I realize that Richmond was the Capitol of the Confederacy , but it also was the stone around Lee's neck , the siege at Petersburg locked Lee in , he could not maneuver , the Confederacy should have given Petersburg and Richmond up , Their Capitol could have been anywhere , with their very limited resources , they could not stand a siege for very long , better to save their army than their Capitol
jm
> the siege at Petersburg locked Lee in , he could not maneuver , the Confederacy should have given Petersburg and Richmond up<
This is an issue that crippled the Confederacy's military long before the war moved into the trenches of Petersburg. Because Jefferson Davis was unwilling to surrender a single square foot of Confederate soil, their armies were scattered and weak when they could have been concentrated to deal with Threatening Union forces one at a time. Throughout the war, Confederate forces were scattered all around the country and along its coastline in small garrisons.
Steve Meserve
The only check the confederates had on union forces was their armies , they were good armies but not enough of them . However they held the interior line and could concentrate much faster , only when they went outside the interior line they ran into trouble , antietam , Gettysburg , they simply did not have the resources for invasion .
Steve,
>>Throughout the war, Confederate forces were scattered all around the country and along its coastline in small garrisons.<<
I was reading in Roland's, Iliad, this afternoon one reason the troops were so scattered was because the different state governors refused to send their state troops. They kept their men, and supplies, in reserve to protect their own state in case the Union soldiers invaded them. All the while, Confederate troops in other areas were understaffed, starving, barefoot with no supplies.
Do you think that contributed to the Confederate's demise also?
Wanda
> the different state governors refused to send their state troops<
The only Confederate state that refused to send troops outside its own borders was Georgia. Disobeying a direct order from Gov. Joseph E. Brown, Col.Francis Bartow took his Oglethorpe Light Infantry to Virginia in time for First Manassas, where Bartow became the first Confederate brigade commander killed in battle. A number of men, including the 6th Alabama Infantry, which was recruited in North Georgia, evaded Brown's decree by offering their services to neighboring states. Others took advantage of the law that allowed recruits to bypass their state government and offer their services directly to the Confederacy.
Ultimately, 39 regiments and battalions of Georgia state troops served in the Army of Northern Virginia. Far more fought outside the borders of their own state in the Western armies.
Beware the image of the barefoot Confederate soldier. Though that did happen, particularly at the end of a long campaign, it is by no means an accurate image of Confederate soldiers throughout the war. Lee's men were starving in the trenches of Petersburg, but they were not naked. The starvation was more the result of poor railroads and poor logistics than of a lack of food or food held back to feed state troops.
>>The only Confederate state that refused to send troops outside its own borders was Georgia. <<
Oh, I thought I read in Roland that North Carolina was the worst offender, and at the end of the war there were CS soldiers barefoot and hungry. I noticed photos of dead Federal troops lying in the fields without shoes because CS had taken them.
>>The starvation was more the result of poor railroads and poor logistics than of a lack of food or food held back to feed state troops.<<
Yes, I remember reading that, too. I'm reading a few pages in Foot's volume I, and then switching over to The Iliad so I can understand what was happening a bit more.
One thing that is shocking to me is the fact Mr. Lincoln was not popular with many in the North, and declared war when Congress was not in session because it was expedient. Another thing I'm shocked about is the fact that Seward (and Lincoln) maneuvered the South into firing the first shot at Ft Sumpter to garner sympathy in the North. Do you think that it is possible John Wilkes Boothe acted in a Northern conspiracy?
Mr. Lincoln has always been one of my idols. Seems like idols always seem to have feet of clay. <sigh>
Thanks,
Wanda,
>> They kept their men, and supplies, in reserve to protect their own state in case the Union soldiers invaded them. <<
I'm now reading a second book about Fort Fisher and the fall of Wilmington. Both authors describe the types and amounts of supplies brought in by blockade runners. Lots of military arms and equipment, plus needed foodstuffs. The outgoing runs to transfer ports in Bermuda and the Bahamas included cotton bales which had been compressed in order to load the maximum aboard. The port of Wilmington was equipped with steam machinery to do this step.
In the case of Chris Fonvielle's book, The Wilmington Campaign, it's clear that imported wool fabric to make uniforms would be used for North Carolina's troops. In Mark Bradley's book, This Astounding Close, we learn that when Johnston's army was surrendered, warehouses full of supplies were discovered and emptied. Each port in the south that carried on the trade with Europe was certainly important for obtaining these supplies. Wilmington was not seriously targeted by the north until late 1864.
Terry
Terry,
I'm sure there was difficulty in distributing the necessary goods required by troops to maintain a good fighting force. Do you think the North Carolina governor kept the woolen material just for his troops?
Thanks for that update, there are so many books out about the Civil War there seems, to me, at least, each author has a different view of what occurred at various areas in the arena. I don't like to read two books at once, but I'm reading Foote's narrative and switching over to Roland's Iliad for the same incidents, helps me to understand a bit better.
One of my college profs maintained 'history is a fable agreed upon', depending on which side the author was on who wrote history...do you agree with that assessment?
>>One of my college profs maintained 'history is a fable agreed upon', depending on which side the author was on who wrote history<<
History is the propaganda of the winning side.
>Oh, I thought I read in Roland that North Carolina was the worst offender, and at the end of the war there were CS soldiers barefoot and hungry. I noticed photos of dead Federal troops lying in the fields without shoes because CS had taken them.<
Not having read Roland, I can't really comment on his accuracy. As far as NC holding back uniforms and food, remember that the war in the east ended in that state. Joe Johnston still had an army in the field in NC facing Sherman and his army after Lee surrendered at Appomattox. They needed uniforms, ammunition and food for those troops.
Shoes wore out very quickly for men who walked hundreds of miles during an active military campaign. I think you'll find men on both sides did not hesitate to take good shoes from corpses and prisoners alike. That did not necessarily imply a failure of logistics.
Look up the Battle of Five Forks and pay close attention to photographs of the men from Pickett's division captured in that fight. You won't see a barefoot man among them; and this was just a matter of days before the ANV surrendered. The worst time for ragged uniforms and shoelessness for both the ANV and the AoP was the end of the 1862 campaign season. They had fought through the Peninsula battles, Second Manassas and the Maryland Campaign with little opportunity to re-supply the troops. There were a lot of ragged and shoeless men then, but it was never again that bad during the war.
>One thing that is shocking to me is the fact Mr. Lincoln was not popular with many in the North, and declared war when Congress was not in session because it was expedient.<
First of all, Lincoln was a plurality president, elected with only 39% of the popular vote, but an overwhelming majority in the Electoral College. A lot of people did not like him, including members of his own party. Lincoln never declared war on the Confederacy. To do that, he would have had to admit there wre two separate nations, which he refused to do. He always maintained the war was an effort to put down a rebellion against the legitimate government of the entire country.
The timing of Lincoln's first call for troops was not of his choosing. It was in direct response to the assault on Ft. Sumter in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861. I doubt Jefferson Davis and P.G.T. Beauregard stopped to consider whether the U.S. Congress was in session or not.
>Another thing I'm shocked about is the fact that Seward (and Lincoln) maneuvered the South into firing the first shot at Ft Sumpter to garner sympathy in the North.<
Sounds like you have been reading neo-confederate literature. The issue is much too complicated to sustain a generalized statement like that. For every person who says the South was maneuvered into firing the first shot, I can find you at least one who says the South didn't have to shoot at all.
>Do you think that it is possible John Wilkes Boothe acted in a Northern conspiracy?<
That is a theory that has been thoroughly debunked, no matter how happy the Radical Republicans were to have him out of the way. The only conspiracy of which Booth was a part was the one he cooked up on his own.
John,
>>History is the propaganda of the winning side.
Indeed, I'm learning that.
>>Joe Johnston still had an army in the field in NC facing Sherman and his army after Lee surrendered at Appomattox. They needed uniforms, ammunition and food for those troops.<<
>>Not having read Roland, I can't really comment on his accuracy.
I think it was David that recommended Chas. P. Roland's, The American Iliad, and I thought it was standard read for everyone. Roland is/was a professor in one of the border states, and seems to me to write a fairly balanced view of both sides in the wars.
I was surprised when I read today, in fact, that not all generals surrendered when Lee did, I was under the impression the war ended at Appomattox and all the battles ended. Then I remembered a last battle in Texas at the Palmetto Ranch after the war was declared over. Communication being what it was was the responsible culprit, right?
>>I think you'll find men on both sides did not hesitate to take good shoes from corpses and prisoners alike. That did not necessarily imply a failure of logistics.<<
True, why leave good articles laying on the ground when someone alive could make good use of it...I supposed the same applied to food and supplies, or did the soldiers carry their food, and all their gear, with them in battle?
>>The timing of Lincoln's first call for troops was not of his choosing. It was in direct response to the assault on Ft. Sumter in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861. I doubt Jefferson Davis and P.G.T. Beauregard stopped to consider whether the U.S. Congress was in session or not. .... reading neo-confederate literature. The issue is much too complicated to sustain a generalized statement like that. For every person who says the South was maneuvered into firing the first shot, I can find you at least one who says the South didn't have to shoot at all.<<
Just reread the account of Ft Sumpter, and it seems both Lincoln and Davis were playing a stand off game of wait and see, both wanting the other to fire first, am I correct? Lincoln not wanting the war, and Davis determined to save face for the South?
>>That is a theory that has been thoroughly debunked, no matter how happy the Radical Republicans were to have him out of the way. The only conspiracy of which Booth was a part was the one he cooked up on his own.
Hmmm...I thought that I had an original thought, but guess that has been debated for decades? It seems the War and every aspect has been dissected and debated since the war ended?
>> I'm sure there was difficulty in distributing the necessary goods required by troops to maintain a good fighting force. Do you think the North Carolina governor kept the woolen material just for his troops? <<
I looked at that section again and found that Gov Vance admitted that he had enough supplies and could afford to share with other states. Can't find that exact page now, but in another chapter, the Gov "barraged" Johnston with complaints that soldiers were breaking into warehouses and that his "quartermasters were seizing state goods earlmarked for North Carolina troops." Vance went on "I confess I am getting tired of it. Having shown every disposition to be liberal & patriotic in dividing my reserves I should be much pleased to be permitted to dispose of the remainder as I see proper."
Guess he got fed up with sharing, and then having the Confederate army taking civilian property on top of it.
>> One of my college profs maintained 'history is a fable agreed upon', depending on which side the author was on who wrote history...do you agree with that assessment? <<
We see so much evidence of individuals taking opposite positions according to what suits the moment, that I'd have to agree! Sometimes it takes only the omission of a word or two to completely change the meaning of a statement, and so we read the generals' memoirs written late in life with caution.
I share your frustration with learning who is who. When I started reading in depth, I wished that the names had been printed in color to differentiate Union and Confederate personnel.
Hi Terry
That's one of the reasons I do not enjoy reading about the Western Theatre; I can't remember who is who. I struggled with that when we were at Shiloh.
Regards - Anne
>>Vance went on "I confess I am getting tired of it. Having shown every disposition to be liberal & patriotic in dividing my reserves I should be much pleased to be permitted to dispose of the remainder as I see proper."Guess he got fed up with sharing, and then having the Confederate army taking civilian property on top of it.<<
Who could blame him? And I don't remember reading that in either of the two books (Roland's, The American Iliad, and Catton's trilogy, Vol I) I'm currently reading now. It is difficult to understand one's position if we haven't read their explanation in order to weigh the facts, thanks. My thought was the governor was just being tight fisted and selfish.
>>...takes only the omission of a word or two to completely change the meaning of a statement, and so we read the generals' memoirs written late in life with caution. <<
Yes, I'm discovering that, plus, wondering if I'm reading into the material something entirely different from what the authors are explaining. (Do you remember in grammar school playing the game, Gossip, one person whispered into the next person's ear a sentence? When the game ended, the sentence was completely changed). Sometimes that's the way I feel I'm doing. <sigh>
>>I share your frustration with learning who is who. When I started reading in depth, I wished that the names had been printed in color to differentiate Union and Confederate personnel. <<
Thank You ! you don't know how much better that makes me feel! I thought maybe I was getting a little of the 'old-timers-disease'. <g> I just kept plugging on, and now find the material, and the various generals, straight in my mind, 'sorta'. Of course, underlining lightly in pencil so I can check back helps too. Plus, I've leaned to use the index to get a tiny sketch of which side someone is on. But the blue and gray is an excellent idea, think I'll start underlining in blue, and my graphite pencil will do for the gray...thanks again.
I'm amazed at Lincoln's sarcasm to get his point across when he was displeased with one of the generals. Sadly, Idols have feet of clay.
Anne,
>>That's one of the reasons I do not enjoy reading about the Western Theatre; I can't remember who is who.<<
Y'all are making me feel so relieved, and didn't know if I was just a dummy or getting, as I mentioned to Terry, the 'old-timers-disease'.
Hi, Anne,
I remember how we we were both so frustrated with the challenge of sorting out so many new "dramatis personae" when first learning about the battles and participants.
In reading about the Fort Fisher campaign, I've decided to look up the years of graduation from West Point since there are several engineers involved in the building (and the shelling) of the fort. Of course, knowing who was in class or at WP at the same time is always a good nugget of information to back up your opinions when needed. For example, when someone muses that Grant and Sherman had probably never met until they served together at Shiloh!
I objected, being certain that they would have known each other from their days there. After all, Sherman was the upperclassman who named Grant "Sam" when he first entered when he saw the initials U. S. Grant.
Two Union engineers were in the attacking force at Fort Fisher: Godfrey Weitzel and Cyrus Comstock, both class of 1855. Comstock was no. 1 and Weitzel was no. 2 of 34. I think this may be part of the reason they stood up for one another after the disastrous Christman Day attack. On the Confederate side, Chase Whiting was first in his class of 1845, and a well-regarded engineer also. Sadly, he didn't survive the war, but his chief assistant, a lawyer and publisher, William Lamb did and went on to live a full life.
Rod Gragg's book, Confederate Goliath, has a picture of the white-haired veterans, Col. Lamb and New York's Gen. Martin Curtis, meeting after the war. They were both born in 1835 and lived until 1909 and 1910 respectively. Lamb went on to become the mayor of Norfolk, Va, as his father and grandfather had been. Curtis was a Goliath in his own right - he was 6' 7".
I'm sure you have a number of West Point graduation dates in memory as well!
Once I acquired the Civil War High Commands volume, it became a favorite reference.
>I'm sure you have a number of West Point graduation dates in memory as well! <
Actually no; I'm useless with dates (and figures - if I was at school these days I'd be diagnosed with some longwinded learning difficulty, I'm sure!). I can get to a date by reasoning it out, as in, say, Chancellorsville was after Fredericksburg, but before Gettysburg, but remembering who graduated when is beyond my memory. I can recall Jeb Stuart graduated a hundred years before I was born, though.
OTOH, I can recall who was friendly with whom at West Point, in terms of Confederates, so I guess that helps!
Edited to add, like you, I find "High Commands" an invaluable reference source.
>Who could blame him? And I don't remember reading that in either of the two books (Roland's, The American Iliad, and Catton's trilogy, Vol I) I'm currently reading now. It is difficult to understand one's position if we haven't read their explanation.<
Take anything Zeb Vance said about Confederate soldiers or the Confederate government with a huge grain of salt. Having served a brief stint as colonel of the 26th North Carolina during the Peninsula Campaign, Vance was elected governor in 1862. From the start, he adopted a policy of not allowing any goods run through the blockade into NC to be shipped out of the state until the Tar Heels got what Vance thought was their fair share. One of the strongest proponents of states rights and staunch opponent of conscription, Vance was a thorn in the side of Jefferson Davis, writing him almost every day to complain about one action or another of the Confederate government.
His attitude toward Richmond's attempts to enforce its laws in the state is summed up by his saying, "I am sure if God in Heaven had had in store for the Egyptians yet another plague, worse than all the rest, it must have been a regiment or so of half-armed, half-disciplined Confederate cavalry."
Steve Meserve (who graduated high school in NC, lived there almost 20 years, and married a Tar Heel)
Hi Steve,
>>His attitude toward Richmond's attempts to enforce its laws in the state is summed up by his saying, "I am sure if God in Heaven had had in store for the Egyptians yet another plague, worse than all the rest, it must have been a regiment or so of half-armed, half-disciplined Confederate cavalry."<<
laughing...sounds like the good general would have made an excellent governor in one of the northern states.
I take it you like the Tar Heels? <g>
My forebears came from North Carolina, so guess that makes me a T.H. by proxy?
