Languish.org

I've been reading around the ACW and some questions have occurred to me which I thought this place could probably answer.  Or at least enjoy arguing about.

Big question I've got is why does the Union seem to have so many duff generals at the start of the war?

Thats a pretty broad sweeping condemnation of brigade and higher leadership.

Traitors are rarely good generals. They lack moral fibre.

A big part of the problem was that the pre-war army was just so small.  Nobody had any experience leading large bodies of troops.

This thread is going to blow up like a motherfucker  :lol:

I will post a longer response to the issue of early war Union generalship later, when I have the time to compose it.  But I will say there was definitely a problem of picking the wrong man for the wrong job at several early turns by Lincoln.  And McClellan was an insolent and insubordinate self-promoting, self-important clusterfuck politician of the third degree.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2011, 08:18:31 AM
This thread is going to blow up like a motherfucker  :lol:

I will post a longer response to the issue of early war Union generalship later, when I have the time to compose it.  But I will say there was definitely a problem of picking the wrong man for the wrong job at several early turns by Lincoln.  And McClellan was an insolent and insubordinate self-promoting, self-important clusterfuck politician of the third degree.

That's a lot of the problem there.  One wonders why Lincoln played softball with McClellan for so long, given how badly he was screwing things up.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 25, 2011, 08:20:17 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2011, 08:18:31 AM
This thread is going to blow up like a motherfucker  :lol:

I will post a longer response to the issue of early war Union generalship later, when I have the time to compose it.  But I will say there was definitely a problem of picking the wrong man for the wrong job at several early turns by Lincoln.  And McClellan was an insolent and insubordinate self-promoting, self-important clusterfuck politician of the third degree.

That's a lot of the problem there.  One wonders why Lincoln played softball with McClellan for so long, given how badly he was screwing things up.

Partly because McClellan was popular with the troops, and partly because everybody else he put in command of the Army of the Potomoc before Meade did an even worse job than Little Mac.

Wasn't McClellan a Democrat? Showing a united front in the face of the conflict might have been important to Lincoln.

And were his flaws that apparent right from the start?

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2011, 06:02:33 AM
I've been reading around the ACW and some questions have occurred to me which I thought this place could probably answer.  Or at least enjoy arguing about.

Big question I've got is why does the Union seem to have so many duff generals at the start of the war?

I think someone on here once posted that the officer corps of the prewar army was disproportionately southern. West Point had a lot of northern entrants, but they didn't stick with military careers as often since they had more economic opportunities at home.

Quote from: Norgy on June 25, 2011, 08:33:04 AM
Wasn't McClellan a Democrat? Showing a united front in the face of the conflict might have been important to Lincoln.

Yes, but that was a relatively minor point.  Even though the Democrats nominated McClellan for President in 1864, he wasn't really politically important before that.

QuoteAnd were his flaws that apparent right from the start?

No, not really.  He did spend a lot of time reorganizing the Army of the Potomoc after 1st Bull Run, but it was obvious after that battle that the war wasn't going to be ended quickly and the army did need a lot of training and building up.  And he had been quite succsess in small-scale actions before being given command of the AotP.


[/quote]

Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2011, 09:32:31 AM
I think someone on here once posted that the officer corps of the prewar army was disproportionately southern. West Point had a lot of northern entrants, but they didn't stick with military careers as often since they had more economic opportunities at home.

That's true, but it's not as true as some people would have us believe.  For one thing, not all the Southerners in the officer corps abandoned the Union.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2011, 09:32:31 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2011, 06:02:33 AM
I've been reading around the ACW and some questions have occurred to me which I thought this place could probably answer.  Or at least enjoy arguing about.

Big question I've got is why does the Union seem to have so many duff generals at the start of the war?

I think someone on here once posted that the officer corps of the prewar army was disproportionately southern. West Point had a lot of northern entrants, but they didn't stick with military careers as often since they had more economic opportunities at home.

The higher ranks were certainly disproportionately Southern for that reason. The lower officer ranks were more representative of the nation at large.

Quote from: Norgy on June 25, 2011, 08:33:04 AM
Wasn't McClellan a Democrat? Showing a united front in the face of the conflict might have been important to Lincoln.

And were his flaws that apparent right from the start?

His flaws as a general weren't, his work organizing and training the Army of the Potomac was great, and he'd won the small battles he'd commanded in up to that point.

Personality wise he was a douchebag from day one IIRC.

Quote from: dps on June 25, 2011, 09:38:59 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2011, 09:32:31 AM
I think someone on here once posted that the officer corps of the prewar army was disproportionately southern. West Point had a lot of northern entrants, but they didn't stick with military careers as often since they had more economic opportunities at home.

That's true, but it's not as true as some people would have us believe.  For one thing, not all the Southerners in the officer corps abandoned the Union.

Thomas comes to mind off the top of my head.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2011, 09:32:31 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2011, 06:02:33 AM
I've been reading around the ACW and some questions have occurred to me which I thought this place could probably answer.  Or at least enjoy arguing about.

Big question I've got is why does the Union seem to have so many duff generals at the start of the war?

I think someone on here once posted that the officer corps of the prewar army was disproportionately southern. West Point had a lot of northern entrants, but they didn't stick with military careers as often since they had more economic opportunities at home.

Yeah, there's a lot of bullshit mythology with the whole West Point thing;  there were tons of West Pointers in command positions in the South, but so many opponents in Congress, politicos in the North and Lincoln's administration considered West Point a bastion of conservative Southern thinking, outmoded military thought, and dilletantism.  Which is why so many of  Wade's and Chandler's Jacobins on the Hill detested McClellan--who had held the "Southern Genteelman" concept in high regard, considering his own self-esteem issues.  The man was so well-known for his sympathies for the Southern life, even the rebel papers wrote well of him.

But the fact is Lincoln always wanted to put the "best resume" in the best box, and McClellan's career was practically built for it:  West Pointer grad at age 20, Mexican War veteran, observer of the Crimean War whose writings became the permanent Army standard of record for that conflict, a "player's coach" with the troops, arguably the most accomplished scholar in the entire army, etc.  And Rich Mountain didn't hurt him at all.
He was, on paper, the best man for the job at the time.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2011, 09:46:03 AM
The higher ranks were certainly disproportionately Southern for that reason. The lower officer ranks were more representative of the nation at large.

In the South, you had two options:  go into the family business of running the farm or plantation, or go into the military.
Military service for Southerns in the 19th century was what going into the priesthood in the middle ages was.  It was the only real alternative to your family's station.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2011, 09:32:31 AMI think someone on here once posted that the officer corps of the prewar army was disproportionately southern. West Point had a lot of northern entrants, but they didn't stick with military careers as often since they had more economic opportunities at home.

I've read that.  But my understanding is that the military theory at the time was a sort-of Jominian war of manoeuvre and yet the West Point educated, theoretical generals of the South seem far less trapped by that than the Northern generals?

Is part of it possibly that the nature of the war is different for each side at the start?  That the North is fighting to preserve and reinstate the union - the union as it was - while the South are always fighting for survival?  Basically the North doesn't start fighting a total war, the South always is.

I'd argue the opposite actually.  Both sides stayed fairly true to military precepts of the day at least in the beginning.  I would say that it was the Union commanders in the West that were the most creative.

One of the main problems with the Army of the Potomac was that it had horrible intelligence.  McClellan labored under the strange notion that he was always outnumbered.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2011, 11:27:24 AM
I've read that.  But my understanding is that the military theory at the time was a sort-of Jominian war of manoeuvre and yet the West Point educated, theoretical generals of the South seem far less trapped by that than the Northern generals?

Southern generals had more experiencing commanding larger bodies of troops, since they had, on average, more years' experience in the Army.  Plus, southern troops tended to be more rural, self-sufficient, and firearms-savvy than their northern counterparts, and earlier in the war this gave the Confederate generals more options in terms of maneuver.  Norhtern troops from the cities had to be pampered more early in their military service.

QuoteIs part of it possibly that the nature of the war is different for each side at the start?  That the North is fighting to preserve and reinstate the union - the union as it was - while the South are always fighting for survival?  Basically the North doesn't start fighting a total war, the South always is.

The war was different for the two sides at the start for both the reasons you mention and the ones I mention.  The Southern leadership knew from the start that business as usual wasn't going to cut it for them.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2011, 11:41:57 AM
One of the main problems with the Army of the Potomac was that it had horrible intelligence.  McClellan labored under the strange notion that he was always outnumbered.

Considering he appears to be the only one who believed that, I wouldn't pawn it off on the intelligence network.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2011, 12:00:30 PM
Considering he appears to be the only one who believed that, I wouldn't pawn it off on the intelligence network.

I would blamely squarely on MacLellan, who had this silly notion that any number of soldiers the ANV was reported to field had to be multiplied by three. Whether he truly believed it out of paranoia, or he wanted to keep his force as an army-in-being, or aimed to be as much a pain in the ass to Lincoln as possible, is another matter.

Quote from: grumbler on June 25, 2011, 11:47:02 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2011, 11:27:24 AM
I've read that.  But my understanding is that the military theory at the time was a sort-of Jominian war of manoeuvre and yet the West Point educated, theoretical generals of the South seem far less trapped by that than the Northern generals?

Southern generals had more experiencing commanding larger bodies of troops, since they had, on average, more years' experience in the Army.  Plus, southern troops tended to be more rural, self-sufficient, and firearms-savvy than their northern counterparts, and earlier in the war this gave the Confederate generals more options in terms of maneuver.  Norhtern troops from the cities had to be pampered more early in their military service.

QuoteIs part of it possibly that the nature of the war is different for each side at the start?  That the North is fighting to preserve and reinstate the union - the union as it was - while the South are always fighting for survival?  Basically the North doesn't start fighting a total war, the South always is.

The war was different for the two sides at the start for both the reasons you mention and the ones I mention.  The Southern leadership knew from the start that business as usual wasn't going to cut it for them.

Now I take a seat and cook my popcorn in the oven, in expectation for Berkut to magically appear and flak that argument in favour of "The Southern Leadership" down.

This promises to be fun.  :licklips:

Quote from: grumbler on June 25, 2011, 11:47:02 AM
Southern generals had more experiencing commanding larger bodies of troops, since they had, on average, more years' experience in the Army.  Plus, southern troops tended to be more rural, self-sufficient, and firearms-savvy than their northern counterparts, and earlier in the war this gave the Confederate generals more options in terms of maneuver.  Norhtern troops from the cities had to be pampered more early in their military service.

Two thoughts.  Isn't the real distinction not necessarily North vs South but North-East vs the rest?  I mean surely the North-West was as rural and self-sufficient as the South, which would perhaps explain, along with superior generalship, the relative success of the Union there.

Is that fair?  I mean they're fighting a different kind of war but it strike me that the Army of the Potomac takes a pounding repeatedly and yet time and again morale is rebuilt remarkably quickly.  I don't know if that fits into a pampered urban army.

QuoteI'd argue the opposite actually.  Both sides stayed fairly true to military precepts of the day at least in the beginning.  I would say that it was the Union commanders in the West that were the most creative.

No doubt the Western commanders are a far better bunch and very creative. 

Quote from: Drakken on June 25, 2011, 01:02:37 PM
I would blamely squarely on MacLellan, who had this silly notion that any number of soldiers the ANV was reported to field had to be multiplied by three. Whether he truly believed it out of paranoia, or he wanted to keep his force as an army-in-being, or aimed to be as much a pain in the ass to Lincoln as possible, is another matter.

Do some research - the story is even better than "McClellan was some kind of moron who believed he was outnumbered for reasons no one can fathom."  Allen Pinkerton was McClellan's spymaster, and distorted the numbers because he was rewarded by McClellan when he reported larger Confederate force levels.  McClellan had "evidence" his feelings of being outnumbered all the time were justified.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2011, 01:14:38 PM
No doubt the Western commanders are a far better bunch and very creative.

And wider, rougher terrain, less infrastructure, and more rivers.

Quote from: grumbler on June 25, 2011, 01:15:29 PM
Do some research - the story is even better than "McClellan was some kind of moron who believed he was outnumbered for reasons no one can fathom."  Allen Pinkerton was McClellan's spymaster, and distorted the numbers because he was rewarded by McClellan when he reported larger Confederate force levels.  McClellan had "evidence" his feelings of being outnumbered all the time were justified.

But why McLellan rewarded Pinkerton reporting larger forces? Is it because it confirmed what he always suspected, deep down, or because he had an hidden agenda fueling his prevarication.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2011, 01:14:38 PM
Two thoughts.  Isn't the real distinction not necessarily North vs South but North-East vs the rest?  I mean surely the North-West was as rural and self-sufficient as the South, which would perhaps explain, along with superior generalship, the relative success of the Union there.

Exactly.

QuoteIs that fair?  I mean they're fighting a different kind of war but it strike me that the Army of the Potomac takes a pounding repeatedly and yet time and again morale is rebuilt remarkably quickly.  I don't know if that fits into a pampered urban army.

An army that has to be pampered relative to another doesn't have to be low-morale.  Morale and the self-sufficiency are independent variables.

QuoteNo doubt the Western commanders are a far better bunch and very creative.

I'd argue that Phil Kearny* was as good and creative a general as the war saw, and he didn't serve in the West during the ACW.  I think Western generals looked better because they had smaller forces, more maneuvering room, and fewer foes at the start, and so faced a less daunting learning curve.


*Incidentally, a man well worth researching.  He invented the first divisional patch, the "Big Red One," and uniquely (as far as I know) had not one, but two forts named after him; Fort Kearney, and Fort Phil Kearney.

Quote from: Drakken on June 25, 2011, 01:18:44 PM
But why McLellan rewarded Pinkerton reporting larger forces? Is it because it confirmed what he always suspected, deep down, or because he had an hidden agenda fueling his prevarication.

Which is more heroic?  Defeating a larger enemy, or a smaller one?  Which is more admirable?  Staving off defeat by a larger enemy, or failing to defeat a smaller one?

Mac needed to feel the hero, and needed to explain to himself his failures.  It was ingrained into him that he was destined for greatness. 

McClellan was happy to hear high numbers since that allowed McClellan to delay and prepare. He realized that frontal assaults were suicidal and he was proven right again and again during the war. Consequently his (and Halleck's) Jomian view of warfare where maneuver forces the enemy to surrender. He seems to believe that the war could only be won by showing the south it could not win and getting it to surrender without too much bloodshed to reunite the country with the least amount of acrimony.

I can't really help thinking that my wargaming attitude is closest to McClellan of all the civil war generals as I prepare meticulously.

I don't think that Union Generals were less capable than Confederate ones. The great incompetents of the Union (Burnside, Hooker, McDowell, Buell, Pope and Halleck) were matched by an almost equal number of Confederate ones (Polk, Hood, Magruder, Floyd, Pillow and Beauregard). The South had the good luck of having incompetent generals facing incompetent union ones on ground that benefited the confederate. However, if you want to list the best generals of the ACW, out of the top six, four are union generals (Grant, Lee, Sherman, Jackson, Sheridan and Thomas). 

I think the best example of the my of Union incompetence is Burnside. Out of Burnside's five campaigns (North Carolina, Antietam, Fredricksburg, Knoxville and Petersburg) two were unqualified successes and the other two are exemplified by exceptional early quality and failure coming with orders imposed from above (the last, Antietam, was merely competent).

QuoteI'd argue that Phil Kearny* was as good and creative a general as the war saw, and he didn't serve in the West during the ACW.  I think Western generals looked better because they had smaller forces, more maneuvering room, and fewer foes at the start, and so faced a less daunting learning curve.


*Incidentally, a man well worth researching.  He invented the first divisional patch, the "Big Red One," and uniquely (as far as I know) had not one, but two forts named after him; Fort Kearney, and Fort Phil Kearney.

That's the dude that served over in France too. Some think he would have been a better choice the Little Mac.

There was a also a perceived need in the North to appoint politicians with no military experiece to high command.

Another way to look at it is individuals capable of commanding an army were extremely rare in both North and South, and the South lucked out with 3 at the beginning of the war.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2011, 02:35:53 PM
There was a also a perceived need in the North to appoint politicians with no military experience to high command.

Another way to look at it is individuals capable of commanding an army were extremely rare in both North and South, and the South lucked out with 3 at the beginning of the war.

The South had political appointments as well.  A lot ended up in the West as opposed to the North whose political generals ended up in the "glory" theater of the East.  Also, the South managed to keep their political hack generals generally lower in rank or commanding behind the scenes.

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on June 25, 2011, 02:59:56 PM
The South had political appointments as well.  A lot ended up in the West as opposed to the North whose political generals ended up in the "glory" theater of the East.  Also, the South managed to keep their political hack generals generally lower in rank or commanding behind the scenes.

The South's political hacks also performed better on average in the field.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2011, 02:34:36 PM

QuoteI'd argue that Phil Kearny* was as good and creative a general as the war saw, and he didn't serve in the West during the ACW.  I think Western generals looked better because they had smaller forces, more maneuvering room, and fewer foes at the start, and so faced a less daunting learning curve.


*Incidentally, a man well worth researching.  He invented the first divisional patch, the "Big Red One," and uniquely (as far as I know) had not one, but two forts named after him; Fort Kearney, and Fort Phil Kearney.

That's the dude that served over in France too. Some think he would have been a better choice the Little Mac.

Yeah, but he died before something like that could happen.

The souths political generals were disasters, all of them, Breckenridge, Floyd, Pillow etc. Butler and Banks are examples of Union political generals that, while not very competent, they did perform sufficiently from time to time.

The union did solve the "problem" with political generals by promoting them out of fighting. Butler and Banks were both promoted to Reconstruction jobs away from commanding troops.

I doubt the ladies of New Orleans approved of Butler's reconstruction.  :P

And, this might be the only Languish thread immune to an ACW hijack. :hmm:

Quote from: Viking on June 25, 2011, 05:15:31 PM
The souths political generals were disasters, all of them, Breckenridge, Floyd, Pillow etc.

How was Breckenridge a disaster?  And you can't really call Price a disaster either.  He was decent.

I don't even know who Floyd and Pillow were.  :blush:

I thought Price had been a military officer before the war.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 25, 2011, 07:56:38 PM
I thought Price had been a military officer before the war.

I think he served in the Mexican-American War, but wasn't regular Army.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2011, 02:35:53 PM
There was a also a perceived need in the North to appoint politicians with no military experiece to high command.

Yeah, and there was so much more political pressure in Congress and in abolitionist circles, who tolerated failure on the battlefield by a general, as long as "he was right on the Negro question".  John C. Fremont was no strategist, but he proclaimed slaves free in his areas. Ben Butler fucked up hardcore at Fort Fisher, but was an abolitionist, McDowell passed the Negro tests even after Bull Run.  Rosecrans was an abolitionist darling to the extent of being considered a presidential candidate even after Chickamauga.  Burnside was heavily defended by them after Fredericksburg, as was Hooker after Chancellorsville, when they adopted open anti-slavery positions when they saw it could save their asses.

Serious hero-worship on officers with failures under their belts, but they scored correctly on political points for the radicals.

What I want to know is why so many Union generals had fucked up eyes.  Butler, Meade, Doubleday, Slocum... They all have these deep set eyes with heavy bags underneath.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2011, 05:33:33 PM

Quote from: Viking on June 25, 2011, 05:15:31 PM
The souths political generals were disasters, all of them, Breckenridge, Floyd, Pillow etc.

How was Breckenridge a disaster?  And you can't really call Price a disaster either.  He was decent.

I don't even know who Floyd and Pillow were.  :blush:

Floyd and Pillow were in command at Ft Donelson. They ordered a break out, which succeeded, but then they ordered the troops back into the fort, just in time for most of them to surrender to Grant. Both skidaddled before surrendering, each in turn relinquishing command to a lower commander before escaping across the Tennessee river.

Calling Brekenridge a disaster might have been exaggeration on my part. But, he did do his damndest to make sure Braxton Bragg failed.

Quote from: grumbler on June 25, 2011, 01:32:05 PM
*Incidentally, a man well worth researching.

The first soldier through the gate in Mexico City, and one of only two guys with an equestrian statute at Arlington National Cemetery. Dude also apparently fought in the French Imperial Guard and won the Legion of Honor. Too bad it turned out the rebels had made a bullet that could kill him.  :(

Quote from: Viking on June 25, 2011, 09:15:51 PM


Calling Brekenridge a disaster might have been exaggeration on my part. But, he did do his damndest to make sure Braxton Bragg failed.

That's wasn't to hard.  Bragg wasn't a very good commander and he was hated by almost everyone he had contact with.  I'm actually surprised he wasn't shot in a duel or something.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 26, 2011, 12:25:49 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 25, 2011, 09:15:51 PM


Calling Brekenridge a disaster might have been exaggeration on my part. But, he did do his damndest to make sure Braxton Bragg failed.

That's wasn't to hard.  Bragg wasn't a very good commander and he was hated by almost everyone he had contact with.  I'm actually surprised he wasn't shot in a duel or something.

It be hard to get away with that in the middle of a war. Not many would be willing to risk being shoot by firing squad.

The Union (after Bull Run) had so many troops that nobody knew what in the hell to do with them.  The people who claimed to have answers (Halleck, Mac, Fremont) were all boobs and it took time for the cream to rise to the top.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2011, 11:19:47 PM
It be hard to get away with that in the middle of a war. Not many would be willing to risk being shoot by firing squad.

Tell that to Earl Van Dorn.

Emphasis on the not many.

Quote from: PDH on June 26, 2011, 11:45:20 PM
The Union (after Bull Run) had so many troops that nobody knew what in the hell to do with them.  The people who claimed to have answers (Halleck, Mac, Fremont) were all boobs and it took time for the cream to rise to the top.

Lincoln DID have the answer, attack everywhere at once. Shame nobody listened to him until Grant took over.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 04:38:24 AM

Quote from: PDH on June 26, 2011, 11:45:20 PM
The Union (after Bull Run) had so many troops that nobody knew what in the hell to do with them.  The people who claimed to have answers (Halleck, Mac, Fremont) were all boobs and it took time for the cream to rise to the top.

Lincoln DID have the answer, attack everywhere at once. Shame nobody listened to him until Grant took over.

Even with Grant in charge, it was hard to co-ordinate the different armies to have them actually pull that off.  Somebody was always complaining that their command wasn't ready, or just going off on their own.

I think what it boils down to is the fact that the regular army not only was far too tiny to meet the secessionist threat, but a huge percentage of its professional officer cadre actually defected to the Southern cause.  So, faced with a critical leadership shortage to command such a massive army that quite literally sprang up overnight, the government didn't know who to turn to other than politicians (e.g. Nathaniel Banks, Ambrose Burnside)... and as most of know, typical politicians are retarded egomaniacal charlatans.

Burnside was a politician?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2011, 07:03:43 AM
Burnside was a politician?

After the war. He was a congressman and governor of rhode island. Before the war he was a soldier. He resigned his commission to get into business. He was an industrialist and inventor. He invented a breech loading carbine that avoided the problem of flash before the war.

Yeah, but I just checked and he didn't seem to hold elective office until after the Civil War (Senator from, and Governor of, Rhode Island).  He ran for office prior to the war but was defeated.

It seems he was best known for inventing the Burnside carbine prior to the war.... I'd heard of it but didn't realize it was named for him. :blush:

So anyway, maybe Burnside wasn't the best example, although he seemed to have been promoted on account of his OSSUM rifle's reputation more than his leadership qualities.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2011, 07:03:43 AM
Burnside was a politician?

After the war he was a governor and senator from RI, before though he only had a losing race for Congress on his record. He was more of an inventor/businessman after he left the army.

Glad we cleared that up.  :)

And Cal, I would say he's best known for side burns.

Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2011, 07:11:29 AM
Yeah, but I just checked and he didn't seem to hold elective office until after the Civil War (Senator from, and Governor of, Rhode Island).  He ran for office prior to the war but was defeated.

It seems he was best known for inventing the Burnside carbine prior to the war.... I'd heard of it but didn't realize it was named for him. :blush:

So anyway, maybe Burnside wasn't the best example, although he seemed to have been promoted on account of his OSSUM rifle's reputation more than his leadership qualities.

He did perform well in north carolina early in the war and was competent at antietam. His march to Fredricksburg was quick and efficient and he got there well before Lee. He was just screwed when the pontoons did not show up giving Lee enough time to set up on the defensive. After Fredricksburg he served well in East Tennessee and at the Crater it was last minute changes that screwed him over.

If he hadn't been the man in command when he was ordered to assault Mary's Heights south of Fredricksburg I think he'd have a a decent reputation for a Union General.

People don't cut him enough slack for realizing how incompetent he was. He kept protesting against getting promoted and people just didn't listen.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2011, 07:30:03 AM
People don't cut him enough slack for realizing how incompetent he was. He kept protesting against getting promoted and people just didn't listen.

I gotta agree there.

Well besides the fact that both armies were full of terrible generals and the Federal Army more so for the reasons mentioned the Federals simply had a much more difficult task militarily.  They had to invade and destroy the South while the Confederate commanders merely had to keep their cause going.  Even a decently competent general was going to have a hard time in those conditions.

On the other hand even a subpar general like Braxton Bragg could kinda sorta keep it together for the South.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2011, 07:30:03 AM
People don't cut him enough slack for realizing how incompetent he was. He kept protesting against getting promoted and people just didn't listen.

I find that hilarious myself.  He is the American Duke of Medina-Sidonia.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 07:21:51 AM
He did perform well in north carolina early in the war and was competent at antietam.

I don't know enough to assess Burnside or contribute much here, but isn't there some controversy whether Burnside was competent at Antietam or grossly incompetent?

The confederate point of view seemed to be that the way he tried to take the bridge his bridge was grossly incompetent as the river was really a stream that could be forded basically anywhere he wanted, and having visited the battlefield I find it hard to disagree.

:yes:  I've been there too, and whether or not you personally agree that's certainly how the situation is portrayed there.

Yeah him allowing his entire Corps be held up by 400 Confederates when he had a chance to destroy the Confederate Army (and he still nearly did were it not for AP Hill's division) was ridiculous.  He needed to go all in right there...sort of like he did when he shouldn't have at Fredericksburg a few months later.

And yes I am been to the famous bridge and stream as well.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 08:10:17 AM
Well besides the fact that both armies were full of terrible generals and the Federal Army more so for the reasons mentioned the Federals simply had a much more difficult task militarily.  They had to invade and destroy the South while the Confederate commanders merely had to keep their cause going.  Even a decently competent general was going to have a hard time in those conditions.

On the other hand even a subpar general like Braxton Bragg could kinda sorta keep it together for the South.

But does that explain the eastern theater? In the roughly contemporary wars taking place in Europe, the Prussians were able to rout enemies on their territory. I think Paris is a bit further from the German border than DC is Richmond. The Danes, Austrians, and French were all defeated in short order.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:10:20 AM
But does that explain the eastern theater? In the roughly contemporary wars taking place in Europe, the Prussians were able to rout enemies on their territory.

Sure.  Lee lost every major battle he fought invading the North and the North has similar troubles in the Virginia.  I mean Grant was as good as they come and he failed to win decisively either.  Eventually they just had to slog it out.

The Prussians...well if the North had been able to instantly mobilize a massive reserve army and rush them to the front in a few days and march on Richmond they would have won almost immediately also.  If the Prussians had had to build an army and equip it and staff it from scratch I think the wars against Austria and France would have been just as difficult and protracted.  The massive speed of the Prussian mobilization was their key to victory.

Well that and France's plan to try to attack the Germans immediately which was suicidal given the superiority of German numbers plus the previously mentioned speed of Prussian mobilization.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:10:20 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 08:10:17 AM
Well besides the fact that both armies were full of terrible generals and the Federal Army more so for the reasons mentioned the Federals simply had a much more difficult task militarily.  They had to invade and destroy the South while the Confederate commanders merely had to keep their cause going.  Even a decently competent general was going to have a hard time in those conditions.

On the other hand even a subpar general like Braxton Bragg could kinda sorta keep it together for the South.

But does that explain the eastern theater? In the roughly contemporary wars taking place in Europe, the Prussians were able to rout enemies on their territory. I think Paris is a bit further from the German border than DC is Richmond. The Danes, Austrians, and French were all defeated in short order.

The Prussian army was run by professional officers and the men who fought were professionals and well trained reservists. The situation was not comparable.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:21:32 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:10:20 AM
But does that explain the eastern theater? In the roughly contemporary wars taking place in Europe, the Prussians were able to rout enemies on their territory.

Sure.  Lee lost every major battle he fought invading the North and the North has similar troubles in the Virginia.  I mean Grant was as good as they come and he failed to win decisively either.  Eventually they just had to slog it out.

The Prussians...well if the North had been able to instantly mobilize a massive reserve army and rush them to the front in a few days and march on Richmond they would have won almost immediately also.  If the Prussians had had to build an army and equip it and staff it from scratch I think the war against Austria and France would have been just as difficult and protracted.

I think the last census showed that the North had 27 million people, the South had 9 million. Something like 4 million of those were slaves. So the relevant military population was around 27 million to 5 million. Plus the North inherited the navy, the basics of the army, and was the wealthier portion of the country.

France and Prussia were roughly at parity, the North was dramatically superior. 4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2011, 09:26:10 AM
The Prussian army was run by professional officers and the men who fought were professionals and well trained reservists. The situation was not comparable.

So consider the first Bull Run campaign as a gimme. By 1862, after a year of war, the North should have had a well trained and experienced army as well. It took over 4 years to take Richmond, a lack of training at the start doesn't seem an adequate explanation.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:29:12 AM
I think the last census showed that the North had 27 million people, the South had 9 million. Something like 4 million of those were slaves. So the relevant military population was around 27 million to 5 million. Plus the North inherited the navy, the basics of the army, and was the wealthier portion of the country.

France and Prussia were roughly at parity, the North was dramatically superior. 4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Army?  What army?  There were something like 15,000 men in the US Army before the war.  Again if it was easy then Grant should have won easily since he clearly had no problem driving hundreds of miles in the West.

And France and Prussia were not on parity.  The Prussians and their allies were able to mobilize their men so well they heavily outnumbered the French in every victory they won.  Certainly no more than the Federals typically outnumbered the Confederates in the battles they fought.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:29:12 AM

I think the last census showed that the North had 27 million people, the South had 9 million. Something like 4 million of those were slaves. So the relevant military population was around 27 million to 5 million. Plus the North inherited the navy, the basics of the army, and was the wealthier portion of the country.

France and Prussia were roughly at parity, the North was dramatically superior. 4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Confederacy had 9.1 million people, 3.5 million of them slaves. Union had 22.3 million.

2.1 million served in the Union military during the war, roughly 900k in the Confederate.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:09:18 AM
Yeah him allowing his entire Corps be held up by 400 Confederates when he had a chance to destroy the Confederate Army (and he still nearly did were it not for AP Hill's division) was ridiculous.  He needed to go all in right there...sort of like he did when he shouldn't have at Fredericksburg a few months later.

And yes I am been to the famous bridge and stream as well.

To the best of my knowledge It was Maclellan that committed  his army piecemeal at antietam. I merely point out that Burnside was competent, rather than incompetent. You can still be competent and have a poor performance.

I'm not claiming that Burnside was a good general, I merely agree with his own assessment that corps command was his level of competence.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2011, 09:43:10 AM
2.1 million served in the Union military during the war, roughly 900k in the Confederate.

Is that everybody or just the regular army?  I know the Union had tons of local reserve troops in the border states that would only be used if fighting occured in their area.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:46:19 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2011, 09:43:10 AM
2.1 million served in the Union military during the war, roughly 900k in the Confederate.

Is that everybody or just the regular army?  I know the Union had tons of local reserve troops in the border states that would only be used if fighting occured in their area.

I don't think it counts non-federalized state militias, but I could be wrong.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:44:45 AM
To the best of my knowledge It was Maclellan that committed  his army piecemeal at antietam. I merely point out that Burnside was competent, rather than incompetent. You can still be competent and have a poor performance.

I'm not claiming that Burnside was a good general, I merely agree with his own assessment that corps command was his level of competence.

I was only addressing that particular effort by Burnside.  Ultimately the story of Antietam was that McClellan had his chance at eternal glory and fumbled the ball.  The North would never have a better chance to win the war in one battle.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:36:14 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:29:12 AM
I think the last census showed that the North had 27 million people, the South had 9 million. Something like 4 million of those were slaves. So the relevant military population was around 27 million to 5 million. Plus the North inherited the navy, the basics of the army, and was the wealthier portion of the country.

France and Prussia were roughly at parity, the North was dramatically superior. 4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Army?  What army?  There were something like 15,000 men in the US Army before the war.  Again if it was easy then Grant should have won easily since he clearly had no problem driving hundreds of miles in the West.

And France and Prussia were not on parity.  The Prussians and their allies were able to mobilize their men so well they heavily outnumbered the French in every victory they won.  Certainly no more than the Federals typically outnumbered the Confederates in the battles they fought.

This may be why I should have kept my mouth shut, I thought the French and Prussians were at rough parity at Sedan.  :blush:

When Grant started his campaign, he was in Richmond less than a year later. And that was using a style of fighting that was criticized at the time for being "grind it out."

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:48:17 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:44:45 AM
To the best of my knowledge It was Maclellan that committed  his army piecemeal at antietam. I merely point out that Burnside was competent, rather than incompetent. You can still be competent and have a poor performance.

I'm not claiming that Burnside was a good general, I merely agree with his own assessment that corps command was his level of competence.

I was only addressing that particular effort by Burnside.  Ultimately the story of Antietam was that McClellan had his chance at eternal glory and fumbled the ball.  The North would never have a better chance to win the war in one battle.

Would slavery have been so easily abolished if the war had ended there though?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2011, 09:50:02 AM
Would slavery have been so easily abolished if the war had ended there though?

:hmm:

I think so because ultimately even if Lee's army had been destroyed the South was not going to just surrender.  The North still would have had to occupy the place and defeat the remaining Confederate armies.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:48:17 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:44:45 AM
To the best of my knowledge It was Maclellan that committed  his army piecemeal at antietam. I merely point out that Burnside was competent, rather than incompetent. You can still be competent and have a poor performance.

I'm not claiming that Burnside was a good general, I merely agree with his own assessment that corps command was his level of competence.

I was only addressing that particular effort by Burnside.  Ultimately the story of Antietam was that McClellan had his chance at eternal glory and fumbled the ball.  The North would never have a better chance to win the war in one battle.

I think the Union could have won the war at First Bull Run :contract:

Burnside didn't attack until 10:00 when the order from Maclellan came. By the A.P. Hill had just moved into position. Burnside did bungle the attack. That all said, had Mac ordered the attack at 05:30 then the war would have been won in a day.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:48:32 AM
When Grant started his campaign, he was in Richmond less than a year later. And that was using a style of fighting that was criticized at the time for being "grind it out."

Well that is true.  A good general commanding a good army would have taken Richmond in less than a year.  But Meade was a competent general and his campaigns in Virginia following Gettysburg were embarrassing clusterfucks where he failed to either gain much ground or even engage Lee in battle.

What's you alls opinion on Rhea's and Pfanz's books?

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:06:02 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 07:21:51 AM
He did perform well in north carolina early in the war and was competent at antietam.

I don't know enough to assess Burnside or contribute much here, but isn't there some controversy whether Burnside was competent at Antietam or grossly incompetent?

The confederate point of view seemed to be that the way he tried to take the bridge his bridge was grossly incompetent as the river was really a stream that could be forded basically anywhere he wanted, and having visited the battlefield I find it hard to disagree.

Yeah, but the bank opposite is a big steep hill, and the only path up it is the road to the bridge. He'd have to go some distance on either side to find a crossing that didn't have impossible terrain on the other side. Not that that's impossible.


Add me to the list who have been there.  :P

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:54:12 AM

I think the Union could have won the war at First Bull Run :contract:

Burnside didn't attack until 10:00 when the order from Maclellan came. By the A.P. Hill had just moved into position. Burnside did bungle the attack. That all said, had Mac ordered the attack at 05:30 then the war would have been won in a day.

I think this is possible as well.  If the Federal Army beat the Confederacy at Bull Run it may have knocked the wind out of the Southerners.  They may have been able to march unopposed to Richmond.  Along with generous terms from Lincoln (which would be likely), the South might have accepted defeat having satisfied their honor on the battlefield.  Unfortunately slavery would have been allowed to continue and the political ramifications of that are difficult to calculate.  More blood would likely be spilled in the future.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 11:55:55 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:54:12 AM

I think the Union could have won the war at First Bull Run :contract:

Burnside didn't attack until 10:00 when the order from Maclellan came. By the A.P. Hill had just moved into position. Burnside did bungle the attack. That all said, had Mac ordered the attack at 05:30 then the war would have been won in a day.

I think this is possible as well.  If the Federal Army beat the Confederacy at Bull Run it may have knocked the wind out of the Southerners.  They may have been able to march unopposed to Richmond.  Along with generous terms from Lincoln (which would be likely), the South might have accepted defeat having satisfied their honor on the battlefield.  Unfortunately slavery would have been allowed to continue and the political ramifications of that are difficult to calculate.  More blood would likely be spilled in the future.

A Quick Union Victory in 1861 would in my view more likely result in a quick abolition of slavery. No longer needing to placate the border states after the quick victory and a republican congress refusing to seat pro-slavery secessionists abolition would have happened quickly as part of the terms of surrender. I agree, however, that this abolition would have been performed on southern terms, though on a northern timetable. More than likely there would be compensation and/or time limited indentured service of some kind. Slavery was dead as soon as the south took up arms.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 12:32:34 PM

A Quick Union Victory in 1861 would in my view more likely result in a quick abolition of slavery. No longer needing to placate the border states after the quick victory and a republican congress refusing to seat pro-slavery secessionists abolition would have happened quickly as part of the terms of surrender. I agree, however, that this abolition would have been performed on southern terms, though on a northern timetable. More than likely there would be compensation and/or time limited indentured service of some kind. Slavery was dead as soon as the south took up arms.

Slavery was dead before the South took up arms. It was only a matter of time. Quick victory might have had the effect of dragging out the status quo though, IMO.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 12:32:34 PM

A Quick Union Victory in 1861 would in my view more likely result in a quick abolition of slavery. No longer needing to placate the border states after the quick victory and a republican congress refusing to seat pro-slavery secessionists abolition would have happened quickly as part of the terms of surrender. I agree, however, that this abolition would have been performed on southern terms, though on a northern timetable. More than likely there would be compensation and/or time limited indentured service of some kind. Slavery was dead as soon as the south took up arms.

Not all Slave States were in the CSA (Maryland and Delaware (nominally)), and not all Southern Slave Slaves were secessionists (Tennessee, although there was a parallel Convention in Bowling Green).

Quote from: Drakken on June 27, 2011, 01:42:29 PM
not all Southern Slave Slaves were secessionists

Well Missouri was considered Southern at the time was was not secessionist.  The Appalachian region was notoriously pro-Union as well.  Also immigrant regions such as the Texas Hill Country and North Carolina Coast.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 01:45:39 PM

Quote from: Drakken on June 27, 2011, 01:42:29 PM
not all Southern Slave Slaves were secessionists

Well Missouri was considered Southern at the time was was not secessionist.  The Appalachian region was notoriously pro-Union as well.  Also immigrant regions such as the Texas Hill Country and North Carolina Coast.

Parts of it were.  The governor favored it secession and was in communication with the Southern governments in the early part of he war.  He was apparently trying to get heavy artillery to dislodge Federal forces from Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis.  This plan failed when the local Union commander imprisoned the pro-confederate State Guard in the area around St. Louis.  He then marched on Jefferson City and defeated a militia formed by the Governor near Boonville.  The governor fled south to Neosho and and formed a rump legislature to vote on succession.  However he didn't have quorum, so it probably didn't carry the force of law.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:46:19 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2011, 09:43:10 AM
2.1 million served in the Union military during the war, roughly 900k in the Confederate.

Is that everybody or just the regular army?  I know the Union had tons of local reserve troops in the border states that would only be used if fighting occured in their area.

I don't think it counts non-federalized militias, but it certainly includes more than the regular army, which stayed at about 15,000.  The vast majority of the Union forces were in what was called the US Volunteers, not the US Army.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 12:32:34 PM

A Quick Union Victory in 1861 would in my view more likely result in a quick abolition of slavery. No longer needing to placate the border states after the quick victory and a republican congress refusing to seat pro-slavery secessionists abolition would have happened quickly as part of the terms of surrender. I agree, however, that this abolition would have been performed on southern terms, though on a northern timetable. More than likely there would be compensation and/or time limited indentured service of some kind. Slavery was dead as soon as the south took up arms.

The problem with that is you would need a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. The war ending before the emancipation proclamation and the occupation of the north would make ending slavery quite difficult.

An Amendment requires ratification from 3/4 of states, and I doubt a generous post war settlement would consider the south outside of the union. Even if you did place them outside the union, there were 24 union states, and you would need 18 to ratify. 4 had slavery and were unlikely to do so. I don't know if you could have kept 3 others from defecting considering (especially in the west) you had states with strong southern sympathies and there would have been the prospect of additional violence.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 27, 2011, 01:10:27 PM
Slavery was dead before the South took up arms. It was only a matter of time. Quick victory might have had the effect of dragging out the status quo though, IMO.

Agree, and would note a coupla things:
(1) Abolition would likely be in the form of compensation for the slaveholders, which would have entrenched the Southern aristocracy in power for another generation, IMO.  This would likely have made the citizenship aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment impossible, with some interesting consequences for the non-citizen non-slaves thus created.
(2) A short war would have precluded the need for the British to extensively develop cotton growing in Egypt and India, so the post-war South may well have been more prosperous for that reason, as well as the reason that no war would have been fought over its lands.  Result:  more entrenchment of the status quo/aristocratic government.

Quote from: Drakken on June 27, 2011, 01:42:29 PM

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 12:32:34 PM

A Quick Union Victory in 1861 would in my view more likely result in a quick abolition of slavery. No longer needing to placate the border states after the quick victory and a republican congress refusing to seat pro-slavery secessionists abolition would have happened quickly as part of the terms of surrender. I agree, however, that this abolition would have been performed on southern terms, though on a northern timetable. More than likely there would be compensation and/or time limited indentured service of some kind. Slavery was dead as soon as the south took up arms.

Not all Slave States were in the CSA (Maryland and Delaware (nominally)), and not all Southern Slave Slaves were secessionists (Tennessee, although there was a parallel Convention in Bowling Green).

Those states are usually referred to as Border States. Bowling Green is in Kentucky, not Tennessee.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:29:12 AM4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Thing is, the priority from 1861 to 1863 was the preservation of Washington DC, not the taking of Richmond.  The sheer panic and concern in the city, with fears of well-placed Confederate sympathizers, hidden militias and covert troop movements from both Maryland and Virginia rising up and taking over the Federal departments at once was the primary concern in the early war years.  Richmond, while the Confederate capital, was not nearly as important a city to the South as Washington was politically to the North.  Stanton, Lincoln, and especially Seward, were deathly afraid of losing Washington and the entire governmental structure to Confederate agents.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2011, 09:50:02 AM
Would slavery have been so easily abolished if the war had ended there though?

No, quite frankly, I don't believe it would've;  Antietam was early enough in the war that the primary goal still was to unite the country as it once was, not to create a new Union.  While Lincoln was seriously considering it, the Emancipation Proclamatio was still months away.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2011, 05:35:05 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:29:12 AM4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Thing is, the priority from 1861 to 1863 was the preservation of Washington DC, not the taking of Richmond.  The sheer panic and concern in the city, with fears of well-placed Confederate sympathizers, hidden militias and covert troop movements from both Maryland and Virginia rising up and taking over the Federal departments at once was the primary concern in the early war years.  Richmond, while the Confederate capital, was not nearly as important a city to the South as Washington was politically to the North.  Stanton, Lincoln, and especially Seward, were deathly afraid of losing Washington and the entire governmental structure to Confederate agents.

Yeah, for most of the war (maybe the entire war, I'm not completely certain) the garrison of DC was larger than the Army of the Potomac.  Sometimes considerably larger, and that's not just counting the time the AotP was essentiall part of the garrison.

Hell, it was possible that Slavery would have been constitutionally protected.  The Corwin amendment passed the Senate and the House.  It's not implausible that it could have passed in 2/3rds of the states.

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 06:34:26 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2011, 05:35:05 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:29:12 AM4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Thing is, the priority from 1861 to 1863 was the preservation of Washington DC, not the taking of Richmond.  The sheer panic and concern in the city, with fears of well-placed Confederate sympathizers, hidden militias and covert troop movements from both Maryland and Virginia rising up and taking over the Federal departments at once was the primary concern in the early war years.  Richmond, while the Confederate capital, was not nearly as important a city to the South as Washington was politically to the North.  Stanton, Lincoln, and especially Seward, were deathly afraid of losing Washington and the entire governmental structure to Confederate agents.

Yeah, for most of the war (maybe the entire war, I'm not completely certain) the garrison of DC was larger than the Army of the Potomac.  Sometimes considerably larger, and that's not just counting the time the AotP was essentiall part of the garrison.

:hmm: I don't believe that's correct. I thought the garrison was in the 20-30k range. :unsure:

Yeah, I'm with Little Timmy on that one.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2011, 06:44:35 PM

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 06:34:26 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2011, 05:35:05 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2011, 09:29:12 AM4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Thing is, the priority from 1861 to 1863 was the preservation of Washington DC, not the taking of Richmond.  The sheer panic and concern in the city, with fears of well-placed Confederate sympathizers, hidden militias and covert troop movements from both Maryland and Virginia rising up and taking over the Federal departments at once was the primary concern in the early war years.  Richmond, while the Confederate capital, was not nearly as important a city to the South as Washington was politically to the North.  Stanton, Lincoln, and especially Seward, were deathly afraid of losing Washington and the entire governmental structure to Confederate agents.

Yeah, for most of the war (maybe the entire war, I'm not completely certain) the garrison of DC was larger than the Army of the Potomac.  Sometimes considerably larger, and that's not just counting the time the AotP was essentiall part of the garrison.

:hmm: I don't believe that's correct. I thought the garrison was in the 20-30k range. :unsure:

What?  I thought it was in the 100-150k range.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 06:39:19 PM
Hell, it was possible that Slavery would have been constitutionally protected.  The Corwin amendment passed the Senate and the House.  It's not implausible that it could have passed in 2/3rds of the states.

Perhaps, but the Corwin Amendment was meaningless.  An amendment to prohibit amendments can be amended as easily as any other portion of the Constitution. 

Quote from: grumbler on June 27, 2011, 06:56:15 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 06:39:19 PM
Hell, it was possible that Slavery would have been constitutionally protected.  The Corwin amendment passed the Senate and the House.  It's not implausible that it could have passed in 2/3rds of the states.

Perhaps, but the Corwin Amendment was meaningless.  An amendment to prohibit amendments can be amended as easily as any other portion of the Constitution.

Not all parts of the Constitution can be amended.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 07:07:10 PM

Quote from: grumbler on June 27, 2011, 06:56:15 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 06:39:19 PM
Hell, it was possible that Slavery would have been constitutionally protected.  The Corwin amendment passed the Senate and the House.  It's not implausible that it could have passed in 2/3rds of the states.

Perhaps, but the Corwin Amendment was meaningless.  An amendment to prohibit amendments can be amended as easily as any other portion of the Constitution.

Not all parts of the Constitution can be amended.

Uhm, where do you get that from?

I'm aware that there are European constitutions that contain some sections that are supposed to be un-amendable (not sure if that's actually a word), but the concept isn't anywhere in the US Constitution.

Article Five.

QuoteThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2011, 07:36:46 PM
Article Five.

QuoteThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Easy, just change article 5 first.

We're a bit past 1808 now.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 03:13:49 PM
Those states are usually referred to as Border States. Bowling Green is in Kentucky, not Tennessee.

Yeah, that was my typo. Should have been Kentucky.  :blush:

Quote from: Drakken on June 27, 2011, 10:31:47 PM

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 03:13:49 PM
Those states are usually referred to as Border States. Bowling Green is in Kentucky, not Tennessee.

Yeah, that was my typo. Should have been Kentucky.  :blush:

How the fuck was that a typo?  A typo is "unitl" instead of "until" or the like. 

Next you'll be telling us it was a palindrome.

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 10:41:10 PM

Quote from: Drakken on June 27, 2011, 10:31:47 PM

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 03:13:49 PM
Those states are usually referred to as Border States. Bowling Green is in Kentucky, not Tennessee.

Yeah, that was my typo. Should have been Kentucky.  :blush:

How the fuck was that a typo?  A typo is "unitl" instead of "until" or the like. 

Next you'll be telling us it was a palindrome.

They both have a T, N and an E  :lol:

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 10:41:10 PM
How the fuck was that a typo?  A typo is "unitl" instead of "until" or the like. 

Next you'll be telling us it was a palindrome.

Wahteevr.

Hpapy?

Quote from: Drakken on June 27, 2011, 10:31:47 PM

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 03:13:49 PM
Those states are usually referred to as Border States. Bowling Green is in Kentucky, not Tennessee.

Yeah, that was my typo. Should have been Kentucky.  :blush:

A better answer would have been "Tennesee, Kentucky, same shit different bucket."

lulz Iceland

Okay this is informative.  Thoughts/arguments on Rosecrans please :mellow:

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2011, 12:30:09 PM
Okay this is informative.  Thoughts/arguments on Rosecrans please :mellow:

A well educated officer of impeccable skill and ability that was able to prepare his army for complex effective and goal oriented maneuvers. These campaigns were uncommonly successful and achieved their objectives with little loss of life and quickly and skillfully. He then had a nervous breakdown at Chickamauga when he realized that the war involved killing people and getting his own people killed. His army needed to be saved by Grant showing up and taking command.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2011, 12:30:09 PM
Okay this is informative.  Thoughts/arguments on Rosecrans please :mellow:

A decent but by no means brilliant corps commander, who could perform well and independently when he had the initiative, but easily confused when commanding larger numbers of troops or when the enemy took the initiative.  Volcanic temper and a tendency to blame superiors and subordinates for his own faults.  Physically, extremely brave but morally, very cautious.  Best used on a short leash.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2011, 12:30:09 PM
Okay this is informative.  Thoughts/arguments on Rosecrans please :mellow:

Successful general who was overshadowed by others.  Not as well remembered as other commanders probably because he had powerful enemies.

Under-rated;  better on the strategic or operational level that at the tactical level.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2011, 12:30:09 PM
Okay this is informative.  Thoughts/arguments on Rosecrans please :mellow:

A good Ohio boy.  :)

Was Rosencrans of Danish descent? It was the name of a fairly prominent Danish noble family back in the day (as featured in the play Hamlet).

Quote from: Jacob on July 02, 2011, 03:56:16 PM
Was Rosencrans of Danish descent? It was the name of a fairly prominent Danish noble family back in the day (as featured in the play Hamlet).

QuoteRosecrans descended from Harmon Henrik Rosenkrantz, who arrived in New Amsterdam in 1651, but the family name changed spelling during the American Revolutionary War.

Dutch, not danish. None of the names in Hamlet are Danish (or Norwegian) as the characters are described to be.

First known use of Rosenkranz is from the area of Schleswig-Holstein.

I'm researching my half brothers mothers line. Can also be spelled Rosenkrantz. But Hermon was Dutch yes.

HARMON HENDRICK ROSENKRANS, the progenitor of the most numerous branch of the Rosenkrans Family in the United States of America, from whom were descended Colonel John Rosenkrans, of the Revolution, and General William Stark Rosecrans, of the Civil War, was of Holland descent, but came from Bergen, Norway, to New Amsterdam about the middle of the seventeenth century where he was married in 1657. His marriage record copied from the Genealogical and Biographical records of New York taken from the First Reformed Dutch Church of the city is as follows: Married: "March 3, 1657, Herman Hendrickszen Van Bergen in Noordwegen en Magdaleen Dircks, wed'r Cornelis Caper. †" This marriage record is in Holland Dutch, which modernized into English is: Married March 3rd, 1657, Herman Hendrickson, from Bergen, in Norway, to Magdalena Dircks, widow of Cornelius Caper. This form of our ancestor's name denotes that he was the son of Hendrick or Henrik, and as it is nowhere else found so written, but is usually written Harmon Hendrick, we shall thus write it when speaking of him. Herman and Harmon were interchangeably used in Holland and among the early settlers, as were Jacobus and James, Johannis and John. But one instance is found where he wrote his own name, that being in 1683, when he signed his name to a petition, writing it "Harmon Hyndryx." As family names were then but little used he did not write the name Rosenkrans. After his marriage in New York, 1657, we next find him in Kingston where he settled about 1660. His son Alexander was born in Kingston, as his marriage record shows, and he was baptized in New York April, 1661. That he was living in Kingston in 1661 is evident from the fact also that according to the Kingston records Magdalena, wife of "Harmon Hendricx Rosenkrans" was baptized and received into the Reformed Dutch Church of Kingston, June 24, 1661, and he was taxed that year twelve guilders toward building a parsonage for the "Domane Harmanus Blom." The above record in 1661 is the first one found where his surname is written, it being Rosenkrans as we now write it, though not written by himself.

Harmon Hendrick must have had nine children at least, as the Kingston records show seven after Alexander between the dates 1661 - 1675, and the ninth one is found in a will recorded in Albany, dated 1726, made by his daughter Sarah not found elsewhere. Eventually he left Kingston and purchased a large tract of land on the Peterskill, in Mombaccus township, now Rochester, Ulster County, New York, where he settled prior to 1683, as at that date he signed a Rochester petition spoken of, praying for the election rather than the appointment of a certain official. The date of his purchase in Mombaccus cannot be ascertained as the early Kingston land records were lost. It was located on the Peterskill, near Alligerville, and contained a mill property, subsequently owned in part by his son Alexander.

Mr. Thiset, the Royal Archivist of Denmark, thinks that Herman Hendrickszen was the son of one of the two "Dutchmen," as he calls them, Herman, the Merchant Fisherman, and Henrik, the Burgesell, the former probably a son of Captain Dirk, who obtained rights in Norway as early as 1617. He was evidently the son of Henrik, as the name indicates, and born in Bergen, but as the early records there were burned, the date and place of his birth cannot be positively determined. This, however, is evident, that he was of the Holland family of the Rose-wreath, which came from the early German family, descended from Erik, the Knight, who was presented with the Rose-wreath, added it to his coat of arms, and 1325 took the name of Rosenkrantz."

http://www.rosenkrantz-genealogy.org/Book/S07_G1.html

You fuckers are making me want to break out my copy of.

Personally I like Thomas, Hancock, and Sheridan.

Quote from: katmai on July 02, 2011, 04:57:21 PM
You fuckers are making me want to break out my copy of.

Your copy is covered in old Oretega taco kits.  :mad:

I have that game too. :cool:

Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2011, 05:31:29 PM

Quote from: katmai on July 02, 2011, 04:57:21 PM
You fuckers are making me want to break out my copy of.

Your copy is covered in old Oretega taco kits.  :mad:

:huh:

Never had a taco kit in my life, pinche gringo.

Quote from: Viking on July 02, 2011, 04:01:59 PMDutch, not danish. None of the names in Hamlet are Danish (or Norwegian) as the characters are described to be.

I read somewhere that at the time Shakespeare was writing, the families of Rosenkrantz and Gildenstern where both prominent in the court in Denmark and that the names were as a shout-out basically (as England and Denmark were getting along at the time).

... but the various German, Dutch and Norwegian parts make a lot of sense. People moved around a fair bit, even back then.

Quote from: katmai on July 02, 2011, 04:57:21 PM
You fuckers are making me want to break out my copy of.

Got that one.  Good game.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2011, 06:02:33 AM
I've been reading around the ACW and some questions have occurred to me which I thought this place could probably answer.  Or at least enjoy arguing about.

Big question I've got is why does the Union seem to have so many duff generals at the start of the war?

Both sides suffered from inept generals, not just the North.  There were loads of political appointments.

I wonder if offensive operations were more difficult then defensive ones at the time.  On the offensive you have to set up supply lines and depots and the like while operating in hostile terrain with limited intelligence.  Most of the Union defeats were offensive operations and I think all the Confederate offensive operations failed.

July 3rd, time for my annual viewing of Gettysburg. :thumbsup:

Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 11:36:10 PM
I wonder if offensive operations were more difficult then defensive ones at the time.  On the offensive you have to set up supply lines and depots and the like while operating in hostile terrain with limited intelligence.  Most of the Union defeats were offensive operations and I think all the Confederate offensive operations failed.

Which is why I'm not a confed general fanboi and why I have a bit of grudging respect for men like burnside and hooker who were attempting the much more difficult task, despite having greater resources.

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on July 03, 2011, 12:59:39 AM
July 3rd, time for my annual viewing of Gettysburg. :thumbsup:

Felt inspired to rewatch it myself... but, damn... it feels like all the actors are just phoning it in...

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 05:47:30 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 11:36:10 PM
I wonder if offensive operations were more difficult then defensive ones at the time.  On the offensive you have to set up supply lines and depots and the like while operating in hostile terrain with limited intelligence.  Most of the Union defeats were offensive operations and I think all the Confederate offensive operations failed.

Which is why I'm not a confed general fanboi and why I have a bit of grudging respect for men like burnside and hooker who were attempting the much more difficult task, despite having greater resources.

I'm not a confed fanboi for entirely different reasons.  Mostly because what they were doing was wrong.  Similar to why I'm not a Nazi fanboi or Charles Manson fanboi.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 03, 2011, 12:22:37 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 05:47:30 AM
Which is why I'm not a confed general fanboi and why I have a bit of grudging respect for men like burnside and hooker who were attempting the much more difficult task, despite having greater resources.

I'm not a confed fanboi for entirely different reasons.  Mostly because what they were doing was wrong.  Similar to why I'm not a Nazi fanboi or Charles Manson fanboi.

You have fanbois of Stonewall, Lee, Forrest and mew the slaveholding kitteh that don't support any of the objectives of the confederacy. Way to miss the point (check out the bolded bit in my quote).

I'm a fan of Earl van Dorn.

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 01:09:47 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 03, 2011, 12:22:37 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 05:47:30 AM
Which is why I'm not a confed general fanboi and why I have a bit of grudging respect for men like burnside and hooker who were attempting the much more difficult task, despite having greater resources.

I'm not a confed fanboi for entirely different reasons.  Mostly because what they were doing was wrong.  Similar to why I'm not a Nazi fanboi or Charles Manson fanboi.

You have fanbois of Stonewall, Lee, Forrest and mew the slaveholding kitteh that don't support any of the objectives of the confederacy. Way to miss the point (check out the bolded bit in my quote).

Fuck you, you Nazi confederatard.  There's a reason you'll find rebel flags at neo-Nazi rallys.  And vice-versa.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.knoxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fimg%2Fphotos%2F2010%2F08%2F14%2Frally08_mp_web_t607.jpg&hash=8f0b45e213a5d8d6f52ded9be3efab5075ac0660)

Quote from: Ed Anger on July 03, 2011, 01:23:53 PM
I'm a fan of Earl van Dorn.

I'm a fan of Mamie van Doren.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2011, 02:10:10 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.knoxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fimg%2Fphotos%2F2010%2F08%2F14%2Frally08_mp_web_t607.jpg&hash=8f0b45e213a5d8d6f52ded9be3efab5075ac0660)

I see 3rd Reich, Confed Battle Flag and Stars and Stripes in that pic. What does that prove?

One can admire Braxton Bragg's campaigns and the finer points of Dorsey Pender's division command without supporting slavery.

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 02:23:17 PM
I see 3rd Reich, Confed Battle Flag and Stars and Stripes in that pic. What does that prove?

That the Stars and Stripes is the only legally and morally valid flag in that pic.

QuoteOne can admire Braxton Bragg's campaigns and the finer points of Dorsey Pender's division command without supporting slavery.

No. No you can't.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2011, 02:27:44 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 02:23:17 PMOne can admire Braxton Bragg's campaigns and the finer points of Dorsey Pender's division command without supporting slavery.

No. No you can't.

Let us try again. One can admire Rommel's or Yamamoto's skill as commanders without supporting the holocaust or the east asian co-prosperity sphere. 

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 02:30:36 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2011, 02:27:44 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 02:23:17 PMOne can admire Braxton Bragg's campaigns and the finer points of Dorsey Pender's division command without supporting slavery.

No. No you can't.

Let us try again. One can admire Rommel's or Yamamoto's skill as commanders without supporting the holocaust or the east asian co-prosperity sphere.

Nope.  Nein. No-sankyu.
The only guy that gets a pass is Stalin, for Superior Performance in an Executive/Managerial/Human Resources Role.

The girl in the foreground might be worth a few "Sieg heils".

Quote from: Habbaku on July 03, 2011, 03:21:45 PM
The girl in the foreground might be worth a few "Sieg heils".

You can have her. The tat ruins it for me.

I can't even tell what it is.

They seem to be trying to wear those flags.  Maybe they are just really poor and that's the only fabric they could find.

it is time for the confederate prom dress.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fspofga.org%2Fflag%2F2004%2Fdec%2Fimages%2FBDC-JDuty.jpg&hash=3a3d9eb8618cc95580d6856daea6daa9d0effb6d)

That guy needs a better tailor.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 03, 2011, 05:21:49 PM
That guy needs a better tailor.

How dare you insult a Cavalier of the South? Why his big boned progeny will rule the new South from their orbital southern space stations. miu.

I will have more to say when I return from my HOMELESS VISION QUEST TO NOWHERE.

Quote from: Habbaku on July 03, 2011, 03:27:54 PM
I can't even tell what it is.

I don't think it's any sort of Nazi symbol.  Looks like a lion or something similar to me.  But I don't care for tats in general.

Anyways, needs implants.

Don't care for tats either.  Not a deal breaker.  Though being a Neo-Nazi probably is.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2011, 02:27:44 PM
That the Stars and Stripes is the only legally and morally valid flag in that pic.

The crimes committed in the name of the Stars and Stripes put it in the same category as the the swastika and the Confederate flags.

What do you mean by 'legally valid'?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2011, 02:38:22 PM
Nope.  Nein. No-sankyu.
The only guy that gets a pass is Stalin, for Superior Performance in an Executive/Managerial/Human Resources Role.

You can respect an American without supporting slavery, segregation, the genocide of the native Americans and their policy of waging aggressive wars.

Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2011, 06:52:48 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2011, 02:27:44 PM
That the Stars and Stripes is the only legally and morally valid flag in that pic.

The crimes committed in the name of the Stars and Stripes put it in the same category as the the swastika and the Confederate flags.

What do you mean by 'legally valid'?

Come on Neil, regardless of what you think of his merits, being the country that gave birth to Billy Mitchell is not a crime. For that matter, Billy Mitchell as born in France.

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 07:03:53 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2011, 06:52:48 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2011, 02:27:44 PM
That the Stars and Stripes is the only legally and morally valid flag in that pic.

The crimes committed in the name of the Stars and Stripes put it in the same category as the the swastika and the Confederate flags.

What do you mean by 'legally valid'?

Come on Neil, regardless of what you think of his merits, being the country that gave birth to Billy Mitchell is not a crime. For that matter, Billy Mitchell as born in France.

Giving him the authority to drop bombs on dreadnoughts was.

Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2011, 07:12:16 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 07:03:53 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2011, 06:52:48 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2011, 02:27:44 PM
That the Stars and Stripes is the only legally and morally valid flag in that pic.

The crimes committed in the name of the Stars and Stripes put it in the same category as the the swastika and the Confederate flags.

What do you mean by 'legally valid'?

Come on Neil, regardless of what you think of his merits, being the country that gave birth to Billy Mitchell is not a crime. For that matter, Billy Mitchell as born in France.

Giving him the authority to drop bombs on dreadnoughts was.

Ostfriesland shot at the Warspite, it got what it deserved.

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 07:15:33 PM
Ostfriesland shot at the Warspite, it got what it deserved.

Absolutely disagree.  Firing at each other is how dreadnoughts pay respect.

Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2011, 07:50:53 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 07:15:33 PM
Ostfriesland shot at the Warspite, it got what it deserved.

Absolutely disagree.  Firing at each other is how dreadnoughts pay respect.

So dropping bombs is how airplanes pay respect?

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 07:51:33 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2011, 07:50:53 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 03, 2011, 07:15:33 PM
Ostfriesland shot at the Warspite, it got what it deserved.

Absolutely disagree.  Firing at each other is how dreadnoughts pay respect.

So dropping bombs is how airplanes pay respect?

No.  Airplanes don't engage in the warfare of likes.  They don't fight for status.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2011, 02:10:10 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.knoxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fimg%2Fphotos%2F2010%2F08%2F14%2Frally08_mp_web_t607.jpg&hash=8f0b45e213a5d8d6f52ded9be3efab5075ac0660)

She's hot. I'd do her.

Swastika chick is hot. Confed chick not so much.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 03, 2011, 06:39:59 PM
Don't care for tats either.  Not a deal breaker.  Though being a Neo-Nazi probably is.

I think being an original Nazi would be a dealbreaker. YMMV.

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 10:29:57 PM
We're a bit past 1808 now.

I noticed that, but this clause had no time-limit in the extract.

Quoteand that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

Although I wouldn't imagine that would stop you reducing the number of senators to one per state, or increasing it to three or more, if the unlikely need or desire ever arose.

I just noticed this thread.

In one day I have seen a Languishite say that a map looks good and now an ACW discussion not started by way of a highjack.

Languish is dying. :cry:

Quote from: Ed Anger on July 03, 2011, 03:23:41 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on July 03, 2011, 03:21:45 PM
The girl in the foreground might be worth a few "Sieg heils".

You can have her. The tat ruins it for me.

What in hell is that a tat of?  :lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 03:46:28 PM
I just noticed this thread.

In one day I have seen a Languishite say that a map looks good and now an ACW discussion not started by way of a highjack.

Languish is dying. :cry:

What map?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2011, 07:11:14 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 03:46:28 PM
I just noticed this thread.

In one day I have seen a Languishite say that a map looks good and now an ACW discussion not started by way of a highjack.

Languish is dying. :cry:

What map?

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=5478.0 (http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=5478.0)