Posted on 07/03/2008 6:28:24 AM PDT by mware
Hancock was another who never recovered from his wound, even though he became governor of PA. Don't know if it's true, but I read a fictional account of how they found the leather and fabric that was still inside his body that was killing him, saying a doctor designed a sling that worked like a saddle so that when they put Hancock in it, they could probe in the direction that he would have been sitting when he was in the saddle at Gettysburg.
The really bad thing about these is that you didn’t get a “flesh wound” if you got hit in the arm or leg. Chances were, you got a compound fracture that required them to amputate.
It’s unfortunate the reputation Civil War doctors have due to the large number of amputations performed. The wounds were so severe that amputation would in most cases be the only option even today.
Yah, the numbers are horrific, something like 20-30% of all wounded were amputees.
For a general leading the side that supposedly is "playing defense," this is an unacceptable level of loss, one doomed to defeat. "
No flame here, just a gentle reminder:
But of course, Lee wasn't "playing defense," in the sense of sitting behind fortifications and waiting for northern attacks.
Lee understood that the best defense was an active offense, and the only way to defeat the North's superior numbers was: first draw them out of their positions.
That was the whole idea of Gettysburg.
And note what the Union army did -- they followed Lee north, then immediately took up defensive positions at Gettysburg.
In that age, the army on offense expected to lose more troops than the army on defense.
So Lee's high casualties were the result of being on offense.
When "butcher" Grant put his army on offense, they also suffered high casualties.
Resolved, That in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution as the only solid foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a framework of government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of all the States, both Northern and Southern. Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States. Resolved, That the direct interference of the military authorities of the United States in the recent elections held in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware was a shameful violation of the Constitution, and a repetition of such acts in the approaching election will be held as revolutionary, and resisted with all the means and power under our control. Resolved, That the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired, and they hereby declare that they consider that the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution — the subversion of the civil by military law in States not in insurrection; the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the open and avowed disregard of State rights; the employment of unusual test-oaths; and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defense is calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a Government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. Resolved, That the shameful disregard of the Administration to its duty in respect to our fellow citizens who now are and long have been prisoners of war and in a suffering condition, deserves the severest reprobation on the score alike of public policy and common humanity. Resolved, That the sympathy of the Democratic party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiery of our army and sailors of our navy, who are and have been in the field and on the sea under the flag of our country, and, in the events of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that the brave soldiers and sailors of the republic have so nobly earned.
Yes, but interestingly, even on offense, the Union’s casualty rates were lower than Lee’s-—7 Days’ Battles, for example. And I’m not even throwing in the overwhelmingly lopsided surrender of Vicksburg to Grant, or Ft. Donelson. In those, the Confederacy lost 100% of its men deployed, and, no, Lee wasn’t in charge of either.
BTW, part of NJ is below the Mason/ Dixon Line.
Just speaking from personal family history, 5 of my great great uncles fought in that war. Two for the Confederacy and three for the Union. One died in Andersonville, two died at the Battle of the 7 Day battle of the Wilderness (one for the CSA, the other for the USA) The other two both came home.
The battle was fought in central Virginia over the same ground as the Battle of Gaines' Mill during the Seven Days Battles of 1862. In fact, some accounts refer to the 1862 battle as the First Battle of Cold Harbor, and the 1864 battle as the Second Battle of Cold Harbor. Soldiers were disturbed to discover skeletal remains from the first battle while entrenching. Despite its name, Cold Harbor was not a port city. It described two rural crossroads named for a hotel located in the area (Cold Harbor Tavern, owned by the Isaac Burnett family), which provided shelter (harbor) but not hot meals. Old Cold Harbor stood two miles east of Gaines' Mill, New Cold Harbor a mile southeast. Both were approximately 10 miles (16 km) northeast of the Confederate capital of Richmond
interesting bit about the name cold harbor. had not heard that before.
the similarities between 1864 and now politically are amazing to me. the fact that almost no one remembers what the dems said and did is incouraging. i dont think 100 years from now they will record the dems anti-war stance either. they will remember Bush.
Wasn't cold, either. Not in June.
Cold Harbor has traditionally been held up as a Union bloodbath and an example of Grant's butcher tendencies. But recent research has uncovered quite a different picture. Gordon Rhea, who has done a four volume study on Grant's overland campaign, examined muster rolls regiment by regiment before and after the battle and has concluded that Union casualties were actually a fraction of the 13,000 that are usually quoted. He comes up with a figure of about 6,000 total casualties, and while that number is about 4 times the confederate losses it is still is considerably less than the 13,000 quoted. It is about the same number the confederates lost at Malvern Hill or Pickett's Charge.
His use of primary documents, music, and photographs gave you a glimpse into a time gone by.
One of the most rememberable parts of it, was a photo taken from Cold Harbor, with the words of a journal found in the hand of a dead soldier.
"Today I died."
A truly magnificent work and one which I credit for my interest in the Civil War. Twenty years later I have him to thank for the hundred or so books on the subject that I have littering my den. (Which my wife calls my "Devil's Den". She thinks she's a very funny individual.)
Burns focused on the entire war, Rhea on a single campaign. And his work came along long after Burns released his documentary. It's a question of focus. I have no reason to doubt Rhea's research, and no criticism of Burns for quoting what up until now where commonly accepted figures.
Sadly most of Burns other works have fallen far short of that project.
Not every work by any author can be a great classic. So what did Homer compose after he finished the Iliad and the Odyssey?
The definitive documentary on other events still awaits an author.
during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part,
and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty,
and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States."
Yours is one of the more amazing posts I've seen.
Those people never change, do they?
"Let's STOP THE WAR, NOW.
Let's call a peace conference.
Let's NEGOTIATE a settlement peacefully.
Instead of war-war, let's talk-talk.
Of course, the South would no more agree to rejoin the Union than we would agree to rejoin Great Britain.
I thought his "Baseball" was just as good. His documentary on "Jazz" was, I'm sure, of equal quality but the subject didn't interest me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.