m00n Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Ok yeah... You guys call them gaps and we call them passes.... Are they still called gaps now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 Moon----Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 ---------------- On 2/24/2004 10:38:33 PM m00n wrote: Yeah that would be cool... So Blood Lane is or is not in Fredericksburg? ---------------- "Blood Lane" is at Antietam, not Fredericksburg. Whenever anybody talks about "Blood Lane" within context of the Civil War, they are talking about Antietam, not Fredericksburg. The one in Fredericksburg is often just refered to as "Sunken Road", and is often refered to when talking about Union assults on Marye's Heights (a large hill with a perfect view over the entire town - before all the trees that are now there - this area is much more forested than it was during the Civil War). This website has very detailed descriptions of just what happened in Fredericksburg during the Civil War. Again, if I have time, I'll have to make a quick drive over there this weekend and take some pictures of the sunken road (with that very stone wall still there) and Marye's Heights. Ahh, I am due for another visit to that, since it has been a couple of years since I walked around down there (although I drive by it just about every other day - gotta watch for the cops that like to sit right there at the entrance to sunken road on Lafayette Blvd - saw one nab somebody going too fast through there!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 Moon---This is the sunken road at Fredericksburg in May of 1863 after the position was taken by the Federal 6th Corps. Some Confederate dead were still about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 Moon---This the Bloody Lane at Antietam a day or two after the battle. The foreground has been cleared and the Rebel dead buried, in the background the Rebel dead remain. To the right of the road the ruined corn of the Piper farm can be seen; a field of tall, ready to harvest corn now all shot to Hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDBRbuilder Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 LOL!...I have to laugh at Tom's use of terms...JUST as the confederates and federals often used two different names for the battles of the Civil War, they also used two terms FOR the Civil War. The north used "The War of the Rebellion", whereas the south called it the "War of Northern Aggression". It makes it easy for one to tell whether another student of this sad period of our nation's history is from the North or the South by the terms he/she uses...Tom is OBVIOUSLY a YANKEE! Tow other terms for that war used by one or the other side DURING that war are: The war to preserve the union, and the war of southern independence...depending on which side one was on. Just like the WWII action WE call The Battle of the Bulge...this battle was called The Ardennes Offensive by the Third Reich. Since the winners of wars generally get to write the history of them (from THEIR OWN point of view!), whatever terms THEY use are generally the terms that are remembered most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 Builder---I'm glad you get a kick out of my use of the archaic (and official) Federal name for the war, I was hoping somebody would get it. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 ---------------- On 2/24/2004 11:10:46 PM HDBRbuilder wrote: LOL!...I have to laugh at Tom's use of terms...JUST as the confederates and federals often used two different names for the battles of the Civil War, they also used two terms FOR the Civil War. ---------------- I've also heard it refered to as "The War Between the States". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDBRbuilder Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Oh, by the way, Moon, my Great Great grandfather was sent home after the Defense of Corinth "as being too old"...in the summer of 1862, but by the time he actually got home to southwest Arkansas, the Confederacy had lifted the age barrier and he joined-up in another Arkansas unit and went back to fight again. Yes...he survived the war...not a single wound, either! He lived to produce 7 surviving children by his first wife who he brought to Arkansas from Mississippi in 1843...four of their children were born before the war...then when she died in the mid-1870's, he married a widow woman with 4 children of her own, and they had another 4 children together. He lived until 1903...was born in Elbert County, Georgia in 1822. He has a Confederate tombstone on his grave...made of white Arkansas marble...supplied upon his death free of charge by what we now call the Veterans Administration. He was a member of three Confederate units during the war...all of them Arkansas boys...the last one was a Mounted Rifle unit that finished the war fighting in western Arkansas, itself...the 19th Arkansas Mounted Rifles. After Chickamauga, when the Confederates put Chattanooga and its occupying federals under siege and Lee sent Longstreet and some of the Virginia boys to help out there, he was sent to Virginia for awhile with his unit to replace the Virginians who went west to Chattanooga. While there he fought under Lee. Later his unit was sent back and absorbed into different units under Hood, when he took over the Army of the Tennessee...then most of those Arkansas boys mustered out and went home to reform another unit in Arkansas...where they fought in skirmishes until the end of the war. He never had much good to say about Hood...but by that time, Hood was so strung out on Opiates due to his numerous wounds and missing appendages, he wasn't nearly the leader he had been and he was responsible for wasting alot of prime southern blood unnecessarily. During the Red River campaign in Arkansas, He returned home for a short time and found the Yankees had burnt every home, barn, etc. to the ground in southwestern Arkansas that was owned by a family with a member in the Confederate Army. He finally found his wife and kids and moved them up into the foothills of the Ouachita Mountains into a cave there, where they lived til the war was over...he returned to fight after he had moved them to safety. One of his daughters of that time...when she was up into her 90's...would tell her great grandchildren, whenever they griped about chores or conditions at their homes..."well...at least you don't have to live in a cave"...LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 no matter what you call it, it's all very interesting. I've only ever heard it called "The Civil War". Ok, so I know I should know this stuff, but I don't. Grant in the Civil or Revolutionary war? Also the civil war covered more than just Washington, Maryland and Virginia right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Andy, guess you answered my question about the war spanning... What a very interesting man and life your great great... grandfather was and had. It's that kind of man you could just sit and listen to for hours talk about the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 Moon---Yeah, it's generally called The Civil War. Grant was a Federal commander in The Civil War, at the end of the war he was the overall Federal commander. The most important operations in the war happened in the Western Theatre, between the Appalachians and the Missisippi in Tennessee, Mississippi and Georgia with some important stuff happening in Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana. That was The West then and men from Illinois and Arkansas were referred to as Westerners. The war was won by the men from what is called The Old Northwest---Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. Those were the fellas that ripped the guts out of The Rebellion while the eastern Yankees were putzing around in Virginia. All true students of the War know this, I'm sure our Arkansas friend Builder whose ancestor struggled against the men of Illinois and Indiana at Chickamauga will agree. Read "This Hallowed Ground" by Bruce Catton. It's the most accesible one-volume history of the war and Catton was a marvelous writer with an excellent perception of the human side of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 are there any good Cival War movies? You guys are getting me all interested in this stuff. Steve, been reading the history from that site you posted about fredericksbug. Very interesting stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDBRbuilder Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Catton is a good writer, but like most writers about that conflict, he writes primarily from a northern viewpoint. Like I said, the victors normally get to write the history. It doesn't help much when by the end of 1863, the paper shortage in the south was so severe that even most daily newspapers in larger southern cities could only afford to print a two-page paper...eventually going to weekly formats. This also affected the Confederate army...with few written records surviving after 1863...the same goes for "letters home" from that time. Pretty much all that was left as a southern viewpoint "original source" history of the war beyond that point was forcibly made an "oral tradition" due to the paper shortage. It is sad that Robert E. Lee has been deridden by so many writers of that time, and even moreso by today's historians of "fame". Most of these writers just go by secondary sources for their writings of his abilities...at Gettysburg, in particular. One really has to have a good understanding of why Lee chose to do what he did to understand the man...and his tactics...in relation to his mission. His mission was to defend Richmond at all costs. He had only three choices at Gettysburg. He picked the right one for mission accomplishment. He arrived at Gettysburg without knowing where the enemy was, or how large a force it was...because his cavalry was off gallavanting around and got on the other side of Meade's Army of the Potomac, only arriving to tell Lee too late what the circumstances were. At the beginning of the battle, Lee could take the high ground that wasn't already taken, but he would have been surrounded and under seige, leaving Richmond to fall to other northern forces.....he could turn back and be chewed up piecemeal from the rear as he tried to escape back to Richmond...or he could stand and fight...hitting the enemy as hard as he could, hoping for a victory...which is what he did. One might say that the third day's battle, including Pickett's Charge, was a way of "kicking the yankees in the groin so that I can get out of here while they recover"...and escape back to Richmond to continue defending it for a bit more time and drag out the war in the hope that the Yankees will tire of fighting and let the Confederacy continue to exist...in peace. He was NO FOOL...he knew it was just a matter of time...but his JOB was to make that time last as long as possible! And he did his job well!! You can go anywhere in the world today and discuss the great military leaders this country has produced...the ONE leader you will ALWAYS hear about is LEE...for DAMNED GOOD reason!! Hell...the only reason he ever went north to begin with was to draw union forces AWAY from Richmond, because it was getting too hot down there for his forces to handle! It was TERRIBLE that such an American Hero...in TWO wars, never even got his citizenship back until almost a century after his death!! What is even sadder is the fact that his own subordinates turned against him at the end of the war...Longstreet, in particular...when if Longstreet had carried out Lee's orders to the letter at Gettysburg, then Pickett's boys would not have been mowed down for no reason!! The killing of his own countrymen on BOTH sides destroyed Lee's health, mentally and physically, and he had to live very carefully to survive the next less-than-a-decade of his life! If ANY one man was ever a true example of an American military leader, it was LEE! No other military leader this country has produced can even hold a candle to him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 ---------------- On 2/25/2004 12:15:08 AM m00n wrote: are there any good Cival War movies? You guys are getting me all interested in this stuff. ---------------- The Civil War by Ken Burns. Often considered to be a very good documentary of the Civil War. You can get it on DVD now. If you are looking for Civil War movies that is more entertainment then historical, there is Gods and Generals, The Red Badge of Courage, and currently in the theaters (and I hear it is really good), Cold Mountain. There are others, but cannot think of them right off the top of my head. I do remember a few years ago seeing a movie about the Merrimack and the Monitor, the two iron-clad ships that fought each other in the mouth of the James River. I wish I remebered what that was, because I do remember it was pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Moon---Not too many good movies. John Ford's "The Horse Soldiers" (John Wayne, William Holden, Hank "Old Mose" Wardon) is loosely based on a raid by Federal cavalry through Missisippi during the Vicksburg Campaign. Accuracy of weapons and uniforms is not up to modern standards for that sort of thing but the movie captures the spirit of the war VERY well. Has some neat stuff including a scene based on the battle of New Market where boys from a military school attack the tough Federal veterans. "Glory" is very good, very good indeed. Matt Broderick is very good as an aristocratic young colonel who leads his men into a maelstrom he's sure he can't survive. Ted Turner's "Gettysburg" is very good too. An excellent account of the battle; well acted with Martin Sheen as Lee and Sam Elliot as the superb Federal cavalryman John Buford. The fella who played Turkey Creek in Tombstone is very good as John Gamble; an Irishman who'd been a British enlisted man cavalryman and commanded a brigade in Buford's division. Tom Berenger is very good as Longstreet but he, as well as some others, suffers from a terrible stage beard. In things like makeup this non-union production looks a little shoddy. "Gods and Generals" is from the "Gettysburg" team but isn't near as good a movie. It was a union production though so the beards look better. :-)It's worth seeing though. "Raintree County" was shot in the 50s from Ross Lockwood's book, at the time considered a VERY important work of American literature. Liz Taylor plays an insane Southern Belle who weds Hoosier Montgomery Clift and moves to Indiana. Clift and Lee Marvin portray a pair of Sherman's "bummers" fighting and looting their way across Georgia. The movie is a failure but has it's moments, especially when Marvin is onscreen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Builder---Well the shelves groan under the weight of the books written by the losers of this war, never has the adage "the victors write the history" been more untrue. Lee did a poor job at Gettysburg as did A.P. Hill. Ewell and Longstreet have been made the scapegoats for Lee's failings. A cold look at the facts will show why Ewell was unable to capture Cemetary Hill n the evening of the first day. Rodes and Early had had a hard march, a fight and were entangled in the town. Johnson's division wasn't up yet and Ewell had to guard his left against the approach of the Federal 12th Corps. And Lee left the decision to Ewell; if Lee wanted the hill taken whatever the situation he should have rode over and given such orders. And it's still unclear just exactly what Lee's plan was for Longstreet on the second day. Despite that Longstreet's corps did what was arguabley the finest single day's fighting of any single army corps in the entire war, the only comparable performence IMO being Thomas's 14th Corps on the second day of Chickamauga. Nope, nobody did more to win Gettysburg than Longstreet did. Lee was guilty of wishful thinking and sloppy staff work. And mind that it was Lee's orders that set Stuart off gallivanting around; if the AoNV had insufficient cavalry it was Lee's own fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDBRbuilder Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 If you like to read books and, in particular, ones based upon original source materials, then try "The Memoirs of Robert E. Lee" by A.L. Long. It is pretty dry in many ways, but it gives an excellent insight into Lee's mind and the man. It was compiled and written AFTER Lee's death by his one-time adjutant. For the last few years of Lee's life he attempted to retrieve the few written orders he had given during the war...with little success, in the hopes of writing his OWN memoirs. Long continued this work after Lee passed away, eventually writing this book. Parts of it are slow reading, but it includes many of his letters to his beloved wife...it also includes a unique insight to Lee by a man who worked with him daily for a long time during the war. Some of the anecdotes are worth wading through this book...and will have you rolling on the floor with laughter. Lee DID have a keen wit and a sly and dry sense of humor...but he managed to "pull some good ones" on folks at times. In some ways, this book reminds me of the kinds of things PWK liked to "pull on em!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDBRbuilder Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Tom, Longstreet was real big on telling the world how wonderful he was after the war...if you want to know what was in Lee's mind and what his orders were...and how what happened came to pass...read the book I just mentioned...it may just open your eyes a bit. Longstreet was a very capable leader and corps commander, except for two things. He had difficulty carrying out complex operations and the third day was a complex operation...it was do or die, and he already felt that the battle was over...so his part of the operation was not carried out as he had been ordered to do it. His other problem was his pride and his tendency to drag his feet when things didn't go the way he wanted them to be going. July 3, 1863 could have ended up either of two ways: Longstreet could have carried out the complex operation with the good possibility that the flank of the union forces could be penetrated and rolled up...or if that did not occur, then the other possibility was to make good an escape while the union licked its wounds....which is what happened. Lee NEVER put the blame for any losses ANYWHERE but on his OWN SHOLDERS...that is a true sign of a leader...not only that, but he NEVER GAVE HIMSELF CREDIT for victories, he gave it to the MEN who performed the deeds, instead!...even a GREATER sign of a true leader! Longstreet, put the blame for everything that went wrong on others...a sorry example of a leader IMHO!!! As for Lee's cavalry at Gettysburg, any other commander whose direct orders had been ignored by his cavalry commander would have fired him ON THE SPOT, but Lee just lightly ...and I MEAN LIGHTLY chastised his! And reminded him not to let it happen again...and it never DID happen again! You need to read this book...seriously! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerSix Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Id figured that at this point Id throw my two cents in. My family is from Fredericksburg, so this battlefield has a special meaning for me. I love history, but in this instance I will not debate, but just show photos instead. This first picture is the same location of the picture TBrennan posted of the stone wall and ditch containing the dead confederate lying prostrate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.