunk at Chancellorsville
Was the South or North Right
and a couple more.

What Hath God Wrought

To understand the times that transform the United States to the belemoth that broke up during the Civil War, one must understand the times preceding the war. One of the books that most clearly describes such events is What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 by Daniel Walker Howe.

It begins how it ends, on the field of battle. It starts with the British disaster at New Orleans, due to the communication downfall of the time; and ends at a new type of battle, the Sceneca Falls assembly where women began advocating equal rights and abolitsinism. Though the battles were diffrent, it is fair to point out that in both battles, the black man was a part of the issue. ANd both showed the way people viewed them back then. At New Orleans: Jackson offered the black troops 150 acres of land for thier services, but convinently forgot about it and the men were still trying to fight for thier lands. At Seneca Falls: women wants blacks free, but that did not nessecarily mean equal rights.

Howe's books helps show how the country transformed into what it became, allowing it to survive during the Civil War. It also allows us to see what kind of land Grant, Lee, Jackson and Sherman lived in and grew up. This book describes the country of Mexico as a people that were eager to show thier independance from Spanish rule, and determined to hold on thier lands from American interlopers.

In short, this book is an excellant addition to any History buffs library. I wouldn't recommend this book to someone who is wanting a light read or still new to the history profession. Why? 900 pages, 10 size font, and long words. But, for the hard core prosn, or someone who really wants a good read, I highly recommend it.

I rate this book 10 out of 10.

Dear America Diaries

There are several Dear America Diaries that deal with the American Civil War. They're fun to read, but entirely fictional. Most of the writers make up the people of the journals from real experiances people experianced.

Probably the best part of the books if you want info is at the very end. There, they include about a dozen pages of information about the war.

I would recommend this book to people who want to have something to read, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone who really wants to learn about the war.

My rating: 7 out of 10.