RangerSix Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 This second picture is the infamous location called Sunken Road manned by Cobb and Kershaws brigades. This spot is located directly below Maryes Heights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerSix Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Next photo is a shot looking up towards Maryes Heights from Sunken Road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerSix Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Here is picture from Stonewall Jacksons defensive positions. Off in the distance, you can make out a pyramid. That marks the spot of the POP (point of penetration) of Meades 3rd Division against the rebel line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerSix Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 This next picture is the house where Thomas Stonewall Jackson died of his wounds suffered at Chancellorville. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerSix Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 These next two pictures are works in progress. In my spare time I enjoy restoring old Civil War photographs back to their original state. It usually takes between 4 hours to two weeks to work on each photo, but the results IMHO can be quite stunning. Currently, Im trying my hand at photo colorization. So far, the results have been mixed. Here are two examples I am working on. Joshua Chamberlain. (10% of original size) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerSix Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Robert E. Lee (10% of original size) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I really enjoyed this thread, and managed to learn some things, too. Some of you guys are real Civil War history experts. Here in Missouri, there has been some hashing about lately over the display of the "stars and bars". I'm just curious how y'all feel about that. I realize this could be a sensitive area, so please set flamers to "simmer"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Builder---Longstreet attacked the Federal right on the second day, not the third. The third day's attack was a simple assault on the Federal center now known as "Pickett's Charge". Now I'm damned if I know what Longstreet could have done better on either day. On the second day Lee had a totally faulty idea of the Federal dispositions due to poor staff work. He also insisted Longstreet take a covered route to the Federal right but failed to find such a route or send staffers to monitor the march. Then when Longstreet arrived n place Lee insisted on an attack up the Emmitsburg road that would have exposed the Confederates to a flank attack from the 3rd Corps. Luckily for Lee two things happened: Sickles moved the 3rd Corps into a dangerous position on the Emmitsburg Road and Hood disregarded his orders and swung around the Federal right. Longstreet then held McClaws division in check until just the right time and then slipped the leash. Thus the Federal troops on the Rose Farm were caught in a vice between Hood and McClaws and the 3rd Corps was wrecked along with Caldwell's division of the 2nd Corps and the Regular Army division of the 5th Corps not to mention the Federal units of the 5th, 6th and 2nd Corps that were heavily engaged but not wrecked. I dunno, seems like ole Longstreet did some pretty good fighting that day. As for the assault on the third day, well that might be the stupidist thing Lee ever did. To think that one fresh division and two that had been severely punished two days earlier by the 1st Corps were gonna bust Hancock's 2nd Corps; well that was crazy. When Longstreet demurred Lee should have put Hill in charge of the attack; two of the three assaulting divisions were Hill's and the troops on either side of the assualt were Hill's. But yes, Longstreet should have monitored the attack more closely, especially on the left but those troops were Hill's and Longstreet was unfamiliar with the officers and troops; evidently Longstreet just gave them their orders and hoped for the best, you know, the same way Lee did. As for Stuart; books have been written on whether he followed orders or not. What seems clear to me is that Lee gave Stuart ambiguous orders that gave Stuart great leeway (pun intended), thus Lee must take the blame for the fact hhis army wasn't supported by Stuart's cavalry. Besides, even without Stuart Lee had several brigades of cavalry which he failed to use well. That Hill had to advance into Gettysburg without a cavalry screen or that Ewell had to send a division of infantry to guard his flank because he lacked cavalry was Lee's fault, not Stuart's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Ranger, thanks for those photos. Keep up the oustanding work on the photo restoration. You're doing a fantastic job. Steve, I'm home sick, and that link you provided has been great. I think I'm on week 10 now. I should have them all finished sometime today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 U.S. Grant was the Union general that beat R.E. Lee and later was elected president. Grant was a drunkard. When complaints reached Lincoln about Grant's drinking, Lincoln offered to send a bottle of Grant's favorite, since Grant was willing to fight while many Union general were not willing to do so. Grant died broke in New York. His tomb has fallen into disrepair. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Andy, TBrennan You guys really know your civil war history. I hope you too keep up the history lessons. This is very good stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 McGoo----Grant wasn't a drunkard, not during the war, that's a myth. He was accused of it, yeah. Before the war, during his hardscrabble days he may have had a drinking problem but it's not certain. In any case those were hard-drinking times. The worst drunks were probably the Confederate generals Breckinridge and Chaetham. And a Federal division commander named Wagner was evidently drunk at the battle of Franklin where he figured his division could whip the whole Rebel army by itself (well it WAS a very good division, tough Midwestern men). So he posted two of his brigades, 2500 men maybe, out by themselves in front of the Federal army. They were gobbled-up in no time by the 20,000 man Rebel assault. Well the veterans in the two brigades knew the story and took off a-runnin' for the main Federal line, a line of trenches about a quarter-mile to the rear. The Rebels followed on their heels and now the Feds in the main line couldn't fire because their own guys were in the way. The Rebels followed Wagner's men right into the Federal line and broke through. However Wagner's third Brigade, Opdycke's, was nearby in the rear resting and boiling coffee. These fellas were fightin' fools and at the sight of the breakthrough the men, on their own, grabbed their rifles and headed to the front in an immediate and viscious counterattack. Opdycke pushed his way to the front of the shouting mass of Illinoisans, Cheeseheads and Buckeyes as his men literally collided into the Rebel force and drove them back out of the Federal line in a tempest of rifle fire and hand-to-hand fighting. Opdycke ruined his revolver when he brained a Rebel with it, pretty intense. Opdycke was promoted and Wagner (who'd been a pretty good officer before this) was sacked. After the war Opdycke was killed in a gun accident, his revolver went off while he was cleaning it. Maybe it was suicide and hushed-up, I dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 So Steve are there still reminates of the battle that occured there? Reading this history it sounds like the town was completely leveled... Are there very many spots left that have not been developed on? Meaning are there very many places left in the Fredericksburg that has been preserved as it was durring the war? What about where burnside made his crossing into fredericksburg? Have you been there, have you seen it? Are the pontoon bridges still there or have they since erroeded away? Damn interesting stuff.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 And whats the difference between infantry and cavalry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Then it was horses, now it's helicopters. 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 1:12:28 PM m00n wrote: So Steve are there still reminates of the battle that occured there? Reading this history it sounds like the town was completely leveled... Are there very many spots left that have not been developed on? Meaning are there very many places left in the Fredericksburg that has been preserved as it was durring the war? What about where burnside made his crossing into fredericksburg? Have you been there, have you seen it? Are the pontoon bridges still there or have they since erroeded away? Damn interesting stuff.... ---------------- Nope, there are no more pontoon bridges. They probably been dismantled/destroyed by one of the armies during or after the battle. There are several battlefields in the area that are preserved (for the most part), such as Chancellorville, Spotsylvania Court House, The Wilderness, and the Sunken Road area. The house that was shot-up during the war (Brompton House) is still there in the Sunken Road/Marye's Hieghts area. That thing is riddled with bullet holes, which you can clearly see. There is a church right across the highway from my neighborhood (Salem Church), that has one side completely shot-up. You can still see the damage on the bricks. A few buildings still have cannonballs stuck in them downtown, as well as bullet holes and the like. Unfortunatly, alot of the area has been developed, but there are still signs around that a nasty war did occur in this area. Yep, I've been over there were Burnside made the crossing into town. And about the difference between infantry and cavalry. Infantry was foot-soldiers. The Cavalry was horse mounted (and now, as DeanG, pointed out, pretty much helicopters and tanks today - 1st Cavalry is now a tank unit). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Well steve... I just finished reading every weeks installment of the site. What an incredible bit of history. I need more pics now to put together with what I just read... Thanks for giving me that link. Hey, I found an image of the pontoon bridge at Rappahannock. What I find odd though is that there are no trees. Are there trees now? If so, why was there no trees then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Moon---Much of northeastern Virginia was farmed back in those days but has since reverted to scrubby second growth forest. The nature of southern agriculture in those days burned out the soil and the farmers would simply ruin a place and move on. Driving from Washington down to Norfolk you'll see some of the most depressing, worn-out, worked-over and ruined land it would ever be your displeasure to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 interesting. are there better farming regulations in place now? 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 7:33:40 PM m00n wrote: Hey, I found an image of the pontoon bridge at Rappahannock. What I find odd though is that there are no trees. Are there trees now? If so, why was there no trees then? ---------------- TBrennan is correct, most of the area was farmed for all it was worth. As you can see from the pictures of the dam I posted in that one other thread, you can see how forested it now is along the river. Also, as much of the area becomes residential areas, people plant trees in thier yards. My own neighborhood was a farm at one time, but now it is starting to get fairly treed up, due to people planting trees in thier yards. Here is a picture looking up-river from the Rt 3 bridge (which is right downtown), and you can see the amount of trees that are there today. That picture was taken the day after Hurricane Isabel went through, thus why it looks so high. Don't look anything like that old picture that you found, eh? 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.