U.S. Civil War History bits

Actually it was a tactical draw. Lee stayed on the battlefield an extra day, skirmishing with McClellan, so that it would not appear that he was forced to relinquish the field, but chose to. It was a strategic victory in that Lee's invasion of the north was halted and he was forced to return to Virginia. Lincoln was hoping for a victory in order to announce his Emancipation Proclaimation without it appearing to have been issued from a position of weakness. A draw with Lee was much better than the string of defeats Lee had inflicted on the Federal forces, enabling Lincoln to go forward with the announcement.
D.H.Hill is the officer most often accused of losing the orders. He was quite talented tactically and an extremely aggressive, hard fighter. He was sent a copy of the orders by both Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Hill's brother in law. It has never been conclusively proven if Hill ever recieved the second set. There is also modern speculation that Henry Kyd Douglas, of Jackson's staff was the culprit. We will probably never know the truth.
McClellan acting on the intelligence coup moved to cut Lee, who sent troops to delay him at South Mountain (14 Sept 1862). D.H. Hill in hard fighting there delayed McClellan until dusk. Long enough for Lee to begin the process of consolidating his forces. McClellan might still have suceeded, but he delayed pushing forward on the 15th, giving Lee additional time.
"And then A.P. Hill came up!" That is one of the most inspiring stories of the Sharpsburg fight. A.P. Hill, who had earlier in the campaign, been placed under arrest by Jackson, was at Harper's Ferry, paroling Federal prisoners. At 0630 on the morning of the 17th he recieved orders to march to Lee's aid. Lee was outnumbered by more than two to one and A.P. Hill lost no time. Pushing his "Light Division" at the double quick he marched the 17 miles to Antietam, men dropping from exhaustion, heat stroke and heart attacks all along the way, but he pushed on. At the critical moment his troops came on the field and with a yell rushed into battle, breaking the last Union assault.





Hood's Texans at the Cornfield, Sharpsburg.

 

A.P. Hill's performance at Sharpburg made a profound impression on Lee and Jackson, both of whom knew that without his arrival, their escape was probably most unlikely. The reprieve that Hill's march accomplished was recieved with many thanks to providence and God, particularly from the fervent Jackson.

On their death beds, both Generals called to A.P. Hill in their pre death final moments...(Lee's last word's were "Strike the tent", whilst Jackson , after telling his doctor that he "Always wanted to die on a Sunday", told his wife he was to "Cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees...")

And Hood's Texans had a remarkable day. Their third consecutive day without a hot meal, the smallest unit in Lee's Army was in the process of cooking itself just that when orders to attack arrived from Lee. With much grumbling and cursing, they launched themselves into that cornfield, and stopped an entire wing of Maclellan's assault, bringing it to a complete standstill, and wounding the divisional commander to boot, (wasn't it Abner Doubleday?)...(or Sumner's division that lost their commander?)

80% of Hood's Texan's failed to answer at the next roll call......

 

Good post Volga.

 

Exactly -- a more thorough variation of what I was trying to say. Great picture as well.

 

So depending on how you look at it the Union could consider it anything from a stragetic victory to a tactical loss and it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider it "all of the above".

 

One cannot discount the power public sentiment. The claim of victory by the Union, as questionable or debatable as it may be, made a huge difference in how the public (in the North, of course) viewed the war.

 

Quite an interesting article-
"To mark the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Antietam - the bloodiest single day in American military history - photographer Todd Harrington has retraced the steps of ground-breaking Civil War photographer Alexander Gardner.
Photographic history changed forever at Antietam, as Gardner did something no one had done before and turned the lens on the grim reality of war - dead soldiers awaiting burial.
Present-day photographer Harrington was set a brief to capture the same scenes, minus the bodies of fallen soldiers, to document how the landscapes have changed.
To make the process as authentic as possible, Harrington used the same type of equipment that Gardner had used 150 years ago, a stereo wet plate camera and glass plates.
As these stunning photographs show, it turns out not all that much has changed. The land surrounding the historic battle site has been beautifully preserved, save for some modern elements such as telephone lines and paved roads."
Same camera, different century: Stunning pictures that retrace the steps of ground-breaking Civil War photographer, 150 years later | Mail Online

 

"STATESBORO, Ga.
Archaeologists have found the remains of the Camp Lawton stockade wall, establishing the actual layout and site of one of the Civil War's largest prisoner of war camps.
Georgia Southern University, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife archaeologists with assistance from Kennesaw State University, the University of Georgia and the Lamar Institute made their discovery public on Thursday.
It was made at Magnolia Springs State Park located in Millen.
A significant portion of the southern wall of the camp was exposed along with a section of the western wall which enabled archaeologists to project the exact location of the southwestern corner.
The discovery was made late last week as the hit PBS television show Time Team America documented what was found and how archaeology helps tell the story of Camp Lawton’s history."
Civil War Prison Camp Wall Uncovered

 

At least they got him.
"A Springfield man who removed human remains from a southwest Missouri Civil War battlefield has agreed to pay restitution and perform community service to avoid federal prosecution.
Coy Matthew Hamilton, 31, must pay $5,351 to the National Park Service and perform 60 hours of community service under an agreement he signed Tuesday.
“It is a serious offense to disturb an archeological site and to remove remains or artifacts,” David M. Ketchmark, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, said in a statement Wednesday.
“We hope this incident will serve to educate the public about the laws that protect our priceless archaeological resources.”
Hamilton admitted to investigators that he found the remains while canoeing with a friend down Wilson’s Creek, through the Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, in February 2011. According to federal prosecutors, Hamilton saw a bone sticking out of an embankment eroded by recent heavy rains.
Hamilton attempted to remove the bone, breaking it in the process. He dug further and removed additional bones. Ten days later, Hamilton sent the bones, through an intermediary, to the National Park Service, which administers the battlefield.
Investigators later figured out who he was."
Springfield man admits taking bones from Civil War battlefield - KansasCity.com

 

That story would make a good basis for a movie. The ghost of the soldier in question could come back and haunt the digger until he returned the bones to the rightful resting place. No zombies though, getting tired of that theme as of late.

 

"The first bullet surfaced just after lunch.
As Jon Tucker sifted soil through a screen in September, a corroded lead slug jiggled into view amid the sand and ash excavated from a pit just a few feet from a fenced-off sidewalk and rushing traffic. Tucker waved to his supervisor, archaeologist Taft Kiser, and held up the bullet for him to see.
Hundreds of artifacts followed, along with the contours of a buried cellar holding a rich trove of Civil War history sealed since a ferocious 1862 battle in this Virginia city, which today lies just beyond the suburbs of Washington.
The discovery amid construction of a courthouse was unexpected. But the site has astonished historians and archaeologists for another reason: It represents a "time capsule," in the words of Kiser, undisturbed through more than a century of urban construction around it."
Unearthing a Civil War time capsule | StarTribune.com

 

"Staggered by the youth of the brutal armies which fought for the future of the United States of America, two brothers set about collecting one of the most comprehensive collections of Civil War photography in existence.
Jason and Brandon Liljenquist were both brought up as good Southern boys in thrall to Robert E. Lee and the the myth of the brave Confederate forces outmatched by the relentless and efficient Union armies of the north.
But when they bought a 145-year-old photograph of a young Union drummer boy, the two young men became entranced and set about a collection which became 700 images strong and became so important that they donated it to the Library of Congress.The striking youth of the soldiers who fought in the 1861-1865 war betrays the innocence and idealism that many of them held as the Confederate States of America faced off against President Lincoln's United States of America.
Collected by jeweler Tom Liljenquist, 60 and his two boys over the course of the past 15-years, the elegant ambrotype and tintype images date back to the birth of war photography.
Donating the images two years ago when Brandon was 19 and Jason was 17, the family prided itself on the thoroughness of their research methods.and called the collection ,'The Last Full Measure'.
The majority of the images are of infantry men and Union soldiers, but there are at least several dozen images of the Confederate forces who surrendered on April 9th, 1865 at Appomattox.
There are no pictures of generals such as Ulysses S. Grant or Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson but there are a number of African American soldiers who fought for the northern armies of the United States."
Civil War era photograph collection displays the dignity of young men who were about to join the battle | Mail Online

 

"They were the ones left behind when the battle horn blew – the mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, and beaus of the soldiers called to the throes of war.
Haunting images from the Civil War painstakingly collected by Tom Liljenquist and his two sons depict women from the era in black-and-white photographs, many of them lovingly framed in elaborate casings.
The tintype and ambrotype photographs of women with their husbands in uniform are quite rare; the expressions on those pictured capture the fear and uncertainty of the day.
Most of the people in the black-and-white photographs remain unidentified, meaning little is known about the subjects, save whether the soldiers pictured were fighting for the Union Army or the Confederate Army.

The Liljenquist family, who lives in Virginia, collected more than 700 ambrotype and tintype photographs from both the Union and Confederate armies over a course of 15 years."
The women of war: Haunting images from Civil War depict the mothers, daughters, and wives of those who went out to fight | Mail Online

 

Going back to Antietam for a minute...

Union victory since the Confederate invasion was rebuffed (stragetic) and tactical since the South lost men and equipment that could only be replaced with trouble while the North suffered much less proportionately. Grant would have been delighted to have achieved that ratio.

And that raises, to me, a different question. How good was MacCellan? Grant couldn't (or wouldn't) judge his ability, but wanted him back in some capacity. Lee felt he was the best general in the war. All will agree he created the Army of the Potomac in rapid and excellent fashion, but his command? He did serve very early in the war before the more modern tactics took hold (read Grant & Sherman & Sheridan), always had tons of false Pinkerton figures to contend with, and inflicted some large damage on the South. The fighting during The 7 Days saw him fall back, but the Southern attacks were very costly. (Without looking it up, didn't Lee suffer worse than Pickett's Charge at one of the battles?) And Lincoln did hold back troops MacCellan expected to form Pope's army.

Kinda makes you wonder; Lincoln went way out of his way to keep great generals like democrats Ben (The Beast) Butler & Franz (The Flying Dutchman) Siegel but was quick to cut loose the man that ran against him in 1864. So many texts praise Lincoln for winning the war, so much better than Davis, but he pushed for Burnside (who said himself he was unfit and proved it at least 3 times ) and Fremont. Perhaps MacCellan, who did have a personality problem, should be re-evaluated, as should Lincoln ?

I think MacCellan was a great 'old general' that was similar to Lee in many respects. He believed in winning by manuver and careful planning. Very old school. Lee also was this way and appreciated MacCellan. Grant & company understood the war as different, modern industrial. Sort of preparation for WW1.

 

McClellan's strength was his administrative and organizational skills. He raised, trained and organized the Army of the Potomac with great skill, and saw to it that his units and men were properly equipped. His men loved him. His weakness was his ego, he felt he was God's gift to the country and was it's only salvation. Another was his reluctance to risk the Army that he created in battle until he was prodded to do so, usually by Lincoln. McClellan would have made an excellent adjutant to the chief of staff, responsible for training and organization of new armies being raised. Of course there were no such positions then, and more than likely he wouldn't have fancied being "relegated" to anything but being in charge of everything.

McClellan always outnumber the Confederate forces that faced him, in overwhelming numbers and resources. He was not very decisive or quick to take action.

 

Too add to what Bobby said, McClellan wasn't able to achieve his military objectives and it doesn't matter how good you are at training, or that you inflict a higher ratio of casualties. What matters is achieving your objective. McClellan's objective during the Peninsula campaign was to take Richmond and end the war. Lee's objective was to protect his nation's capitol, the outskirts of which McClellan had reached by pushing the non-aggressive Joe Johnston down the Virginia Peninsula. The war should have ended then and there as McClellan had more men and was better equipped. He ended up being driven back up the peninsula and the war that should have ended drug on. So he suffered slightly fewer casualties than Lee, what did he achieve, other than dead Yankees? Lee on the otherhand had saved his nation from defeat. His men's lives bought his nation more time.
At Antietam McClellan again had numbers, had about a two to one advantage in numbers, and caught Lee with his forces split. He also had the huge intelligence coup of having found Lee's Special Order 191, detailing his plans and dispositions. He should have been able to not only stop Lee's Invasion, but should have destroyed Lee's Army and along with it Southern morale and probably would have ended the war. The North did achieve a strategic victory by stopping the invasion, but they were not able to achieve their tactical objective, so it can't be considered a victory by any stretch of the imagination. Lee on the other hand managed to save his army by some adept generalship by himself and his subordinates. He even stayed on the battlefield an extra day to challenge the Federals to renew their attacks, they didn't. He also did this to maintain the morale of his army, they still saw themselves as undefeated. It also had the opposite effect on the Union Army, added to Lee's other, earlier victories, they began to see the ANV and Lee as invinsible. And the war dragged on....

 

I highly recommend that everyone goes to see "Lincoln" the movie as you will get a taste for how frustrated the president became with progress of this war...... which may have been the cause of his strategic creation of documents such as the Emancipation Proclamation and the amendment to the constitution to end the institution that so divided the nation. This film borrows from some old ways to make a top movie by using an all star cast....then focuses in on just a short period of time to depict accurately the conditions of his presidency. It depicts his confidence in Grant to accomplish the things that needed to be done. I had not been in a theater in many many years but this movie drew me in and Spielberg pleased me with this bit of history so skillfully and artistically depicted. No doubt the stars in this cast will long be remembered for these "senior" roles of this great movie. I was both impressed and shocked by the aged depictions of the politicians these elder actors put their all into creating for the screen. As you may know Spielberg would not make this movie for so many years....all depending on who he could cast for the main parts.........finally it did get made. It is a good reminder that truly miserable times has happened before in our history and what we experience today is a bit lighter when compared.....at least that is my take...I don't think anyone will be disappointed. Grab someone you like, take them with you and enjoy this piece of art...it was worth the money for me. It is worth it to see this one on the big screen instead of video.

 

At Antietam, I think Lee might have had a full blown disaster if Burnside had ever done an average job of testing the famous creek to find it only knee deep. The Peninsula might have turned out different if MacCellan had been sent the troops he expected that were turned over to Pope, and Allan Pinkerton had been more effective. Look at the manuvers in the light of a commander that best intelligence claimed was badly outnumbered. It's easy for us to fault him since we know the facts, but if we commanded the Army of the Potomac would we ignore Pinkerton? MacCellan was sort of an 1862 version of Jellico --- "I can lose the war in an afternoon". The statement that all he achieved was dead yankees (but killed more rebs) seems to argue he did okay. He certainly did better than Burnside at Fredericksburg, that pretty much did result in only dead yankees. Hooker? Well I guess we could argue that a lucky cannon shot stunned him to inactivity and won Chacellorsville, but I wouldn't want to have to prove that. By what standard would the North claim a victory at The Wilderness since they did not retreat but caused Lee to dig in further back? Cold Harbor? Is this a flip side to the Antietam arguement?

Everyone agrees that MacCellan was excellent at organization and training. Lee thought him the best general of the war, Grant did not venture an opinion (but seemed to think him okay?), and Lincoln disliked him. Many historians are quick to fault him today and I wonder why the 2 other generals thought him good? Why was Lincoln so quick to fire MacCellan (twice). He was never really beaten like other generals Lincoln kept on for all or most of the war (all army commanders --- Butler, Burnside, Buell, Fremont, Hooker, Rosecrans, others can be added). If Grant had started in the East would he have been rapidily retired after an failure?
MacCellan built the army that won the East and he did save the North at Antietam (could Burnside have done it?) and he draws only fault finding. Perhaps the question is this, 'In praising Lincoln do we naturally agree with all of his deeds (like Washington and the cherrytree) and therefore find MacCellan lacking?' If so, it's some pretty bad history by all of us.

I don't care for politicians messing with the military. I can accept that MacCellan's personality could get him fired, but did he push that hard? Lincoln did seem to go through generals kind of willy-nilly, always with the excuse of political necessity. Perhaps Lincoln's military orders for generals should be more closely examined. Pope moving south on his command was certainly not good. Most books compare Lincoln and Davis and find Lincoln a great Northern advantage. Well Davis played general-maker also but that does not justify Abe.

Really wondering about this stuff and really value your opinions on it. Maybe I can come to some type of conclusion on this. Thanks for your comments.

 

I think there is much that would be laid to rest if you do a complete study of the generals of the north and include the generals of the south because in those details you will find the answers to the conclusion you are looking for. Perhaps Lincoln was short with some of his generals at times but if you compare what was accomplished to what was possible you may find there is too much of a difference in these two products which to me justifies Lincoln's attempts to micro-manage where he could see the great shortfalls in performance. I do find Robert E. Lee to be so rich in ideas and performance in executing his leadership something that takes study to appreciate. Grant also had great attributes of leadership that highly contrasted some of his personal habits.....hope this teases you to study a bit. These are great stories in our history.

 

In every battle you have subordinate commanders that make errors. To blame Burnside might be an effective argument, if it weren't for the fact that McClellan had two entire Corps he didn't commit to the battle, Porter's V and Franklin's VI. McClellan was again overcautious and failed to win because he was so afraid of losing.

An McClellan habitually accepted any intelligence that supported him being outnumbered, and rejected any that gave a more accurate picture.
He had the Joe Johnston complex where there were never enough troops and he was always outnumbered. Like Johnston he had an excellent grasp of and was very proficient in military operations, they just lacked the backbone to take the risks required to win.

But what did he buy with the deaths of his men. If he had been a more decisive commander he could have ended the war. What he did was got a lot of his troops killed and in the end the strategic situation had not been changed and the armies pretty much were in the same relative situation as before the campaign started.

Burnside was a disaster, but McClellan achieved nothing more than he did during the 7 Days battles.

Another poor commander, but did McClellan achieve anything more?

Not in the individual battles, but the overall campaign (Overland Campaign of 1864) was a success. When it began the two armies were fighting over the same ground they had fought over since the war's start. When it ended Lee was forced into the Richmond defenses, stripped of his ability to maneuver and it was now just a matter of time before the Union had it's victory. Lee fought a masterfull defensive campaign, inflicting upon Grant more casualties than Lee had in his whole army at the start of the campaign. Though Grant suffered twice as many casualties as he inflicted upon Lee he forced him back into the Richmond defenses and pinned him there. When the campaign ended Grant had taken the portion of Virginia that the two armies had fought over since 1861, the relative strengths of the two armies were virtually the same as when the campaign started but the south had no more reserves. Grant at least achieved something for the lives lost.

Which two Generals thought him good? You yourself stated, "Grant did not venture an opinion". The Lee quote is without context and based upon a third hand recollection, so most historians question it's accuracy. And are you speaking of "best general" or "best Union general". There are several southern generals Lee thought highly of, and his statements about them are well documented. (The McClellan being "best" quote was reportedly from a conversation R. E. Lee had shortly before his death with his nephew Cassius Lee. Now the conversation was not reported by Cassius Lee, but by one of his two young sons, that had accompanied him. It was also years after the event, and based upon what the then young boy recall's having overheard. There are also several other statements that Lee was reported to have said during the discussion that really don't make a lot of sense.

Yes and he receives credit for that.

Burnside was a poor commander, but given the advantage McClellan had at Antietam (Lee's lost orders and a better than two to one numerical superiority) there are a slew of Federal Generals that would probably have done as well or better than McClellan. McClellan even condems himself with the statement he made when he received the lost orders; "McClellan was overcome with glee at learning planned Confederate troop movements and reportedly exclaimed, "Now I know what to do!" He confided to a subordinate, "Here is a paper with which, if I cannot whip Bobby Lee, I will be willing to go home."

Political meddling with the military is a fact that all the Generals, North and South had to deal with. Had McClellan been a better general, Lincoln would have been forced to have retained him, because McClellan had a great deal of political clout himself. Several of the generals you mentioned earlier, Freemont, Burnside and Butler in particular were retained because their political clout prevented them being totally cashiered.
In the end I think the election results of 1864 speak volumes for Lincoln's leadership. The first time in our history that soldiers in the field were allowed to vote. They voted overwhelmingly (75.8%) for Lincoln and helped insure his victory against George McClellan.