Languish.org

Assuming no changes earlier than 1815, was the American Civil War inevitable?

I say no. Gradual manumission in Virgina was plausible, and if that legislation had passed in the 1830s then Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky would have followed. Without Virginia and Kentucky beholden to the Deep South on the slavery issue they have no hope in congress or on the battlefield.

Every book I've read on the US has the civil war occurring, so yeah, I think so.

I don't think it was inevitable at any time before the war with Mexico.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2014, 01:31:31 AM
Every book I've read on the US has the civil war occurring, so yeah, I think so.

So you're a determinist?

Do you believe in free will?

It was a necessary precursor to the internet wars of 1994-2014.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 30, 2014, 01:49:10 AM
Do you believe in free will?

We must believe in free will; we have no choice.   -Isaac Bashevis Singer

To the question in the OP. I think the Compromise of 1850 made the war inevitable. From that point on Slavery became part of the identity of certain states. Maintaining slavery became an implied obligation.

 Even past 1850, you could always just let the slave states go in peace.

Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 06:53:18 AM
To the question in the OP. I think the Compromise of 1850 made the war inevitable. From that point on Slavery became part of the identity of certain states. Maintaining slavery became an implied obligation.

I think that's reasonable.  It also allowed the Northern states to cleanse themselves of the taint of slavery, which was psychologically important to them.  Of course, then they turned around and exterminated and imprisoned all of the Indian population between the coasts, so it turns out that it really didn't matter.

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 07:58:40 AM
Even past 1850, you could always just let the slave states go in peace.

unpossible - slavery is an abomination and the institution must be exterminated

But presumably not in Brazil or anywhere like that- specifically, slavery is an abomination in Tennessee and must be exterminated, right?

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 08:08:33 AM
But presumably not in Brazil or anywhere like that- specifically, slavery is an abomination in Tennessee and must be exterminated, right?

We start with that which we know.

That's the beauty of the internet.  It allows to know about so many more abominations to get riled up about.

Slavery ending was inevitable, but the war was not.

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 08:08:33 AM
But presumably not in Brazil or anywhere like that- specifically, slavery is an abomination in Tennessee and must be exterminated, right?

You are aware that Brazil abolished slavery on it's own? In the decade after the US Civil War.

 That can't be. I don't remember hearing tell of the Union army conducting any prolonged invasions in the area, which would obviously be the indispensable precursor to any sort of abolishment of slavery.

I think it was.  There were some deep divisions and our national identity needed to be settled.  The seeds of secession had been sewn in the 1830s and it was going to rear its ugly head sooner or later.

 Or these deep divisions could be allow to break on fault lines and create an amicable division.  It isn't clear why one national identity had to strangle the other rather than suffer both to live.

Slavery, Schlavery.

Fact is, before the ACW, the Americans saw themselves first and foremost as citizens of their own states; the US came second.

Since the government in Washington would end up trying to assert a firmer unity and control of the country, that a part of it would eventually violently resist this in the future was a given; the rest are mere details.

Of course, the same can be said about the EU; we currently say there is no chance of that because our 'civil war' was in fact WWII [it was actually portrayed as that at the time, though by Germany and not the Allies] and so our path for integration is now set and we will progress in peace.

Weather this is true or not, is something time will tell. I myself suspect that we will end up repeating the US experience, but all european officials/governments will reject this possibility.

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 09:04:22 AM
Or these deep divisions could be allow to break on fault lines and create an amicable division.  It isn't clear why one national identity had to strangle the other rather than suffer both to live.

Sure.  I guess that could have happened.  Problem was there was no legal provision for states leaving the Union. 

Quote from: Martim Silva on October 30, 2014, 09:07:17 AM
Slavery, Schlavery.

Fact is, before the ACW, the Americans saw themselves first and foremost as citizens of their own states; the US came second.

Stop right there.  *Some* did, particularly in the south.  But by no means was that the majority view.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 30, 2014, 08:33:06 AM
Slavery ending was inevitable, but the war was not.

I'm not so sure about the end of slavery being inevitable, at least not before the end of the 1800s.

You don't mean to say the colored community might have had to wait up to all of forty years, do you?

Enough of these goddamn Timmay retro threads.

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 09:45:29 AM
You don't mean to say the colored community might have had to wait up to all of forty years, do you?

This might be the most repugnant portion of this recent exchange.

Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 09:02:29 AM
I think it was.  There were some deep divisions and our national identity needed to be settled.  The seeds of secession had been sewn in the 1830s and it was going to rear its ugly head sooner or later.

Poll question is asking about 1815. It may have been inevitable by 1840, but even then I'm not sure.

Quote from: garbon on October 30, 2014, 09:50:20 AM

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 09:45:29 AM
You don't mean to say the colored community might have had to wait up to all of forty years, do you?

This might be the most repugnant portion of this recent exchange.

Hey, I certainly agree that chattel slavery is an abomination, and I'm glad we got rid of it.  I wish we'd gotten rid of it earlier, or better yet, never had it.  But I don't think it's repugnant to think that without the war, it would have continued to be a cancer in our country for a lot longer. 

Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 09:53:36 AM

Quote from: garbon on October 30, 2014, 09:50:20 AM

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 09:45:29 AM
You don't mean to say the colored community might have had to wait up to all of forty years, do you?

This might be the most repugnant portion of this recent exchange.

Hey, I certainly agree that chattel slavery is an abomination, and I'm glad we got rid of it.  I wish we'd gotten rid of it earlier, or better yet, never had it.  But I don't think it's repugnant to think that without the war, it would have continued to be a cancer in our country for a lot longer. 

I quoted a post where a poster suggested it was no big thing if slavery lasted another 40 years.

Quote from: garbon on October 30, 2014, 09:58:55 AM

Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 09:53:36 AM

Quote from: garbon on October 30, 2014, 09:50:20 AM

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 09:45:29 AM
You don't mean to say the colored community might have had to wait up to all of forty years, do you?

This might be the most repugnant portion of this recent exchange.

Hey, I certainly agree that chattel slavery is an abomination, and I'm glad we got rid of it.  I wish we'd gotten rid of it earlier, or better yet, never had it.  But I don't think it's repugnant to think that without the war, it would have continued to be a cancer in our country for a lot longer. 

I quoted a post where a poster suggested it was no big thing if slavery lasted another 40 years.

Oh. I misunderstood your post.

The Civil War was inevitable because the South (personified here because they were a huge bag of dicks) based their social and economic system on fallacies and lies.  When the reckoning became apparent, instead of being able to modify the abhorrent system they propped up the South was reduced to public suicide and eventual hope that they could gain something in martyrdom.

They failed, and are still the retarded portion of the country.

 I suppose, setting aside purely the qualms that may exist in invading your neighbors because you hold their domestic policies to be disagreeable, it would not be hard to fix an expenditure cost in dead and maimed (to say nothing of the financial tally incurred in sustaining a four year war and the material invested and expended) associated with each freed slave. The barest, most cursory glance suggests that the war produced roughly 600,000 dead, while the 1860 census listed 3,953,761 slaves- suggesting that, disregarding all other (presumably lesser) costs, for the bargain-rate price of one dead soldier upwards of six slaves got a forty year head-start on freedom.

This freedom, being as it was imposed by an outside force that lacked the willpower for a prolonged and sustained total subjugation of the South, was necessarily a tenuous one that caused much ill-will among the white and black communities, with social controls to restore de facto white supremacy being an overriding social imperative on the part of the Southern whites- Had the South provided for manumission on its own terms, race relations and the economic and social position of the Southern blacks might have been immeasurably improved. (Of course, it goes without saying that -everyone- in the South's economic position would be improved without the devastation occasioned by a desperate war waged against both the South's armed and unarmed occupants).

Besides the fact that the subjugation of the entire national entity of the South seems a poor price to pay for the decidedly fleeting and insubstantial exaltation of a minority section, the American public seems to have paid a terrible price that could have been avoided without incident.

Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2014, 10:15:02 AM
The Civil War was inevitable because the South (personified here because they were a huge bag of dicks) based their social and economic system on fallacies and lies.  When the reckoning became apparent, instead of being able to modify the abhorrent system they propped up the South was reduced to public suicide and eventual hope that they could gain something in martyrdom.

They failed, and are still the retarded portion of the country.

Yup.

Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2014, 10:15:02 AM
The Civil War was inevitable because the South (personified here because they were a huge bag of dicks)

That's a bit harsh.  Their politicians were generally horrible people, but the southern population by & large were not.

Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 09:10:28 AM

Quote from: Martim Silva on October 30, 2014, 09:07:17 AM
Slavery, Schlavery.

Fact is, before the ACW, the Americans saw themselves first and foremost as citizens of their own states; the US came second.

Stop right there.  *Some* did, particularly in the south.  But by no means was that the majority view.

Really?

To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

Quote from: Shelby Foote"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

Lettow raises a good point.  The price the south paid for the lifting of slavery was far too cheap.  It would have been better if all of the slaveowners were eliminated as well.  That would have raised the ratio to a more acceptable level.

Quote from: Martim Silva on October 30, 2014, 10:32:19 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 09:10:28 AM

Quote from: Martim Silva on October 30, 2014, 09:07:17 AM
Slavery, Schlavery.

Fact is, before the ACW, the Americans saw themselves first and foremost as citizens of their own states; the US came second.

Stop right there.  *Some* did, particularly in the south.  But by no means was that the majority view.

Really?

To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

Quote from: Shelby Foote"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

He's right.  But he's saying we were more unified as a result of the war, not that we were generally more loyal to our states than our country.  Obviously many in the south did, but if that were the general feeling across the US then we probably wouldn't have had the Civil War.

Quote from: Martim Silva on October 30, 2014, 10:32:19 AM
To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

Quote from: Shelby Foote"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

Unfortunately, Shelby was wrong.

A study of Supreme Court case opinions does show that the use of "is" increased during the Civil War to around 50% of the time, but then dropped off again after the war.  The real shift is usage to "is" occurs around 1900 and it is far more dramatic than the Civil War era shift.

I don't think that necessarily makes him wrong. People growing up during the civil war era were unlikely to write many SC opinions before 1900 or so.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 30, 2014, 01:49:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2014, 01:31:31 AM
Every book I've read on the US has the civil war occurring, so yeah, I think so.

So you're a determinist?

Do you believe in free will?

Well, I'm seeing an astounding rate of 100% US civil war every time 1861 comes around.

As late as the 1890s, the "are" form was used far more commonly in opinions, about 2/3 of the time.  Burt after 1900 the "are" form simply vanishes.  About 5 of the justice have substantial overlap in this period so in some cases it is the same people involved.  The phenomenon was noticed at the time; there is a Note in a 1900 issue of the Yale Journal commenting that the "are" form "is gradually passing" out of use.

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 07:58:40 AM
Even past 1850, you could always just let the slave states go in peace.

This is probably true, but it was not Union's choice to make.  The rebel states chose to initiate hostilities, not the federal government.  Had the Confederate states chosen to work out an agreement in which they left the Union, I think they would have had a real chance of doing so without war.  Fortunately they chose not to do so.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 12:28:20 PM

Quote from: Martim Silva on October 30, 2014, 10:32:19 AM
To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

Quote from: Shelby Foote"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

Unfortunately, Shelby was wrong.

A study of Supreme Court case opinions does show that the use of "is" increased during the Civil War to around 50% of the time, but then dropped off again after the war.  The real shift is usage to "is" occurs around 1900 and it is far more dramatic than the Civil War era shift.

Speaking of which, I wonder which Taney himself preferred to use.  I'm guessing him to have been an "are" man.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 12:28:20 PM

Quote from: Martim Silva on October 30, 2014, 10:32:19 AM
To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

Quote from: Shelby Foote"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

Unfortunately, Shelby was wrong.

A study of Supreme Court case opinions does show that the use of "is" increased during the Civil War to around 50% of the time, but then dropped off again after the war.  The real shift is usage to "is" occurs around 1900 and it is far more dramatic than the Civil War era shift.

Figures, I was related to him.  Naturally he has to be wrong. :rolleyes:

You're still related to him.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 30, 2014, 01:21:38 AM
Assuming no changes earlier than 1815, was the American Civil War inevitable?

I say no. Gradual manumission in Virgina was plausible, and if that legislation had passed in the 1830s then Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky would have followed. Without Virginia and Kentucky beholden to the Deep South on the slavery issue they have no hope in congress or on the battlefield.

The Civil War was not inevitable, the Secession was.

As Lettow said, it would have required the North to let go of the Southern States, and agree to have an expansionist slave state next to their border.

The South had the people, the North had the economy.  It would have been an interesting race to the West, with the indians playing one faction against the other.

Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 12:48:58 PM
Speaking of which, I wonder which Taney himself preferred to use.  I'm guessing him to have been an "are" man.

Taney was an "are" man, the Great Dissenter Harlan OTOH used "is" more often.
But usage does not correlate with geographic origin.  Some of the judges used both forms, and one justice actually used both forms in the same sentence!

I wouldn't say that it was inevitable, but it was certainly stupid.

Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2014, 01:23:13 PM
I wouldn't say that it was inevitable, but it was certainly stupid.

Much like this thread.

Quote from: garbon on October 30, 2014, 09:58:55 AM

Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 09:53:36 AM

Quote from: garbon on October 30, 2014, 09:50:20 AM

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 09:45:29 AM
You don't mean to say the colored community might have had to wait up to all of forty years, do you?

This might be the most repugnant portion of this recent exchange.

Hey, I certainly agree that chattel slavery is an abomination, and I'm glad we got rid of it.  I wish we'd gotten rid of it earlier, or better yet, never had it.  But I don't think it's repugnant to think that without the war, it would have continued to be a cancer in our country for a lot longer. 

I quoted a post where a poster suggested it was no big thing if slavery lasted another 40 years.

Had they been freed and immediatly became equal citizens, I would support your point of view, but given what we know of history, I'm not sure it is that repugnant.

Though, of course, imagining a situation where the South frees all slaves and makes them equal to whites is pure fantasy.  It would have been apartheid up 'til maybe the 1990s, like South Africa.

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 08:52:00 AM
That can't be. I don't remember hearing tell of the Union army conducting any prolonged invasions in the area, which would obviously be the indispensable precursor to any sort of abolishment of slavery.

Only sub-human dixie scum need invading to convince them they shouldn't own other people.

I still maintain we should have freed the slaves and then let those miserable, broken fucks have their country.  They could set up the feudal theocracy that so many down there still want and the rest of the country wouldn't be burdened by their stupidity. :mad:

Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 01:29:28 PM

Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2014, 01:23:13 PM
I wouldn't say that it was inevitable, but it was certainly stupid.

Much like this thread.

^_^

And I used to think *I* hated the South. Yeeowch.

This thread needs one of Timmy's maps.
















:P

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 01:07:37 PM
The South had the people, the North had the economy.

Uhm, no, actually the north had both.

Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 10:30:13 AM

Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2014, 10:15:02 AM
The Civil War was inevitable because the South (personified here because they were a huge bag of dicks)

That's a bit harsh.  Their politicians were generally horrible people, but the southern population by & large were not.

The ones who weren't part of the Huge Bag of Dicks conspiracy fought for the Union.  Like George Thomas.

Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2014, 07:42:57 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 10:30:13 AM

Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2014, 10:15:02 AM
The Civil War was inevitable because the South (personified here because they were a huge bag of dicks)

That's a bit harsh.  Their politicians were generally horrible people, but the southern population by & large were not.

The ones who weren't part of the Huge Bag of Dicks conspiracy fought for the Union.  Like George Thomas.

Glad people finally agree that Robert E. Lee was one of the Bag of Dicks.

Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 08:19:07 PM

Glad people finally agree that Robert E. Lee was one of the Bag of Dicks.

Horrible butcher of his troops.  The only reason he is lauded in the South is because they are retarded.

Earl van Dorn is my hero

Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2014, 08:21:24 PM
Horrible butcher of his troops. 

Not unlike Grant, I think?

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 08:52:47 PM
Not unlike Grant, I think?

I think Peedy is being ironic.

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 08:52:47 PM

Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2014, 08:21:24 PM
Horrible butcher of his troops. 

Not unlike Grant, I think?

It wouldn't be unfair that the ACW in general was a horrible butcher of troops.

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 30, 2014, 08:53:49 PM
It wouldn't be unfair that the ACW in general was a horrible butcher of troops.

Yes, no need to single out Grant.  Lee, on the other hand, should be.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 09:01:04 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 30, 2014, 08:53:49 PM
It wouldn't be unfair that the ACW in general was a horrible butcher of troops.

Yes, no need to single out Grant.  Lee, on the other hand, should be.

Even the First Lady called Grant a butcher.  :sleep:

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 30, 2014, 09:02:56 PM
Even the First Lady called Grant a butcher.  :sleep:

I find it difficult to believe Lady Bird Johnson would go that far.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 09:01:04 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 30, 2014, 08:53:49 PM
It wouldn't be unfair that the ACW in general was a horrible butcher of troops.

Yes, no need to single out Grant.  Lee, on the other hand, should be.

The north had the burden of attacking, and the attacker (all else being equal) will suffer more losses.  Lee and other southern generals didn't have to attack--they just liked to (most of them).

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 30, 2014, 08:53:49 PM

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 08:52:47 PM

Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2014, 08:21:24 PM
Horrible butcher of his troops. 

Not unlike Grant, I think?

It wouldn't be unfair that the ACW in general was a horrible butcher of troops.

No, he was one of the few which wasn't a butcher. He spent lives achieving a purpose unlike McClellan who spent fewer lives achieving nothing. Grant save the US a war in every generation.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 08:53:42 PM

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 08:52:47 PM
Not unlike Grant, I think?

I think Peedy is being ironic.

I believe Lee lost a slightly higher percentage of his troops, and given the strategic situation and disparity in resources he should have been more defensive.

More defensive?  Wasn't he known to be referred to as the King of Spades.

Gettysburg was a glorious exception, sure.  But the thinking in taking a few risks to try and beat an overwhelming enemy is not too wrong-headed.  The more tactical decisions there obviously were, of course.

Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 09:25:24 PM
The north had the burden of attacking, and the attacker (all else being equal) will suffer more losses.  Lee and other southern generals didn't have to attack--they just liked to (most of them).

Lee is perhaps the man most responsible for the war lasting as long as it did.  If he had not chosen to be a traitor and instead became the commander of Federal forces, the war would've been over in the first year. 
In carrying the conflict out as long as it did, all that blood is on his hands, simply by the benefit of his superior generalship.  A lesser general would've resulted in a shorter war.

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 09:04:22 AM
Or these deep divisions could be allow to break on fault lines and create an amicable division.

Except the whole basis for the break was deep suspicion and rampant conspiracy theories.  The entire basis was conflict and hatred, how amicability could come from that I do not know.  You think good Northern Men were going to stand aside while the Slave Power Cabal destroyed the US to protect their un-American feudal privileges?

After John Brown it was coming.  Both sides were too entranched.  The notion that the South would have freed their slaves, gradually or otherwise, anytime soon was even more wishful thinking in 1860 than it had been in 1800. 

I wonder...if the South decided to stay in, but use the threat of secession more as a bargaining chip than a real threat...how much in concessions to their way of life/state's rights could they have squeezed out?   They'd certainly have been better off and much stronger than under Reconstruction, and still a very powerful political bloc inside the U.S.

But nope, they had to go all honey badger on everybody.

Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 09:50:47 PM
After John Brown it was coming. 

Praise Him.

And after Harper's Ferry, with every Southern governor wondering when and where the next John Brown would hit--since the South feared nothing more than slave uprisings, murdering their massas and running around all white women rapey and whatnot--the open transfer and funneling of arms from federal arsenals ramped up exponentially, and there was no going back.

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 30, 2014, 09:53:10 PM
I wonder...if the South decided to stay in, but use the threat of secession more as a bargaining chip than a real threat...how much in concessions to their way of life/state's rights could they have squeezed out?

They had pretty much already done that.  The things they were intractable with and would not compromise on were things the north were also intractable with and would not compromise on.

Lincoln sounded pretty tractable until the south wen't "GOFUK".

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 08:53:42 PM

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 08:52:47 PM
Not unlike Grant, I think?

I think Peedy is being ironic.

No, Lee had a far higher casualty % than Grant.  He was overly offensive when he didn't need to be.  Iirc, he had about 1/3 more casualties in overall numbers than Grant - and that was with smaller armies that could ill afford it.  Lee was a butcher.

His greatest victory, Chancellorsvile, certainly featured uncomfortably high casualties for the South.  Joe Johnston knew how the South needed to fight.  Ah well.

Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 09:50:47 PM

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 09:04:22 AM
Or these deep divisions could be allow to break on fault lines and create an amicable division.

Except the whole basis for the break was deep suspicion and rampant conspiracy theories.  The entire basis was conflict and hatred, how amicability could come from that I do not know.  You think good Northern Men were going to stand aside while the Slave Power Cabal destroyed the US to protect their un-American feudal privileges?

After John Brown it was coming.  Both sides were too entranched.  The notion that the South would have freed their slaves, gradually or otherwise, anytime soon was even more wishful thinking in 1860 than it had been in 1800.

I don't know.  I think most in the North were pro-Union, I'm not sure they wanted to fight over it until Southern belligerence forced the issue.  That said, if the Confederacy was allowed to live, there would never be a real peace with the Union.  No peace could exist between two states if the largest single investment of one of the countries is constantly running over the border to another one.

 For all that the Union cause is underlined in the rhetoric that we are all countrymen and any separation is a villainous sundering of one coherent entity by a slave power conspiracy, the way so many yankees here and elsewhere go on about Southerners befits the sort of cant you see with Balkantards and their unbecoming ethnic feuds.

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 10:26:43 PM
For all that the Union cause is underlined in the rhetoric that we are all countrymen and any separation is a villainous sundering of one coherent entity by a slave power conspiracy, the way so many yankees here and elsewhere go on about Southerners befits the sort of cant you see with Balkantards and their unbecoming ethnic feuds.

Man this is nothing.  Seeing the Republicans and Democrats going at it on the internet these days you would think we were days away from another Civil War.

Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 06:40:44 PM

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 01:07:37 PM
The South had the people, the North had the economy.

Uhm, no, actually the north had both.

yes, but the North was industrialized while the South relied mostly on agriculture, with slave workers.

In the North, they could afford to densifiy a little more before expanding, so long as they could by agricultural products from elsewhere to complement their own production.

In the South, with an economy model revolving around plantations, ran by a few whites and lots of black slaves, if a family has more than a couple of children, the elder one gets the plantation while the other boys need to find something else, and that something else is either a plantation with no heir or new lands to expand to, for whatever production they wish.

So, I think the South had more imperatives to race west the North at that time.  And the North needed a lot of workers in the post-civil war era.  I don't know if the losses of the Civil War caused that, though, or if it was simply increased economic activity due to reconstruction era.

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 30, 2014, 09:53:10 PM
I wonder...if the South decided to stay in, but use the threat of secession more as a bargaining chip than a real threat...how much in concessions to their way of life/state's rights could they have squeezed out?   They'd certainly have been better off and much stronger than under Reconstruction, and still a very powerful political bloc inside the U.S.

But nope, they had to go all honey badger on everybody.

Well, the moment Lincoln decided to prevent slavery in the new territories, the South would never accept that.  Lincoln would have had to allow slavery to be decided on a State by State basis for the South to consider remaining in the Union, imho.

But yeah, they would have been better to embrace change, but lot's of people don't see it that way.

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 11:02:41 PM
would have had to allow slavery to be decided on a State by State basis for the South to consider remaining in the Union, imho.

That was Stephen Douglas' idea and the South stormed out of the 1860 Democratic convetion to protest it.  They wanted complete rights to their property as guaranteed by the US Constitution and that included the ability to take them anywhere in the territories.

Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 11:06:51 PM

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 11:02:41 PM
would have had to allow slavery to be decided on a State by State basis for the South to consider remaining in the Union, imho.

That was Stephen Douglas' idea and the South stormed out of the 1860 Democratic convetion to protest it.  They wanted complete rights to their property as guaranteed by the US Constitution and that included the ability to take them anywhere in the territories.

Ah, I was mistaken then :)

Well, not much chance of a happy reunion by 1860 then.

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 11:11:18 PMAh, I was mistaken then :)

Well, not much chance of a happy reunion by 1860 then.

Yep every reasonable compromise had pretty much been tried by 1860. 

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 10:59:38 PM

Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 06:40:44 PM

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 01:07:37 PM
The South had the people, the North had the economy.

Uhm, no, actually the north had both.

yes, but the North was industrialized while the South relied mostly on agriculture, with slave workers.

In the North, they could afford to densifiy a little more before expanding, so long as they could by agricultural products from elsewhere to complement their own production.

In the South, with an economy model revolving around plantations, ran by a few whites and lots of black slaves, if a family has more than a couple of children, the elder one gets the plantation while the other boys need to find something else, and that something else is either a plantation with no heir or new lands to expand to, for whatever production they wish.

So, I think the South had more imperatives to race west the North at that time.  And the North needed a lot of workers in the post-civil war era.  I don't know if the losses of the Civil War caused that, though, or if it was simply increased economic activity due to reconstruction era.

That's not really how it worked out. The population in the North grew more and expanded faster even before immigrants started arriving in big waves in the late 1840s.

Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2014, 10:06:39 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 08:53:42 PM

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 08:52:47 PM
Not unlike Grant, I think?

I think Peedy is being ironic.

No, Lee had a far higher casualty % than Grant.  He was overly offensive when he didn't need to be.  Iirc, he had about 1/3 more casualties in overall numbers than Grant - and that was with smaller armies that could ill afford it.  Lee was a butcher.

Grant was a butcher (but followed the surest strategy for winning).  Lee suffered high casualties in some battles, but most of the time he had no choice.

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 09:14:55 AM
Grant was a butcher (but followed the surest strategy for winning).

The butchers were the ones who let the war continue year after year.

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 09:17:35 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 09:14:55 AM
Grant was a butcher (but followed the surest strategy for winning).

The butchers were the ones who let the war continue year after year.

Are you letting Grant off the hook, then?

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 09:23:44 AM
Are you letting Grant off the hook, then?

There's no hook to let him off of.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 09:28:56 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 09:23:44 AM
Are you letting Grant off the hook, then?

There's no hook to let him off of.

Cold Harbor was a pretty ginormous hook.  He even said so himself.

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 10:10:13 AM
Cold Harbor was a pretty ginormous hook.  He even said so himself.

Not going in for the kill at Seven Days, Antietam, Gettysburg etc... resulted in many times the dead than were lost at Cold Harbor.  It was a big mistake but the butcher move would have been to stop because of the casualties and let the war go on.

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 09:14:55 AM

Grant was a butcher (but followed the surest strategy for winning).  Lee suffered high casualties in some battles, but most of the time he had no choice.

Nope.  Outside of a few notable incidents - the assault on the trenches at Vicksburg, the Cold Harbor Assault, and maybe Spottsylvania, Grant was by far a better offensive general than he is given credit for.  The entire Vicksburg campaign was a model of how a Civil War campaign could have been fought, his taking of Western Tennessee was brilliant, and even the Overland Campaign was well planned (though not well executed by subordinates) to move and fight advantageously.

Lee sought decisive offensive battles, and he cost his armies dearly.  Note, much of Lee's butchery was earlier in the war when the defensive tactics were not as well developed.  It took a special kind of butcher to outdo the casualties of the later campaigns when Grant had to face trenches and prepared defenses.

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 09:14:55 AM

Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2014, 10:06:39 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 08:53:42 PM

Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2014, 08:52:47 PM
Not unlike Grant, I think?

I think Peedy is being ironic.

No, Lee had a far higher casualty % than Grant.  He was overly offensive when he didn't need to be.  Iirc, he had about 1/3 more casualties in overall numbers than Grant - and that was with smaller armies that could ill afford it.  Lee was a butcher.

Grant was a butcher (but followed the surest strategy for winning).  Lee suffered high casualties in some battles, but most of the time he had no choice.

I always figured that the nature of the Civil War, outdated tactics and newer weapons, ensured a heavier casualty toll in the ACW, rather than the Generals being overly harsh about casualties. 

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 10:10:13 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 09:28:56 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 09:23:44 AM
Are you letting Grant off the hook, then?

There's no hook to let him off of.

Cold Harbor was a pretty ginormous hook.  He even said so himself.

Yep.  Cold Harbor is the one real incident of butchery he can be credited with.  As mentioned above the Vicksburg assault might rank up there too.  Still, Lee won the Seven Days by repeatedly losing battles and decimating his troops, he won at Chancellorsville by nearly wrecking his army but defeating a stunned Hooker, he lost Gettysburg by taking both the strategic and tactical offensive, he lost thousands in the Fall 1863 campaigns against Meade.

He was stirring, he could get troops to love him, he commanded the loyalty and (mostly) obedience of his subordinates, but he was a butcher far worse than Grant.

Quote from: PDH on October 31, 2014, 10:15:43 AM
Nope.  Outside of a few notable incidents - the assault on the trenches at Vicksburg, the Cold Harbor Assault, and maybe Spottsylvania, Grant was by far a better offensive general than he is given credit for.  The entire Vicksburg campaign was a model of how a Civil War campaign could have been fought, his taking of Western Tennessee was brilliant, and even the Overland Campaign was well planned (though not well executed by subordinates) to move and fight advantageously.

Comparing the West and East is apples to oranges.  In the West both sides had a lot more room to maneuver and were not hindered by having to defend their respective capitals.  Not that Grant doesn't deserve credit for his success there.  And while the Overland campaign was most definitely the correct strategy it still involved butchery on the part of Grant. 

QuoteLee sought decisive offensive battles, and he cost his armies dearly. Note, much of Lee's butchery was earlier in the war when the defensive tactics were not as well developed.  It took a special kind of butcher to outdo the casualties of the later campaigns when Grant had to face trenches and prepared defenses.

Lee blundered a bit in the Seven Days battle, but he succeeded in effectively booting the Union army from the Peninsula.  From his perspective I'd take a pyrrhic victory over the enemy permanently situated a few miles from his capital.  And days 2 & 3 of Gettysburg, no question that's a huge knock on him.  But apart from that what do you have to call him a butcher?

Quote from: Lettow77 on October 30, 2014, 10:19:13 AMI suppose, setting aside purely the qualms that may exist in invading your neighbors because you hold their domestic policies to be disagreeable

If the domestic policy had been merely disagreeable and not a widespread, institutionalized violation of human rights, you might have a point.

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 11:11:20 AM
Lee blundered a bit in the Seven Days battle, but he succeeded in effectively booting the Union army from the Peninsula.

Sure but he lost every battle except one.  I mean sure he knew how to unnerve McClellan but it was a pretty messy series of frontal assaults.

QuoteFrom his perspective I'd take a pyrrhic victory over the enemy permanently situated a few miles from his capital.

Well sure but that does not negate the fact a lot of his victories were Pyrrhic in nature.

QuoteAnd days 2 & 3 of Gettysburg, no question that's a huge knock on him.  But apart from that what do you have to call him a butcher?

Pretty much every time he was on the offensive (well except Second Bull Run, that was a perfectly executed flank attack but Pope was in denial Longstreet's Corps was even there).  He counted on the sheer audacity of the attack to unnerve the Union General and it often worked but man there was a reason those attacks were audacious.  The only difference between Gettysburg and the others is that at Gettysburg the Union Army stopped being rattled by his assaults.

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 11:20:16 AM
Sure but he lost every battle except one.  I mean sure he knew how to unnerve McClellan but it was a pretty messy series of frontal assaults.

Yep.  Lee's back was against the wall, so I do cut him a small bit of slack for that.

QuoteWell sure but that does not negate the fact a lot of his victories were Pyrrhic in nature.

In the sense that the South could hardly replace any losses, sure.  But that being the case it's unavoidable unless they just give up.

Quote
Pretty much every time he was on the offensive (well except Second Bull Run, that was a perfectly executed flank attack but Pope was in denial Longstreet's Corps was even there).  He counted on the sheer audacity of the attack to unnerve the Union General and it often worked but man there was a reason those attacks were audacious. 

I wouldn't call Chancellorsville butchery. Besides that we have Gettysburg and Seven Days.  If there's anything else I'm drawing a blank.

QuoteThe only difference between Gettysburg and the others is that at Gettysburg the Union Army stopped being rattled by his assaults.

There were a few other factors.  Not having Jackson anymore/not taking Culp's Hill on Day 1, lack of effective recon, and defensive terrain to name some.

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 11:43:51 AM
I wouldn't call Chancellorsville butchery.

Chancellorsville was a completely crazy and suicidal plan.  Which was why it worked but there was a reason it was considered crazy and suicidal.

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 11:43:51 AM
In the sense that the South could hardly replace any losses, sure.  But that being the case it's unavoidable unless they just give up.

I don't think the South was required to fight the war by launching crazy assaults all the time.  What they needed were battles like Fredericksburg where they maneuvered the North into making the crazy assaults.  You know, like what Joe Johnston was always trying to do.

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 11:43:51 AM
There were a few other factors.  Not having Jackson anymore/not taking Culp's Hill on Day 1, lack of effective recon, and defensive terrain to name some.

Jackson was late and bungled a lot during the Seven Days campaign.  But details like that don't matter when your opponent is being psychologically beaten.

That's one way not to fuck up quotes.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 11:57:01 AM
That's one way not to fuck up quotes.

That's weird.  I did that without even noticing.

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 11:56:06 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 11:43:51 AM
There were a few other factors.  Not having Jackson anymore/not taking Culp's Hill on Day 1, lack of effective recon, and defensive terrain to name some.

Jackson was late and bungled a lot during the Seven Days campaign.  But details like that don't matter when your opponent is being psychologically beaten.

Yeah, Jackson was terrible in the Seven Days, but I was talking about Gettsyburg. 

Quote from: KRonn on October 31, 2014, 10:19:07 AM
I always figured that the nature of the Civil War, outdated tactics and newer weapons, ensured a heavier casualty toll in the ACW, rather than the Generals being overly harsh about casualties. 

And strangely, we saw more of the same in WW1.  It's as if the higher officers still tought themselves in the Napoleonic era.

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 11:54:42 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 11:43:51 AM
In the sense that the South could hardly replace any losses, sure.  But that being the case it's unavoidable unless they just give up.

I don't think the South was required to fight the war by launching crazy assaults all the time.  What they needed were battles like Fredericksburg where they maneuvered the North into making the crazy assaults.  You know, like what Joe Johnston was always trying to do.

Could the South really afford a long war?  by the end of the war, they were in short supply of men, guns, ammos, cannons?  Defensive battles costs less in men, but they still require something to shoot with.  If their industry and supply lines can't cope with it, because there's a lack of cohesive structures behind, in a such a modern war, you're pretty fucked.
And defense is good when you're facing a risk-adverse opponent.  The moment Grant took over, he kept pushing and pushing and pushing.

Gettysburg was certainly a turning point, in that the loss inflicted were so heavy that it accelerated the South's downfall, but I can't imagine the South ever winning their independance by fighting strictly defensive battles.  Their hope of victory would lie with Northern support from the anti-war crowd.  If the was is going nowhere, there could have been political pressure on Lincoln to end the war, but how realistic is that?

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 12:09:54 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 11:56:06 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 11:43:51 AM
There were a few other factors.  Not having Jackson anymore/not taking Culp's Hill on Day 1, lack of effective recon, and defensive terrain to name some.

Jackson was late and bungled a lot during the Seven Days campaign.  But details like that don't matter when your opponent is being psychologically beaten.

Yeah, Jackson was terrible in the Seven Days, but I was talking about Gettsyburg.

He wasn't very helpful in Gettysburg either.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 01:33:47 PM
He wasn't very helpful in Gettysburg either.

Which was kind of my point. Mr. Foote.

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 12:09:54 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 11:56:06 AM

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 11:43:51 AM
There were a few other factors.  Not having Jackson anymore/not taking Culp's Hill on Day 1, lack of effective recon, and defensive terrain to name some.

Jackson was late and bungled a lot during the Seven Days campaign.  But details like that don't matter when your opponent is being psychologically beaten.

Yeah, Jackson was terrible in the Seven Days, but I was talking about Gettsyburg. 

Well you were saying one of the reasons Gettysburg went the way it did was because Jackson was not there, but he was perfectly capable of making serious errors even when he was there.  But when the North is going to run away while winning those mistakes do not count for much.

Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2014, 12:49:38 PM

Quote from: KRonn on October 31, 2014, 10:19:07 AM
I always figured that the nature of the Civil War, outdated tactics and newer weapons, ensured a heavier casualty toll in the ACW, rather than the Generals being overly harsh about casualties. 

And strangely, we saw more of the same in WW1.  It's as if the higher officers still tought themselves in the Napoleonic era.

Military thinkers studying the American Civil War and the Franco Prussian War came to the very opposite conclusions one might think they would.  That the attack and initiative was paramount.  They would point out that as soon as the South stopped being aggressive they lost the war.

I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?  I think something that is often overlooked is that nobody on either side of the war had commanded armies of that size.  Before the war Grant and McClellan were captains.  Lee and Bragg were colonels.  Jackson was a major.  A lot of commanders on both sides had never served in the military.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 01:58:43 PM
I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?

But for different reasons.  In the Napoleonic Wars there was a ton of hand-to-hand combat and pursuit losses which were pretty rare in the American Civil War and World War I.  At least that is my impression.

3 pages and no one has mentioned the effect of vampires fighting for the south and Lincoln's silver dipped axe?  :glare:

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 02:14:20 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 01:58:43 PM
I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?

But for different reasons.  In the Napoleonic Wars there was a ton of hand-to-hand combat and pursuit losses which were pretty rare in the American Civil War and World War I.  At least that is my impression.

That seems like tactics kind of thing.

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 02:14:20 PM
But for different reasons.  In the Napoleonic Wars there was a ton of hand-to-hand combat and pursuit losses which were pretty rare in the American Civil War and World War I.  At least that is my impression.

I've read that the instances of bayonets actually crossing were very minimal, if not nonexistant during the Napoleonic wars.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 12:28:20 PM

Quote from: Martim Silva on October 30, 2014, 10:32:19 AM
To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

Quote from: Shelby Foote"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

Unfortunately, Shelby was wrong.

A study of Supreme Court case opinions does show that the use of "is" increased during the Civil War to around 50% of the time, but then dropped off again after the war.  The real shift is usage to "is" occurs around 1900 and it is far more dramatic than the Civil War era shift.

Stop to think a bit.

Use if "is" increased during the Civil War - means the issue became relevant then.

Then it really shifts in court case opinions in 1900. Would not the year 1900 be about the time when the generation that was born right after the war/were just kids during it was now being old enough to give court opinions?

And pre-1900 opinions would have been done by people who were already adults during the War, so more resistant to change, right?

I'd say that, contrary to your claim, the study actually proves Shelby right, rather than wrong - the generation that grew after the War saw the US as "is" and not "are".

Quote from: Viper37
And strangely, we saw more of the same in WW1.  It's as if the higher officers still tought themselves in the Napoleonic era.

Europe had a different experience than the US, due to the Seven Weeks' War of 1866 and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Both were very fast, due to both shorter distances, far greater railroad capacity, technological developments and the superiority of Prussia having a REAL General Staff to coordinate things.

So, Europeans dismissed the American experience (and paid little attention to the Russo-Japanese War, as it involved an Asian power), and saw it as atypical.

As a result, both in the ACW as in WWI, the starting doctrines of both sides were heavily inspired in the Napoleonic period/1870s experience, with generals expecting grandiose manouvers and decisive battles, rather than what ended up happening.

In reality, the increase in firepower had very much put the edge on the defending side, and whithout elements that allowed this advantage to be offset (like utter incompetence by one side, as was the case in the Franco-Prussian war, or the massive edge given by the Prussian Needle Gun vs. slow-loading Austrian Muskets in the Seven Weeks' War), every even engagement would turn into a bloodbath.

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 01:50:50 PM
Well you were saying one of the reasons Gettysburg went the way it did was because Jackson was not there, but he was perfectly capable of making serious errors even when he was there.  But when the North is going to run away while winning those mistakes do not count for much.

Sure there was a chance of him making mistakes, like with any general.  But Jackson started racking up an impressive win streak up until the time he got whacked by his own guys.  Who do you think would have done a better job in charge of Third Corps at Gettysburg-- Jackson or AP Hill?  Do you think Jackson would have hesitated to take Culps Hill on Day 1?

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 03:46:19 PM

Sure there was a chance of him making mistakes, like with any general.  But Jackson started racking up an impressive win streak up until the time he got whacked by his own guys.  Who do you think would have done a better job in charge of Third Corps at Gettysburg-- Jackson or AP Hill?  Do you think Jackson would have hesitated to take Culps Hill on Day 1?

Depends on if he was in one of his "stupid" phases.  He was capable of worse than Hill when he was at his low points.

Really, though, D.H. Hill should have been brought back to the ANV after Jackson was killed by friendly fire.

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 03:46:19 PM
Sure there was a chance of him making mistakes, like with any general.  But Jackson started racking up an impressive win streak up until the time he got whacked by his own guys.  Who do you think would have done a better job in charge of Third Corps at Gettysburg-- Jackson or AP Hill?  Do you think Jackson would have hesitated to take Culps Hill on Day 1?

Jackson's reputation is built more on his operational skill than his tactical abilities.

I liked John Bell Hood high on opium.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 01:58:43 PM
I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?  I think something that is often overlooked is that nobody on either side of the war had commanded armies of that size.  Before the war Grant and McClellan were captains.  Lee and Bragg were colonels.  Jackson was a major.  A lot of commanders on both sides had never served in the military.

I was going to go with a different take on that point.  That point is made often, but what would have been the appropriate tactics to use at that time (even, say, against someone using the historical tactics used)?  And how effective would they be in achieving the strategic objectives?

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 01:54:22 PM

Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2014, 12:49:38 PM

Quote from: KRonn on October 31, 2014, 10:19:07 AM
I always figured that the nature of the Civil War, outdated tactics and newer weapons, ensured a heavier casualty toll in the ACW, rather than the Generals being overly harsh about casualties. 

And strangely, we saw more of the same in WW1.  It's as if the higher officers still tought themselves in the Napoleonic era.

Military thinkers studying the American Civil War and the Franco Prussian War came to the very opposite conclusions one might think they would.  That the attack and initiative was paramount.  They would point out that as soon as the South stopped being aggressive they lost the war.

There is a difference between attacking and using maneuver. The whole story of the ACW is that the attacker loses in any set - piece battle unless there are some weird circumstances (e.g. battle of the clouds ft. donalson etc.). Aggressive maneuver was all about arranging the battle so you could fight defensively. Grant's insight was that breaking and running after a battle was only convention and he didn't have to do so after losing.

I disagree.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 06:49:11 PM
I disagree.

If you're just going to say that, it needs a cat picture.

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 31, 2014, 05:25:50 PM
I liked John Bell Hood high on opium.

Nothing like laudanum to help a battle plan.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2014, 02:38:39 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 02:14:20 PM
But for different reasons.  In the Napoleonic Wars there was a ton of hand-to-hand combat and pursuit losses which were pretty rare in the American Civil War and World War I.  At least that is my impression.

I've read that the instances of bayonets actually crossing were very minimal, if not nonexistant during the Napoleonic wars.

While probably true it was probably exponentially more common than in the American Civil War.  But I was more referring to the fact that Napoleonic Armies had thousands and thousands of guys who wore armor and carried lances and swords and these guys were often decisive in a battle.  Hand to hand combat is pretty deadly, generally more killed than injured.

Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 01:54:22 PM

Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2014, 12:49:38 PM

Quote from: KRonn on October 31, 2014, 10:19:07 AM
I always figured that the nature of the Civil War, outdated tactics and newer weapons, ensured a heavier casualty toll in the ACW, rather than the Generals being overly harsh about casualties. 

And strangely, we saw more of the same in WW1.  It's as if the higher officers still tought themselves in the Napoleonic era.

Military thinkers studying the American Civil War and the Franco Prussian War came to the very opposite conclusions one might think they would.  That the attack and initiative was paramount.  They would point out that as soon as the South stopped being aggressive they lost the war.

I was under the impression that the results of the Franco-Prussian War washed away the lessons of the American Civil War. They decided that the Americans even at their best had been amateurs and that professional European soldiers could win quickly via offensive actions.

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 31, 2014, 06:23:21 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 01:58:43 PM
I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?  I think something that is often overlooked is that nobody on either side of the war had commanded armies of that size.  Before the war Grant and McClellan were captains.  Lee and Bragg were colonels.  Jackson was a major.  A lot of commanders on both sides had never served in the military.

I was going to go with a different take on that point.  That point is made often, but what would have been the appropriate tactics to use at that time (even, say, against someone using the historical tactics used)?  And how effective would they be in achieving the strategic objectives?

Part of the problem wasn't simply that technology had gotten ahead of tactics, but that communications technology hadn't kept up with firearms technology.  What you need to do to counter increases in firepower is to increase the dispersion of your forces.  But you still need to be able to exercise command and control, and that means that you really can't disperse your troops enough to use modern infantry tactics unless without the widespread availability of radios.

IIRC Sherman had the lowest percentage of casualties for a general that lead an army for an extended period. Given that he was fighting a defensive minded general in Johnston, that makes it more impressive. What did he do that others didn't?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 31, 2014, 09:42:28 PM
IIRC Sherman had the lowest percentage of casualties for a general that lead an army for an extended period. Given that he was fighting a defensive minded general in Johnston, that makes it more impressive. What did he do that others didn't?

He used maneuver to get into position and flexibility when he had taken his objective.  When he faced a drug addict at Atlanta, he used defensive tactics.  When he faced the wide open confederacy he used rape and pillage tactics to show that the Confederacy was a sham and that they could have been defeated in 1862.

Quote from: dps on October 31, 2014, 09:36:24 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 31, 2014, 06:23:21 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 01:58:43 PM
I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?  I think something that is often overlooked is that nobody on either side of the war had commanded armies of that size.  Before the war Grant and McClellan were captains.  Lee and Bragg were colonels.  Jackson was a major.  A lot of commanders on both sides had never served in the military.

I was going to go with a different take on that point.  That point is made often, but what would have been the appropriate tactics to use at that time (even, say, against someone using the historical tactics used)?  And how effective would they be in achieving the strategic objectives?

Part of the problem wasn't simply that technology had gotten ahead of tactics, but that communications technology hadn't kept up with firearms technology.  What you need to do to counter increases in firepower is to increase the dispersion of your forces.  But you still need to be able to exercise command and control, and that means that you really can't disperse your troops enough to use modern infantry tactics unless without the widespread availability of radios.

So you're saying there wasn't any real practical alternative at the time, and the tactics used were inevitable, even if regrettable?

I tend to agree...you could disperse you mean, and not get involved in the massed formation slugfests, but it would still be hard to counter those opposing formations, much less be able to take and hold strategic objectives without effective communication/coordination.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 31, 2014, 09:30:32 PMI was under the impression that the results of the Franco-Prussian War washed away the lessons of the American Civil War. They decided that the Americans even at their best had been amateurs and that professional European soldiers could win quickly via offensive actions.

Well the Germans certainly felt that way.  Not sure that was the universal view.  To be fair it was not like Americans learned a whole lot from the American Civil War either.

Quote from: dps on October 31, 2014, 09:36:24 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 31, 2014, 06:23:21 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 01:58:43 PM
I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?  I think something that is often overlooked is that nobody on either side of the war had commanded armies of that size.  Before the war Grant and McClellan were captains.  Lee and Bragg were colonels.  Jackson was a major.  A lot of commanders on both sides had never served in the military.

I was going to go with a different take on that point.  That point is made often, but what would have been the appropriate tactics to use at that time (even, say, against someone using the historical tactics used)?  And how effective would they be in achieving the strategic objectives?

Part of the problem wasn't simply that technology had gotten ahead of tactics, but that communications technology hadn't kept up with firearms technology.  What you need to do to counter increases in firepower is to increase the dispersion of your forces.  But you still need to be able to exercise command and control, and that means that you really can't disperse your troops enough to use modern infantry tactics unless without the widespread availability of radios.

I question if firepower had really increased so much.  For the most part men were using muzzle-loading rifles.  Sure they had better range, but I don't think they were used at extreme ranges very often and actual target practice was uncommon.  Their rate of fire wasn't much better then the older smooth-bore musket so I don't know if the firepower was substantially greater.  I think to route any enemy you still needed massed fire.  I think you also needed massed fire to be able to repulse an enemy charge.  The repeating rifles are different.  They had sufficient firepower to break an charge of massed infantry when fighting as skirmishers.  This would be how soldiers would fight in the future. Unfortunately repeating rifles were not in widespread use.

Indeed.  I wonder how practical, and effective it could have been for the Union Army to push using the Henry rifle as the primary weapon for the frontline soldier.

Not necessary I think. Sharps would have been easier to build en masse and they would have been good enough.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 10:14:41 PM

Quote from: dps on October 31, 2014, 09:36:24 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 31, 2014, 06:23:21 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 01:58:43 PM
I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?  I think something that is often overlooked is that nobody on either side of the war had commanded armies of that size.  Before the war Grant and McClellan were captains.  Lee and Bragg were colonels.  Jackson was a major.  A lot of commanders on both sides had never served in the military.

I was going to go with a different take on that point.  That point is made often, but what would have been the appropriate tactics to use at that time (even, say, against someone using the historical tactics used)?  And how effective would they be in achieving the strategic objectives?

Part of the problem wasn't simply that technology had gotten ahead of tactics, but that communications technology hadn't kept up with firearms technology.  What you need to do to counter increases in firepower is to increase the dispersion of your forces.  But you still need to be able to exercise command and control, and that means that you really can't disperse your troops enough to use modern infantry tactics unless without the widespread availability of radios.

I question if firepower had really increased so much.  For the most part men were using muzzle-loading rifles.  Sure they had better range, but I don't think they were used at extreme ranges very often and actual target practice was uncommon.  Their rate of fire wasn't much better then the older smooth-bore musket so I don't know if the firepower was substantially greater.  I think to route any enemy you still needed massed fire.  I think you also needed massed fire to be able to repulse an enemy charge.  The repeating rifles are different.  They had sufficient firepower to break an charge of massed infantry when fighting as skirmishers.  This would be how soldiers would fight in the future. Unfortunately repeating rifles were not in widespread use.

I was under the impression that despite being muzzle loaded, the guns of the era were much, much, much more accurate than 18th century muskets.

Precise as in accurate?  Hit rate was still fairly low, about a 1 out of every 1000 shots.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 10:57:32 PM
Precise as in accurate?  Hit rate was still fairly low, about a 1 out of every 1000 shots.

yes, accurate.

but compared to 18th century musket, how does that fare?

The rifled muskets of the Civil War were pretty accurate.  But of course as with all rifles they were only as accurate as the soldier pulling the trigger.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2014, 05:16:07 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 03:46:19 PM
Sure there was a chance of him making mistakes, like with any general.  But Jackson started racking up an impressive win streak up until the time he got whacked by his own guys.  Who do you think would have done a better job in charge of Third Corps at Gettysburg-- Jackson or AP Hill?  Do you think Jackson would have hesitated to take Culps Hill on Day 1?

Jackson's reputation is built more on his operational skill than his tactical abilities.

He was known for his audacity.  He would not have hesitated to assault that hill the first day, and in my estimation he (or really any likely Southern general) would have stood a good chance of succeeding. 

From wikipedia:

QuoteHowever, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War

Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2014, 11:49:13 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2014, 05:16:07 PM

Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 03:46:19 PM
Sure there was a chance of him making mistakes, like with any general.  But Jackson started racking up an impressive win streak up until the time he got whacked by his own guys.  Who do you think would have done a better job in charge of Third Corps at Gettysburg-- Jackson or AP Hill?  Do you think Jackson would have hesitated to take Culps Hill on Day 1?

Jackson's reputation is built more on his operational skill than his tactical abilities.

He was known for his audacity.  He would not have hesitated to assault that hill the first day, and in my estimation he (or really any likely Southern general) would have stood a good chance of succeeding. 

I rather doubt that - it was by no means any kind of sure thing.

These kinds of speculations *always* rely on post-hoc evaluations where we theorize that the supposed attacker would attach at just the right time to exploit some moment of weakness we know about after the fact. Yeah, it is certainly possible that such an event would occure, but the fact that it did NOT occur is always rung up to incompetence of the guy who WAS there, rather than the fact that no matter who was there, they could not possibly know just whether or not the hill could be taken, and when.

Could some general have taken the hill? Sure. It is possible.

Is it clear that trying to do so was the tactically smart move at that time given what the men on the ground actually knew? Not at all.

Quote from: celedhring on November 01, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
From wikipedia:

QuoteHowever, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War

I love conclusions like this. They are just so completely stupid.

"Hey, we invented a new kind of infantry weapon that is clearly radically more accurate than anything that came before it, and has radically altered the very manner in which men fight and move. Let's do some careful analysis of follow on statistical effects, and ignore how this fundamental change has changes everything about how infantry fight and move, and then conclude that the radical change didn't matter because at the end of the day, the casualty rates were about the same!"

Gosh, could it be that the technological changes between Napoleons time and the US Civil War turned out to not really matter at all? Or perhaps maybe it mattered a great deal, but that resulted in modifications to how people move and fight such that the overall casualty rates still end up being pretty consistent across most wars, regardless of technology?

Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2014, 12:03:53 PM

Quote from: celedhring on November 01, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
From wikipedia:

QuoteHowever, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War

I love conclusions like this. They are just so completely stupid.

"Hey, we invented a new kind of infantry weapon that is clearly radically more accurate than anything that came before it, and has radically altered the very manner in which men fight and move. Let's do some careful analysis of follow on statistical effects, and ignore how this fundamental change has changes everything about how infantry fight and move, and then conclude that the radical change didn't matter because at the end of the day, the casualty rates were about the same!"

Gosh, could it be that the technological changes between Napoleons time and the US Civil War turned out to not really matter at all? Or perhaps maybe it mattered a great deal, but that resulted in modifications to how people move and fight such that the overall casualty rates still end up being pretty consistent across most wars, regardless of technology?

I don't know, I just posted an excerpt of the article but it goes fairly in depth in justifying how actual battle circumstances hindered the efficiency of rifled muskets. I'm hardly an expert, but it doesn't look like a kneejerk theory.

Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2014, 11:58:35 AM
I rather doubt that - it was by no means any kind of sure thing.

Good, because I never said it was a sure thing.

QuoteThese kinds of speculations *always* rely on post-hoc evaluations where we theorize that the supposed attacker would attach at just the right time to exploit some moment of weakness we know about after the fact. Yeah, it is certainly possible that such an event would occure, but the fact that it did NOT occur is always rung up to incompetence of the guy who WAS there, rather than the fact that no matter who was there, they could not possibly know just whether or not the hill could be taken, and when.

Could some general have taken the hill? Sure. It is possible.

Is it clear that trying to do so was the tactically smart move at that time given what the men on the ground actually knew? Not at all.

Nice rant, but I don't think you're getting my point.  I'm just saying that a more aggressive general such as Jackson probably would have decided to attack that hill, which was lightly defended on the first day.  You can disagree with that if you want, of course.

Also FWIW I goofed and mentioned AP Hill earlier when I was actually thinking of Ewell, the actual commander of the Confederate Second Corps at Gettysburg.

Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2014, 12:03:53 PM

Quote from: celedhring on November 01, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
From wikipedia:

QuoteHowever, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War)

I love conclusions like this. They are just so completely stupid.

"Hey, we invented a new kind of infantry weapon that is clearly radically more accurate than anything that came before it, and has radically altered the very manner in which men fight and move. Let's do some careful analysis of follow on statistical effects, and ignore how this fundamental change has changes everything about how infantry fight and move, and then conclude that the radical change didn't matter because at the end of the day, the casualty rates were about the same!"

Gosh, could it be that the technological changes between Napoleons time and the US Civil War turned out to not really matter at all? Or perhaps maybe it mattered a great deal, but that resulted in modifications to how people move and fight such that the overall casualty rates still end up being pretty consistent across most wars, regardless of technology?

Why assume that it is in fact a radical change that fundamentally changed warfare?  Rifles existed in the Napoleonic wars, they simply took longer to load then smooth-bore muskets and so were not widely used.  The other change is the use of percussion caps instead of flintlocks. It made the weapons more reliable. These are incremental changes.  Soldiers still fought the same way.

They didn't fight the same way.  The cavalry charge disappeared, as did the square and the column.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 12:47:48 PM
They didn't fight the same way.  The cavalry charge disappeared, as did the square and the column.

Did anybody ever try a Napoleonic cavalry charge in the American Civil War?  I cannot recall one.  Kind of strange really.

Not that I'm aware of.  But right after I posted that I remembered there were cavalry charges in the Franco-Prussian.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 12:47:48 PM
They didn't fight the same way.  The cavalry charge disappeared, as did the square and the column.

The cavalry charge remained.  It was seen during the civil war, but wasn't common.  The US didn't have tradition of heavy cavalry but men with lances and armor were maintained by European powers till WWI.  Column formation was still used, though squares were not since the threat of lancers was low.

Column formation became a strictly movement formation. It was no longer used as a combat formation. That alone is a significant change. And of course there were more.

Engagement ranges were often not that much longer, but that is because finding terrain where you could not be engaged at rifle range became a necessity, so the importance of terrain became that much more critical.

[Siege mode]

Shakira says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYbcVK2jjXc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYbcVK2jjXc)

[/Siege mode]

The closest thing to a columnar attack was Hancock at the Mule Shoe.  15,000 men in a huge column was such a clusterfuck that it was not a great idea.

Now Upton's attack earlier showed that assault in the Civil War could happen.

Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2014, 02:08:21 PM
Column formation became a strictly movement formation. It was no longer used as a combat formation. That alone is a significant change. And of course there were more.

Engagement ranges were often not that much longer, but that is because finding terrain where you could not be engaged at rifle range became a necessity, so the importance of terrain became that much more critical.

Was this different then American practices in the war of 1812?

I remember one from the Crimean War :contract:

They used smoothbores in the Crimean.

Quote from: celedhring on November 01, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
From wikipedia:

QuoteHowever, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War

That number probably isn't that much different now, what with the common use of automatic weapons. Are you going to say those aren't qualitatively different then muskets and have not changed the way men fight?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 08:53:49 PM
They used smoothbores in the Crimean.

And anyway, any history buff worth his salt should remember three.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2014, 09:23:28 PM

Quote from: celedhring on November 01, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
From wikipedia:

QuoteHowever, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War)

That number probably isn't that much different now, what with the common use of automatic weapons. Are you going to say those aren't qualitatively different then muskets and have not changed the way men fight?

The big advantage of automatic weapons is they fire faster, so you would expect more bullets shot per minute, which is true (the hit rate is probably much, much lower).  The advantage of rifles is their accuracy, so you would expect higher hit rates, but we don't see that.

Quote from: mongers on November 01, 2014, 02:10:07 PM
[Siege mode]

Shakira says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYbcVK2jjXc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYbcVK2jjXc)

[/Siege mode]

Too old and too fat for Siege.  ;)

I don't know if the "Bikini armor" thing has decrease, it may have just decreased in the games we play.  I think it's a bigger thing in console games.

Quote from: mongers on November 01, 2014, 02:10:07 PM
[Siege mode]

Shakira says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYbcVK2jjXc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYbcVK2jjXc)

[/Siege mode]

But what about the Anaconda Plan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDZX4ooRsWs)?

Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 04:04:26 AM
I don't know if the "Bikini armor" thing has decrease, it may have just decreased in the games we play.  I think it's a bigger thing in console games.

General Lee in bikini armor would be a disturbing image.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 08:53:49 PM
They used smoothbores in the Crimean.

Smoothbore horses for cavalry charges? I was referring to cavalry charges in the Crimean War and how viable they were as a tactic of war.

Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2014, 04:16:25 AM
Smoothbore horses for cavalry charges? I was referring to cavalry charges in the Crimean War and how viable they were as a tactic of war.

Smooth bore muskets.  The minie bullet extended the killing zone too far out for cavalry charges.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2014, 04:19:06 AM

Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2014, 04:16:25 AM
Smoothbore horses for cavalry charges? I was referring to cavalry charges in the Crimean War and how viable they were as a tactic of war.

Smooth bore muskets.  The minie bullet extended the killing zone too far out for cavalry charges.

Well it seems that Hussars, Curassiers and Lancers were all obviously obsolete before the ACW.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2014, 04:19:06 AM

Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2014, 04:16:25 AM
Smoothbore horses for cavalry charges? I was referring to cavalry charges in the Crimean War and how viable they were as a tactic of war.

Smooth bore muskets.  The minie bullet extended the killing zone too far out for cavalry charges.

Rifled cannon where also responsible. The cavalry would be too big a target as it mustered for the charge.

Quote from: Syt on November 02, 2014, 04:09:30 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 04:04:26 AM
I don't know if the "Bikini armor" thing has decrease, it may have just decreased in the games we play.  I think it's a bigger thing in console games.

General Lee in bikini armor would be a disturbing image.

Goddamn it.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 01:34:29 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2014, 09:23:28 PM

Quote from: celedhring on November 01, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
From wikipedia:

QuoteHowever, historians such as Allen C. Guelzo reject this traditional criticism of Civil War infantry tactics. Casualty estimates compared with expended ammunition from battles indicate 1 casualty for every 250 - 300 shots discharged, not a dramatic improvement over Napoleonic casualty rates. No contemporary accounts indicate that engagement ranges with substantial casualties between infantry occurred at ranges beyond Napoleonic engagement ranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War)

That number probably isn't that much different now, what with the common use of automatic weapons. Are you going to say those aren't qualitatively different then muskets and have not changed the way men fight?

The big advantage of automatic weapons is they fire faster, so you would expect more bullets shot per minute, which is true (the hit rate is probably much, much lower).  The advantage of rifles is their accuracy, so you would expect higher hit rates, but we don't see that.

No, actually you would not expect that. Increase in accuracy results in changes in tactics, not increases in hit rates.

You have to think of infantry tactics as more of a push-pull kind of thing - increasing the lethality of the weapons isn't necessarily going to increase the kill rate, but it is going to radically change how men fight so as to avoid that increased lethality. It can't be any other way - otherwise everyone would just be wounded immediately.

It is undeniable that a rifle is radically more accurate than a musket. So given that is true, if we see that the hit rates are largely static, you have to consider other variables. You don't just assume that they aren't really all that accurate after all - that is non-sensical.

Personally, I think that the factor that drives overall hit rates for infantry weapons is more the tolerance for the infantry to take casualties - I think this is largely fixed, in general. So the tactics evolve to the point at which the lethality of the opponents weapon is "tolerable", while trying to allow the infantry to remain as capable as possible.

So if you invent a new, more deadly infantry weapon, you aren't going to suddenly start killing lots more of the enemy overall, you are just going to better constrain their ability to maneuver and fight, since they will have a more narrow set of tactical options available to them without being decimated by your improved weapons.

WW1 is a perfect example of this - there was a radical increase in lethality across all weapons, and you saw this incredible increase in casualties while everyone figured out how to operate in a radically more constrained tactical environment. But once that environment was understood, the hit rate and casualty rate per round fired was almost certianly similar to what it was in the Civil War, and what it would be in WW2 and probably is even today when you consider infantry weapons and their immediate support.

Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2014, 09:19:31 AM
Personally, I think that the factor that drives overall hit rates for infantry weapons is more the tolerance for the infantry to take casualties - I think this is largely fixed, in general.

I think is a questionable assumption. Whether the soldiers are ideologically committed to the cause, if they have a direct stake in victory or defeat, and how much firmly the believe in an afterlife all has an impact on their willingness to take casualties. A regiment of evangelical protestants in 1860 who volunteered to fight for the Union/Abolition/Independence is going to be willing to take much heavier causalities than a regiment of draftees sent overseas to fight the Vietcong.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 02, 2014, 09:28:15 AM

Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2014, 09:19:31 AM
Personally, I think that the factor that drives overall hit rates for infantry weapons is more the tolerance for the infantry to take casualties - I think this is largely fixed, in general.

I think is a questionable assumption. Whether the soldiers are ideologically committed to the cause, if they have a direct stake in victory or defeat, and how much firmly the believe in an afterlife all has an impact on their willingness to take casualties. A regiment of evangelical protestants in 1860 who volunteered to fight for the Union/Abolition/Independence is going to be willing to take much heavier causalities than a regiment of draftees sent overseas to fight the Vietcong.

Right, those are all variables that effect the particulars of how particular formations might handle casualties. Clearly some untrained draftees are not as capable of taking casualties and still operating as a bunch of special forces guys.

But overall, the baseline is consistent, and increased lethality of weapons simply means that the infantry is forced to constrain their actions to bring the casualty rates back into line with what a given group of human beings can tolerate.

I wasn't suggesting that every group of human being can tolerate the same level of casualties.

I recommend further research.

Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2014, 11:49:13 AM
He was known for his audacity.  He would not have hesitated to assault that hill the first day, and in my estimation he (or really any likely Southern general) would have stood a good chance of succeeding.

QuoteGeneral Robert E. Lee: [Trimble enters the room] General Trimble.
Maj. Gen. Isaac R. Trimble: [Trimble salutes, and Lee returns it] Sir, I most respectfully request another assignment.
General Robert E. Lee: [Lee looks at Trimble, then sits down] Do please go on, General.
Maj. Gen. Isaac R. Trimble: The man is a disgrace! Sir, have you been listening at all to... to what the aides have been telling you? Ask General Gordon or General Ewell. Ask them. We could've taken that hill! God in His wisdom knows we *should've* taken it! There was no one there, no there at all, and it commanded the town.
[he sighs]
Maj. Gen. Isaac R. Trimble: General Gordon saw it. I mean, he was with us! Me and Ewell and Gordon, all standing there in the dark like fat, great idiots with that bloody damned hill empty!
[he stops]
Maj. Gen. Isaac R. Trimble: I beg your pardon, General.
[Lee nods]
Maj. Gen. Isaac R. Trimble: That bloody damned hill was bare as his bloody damned head! We all saw it, as God is my witness! We were all there. I said to him, "General Ewell, we have *got* to take that hill." General Jackson would not have stopped like this, with the bluebellies on the run and there was plenty of light left on a hill like that empty! Well, God help us, I... I don't know wh... I don't know why I...
[he stops]
General Robert E. Lee: Do please continue, General.
Maj. Gen. Isaac R. Trimble: Yes, sir. Sir... I said to him, General Ewell, these words. I said to him, "Sir, give me one division and I will take that hill." And he said nothing. He just stood there, he stared at me. I said, "General Ewell, give me one brigade and I will take that hill." I was becoming disturbed, sir. And General Ewell put his arms behind him and blinked. So I said, General, give me one *regiment* and I will take that hill." And he said *nothing*! He just stood there! I threw down my sword, down on the ground in front of him!
[he stops and regains his composure]
Maj. Gen. Isaac R. Trimble: We... we could've done it, sir. A blind man should've seen it. Now they're working up there. You can hear the axes of the Federal troops. And so in the morning... many a good boy will die... taking that hill.

Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2014, 09:19:31 AM

No, actually you would not expect that. Increase in accuracy results in changes in tactics, not increases in hit rates.

You have to think of infantry tactics as more of a push-pull kind of thing - increasing the lethality of the weapons isn't necessarily going to increase the kill rate, but it is going to radically change how men fight so as to avoid that increased lethality. It can't be any other way - otherwise everyone would just be wounded immediately.

It is undeniable that a rifle is radically more accurate than a musket. So given that is true, if we see that the hit rates are largely static, you have to consider other variables. You don't just assume that they aren't really all that accurate after all - that is non-sensical.

Personally, I think that the factor that drives overall hit rates for infantry weapons is more the tolerance for the infantry to take casualties - I think this is largely fixed, in general. So the tactics evolve to the point at which the lethality of the opponents weapon is "tolerable", while trying to allow the infantry to remain as capable as possible.

So if you invent a new, more deadly infantry weapon, you aren't going to suddenly start killing lots more of the enemy overall, you are just going to better constrain their ability to maneuver and fight, since they will have a more narrow set of tactical options available to them without being decimated by your improved weapons.

WW1 is a perfect example of this - there was a radical increase in lethality across all weapons, and you saw this incredible increase in casualties while everyone figured out how to operate in a radically more constrained tactical environment. But once that environment was understood, the hit rate and casualty rate per round fired was almost certianly similar to what it was in the Civil War, and what it would be in WW2 and probably is even today when you consider infantry weapons and their immediate support.

The argument was that technology outpaced tactics.  If they have the same casualties because they altered tactics then the argument falls apart.  Challenging the assumption that they were "radically more accurate" is entirely valid.  What is the idea they are "radically more accurate" based on?  Rifled guns are more accurate, but how much so?  If they have a 5-10% higher chance to hit a target at 200 yards, then they are more accurate but not radically so.  The rifled musket had a longer range, but did soldier typically engage in at maximum range?

I took a look at Wikipedia to see the maximum range of the Springfield rifle which was 500 yards.  That's a pretty good distance assuming the number is correct.  I imagine that a lot of men could not reliably hit a target at that range.  I couldn't, I have poor eyesight.  While the armies tended to train men in drill regularly, they were rarely trained in marksmanship.  There are other factors as well, such as a natural unwillingness to kill people.  You'll have men who will intentionally miss or not even fire their gun.  Mental state is another factor, people being shot at are less likely to fire accurate then some one shooting targets on a calm summer day.  The guns also produced quite a bit of smoke so visibility would hampered (in addition to any environmental problems).  So you could see how an advancement in accuracy  may not be all that important.

Certainly there are many factors that mitigate the ability of rifle to hit a target beyond musket range, of course. But the primary reason you didn't see lot's of people killed beyond musket range was simply that people learned not to expose themselves at those longer ranges - the range at which you could "form up" with impunity was much greater, and so the tactics changed to account for that. You saw more use of reverse slopes, for example. You saw more emphasis on terrain.

A rifle doesn't have a 5% higher chance of hitting a target at 200 yards compared to a musket - a musket has a effective range of about 50 yards, so its odds of hitting anything at 200 are basically nil (when considering aimed, rather than volley, fire) - you might as well not even aim because what you point the musket at has no relation to where the round will go at that range. More relevantly, an entire regiment firing at anything more than 200 yards is likely going to be ineffective in actually causing casualties, although could still be effective at stopping an attack.

A regiment firing rifles at 200 yards, assuming the men are nominally well trained, will be devastating when firing at an exposed target, as was seen during the Civil War when it happened. So you cannot simply dismiss the difference between the two. Since it was devastating, commanders would endeavor to not allow their opponents to engage them at that range in the open. The long range if the rifle made it imperative that you close the range somehow under cover, so you are not exposed to as many effective shots before you can close with the enemy.

So, if in the Napoleonic Wars a regiment could fire on another at 200 yards with muskets with minimal effect, and you look at the results and say "Gee, in 1810 there were rarely any casualties from musket fire at 200 yard ranges".

Then in the Civil War, commanders would certainly endeavor to not allow their men to be in a position to take aimed rifle fire at 200 yards because it would be devastating, so they maneuver accordingly, and you say "Gosh, during the Civil War, there were rarely occasions where aimed rifle fire blew away guys at 200 yards..." and conclude that nothing has changed. But of course a lot has changed.

The same is still true today - the overall casualty rates are consistent even in WW2 from infantry combat. Does that mean an M1 Garand is not really anymore effective that a Brown Bess musket? Of course not.

Of course, the reality is that things most certainly had changed. The firepower of aimed rifle fire by infantry in the US Civil War radically changed the possible ways one force could attach another with any hope of success, and a large part of that change was due to the significant increase in firepower enjoyed by the well trained infantryman with a rifle.

QuoteThe invention of the Minié ball solved both major problems of muzzle-loading rifles. The Crimean War (1853–1856) saw the first widespread use of the rifled musket for the common infantryman and by the time of the American Civil War (1860s) most infantry were equipped with the rifled musket. These were far more accurate than smoothbore muskets and had a far longer range, while preserving the musket's comparatively faster reloading rate. Their use led to a decline in the use of massed attacking formations, as these formations were too vulnerable to the accurate, long-range fire a rifle could produce. In particular, attacking troops were within range of the defenders for a longer period of time, and the defenders could also fire at them more quickly than before. As a result, while 18th century attackers would only be within range of the defenders' weapons for the time it would take to fire a few shots, late 19th century attackers might suffer dozens of volleys before they drew close to the defenders, with correspondingly high casualty rates.

Do you have any proof of this?  Can you prove that officers used terrain more in the Civil war then the War of 1812 or the Mexican American war?  If what you say is true one would expect the casualty rates to be higher in the beginning of the war and decrease as the war went on (as officers learned the dangers of the new rifles), do you have evidence of this actually happening?  Do you know what the typical range of fire was in the civil war compared to the War of 1812 and the Mexican American war?  You make a lot of assumptions about what officers did, but no real evidence to back them up.

You know what, you are right. The evidence clearly shows that rifles made no difference, and really, they should have all just kept using muskets. Or maybe pikes.

Silly me for arguing with Raz. Back to ignore.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 01:30:55 PM
The argument was that technology outpaced tactics.  If they have the same casualties because they altered tactics then the argument falls apart.  Challenging the assumption that they were "radically more accurate" is entirely valid.  What is the idea they are "radically more accurate" based on?  Rifled guns are more accurate, but how much so?  If they have a 5-10% higher chance to hit a target at 200 yards, then they are more accurate but not radically so.  The rifled musket had a longer range, but did soldier typically engage in at maximum range?

I took a look at Wikipedia to see the maximum range of the Springfield rifle which was 500 yards.  That's a pretty good distance assuming the number is correct.  I imagine that a lot of men could not reliably hit a target at that range.  I couldn't, I have poor eyesight.  While the armies tended to train men in drill regularly, they were rarely trained in marksmanship. 

Maybe most men couldn't hit a man sized target at 500 yards, but they weren't often aiming at a man sized target, but one the size of a regiment.

Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2014, 05:06:57 PM
You know what, you are right. The evidence clearly shows that rifles made no difference, and really, they should have all just kept using muskets. Or maybe pikes.

Silly me for arguing with Raz. Back to ignore.

That's an odd way to respond when I ask you to back up your assertions.

"Despite these new weapons, there doesn't seem to be a massive increase in casualties"
"That's because of the new tactics they used"
"Do you have evidence they used new tactics?"
"I'M IGNORING YOU NOW!"

Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
Do you have any proof of this?  Can you prove that officers used terrain more in the Civil war then the War of 1812 or the Mexican American war?  If what you say is true one would expect the casualty rates to be higher in the beginning of the war and decrease as the war went on (as officers learned the dangers of the new rifles), do you have evidence of this actually happening?  Do you know what the typical range of fire was in the civil war compared to the War of 1812 and the Mexican American war?  You make a lot of assumptions about what officers did, but no real evidence to back them up.

I can say that the military debate in the mid-19th century was rich with discussion about the effects of the rifle on field operations - see for example https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/030204_Tyler.pdf.

Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2014, 05:06:57 PM
You know what, you are right. The evidence clearly shows that rifles made no difference, and really, they should have all just kept using muskets. Or maybe pikes.

Silly me for arguing with Raz. Back to ignore.

I was going to say "that took longer than it should have." Just leave him on your "do not respond" list.

the '42 smoothbore musket was better at close range than springfields, if the smoothbore was loaded with buck and ball. but we're talking about less than 100 yards.

at 100 yards, springfield could hit with 96% accuracy; smoothbore (normal shot) -- 74%; smoothbore (buckshot) -- 52%.

at 200 yards, these numbers drop to 74%, 36% and 20%.

at 300 yards, 46%, 14%, and 0% buckshot.

(edit) these figures come from contemporary shooting ranges, though. raz did hit on one thing -- soldiers weren't drilled in live ammunition training before they were sent off to war. but, the numbers for all the guns would drop, and there would be a greater chance of a rookie hitting something at 200 yards with a springfield than with a smoothbore.

Quote from: Martim Silva on October 31, 2014, 02:58:39 PM
Use if "is" increased during the Civil War - means the issue became relevant then.

Sure it became relevant.  But despite becoming relevant there was only a relatively small increase of usage and then that trend reversed in the 1870s.
Which directly contradicts Foote's claim that before the War, everyone said "are" and after the war everyone said "is".  That claim is just wrong, no quibbling about it.

QuoteWould not the year 1900 be about the time when the generation that was born right after the war/were just kids during it was now being old enough to give court opinions?

No not really.  The people on the Supreme Court in the 1890s were around the same age as the people on the Court in the 1900s.  In fact in many cases there were the SAME people: Fuller, Brewer, Harlan, and (in part) Brown and Peckham.   Other than Field (on the Court forever), the Justices on the Court in 1895 had been born in the years 1828-1845.  The Justices on the Court in 1905 were born in the years 1833-1849.  Notice the strong overlap.  And age is no predictor of usage - one of the strongest "is" users was Harlan, who was the second oldest justice on the 1905 court (Fuller was a few months older).

As I indicated my post, the sharp shift in 1900 was noticed and remarked upon at the time.  No doubt it is true that the historical experience of the Civil War was contributing factor, but a true understanding of the linguistic shift requires focusing on later developments.

Quote from: The Brain on November 02, 2014, 09:38:59 AM
I recommend further research.

Not a bad idea, actually.
Becuase we are having a heated argument over a "study" which appears not in fact to be a study - at least there is no indication at all where the estimates come from, how they were made, or what samples were used to generate them. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2014, 01:25:33 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 02, 2014, 09:38:59 AM
I recommend further research.

Not a bad idea, actually.
Becuase we are having a heated argument over a "study" which appears not in fact to be a study - at least there is no indication at all where the estimates come from, how they were made, or what samples were used to generate them.

:smarty: I suggest we start with flash mobs.

A Civil War-themed flash mob would be cool.

Quote from: derspiess on November 03, 2014, 01:30:34 PM
A Civil War-themed flash mob would be cool.

Jeff Davis didn't think so.

Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2014, 03:25:45 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 03, 2014, 01:30:34 PM
A Civil War-themed flash mob would be cool.

Jeff Davis didn't think so.

ROFLeggnog.

They never did hang him from that sour apple tree :(

Catchy.