Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Historical Archive > The American Civil War


Posted by: Lady of Avalon 13-Aug-2008, 06:18 PM
One of the most devastating civil war of history,the American Civil War of 1861-1865. To what real purpose this cruel war ever started in the first place?

Even in our modern days it is still considered a controversial and delicate subject.
But it did happen and left more then a million casualties and almost as much dead and still a country divided by its aftermath.

I'm calling on my fellow americans members and others as well that have opinions and knowledge about this formidable war, to discuss and share the real reasons behind why it all started in the first place.

LOA

Posted by: Camac 13-Aug-2008, 06:24 PM
LOA;

What we jump from 1200 BCE to 1860 ACE America.

One of the main reasons of the US Civil War was the Political Power Dispute between the INDUSTIAL NORTH and THE AGRARIAN SOUTH. Slavery did not become a issue until the 2nd year of the war.


Camac.


Posted by: Lady of Avalon 13-Aug-2008, 06:29 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 13-Aug-2008, 08:24 PM)
LOA;

What we jump from 1200 BCE to 1860 ACE America.

One of the main reasons of the US Civil War was the Political Power Dispute between the INDUSTIAL NORTH and THE AGRARIAN SOUTH. Slavery did not become a issue until the 2nd year of the war.


Camac.

Well my dear friend,

The more subjects we have the more we have to enjoy reading and discussing...n'est-ce pas?

Don't worry I'm not through Ancient Greek with you yet...

LOA wink.gif


Posted by: Camac 13-Aug-2008, 07:19 PM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 13-Aug-2008, 07:29 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 13-Aug-2008, 08:24 PM)
LOA;

What we jump from 1200 BCE to 1860 ACE America.

One of the main reasons of the US Civil War was the Political Power Dispute between the INDUSTIAL NORTH and THE AGRARIAN SOUTH.  Slavery did not become a issue until the 2nd year of the war.


Camac.

Well my dear friend,

The more subjects we have the more we have to enjoy reading and discussing...n'est-ce pas?

Don't worry I'm not through Ancient Greek with you yet...

LOA wink.gif



"Lead on MacDuff and Damned be He, who cries hold enough."

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 13-Aug-2008, 07:35 PM
Hey! You're in the wrong forum man,,, this not Shakespeare McBeth in here Royal06.gif Royal11.gif

Was this the American dream for Abraham Lincoln?Or was it to achieve more political power?

LOA

Posted by: Aaediwen 13-Aug-2008, 09:26 PM
I'm under the impression it started over disagreements of how the nation should be run. Slavery during the Civil War I see much like looking for WMDs in Iraq... A political toy to get people's minds off the real reason for the fight, and an element that has little to nothing to do with the real conflict.

Posted by: Camac 14-Aug-2008, 06:20 AM
QUOTE (Aaediwen @ 13-Aug-2008, 10:26 PM)
I'm under the impression it started over disagreements of how the nation should be run. Slavery during the Civil War I see much like looking for WMDs in Iraq... A political toy to get people's minds off the real reason for the fight, and an element that has little to nothing to do with the real conflict.

The War started in April 1861 and the underlying cause was how the country was to be run. As I said Slavery didn't become an issue until Sept. 1862 with the Emancipation Proclamation which in itself was an act of deperation as the North was loosing and it only freed slaves in those States that were not in Rebellion. It was a clash of cultures, Industrial in the North, Agrarian in the South.


Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 14-Aug-2008, 05:26 PM
I think that their is a lot of controversy over the real reasons that started this abominable war.

In some history books or archives it may say that is was an issue on how the countrie should be governed and some would say it was about diseagrement over slavery.This paragraph on the origins of the Civil War states that is was about slavery.

Origins of the American Civil War

The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War was slavery, especially the issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories. States' rights and the tariff issue became entangled in the slavery issue, and were intensified by it. Other important factors were party politics, expansionism, sectionalism, economics and modernization in the Antebellum Period.

The United States was a nation divided into two distinct regions separated by the Mason-Dixon line. New England, the Northeast and the Midwest had a rapidly growing economy based on family farms, industry, mining, commerce and transportation, with a large and rapidly growing urban population and no slavery outside the border states. Its growth was fed by a high birth rate and large numbers of European immigrants, especially Irish, British, German, Polish and Scandinavian.

The South was dominated by a settled plantation system based on slavery, with rapid growth taking place in the Southwest, such as Texas, based on high birth rates and low immigration from Europe. There were few cities or towns, and little manufacturing except in border areas. Slave owners controlled politics and economics. Two-thirds of the Southern whites owned no slaves and usually were engaged in subsistence agriculture, but support for slavery came from all segments of southern society.


And this article talks about the political parties and their view on slavery and power.


Causes of the war

The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict inevitable. Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction". Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories.All of the organized territories were likely to become free-soil states, which increased the Southern movement toward secession. Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.

Southern fears of losing control of the federal government to antislavery forces, and Northern fears that the slave power already controlled the government, brought the crisis to a head in the late 1850s. Sectional disagreements over the morality of slavery, the scope of democracy and the economic merits of free labor vs. slave plantations caused the Whig and "Know-Nothing" parties to collapse, and new ones to arise (the Free Soil Party in 1848, the Republicans in 1854, the Constitutional Union in 1860). In 1860, the last remaining national political party, the Democratic Party, split along sectional lines.


So,here we have an exemple of diversity over the reasons that started it, though when one reads between the lines it comes down to slavery.

Take note that I found these references on Wikipedia.

LOA

Posted by: Camac 14-Aug-2008, 06:24 PM
LOA

The underlying cause of the Civil war was who was going to Govern the country and how that would be accomplished. The South saw it as fighting for a way of life that was slowly dying as was slavery. The South saw itself as the last bastion of Chivalry and Gentille Society and saw the North as a big brawling bully and they wanted no part of that.

Camac.

Posted by: Patch 15-Aug-2008, 11:19 AM
There had been an uneasy agreement in the legislature over slavery throughout the nation. With Lincolns election the legislative mix changed enough to prevent the "spread" of slavery in the South West. There were few slaves in the North and many in the South. The south felt their "states rights" were being infringed upon and they withdrew from the union.

My family had settled in Va. and split over the war. We moved North and we changed the spelling of our name. Relatives fought on both sides. My Grandfather felt Abraham Lincoln was the greatest man in the history of the country. His father and some of his Uncles fought for the north.

Slàinte,   

 Patch      

Posted by: Camac 15-Aug-2008, 11:41 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 15-Aug-2008, 12:19 PM)
. My Grandfather felt Abraham Lincoln was the greatest man in the history of the country. His father and some of his Uncles fought for the north.

Slàinte,   

 Patch      

Patch; Taking all emotion out of the equation and looking at cold hard facts I would rate Lincoln a greater man and President than Washington. An outersiders view again.



Camac.

Posted by: Patch 15-Aug-2008, 11:59 AM
I agree and my grandfather would have been happy to find you in agreement. Our family, to my best knowledge, never had the financial ability or the desire to own slaves so that was not an issue with us. It was all states rights and the constitution. I do not know how accurate it was but the History Channel did a program that allegedly proved that two fences at Gettysburg probably cost Gen. Lee the war. Old burial maps show where the confederates fell and were buried. Picketts Charge was slowed by fences on either side of a road 200 yards from the Union lines. Over 400 died at the fences and many more would have been incapacitated. A small number actually penetrated union lines but were captured. Gettysburg was the beginning of the end for Lee's armies.

It is amazing how some insignificant thing can change the course of history!

Slàinte,    

Patch      



























Posted by: Camac 15-Aug-2008, 12:15 PM
Patch.

Yes the fences slowed and disrupted Pickets men plus the Yankees had the stone wall just as the Rebs did at Fredrickburg. Also Lee overconfidence played a part. By Gettysburg he was convinced that "HIs Boys" could accomplish anything.


Camac.

Posted by: Patch 15-Aug-2008, 12:34 PM
The union had lowered their cannon and were fiiring "scrap" instead of shot. Sort of like a "super" sawed off shotgun. They were trying to avoid destroying the fences.

Slàinte,    

Patch      

Posted by: Camac 15-Aug-2008, 01:37 PM
Patch. True. But we jump ahead of ourselves and we should go back two years to April 12th 1861 and the first Battle of the War, Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbour.

The opening shots of the War were fired there and it was the first defeat of the Union. Few knew that the war would last 4 years and cost 650,000 American dead and the complete defeat of the Confederacy. It was truly a war of Brother against Brother for in all to many cases it tore families apart. One side for the Union and the other the Confederacy. I have often wondered how many Brothers actually killed their Brother without knowing.How many Fathers killed Sons? How many Families were torn apart never to rejoin? It was and is the most tragic part of your History.



Camac.

Posted by: Patch 15-Aug-2008, 02:24 PM
I did not mean that it was not a terrible war or that at the time of Gettysburg the Union had the upper hand. That is how Lee came to be in Pa.
I was just discussing the History Channel program about "Picketts Charge and how it was, in all probability, the turning point in the war. Maybe over something as insignificant as two fences. When it was done Lee didn't have enough supplies to continue the fight. General Grant had a bit to do with the final outcome of the war too.

Slàinte,    

Patch      

Posted by: Camac 15-Aug-2008, 03:55 PM
Patch;

I have in my library 151 History books including some on the Civil War. If you are interested I would recommend 4 of them. A Trilogy by Bruce Canton: The Coming Fury, Terrible Swift Sword, and Never Call Retreat. The forth is Civil War Reader by Richard B. Harwell a compilation of both official and private letters and diaries written during that period.

Camac.

Posted by: Patch 15-Aug-2008, 06:54 PM
Thanks I wrote the info down. I am at least three books behind right now and owe a book report on one of them on the Mideival Forum.

Slàinte,    

Patch      

Posted by: Camac 15-Aug-2008, 07:29 PM
Patch;

Did you happen to watch the PBS Series the Civil War a few years back. Best docu on it I have ever watched.


Camac.

Posted by: Sekhmet 15-Aug-2008, 11:26 PM
There's a guy on youtube who has the entire Ken Burns series uploaded.

And incidentally, the cannonade prior to Pickett's Charge (Longstreet's Assault, whatever) was largely over the heads of the union line, but was still doing some pretty massive damage to reserve units and what few supply wagons were on deck on Cemetery Ridge, but failed for the most part to hit the main Union line.

Cannister shot (large shotgun shells, for all intents and purposes, a short-range anti-personnel load) were not used to take down the fences, as the artillery lines were well out of range of the Emmittsburg Road for cannister to do any good whatsoever, towards the end of the cannonade prior to the beginning of the assault the smoke was so thick that the entire field in front of them was totally obscured, and E. P. Alexander, who was in charge of the ANV's artillery didn't have the wherewithal, ammunition or the orders to take out fences that way.

I'm not being nitpicky, just trying to clarify a little. smile.gif


Melissa

Posted by: Patch 16-Aug-2008, 12:58 AM
QUOTE (Sekhmet @ 16-Aug-2008, 01:26 AM)
There's a guy on youtube who has the entire Ken Burns series uploaded.

And incidentally, the cannonade prior to Pickett's Charge (Longstreet's Assault, whatever) was largely over the heads of the union line, but was still doing some pretty massive damage to reserve units and what few supply wagons were on deck on Cemetery Ridge, but failed for the most part to hit the main Union line.

Cannister shot (large shotgun shells, for all intents and purposes, a short-range anti-personnel load) were not used to take down the fences, as the artillery lines were well out of range of the Emmittsburg Road for cannister to do any good whatsoever, towards the end of the cannonade prior to the beginning of the assault the smoke was so thick that the entire field in front of them was totally obscured, and E. P. Alexander, who was in charge of the ANV's artillery didn't have the wherewithal, ammunition or the orders to take out fences that way.

I'm not being nitpicky, just trying to clarify a little. smile.gif


Melissa

I need to read more. The History channel indicated it was union cannon that were lowered to fire into the charging Confederates. (The Union was trying to preserve the two fences.) The program stated that there was evidence that bolts, nuts, scraps of metal and probably even small stones were used in the Union cannon to cut down the Confederates at close range. Also, Pickett was not the only General involved in the charge nor was he "in charge" of it. History made it "his" charge.

I realize that TV tends to take liberties at times but this show was for "educational credit".

Slàinte,    

Patch      

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 16-Aug-2008, 05:13 AM
The Pickett charge has from what I read been one of the deadliest of battles.
This is a passage of what I read about it and pics of the field.

The Field of Pickett's Charge
In the summer of 1863, this battlefield saw carnage like few others. Over the 3 days during which the battle of Gettysburg raged, between 40 and 50 thousand men, perhaps more, became casualties of the ferocious clash. The picture below shows a view of the field of the Pickett / Pettigrew Charge as viewed from the Confederate lines on Seminary Ridge near where the men from North Carolina would have stood as they readied for their advance. In the distance, nearly a mile away, General George Meade and the Army of the Potomac waited along the crest of Cemetery Ridge before this final charge on July 3, 1863.

Union Lieutenant Frank Haskell of Major General Winfield Scott Hancock's Second Corp, would describe the awesome site he next beheld. "Every eye could see the enemy’s legions, an overwhelming resistless tide of an ocean of armed men sweeping upon us! Regiment after regiment and brigade after brigade move from the woods and rapidly take their places in the line forming the assault. Pickett’s proud division with some additional troops hold their right. The first line at short intervals is followed by a second, and that a third succeeds; and columns between support the lines. More than half a mile their front extends; more than a thousand yards the dull gray masses deploy, man touching man, rank pressing rank and line supporting line. The red flags wave, their horsemen gallop up and down; the arms of eighteen thousand men*, barrel and bayonet, gleam in the sun, a sloping forest of flashing steel. Right on they move, as with one soul, in perfect order, without impediment of ditch or wall or stream, over ridge and slope, through orchard and meadow and cornfield, magnificent, grim, irresistible."


That must have been quite a frightening sight to behold.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 16-Aug-2008, 05:31 AM
We have a good description about what southern soldiers had to endure on that dreadful day as they were to engage their enemies from the North.

With the cannonade now subsided, about 12,500 Southern men stepped from the woods along Seminary Ridge and prepared to march across the fields towards what they hoped would be their demoralized, disorganized Northern foes. With temperatures of about 87 degrees and many Confederates wearing traditional woolen uniforms, both the heat and the distance would serve to wear men down. However, as the men of Major Generals George E. Pickett and Isaac R. Trimble, and Brigadier General James Johnston Pettigrew moved forward towards their watchful Union counterparts, they were blessed with occasional respites from the relentless Union cannon fire. As the men from the South approached within 400 yards of the Federal lines on Cemetery Ridge, Northern artillerymen replaced shot and shell with deadly canister rounds. Following the fence line in the picture to your right, you can plainly see the swales and rises of the terrain over which the soldiers engaged in Pickett's Charge traveled.


And here is the view of the now serene field of Pickett's charge from Seminary Ridge.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 16-Aug-2008, 05:39 AM
Another interesting fact of why there was so many casualties is well described in this paragraph.

One reason for the high number of deaths during the war was the use of Napoleonic tactics such as charges. With the advent of more accurate rifled barrels and (near the end of the war for the Union army) repeating firearms such as the Spencer repeating rifle, soldiers were decimated when standing in lines in the open. This gave birth to trench warfare, a tactic heavily used during World War I.


Though the trenches were not adequately safe for the soldier then.For the canons would decimate them as easily as the Spencer repeating rifle mentioned above.


Confederate dead behind the stone wall of Marye's Heights, Fredericksburg, Virginia, killed during the Battle of Chancellorsville, May 1863

Posted by: Camac 16-Aug-2008, 07:38 AM
LOA

Since everyone has jumped ahead to 1863 and Gettysburg I might as well join you.
Gettysburg was a battle that should not have been fought. It was a chance encounter that neither side had planned for. The superior Union position was the result of Brigadier General Bufords' Cavalry Brigades engaging the Rebels and holding long enough for Reynolds to bring up his Ist Corps along with Howards' XI and Sickles III Corps. The Battle that shouldn't be had begun and over the next 3 days would define the outcome of the War. Gettysburg was a major road junction in that area of Pennsylvania and both Armies just happen to collide there. Initially in the first engagements between Heth's division of A.P.Hills' Corps and Bufords' Brigades was a routine task of clearing Federal Cavalry out of the way. Lees' Army of Northern Virginia was stetched out over miles of Pennsylvania countryside and upon learning, belatedly, of the Union Armys' position in Northern Maryland sent couriers out with orders for them to join up at Gettysburg. Lee had no idea that three corps of Union troops were also gathering at Gettysburg. In fact do to a major foul up on the part of J.E.B.Stuart, Lees' Cavalry Commander, Lee was blind as to the disposition of the Union forces. The meeting engagement was about to become a major battle that took on a life of its own in the first hours.


Camac.



Posted by: Patch 16-Aug-2008, 08:32 AM
The two fences were about two hundred yards from the Union positions. Within rifle range of most soldiers. Canister shot has an explosive charge to scatter it's contents as a grenade would. It would, at closer range, have decimated the fences which the Union had planned to use for their strategic value from the beginning. The practice at the time was to bury the deceased where they fell and since virtually all the bodies were exhumed and re buried, Union dead on Cemetery Ridge and Confederate dead in memorial cemeteries in the South, only one record exists today. A map of the battle field showing the location and number of both Union and Confederate troops buried there was completed within a week after the battle. It shows the importance of the two fences and gives rise to questions as to why the first waves of Confederates did not dismantle them both.

Slàinte,  

  Patch      

Posted by: Camac 16-Aug-2008, 08:44 AM
Patch; As to the fences. An excellent question, one unfortunately we will never know the answer to. Perhaps the Fog of War and the eagerness to the Rebs to engage. Just over 46,000 Americans were casualties over that bloody 3 days. The waste.



Camac.

Posted by: Patch 16-Aug-2008, 10:25 AM
Pickett lost his leg to a cannon ball which crushed it and killed his horse at some point in the battle. The amputated leg was preserved at Pickett's request and resides in a museum where he visited it occasionally until his death. The leg was not buried with him and is still in the museum.

Slàinte,    

Patch      

Posted by: Camac 16-Aug-2008, 10:38 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 16-Aug-2008, 11:25 AM)
Pickett lost his leg to a cannon ball which crushed it and killed his horse at some point in the battle. The amputated leg was preserved at Pickett's request and resides in a museum where he visited it occasionally until his death. The leg was not buried with him and is still in the museum.

Slàinte,    

Patch      

Patch;

My friend I can find no reference to Pickett having lost his leg at Gettysburg. In point after the charge he was told personally by Lee to "See to his Division" which would imply that he was not wounded. He is alleged to reply" Sir I have no Division now"


Camac.

Posted by: Sekhmet 16-Aug-2008, 11:05 AM
Pickett was never hit at Gettysburg...in fact I don't believe he was ever wounded during the war.

I believe you're thinking of Gen. Daniel Sickles, who commanded the Union 3rd Corps. Sickles was hit in the afternoon of July 2nd in the fighting near the Wheatfield. He's a fun guy to research.

Pickett never did forgive Lee for ordering that offense that shredded his division. Pickett was chosen for it mainly because his was the last division to make it onto the field and were fresh troops (if you want to call walking for two days straight "fresh"). Pickett was fairly inexperienced, as were his troops. He is said to have told someone years after the war that "that old man" (meaning Lee) had killed his division.

The reason the fences on the Emmittsburg Road were never dismantled is because there was never an opportunity to do so. The Union lines had solidified into their "fish-hook" pattern that stretched across Cemetery Ridge and continued to be their position come the time of the Charge. While there had been an attack from Longstreet the day before, they had pulled well down to the south and around in order to attack the Union left.
Which incidentally is where Sickles lost his leg...

There had also been skirmishers, but most didn't get all the way to the road.

Had there been a clear way to those fences, they would've been down long before, and probably either burned for firewood or used in breastworks.

(EDIT) For typos

Posted by: Camac 16-Aug-2008, 11:31 AM
Sekhmet;

Most interesting Gentleman this Daniel Sickels. Bit of a cad and a rouge I' say.


Camac.

Posted by: Sekhmet 16-Aug-2008, 11:43 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 16-Aug-2008, 01:58 AM)

I need to read more.  The History channel indicated it was union cannon that were lowered to fire into the charging Confederates.  (The Union was trying to preserve the two fences.)  The program stated that there was evidence that bolts, nuts, scraps of metal and probably even small stones were used in the Union cannon to cut down the Confederates at close range.  Also, Pickett was not the only General involved in the charge nor was he "in charge" of it.  History made it "his" charge.

I realize that TV tends to take liberties at times but this show was for "educational credit".

Slàinte,   

Patch     



Yes, that portion is correct, but that was late in the charge. Lemme back up a little. And try not to go on for a week. smile.gif

Ultimately Longstreet was in command of "the charge", which is why some also refer to it as "Longstreet's assault". Longstreet was dead against it, and argued with Lee against making it, but was overruled. Longstreet got the blame for a lot of things, particularly later on after the war - but not Lee. And he's the one who made the initial order. He did not go out with the assault, but Pickett and many others did. Pickett didn't go very far down the field, but we digress.

The charge was made after the cannonade under Alexander, which was done in order to soften up the Union center to make the assault easier. They wanted to silence the Union artillery on Cemetery Ridge and take out as much infantry as possible.

Once Alexander opened fire on the Union positions, Union artillery returned fire in order to silence *their* guns. For that they elevated their barrels for long range and used solid and case shot (a hollow "case" that is filled with powder and lead balls lit by a fuse, made to explode into shrapnel overhead) in order to damage the guns, kill the horses, and take out the crews as well.

Once the Charge began, Union artillery would then drop their barrels in order to shoot straight across into the approaching infantry. Once they got to about 200 yards or so, they switched to cannister shot in order to take out as many as possible before they closed with their lines. Remember - artillery is only effective at range. If the enemy closes, they're done. At that point the Confederates are also at musket/rifle range, so they began taking that kind of fire as well.

I'm not sure I agree with preserving the fences, but rather those fences gave a golden opportunity to keep the Confederates hung up while they were at perfect range to be blown away. Many fell there, and many ducked into the sunken road bed because of its relatively protected position. Many of those who did so were captured later on, but...they lived.


LoA, I swear I'm not trying to hijack the thread, they just hit on Gettysburg, and I'm a Gettysburg dork. Been studying to be a Licensed Battlefield Guide for a few years now. biggrin.gif

Melissa

EDIT - for another typo and the wrong load listed...not having a good typing day. tongue.gif

Posted by: Sekhmet 16-Aug-2008, 11:49 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 16-Aug-2008, 12:31 PM)
Sekhmet;

Most interesting Gentleman this Daniel Sickels. Bit of a cad and a rouge I' say.


Camac.

Sickles was a trip. He was the quintessential example of a politically-placed commander (hooray for Tammany Hall) who probably wasn't wrapped real tight to begin with.

Not nutty enough for his temporary insanity plea to actually fly, but a little out there.

They still argue as to whether or not he was a genius or an idiot for moving his men out of line on July 02. I know what kind of names Meade and Hancock were calling him... wink.gif


Posted by: Camac 16-Aug-2008, 12:04 PM
Sekhmet;

Also as an aside to Picket at Gettysburg. He was paroled in April 1865 but chose to flee north to Canada. He returned to virginia in Aprill 1866.




Camac.

Posted by: Sekhmet 16-Aug-2008, 12:58 PM
Yep, and didn't live all that long after the war. I think he was about 50 when he died. He had built so much of his personality and identity around the Southern cavalier ideal that some wonder whether or not he just died of a broken heart, as it were. His world was gone when the war ended.

Posted by: Camac 16-Aug-2008, 02:04 PM
Sekhmet;

It would also seem that after his death his wife, Sallie, would do much to enhance his reputation by, shall we say exaggeration.


Camac.

Posted by: Sekhmet 16-Aug-2008, 03:01 PM
Very true. But then again she was really young when she married George, and was just as invested in the "lost cause" as well. I can see where some of the er...exaggeration came from.

It's really no different than what Georgia Wade McClellan did for her sister Ginny...yes she was a young girl, yes she was the only civilian casualty at Gettysburg, yes she was baking bread for the troops, but she wasn't a martyred saint. Know what I mean?


Posted by: Camac 16-Aug-2008, 03:17 PM
Sekhmet;

I vaguely remember watch a mini-series the Blue and the Grey and in one episode
a young woman married to federal officer is in her kitchen when a bullet comes through the wall and kills her. Is this who you are referring to.


Camac.

Posted by: Sekhmet 16-Aug-2008, 04:29 PM
Close...

Ginny Wade wasn't married yet, but had been with Jack Skelly for a while, who was a private in the Union army. A few days before the battle broke out Ginny 's sister had given birth to a little boy, and her mother was there taking care of them.

The battle broke out, and they figured it would be safer to go to Georgia's house to get away from the battle. They wound up being caught in a no man's land after the Confederates took over the town. On the morning of the third day's battle Ginny was in the kitchen mixing dough for bread when a sharpshooter's bullet came through two doors and nailed her in the back.

Ginny was the only civilian killed *outright* from the battle, though there were a few other casualties that died indirectly from the battle.

The Wade family wasn't exactly of high social standing in town, and when public attention began resting on Ginny and her family, many people were put out over it. Perhaps because of that, Georgia made it her personal campaign to make Ginny into a martyr to the country. It worked, too.


Posted by: Camac 16-Aug-2008, 04:33 PM
Sekhmet;

The incident in the series was more than likely the Hollywoodization of the actual event.

Camac.

PS. Did you take the test to be a Guide and if so did you pass?

Posted by: Sekhmet 16-Aug-2008, 05:32 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 16-Aug-2008, 05:33 PM)

PS. Did you take the test to be a Guide and if so did you pass?

Not yet. smile.gif

The tests only open every few years, and the last time it was open I didn't feel confident enough to take the test...yeah, I chickened out. tongue.gif But it's a very comprehensive and difficult test (there's two parts actually, written then oral), and I just didn't think I was quite ready for it yet. I'm working on it though. smile.gif


Melissa

Posted by: Camac 16-Aug-2008, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (Sekhmet @ 16-Aug-2008, 06:32 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 16-Aug-2008, 05:33 PM)

PS. Did you take the test to be a Guide and if so did you pass?

Not yet. smile.gif

The tests only open every few years, and the last time it was open I didn't feel confident enough to take the test...yeah, I chickened out. tongue.gif But it's a very comprehensive and difficult test (there's two parts actually, written then oral), and I just didn't think I was quite ready for it yet. I'm working on it though. smile.gif


Melissa

Well when you try again I wish you all the success in the world. It's about time to get back on Subject.

Camac

Posted by: Camac 23-Aug-2008, 11:35 AM
I just watched Ken Burns' Civil war again and was surpried to hear that the South won the first battle of the war,which i knew, but also won the last battle in Texas in 1865. I think Burns did an excellent job on that documentary.


Camac

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 23-Aug-2008, 01:28 PM
I'm coming late to this topic and so apologize for mentioning a couple of subjects that are already passed. I would say that the real turning point of the war was Chancellorsville where the South lost Jackson. He was returning from scouting the land ahead (typical of him) when he was wounded by Confederate pickets who mistook him for the enemy. His left arm was amputated and eight days later he died from complications. Ole "Stonewall" was probably the most brilliant tactician of the entire war. His loss to the South was immeasurable.

If you want to read the southern side of the War Between the States may I recomend Rise and Fall of Confederate Government volumes I and II by Jefferson Davis. They are available for free download from Google's book service.

In my opinion the seeds of the War Between the States were sown at the time the Constitution was adopted. It was purposely written in such a way as to appease both the forces who wanted a strong central government (such as Madison) and those who favored a looser association with each state maintain the deciding balance of power with the central government (such as Jefferson). This ambiguity led to off and on conflict for three quarters of a century. As some have said, it was the classic battle of the industrial north and the agrarian south.

Things almost came to a head when Massachusettes threatened to seceed early in the nineteenth century. And again when Clay masterfully stepped in with his Compromise and calmed the waters. While Lincoln did not want war, there were advisors and members of his cabinet who wanted nothing else. Statnton, Chase, and Seward were some of the more bellicose. Many of the Republicans moved behind the scenes to provoke a war while to all appearances remaining the "innocent victims".

Posted by: MacEoghainn 23-Aug-2008, 02:20 PM
http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/causes.htm

To try and imply that the institution of Slavery was not a major reason for the American Civil War is like trying to ignore the proverbial Elephant in the living room. Just because you pretend it isn't there doesn't make it go away.

"State's Rights", " Agrarian vs Industrial", ect....... while playing a part in what led up to war, were not the prime cause. South Carolina's final excuse for secession was Lincoln's election as President because they considered him to be in the Abolitionists camp because he was a Republican (South Carolina had threatened to secede during Andrew Jackson's presidency. His response: "Go ahead and make my day" or words to that effect).


Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 23-Aug-2008, 05:59 PM
Following is a quote from Davis's introduction to Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

A duty to my countrymen; to the memory of those who died in defense of a cause consecrated by inheritance, as well as sustained by conviction; and to those who, perhaps less fortunate, staked all, and lost all, save life and honor, in its behalf, has impelled me to atempt the vindacation of their cause and conduct. For this purpose I have decided to present an historical sketch of the events which preceded and attended the struggle of the Southern States to maintain their existence and their rights as soverign communities--the creators, not the creatures, of the General Government.

The social problem of maintaining the just relation between constitution, government, and people, must have homogeneity in its constituents. It is this necessity which has divide the human race into seperate nations, and finally has defeated the grandest efforts which conquerors have made to give unlimited extent to their domain. When our fathers dissolved their connection with Great Britain, by declaring themselves free and independent States, they constituted thirteen seperate communities, and were careful to assert and preserve, each for itself, its sovereignty and jurisdiction.

At a time when the minds of men are straying far from the lessons our fathers taught, it seems proper and well to recur to the original principles on which the system of government they devised was founded. The eternal truths which they announced, the rights which they declared "unalienable," are the foundationstones on which rests the vindication of the Confederate cause.


Jefferson Davis tends to be verbose, but the point is he considered the Primary cause of the war to be State's Rights. Certainly slavery was a cause under the umbrella of States Rights, but it was not The cause. Just as important in the regional power struggle was the fact of the trade laws which forced Southerners to sell to northern interests for a lower price then they could get in Britain and had to buy from northern interests at a higher price for inferior goods than could be obtained from Britain. Whether it was accurate or not, the South believed that the North was trying to make the South virtually a colony of the North. The typical Southerner was fighting for home, hearth and freedom and the typical Southerner did not own slaves, only the wealthy could afford to maintain slaves.

Posted by: Sekhmet 23-Aug-2008, 11:28 PM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 23-Aug-2008, 03:20 PM)
http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/causes.htm

To try and imply that the institution of Slavery was not a major reason for the American Civil War is like trying to ignore the proverbial Elephant in the living room. Just because you pretend it isn't there doesn't make it go away.

"State's Rights", " Agrarian vs Industrial", ect....... while playing a part in what led up to war, were not the prime cause. South Carolina's final excuse for secession was Lincoln's election as President because they considered him to be in the Abolitionists camp because he was a Republican (South Carolina had threatened to secede during Andrew Jackson's presidency. His response: "Go ahead and make my day" or words to that effect).

I don't think anyone's implying that slavery wasn't an issue. In fact it, along with other topics were a problem clear back to the beginnings of the country. The founding fathers wound up tabling those hot button topics for fear of losing a very tenuous hold on a united country, and continued to do so. Instead of dealing with them, they were allowed to fester, which ultimately led to the war. Meanwhile nothing was clarified, let alone resolved, and those very different opinions in how the government should be run (central government overall vs. states' rights) grew in the years to follow.

Slavery however, is not the penultimate issue that caused the war. It's just not that simple. And stating that doesn't imply racism coming or going. Frankly, it is because of its high emotional value that it is brought to the forefront over and over again, because that is what sticks in the memory more than economy, trade and fundamental differences in culture. Hot button topics sells, and it did back then just as well.

Aside from the abolitionist movement that was indeed very active in the North and did have a fairly large following, slavery began to be touted in the North through mainstream channels as a humanistic and moral cause later on in the war, when the public opinion began to slide into war-weariness and more and more voices began speaking in favor of ending the war and letting the Confederacy go on its own after all.

Posted by: Camac 24-Aug-2008, 08:05 AM
Sehkmet;

From what I have studied Lincoln was oppossed to Slavery but was willing to let it be contained and wither on the vine. I think it is safe to say that the premier cause of the rebelion was the issue of states rights even after the seccession the Confederate states constantly argued and fought the central government in Richmond which in turn help lead to their downfall. and of course a difference in societies. The South saw itself as the more aristocratic, cavalier society remmant of 16th & 17th century England and saw the North as a heavy handed Industrialized uncouth bully. I wonder what path your country would have taken if Lincoln had not been elected.


Camac.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 24-Aug-2008, 08:31 AM
QUOTE
From the "Great American History.net website I referenced in my earlier post:  "It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery."

I'm sure my Great-Great-Grandfather Albert Ewing and his three brothers, Levi, Edmund, and Robert, did not volunteer to "free the slaves" when they enlisted in the 3rd Ohio Volunteer Infantry and 97th Ohio Volunteer Infantry in 1861 (Levi and Robert in the 3rd and Albert and Edmund in the 97th) anymore than their Ewing and Alexander cousins in the south (Albert's mother, Esther Alexander Ewing, was born in Virginia) enlisted into Confederate Units to defend Slavery. Al and his brothers would have said "Union Forever" and their southern cousins would have said "States Rights". That said, it does not alter the facts about the actual cause and effects of the war.

Slavery has been a major issue in this country even before we were a country. The Continental Congress almost failed to approve one of the greatest documents ever written, The Declaration of Independence, until passages denouncing Slavery were removed (need I remind everyone that Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder himself when he wrote that document and yet he even felt the practice of Slavery was wrong).

The differences in Societies, customs, and commerce between north and south were mostly the result of the institution of Slavery. The kind of large scale agriculture practiced in the south at the time was a business that required low-skill labor, and people who you could keep uneducated and unpaid was a pretty lucrative method of keeping your overhead down.

In the Congress, http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0833427.html, http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0813116.html, and other less well known legislation were not based on which territories or states would believe in "States Rights" and which ones would not, but instead on where Slavery would be allowed and where it wouldn't be allowed.

The letter "S" for Slavery is the scarlet letter burned into the American Psyche. When it was in practice its stench figuratively hung on every American. It is ultimately responsible for over 900,000 casualties in the Civil War and untold human suffering from the arrival of the first slave to these shores and up to, and including, today. It is still an underlying factor in our lives and politics, including the current Presidential contest.

"States Rights" was nothing but a political slogan the Southern elites and Politicians used to rally the masses around them so they could maintain their "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_institution"

Posted by: Camac 24-Aug-2008, 09:43 AM
MacEoghainn;

In no way should the issue of Slavery be ignored but you can not point to this abhorrance and say that caused the war. Lincoln fought the war to save the Union and it wasn't until 1862 that the "Emmancipation Proclamation" was declared and that really didn't do much at least not what it was thought it would do, cause the hoped for slave insurrection and force the South to fight an enemy within.


Camac.

Posted by: Sekhmet 24-Aug-2008, 12:18 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 24-Aug-2008, 09:05 AM)
Sehkmet;

From what I have studied Lincoln was oppossed to Slavery but was willing to let it be contained and wither on the vine. I think it is safe to say that the premier cause of the rebelion was the issue of states rights even after the seccession the Confederate states constantly argued and fought the central government in Richmond which in turn help lead to their downfall. and of course a difference in societies. The South saw itself as the more aristocratic, cavalier society remmant of 16th & 17th century England and saw the North as a heavy handed Industrialized uncouth bully. I wonder what path your country would have taken if Lincoln had not been elected.


Camac.

And eventually, slavery would have done just that. The South had just about done so earlier in the century, and then Mr. Whitney came along with his cotton 'gin. Industrialization would eventually have made the need to have so many people to complete a given task obsolete.

But other things were moving faster than industrialization.

To say that there were two totally different cultures (actually more like 4 or 5) isn't an exaggeration at all. They were totally different groups even before they or their ancestors came to the Colonies. In New England was the Puritan culture, the South among the gentry was the Cavalier culture and the "cult" of chivalry, Pennsylvania still had a very heavily Quaker influence...it goes on and on. The economies were very different clear at the beginning as well. When you look at it, it was kind of amazing that the separate colonies came together at all, or managed to stay united as one country.

There's a lot of "what if" book, essays and so on about what would have happened if Lincoln had not been elected, and it's one that I never really got into myself (in fact, I'm really not that into the "what if" thing, but a lot of my friends are). What I do know is that it took a very forward thinking man to manage to pull off the minor miracle he did - particularly with the people he had to deal with in his cabinet, the public opinion, mainstream media...you get the idea.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he was appointed by heaven, or he was perfect. But the task before him was more than many good men could have handled, and he managed it.

Posted by: Camac 24-Aug-2008, 12:24 PM
Sekhmet;

I think actually that Eli Whitney and his gin did more to increase slavery as the South turned heavily to cotton which is a labour intensive crop. As to Lincoln I can only say in my opinion he was the greatest President to date. An outsider opinion.


Camac

Posted by: Sekhmet 24-Aug-2008, 12:29 PM
Actually that's what I meant, Camac...looking back at that post I could've written it better. Eli Whitney's cotton gin came along when slavery was hitting a nadir, making it be profitable for more slaves to do more work to produce more product to turn more profit. Later on, albeit decades later, industrialization would have replaced human hands in large portions of the agricultural and production processes.

Posted by: Camac 24-Aug-2008, 12:58 PM
Sekhmet;

The South was doomed from the beginning. In order to realize their goal they needed Foreign recognition, as in the Revolution, but as long as they maintained slavery it would not be forthcomming from either Britain or France. If they had abolished slavery then seceeded they stood a good chance of winning for Britain would definetly have supported them if just to annoy the Union and get one back for 1776. Britain needed cotton and imported large amounts from the South but it wasn't the only source, there was also Egypt.

Camac.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 24-Aug-2008, 01:25 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 24-Aug-2008, 11:43 AM)
MacEoghainn;

In no way should the issue of Slavery be ignored but you can not point to this abhorrance and say that caused the war. Lincoln fought the war to save the Union and it wasn't until 1862 that the "Emmancipation Proclamation" was declared and that really didn't do much at least not what it was thought it would do, cause the hoped for slave insurrection and force the South to fight an enemy within.


Camac.


I have never argued against those two points. Lincoln never implied he would take action to end slavery during his campaign for President other than let it "whither on the Vine" and the primary purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to keep England and France out of the war on the side of the Confederacy (If you'll investigate your countries history you'll find the evidence of a build up of British troops in Canada starting about 1862 and there was a sizable French force in Mexico at the time supporting Archduke Maximilian of Austria (A.K.A.: Maximilian I, Emperor of Mexico. see Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico .

The problem I see with the "States Rights" theory is that most of the alleged grievances about tariffs mentioned in this thread were from the late 1820s and early 1830s and were resolved by the Tariff Act of 1833. South Carolina had threatened to secede from The Union around 1831 over those tariffs. Their one major problem was the rest of the South wouldn't go with them and Andrew Jackson started moving Federal Forces in their direction to put down the "insurrection". See Articles http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-50.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis. What I find most funny about this argument is that most of New England (Yankee land if there ever was any) was up in arms over this issue for the same reasons and during the War of 1812 New England radicals, not the south, were for secession of the New England States and they claimed the south had too much power in the Federal government.

The shooting war started because, once again, good ole' South Carolina tried to secede from the Union (see Wikipedia on South Carolina in the American Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_in_the_American_Civil_War. Their excuse was the election of Lincoln as President. There were still efforts being made to prevent a general insurrection when South Carolina troops fired on Union ships trying to supply the Federal Garrison at Fort Sumter.

In 1861 the primary grievance the South had against the North all centered around slavery (see Wikipedia article on the American Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War ). I have heard the canard of "States Rights" used since I first became interested in History in general and the Civil War in particular when I was a 10 or 11 year old kid and it doesn't "hold water" now any better than it did then.

Posted by: Camac 24-Aug-2008, 01:36 PM
MacEoghainn;

Just a brief reply to one point as I have to goo out. Yeas the Brits reinforce the garrison in Canada by some 12,0000 troops. In point of fact one of the forces that helped push Canada to unite into one Nation was the enormous size of the Union Army after the war. We feared Invasion in retaliation for Britains stance in the Civil War ie; aiding the South.


Camac.

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 24-Aug-2008, 02:37 PM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 24-Aug-2008, 03:25 PM)

In 1861 the primary grievance the South had against the North all centered around slavery (see Wikipedia article on the American Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War ). I have heard the canard of "States Rights" used since I first became interested in History in general and the Civil War in particular when I was a 10 or 11 year old kid and it doesn't "hold water" now any better than it did then.

The South has had others tell us the reasons we were fighting for over a hundred years now. If you truly want to know what the South was fighting for, read Jefferson Davis's The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Available at http://books.google.com/books?id=qdcBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=jefferson+davis+rise+and+fall+of+the+confederate+government&as_brr=1#PPR1,M1

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 24-Aug-2008, 04:49 PM
QUOTE (Sekhmet @ 16-Aug-2008, 01:43 PM)

LoA, I swear I'm not trying to hijack the thread, they just hit on Gettysburg, and I'm a Gettysburg dork. Been studying to be a Licensed Battlefield Guide for a few years now. biggrin.gif

Melissa

EDIT - for another typo and the wrong load listed...not having a good typing day. tongue.gif

Please Melissa not at all,

I am really impressed by what I read here and glad to have a good number of members participating in this very instructive and interesting thread.
Now feel free my dear to write all you know and debating opinions on the history of this great war.
Don't forget that I'm a student in all this and it is quite enriching for me for in my days at school unfortunetaly our history class in french's school were very different then the english one and did not discuss the same subjects at all.

LOA

Posted by: Patch 25-Aug-2008, 11:27 AM
I just found that a local resident has just published his second book on the Civil War. The first involved Naval Strategies of the Union and Confederacy. The second (and the third which he is working on) are about Sherman. His name escapes me but I saved the news release. I just have to find it. This could be interesting. It is amazing that I was not aware of this in such a small community.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Patch 03-Sep-2008, 11:52 AM
Ok, his books are: (1) "Crisis of Command in the Army of the Potomac", (2) "Naval Strategies of the Civil War" and a book he is presently working on titled (3) "Custer and the Front Royal Executions of 1864." His name is Jay Simson and as far as I know that is his "pen name." I know nothing of his writing abilities. #1 is into its second printing and #2 is still in print so he must be ok.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Lady-of-Avalon 03-Sep-2008, 04:33 PM
Thanks for the info Patch,
Maybe you can grab the books and let us know some of the passage in it. For the man wrote already 2 books and working on a thirs one then like you say, what he has to say about it must be interesting.

LOA

Posted by: Patch 05-Sep-2008, 12:49 AM
Anyone can write a book. Not everyone can write a book that sells. I vaguely remember this man as editor of our newspaper a long time ago. From his picture published with the article, I have seen him in restaurants recently. Amazingly, in my small town, I do not know him.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 05-Sep-2008, 06:23 AM
Patch;

Yeah its amazing what can go on or who lives in a small town and nobody knows. You see aperson everyday and say good morning or whatever not really knowing who that person is or what they have done. I will keep an eye out for the two books that the gentleman has written and if I can buy them to add to my History Library.

Camac.

PS. Found one of the books on Amazon.ca Authors name is Jay W. Simson

Posted by: Patch 05-Sep-2008, 07:46 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 05-Sep-2008, 08:23 AM)
Patch;

Yeah its amazing what can go on or who lives in a small town and nobody knows. You see aperson everyday and say good morning or whatever not really knowing who that person is or what they have done. I will keep an eye out for the two books that the gentleman has written and if I can buy them to add to my History Library.

Camac.

PS. Found one of the books on Amazon.ca Authors name is Jay W. Simson

That is the author.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 05-Sep-2008, 07:56 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 05-Sep-2008, 08:46 AM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 05-Sep-2008, 08:23 AM)
Patch;

Yeah its amazing what can go on or who lives in a small town and nobody knows. You see aperson everyday and say good morning or whatever not really knowing who that person is or what they have done. I will keep an eye out for the two books that the gentleman has written and if I can buy them to add to my History Library.

Camac.

PS. Found one of the books on Amazon.ca  Authors name is Jay W. Simson

That is the author.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

Found both. Ordered both. I should receive them in a week.


Camac.

Posted by: Camac 16-Sep-2008, 12:24 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 05-Sep-2008, 08:56 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 05-Sep-2008, 08:46 AM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 05-Sep-2008, 08:23 AM)
Patch;

Yeah its amazing what can go on or who lives in a small town and nobody knows. You see aperson everyday and say good morning or whatever not really knowing who that person is or what they have done. I will keep an eye out for the two books that the gentleman has written and if I can buy them to add to my History Library.

Camac.

PS. Found one of the books on Amazon.ca  Authors name is Jay W. Simson

That is the author.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

Found both. Ordered both. I should receive them in a week.


Camac.

Patch;

The two books written by your fellow townsman just arrived and I will soon be reading them. Looking forward to it.

Camac.

Posted by: Lady-of-Avalon 17-Sep-2008, 03:53 PM
Let us know if indeed the history written in it is acurate in your point of view.

LOA

Posted by: Patch 17-Sep-2008, 05:46 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 16-Sep-2008, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 05-Sep-2008, 08:56 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 05-Sep-2008, 08:46 AM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 05-Sep-2008, 08:23 AM)
Patch;

Yeah its amazing what can go on or who lives in a small town and nobody knows. You see aperson everyday and say good morning or whatever not really knowing who that person is or what they have done. I will keep an eye out for the two books that the gentleman has written and if I can buy them to add to my History Library.

Camac.

PS. Found one of the books on Amazon.ca  Authors name is Jay W. Simson

That is the author.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

Found both. Ordered both. I should receive them in a week.


Camac.

Patch;

The two books written by your fellow townsman just arrived and I will soon be reading them. Looking forward to it.

Camac.

I would expect his writing to be somewhat that of a journalist and that his approach would be more conservative. I would be surprised if he formed ideas of his own. More likely he researched and reported.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 17-Sep-2008, 06:05 PM
Patch;

From what little I have quickly read Crisis of Command deal with the problems Gen Phil Sheridan had when he took Command of the Army of the Potomac. I haven't really got into the book yet but I will this weekend and post my impressions.

Camac.

Posted by: Patch 17-Sep-2008, 06:33 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 17-Sep-2008, 08:05 PM)
Patch;

From what little I have quickly read Crisis of Command deal with the problems Gen Phil Sheridan had when he took Command of the Army of the Potomac. I haven't really got into the book yet but I will this weekend and post my impressions.

Camac.

I wish I had more time to read. I have too many things going at one time. When he gets back in town I am going to try to round up signed copies of the two published books and the one coming out. Off topic, does anyone know of any good books re: Indians of the Mid West? A friend has a grand daughter living in a badly fractured home situation. She is of part Indian ancestry and is hanging on to that aspect of her life. I am not looking for "Custers Last Stand as told by the army." Something as seen from the Indian point of view would be more appropriate. Thanks

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 18-Sep-2008, 07:21 AM
Patch;

I have read very little about the North American Indian but I did look at Amazon.ca
Which had quite a few titles listed. I am assuming that Amazon.com will be the same.It might help you. Good Luck.

Camac.

Posted by: Patch 18-Sep-2008, 09:53 AM
Thanks, I wish I was more familiar with the titles.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 18-Sep-2008, 10:11 AM
Patch;

Here are a few titles and authors:

Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee -Dee Brown
We were not the Savages - Daniel N. Paul
Stolen Continents - Ronald Wright
In Thier Own Words: Sitting Bull - Connie & Peter Roop

Camac.

Posted by: Sekhmet 18-Sep-2008, 05:55 PM
Try Custer Died for Your Sins - Vine DeLoria Jr.

There's also a book of essays called Blood Struggle that may work as well...can't think of the editor's name, my clan mother has my copy at the moment so I can't look it up right this minute.

Posted by: Patch 19-Sep-2008, 08:52 AM
Thank you for the information.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 22-Sep-2008, 08:06 AM
\Patch;

So far I have managed to get half way through "Crisis of Command in the Army of the Potomac". It deals primarily with the last six months of the Civil War and with the destruction of Jubal Earlys' Army in the Shennandoah Valley by Sheridan. It is also the biography in sorts of three Union Generals, Averell, Torbert, and Warren who ran afoul of Sheridan and his new concept of War. So far it is quiet intriguing
and if you are an affectioniado of the Civil War well worth reading.

Camac.

Posted by: Patch 22-Sep-2008, 11:02 AM
I am glad the book was worth the expenditure. I will order both and have them signed later. I have a few signed books that my father gathered up in Arizona from estates. The best "verified" signature was Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens to a Miss. Adelaide Monfort along with a slightly racy comment.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)