To: chajin; henkster; CougarGA7; BroJoeK; central_va; Larry Lucido; wagglebee; Colonel_Flagg; Amagi; ...
News of the War: Highly Interesting from the Federal Capital – 2-5
Troops for the War – 5
Naval and Military Movements – 5-6
Important from Montgomery: The Secession of Virginia-The Intentions of Jeff. Davis-Washington to be Attacked – 6
Editorial: How the War Shall be Waged – 6-7
Arms for the Rebels – 7
Editorial: A New Method of Warfare – 7
Editorial: A Word to Volunteers – 7-8
Editorial: Volunteer Uniforms – 8
Editorial: Mr. Russell’s First Letter to the London Times – 8-9
The Food of the South – 9
Two Days Later from Europe – 9
3 posted on
05/01/2021 7:10:49 AM PDT by
Homer_J_Simpson
("Every nation gets the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
To: Homer_J_Simpson; x
"Editorial: A New Method of Warfare – 7" Our editors are very concerned about ease of sabotage of modern new inventions, especially locomotives and steamships.
Though, curiously, they don't use that obvious word, "sabotage" for it.
It begs for explanation and, lo & behold, here it is:
"The word sabotage is found in 1873–1874 in the Dictionnaire de la langue française of Émile Littré.[3]
Here it is defined mainly as 'making sabots, sabot maker'.
It is at the end of the 19th century that it really began to be used with the meaning of 'deliberately and maliciously destroying property' or 'working slower'.
In 1897, Émile Pouget, a famous syndicalist and anarchist wrote "action de saboter un travail" ('action of sabotaging or bungling a work') in Le Père Peinard[4] and in 1911 he also wrote a book entitled Le Sabotage.[5]"
So, our editors have presented us with a detailed definition of a word which does not, as yet, exist -- sabotage.
It is a word/definition which will concern Union forces throughout the war.
4 posted on
05/01/2021 3:53:32 PM PDT by
BroJoeK
((a little historical perspective...) )
To: Homer_J_Simpson; colorado tanker
"Editorial: Volunteer Uniforms – 8"
Our editors are wisely concerned about the uniforms soldiers wear, and they have some things right -- uniforms must be simple, quick to put on, "on a surprise", should protect against the elements, should allow for ease of movement and should not include bright colors, or anything else which might catch the eye of a sharpshooter at a distance.
They are also right about the colors -- "The different shades of grey, light blue and brown are best for uniforms.
Red, black, dark green and dark blue are very unfit for soldiers' wear."
Confederates seem to have taken this advice, the Union, not so much.
But the single biggest point about Civil War uniforms, which our editors entirely overlook, is exactly that: they must, must be uniform.
In the heat & smoke of battle, any variations in uniforms are easily mistaken -- friend for foe, foe for friend.
I fear this seemingly minor point, here entirely overlooked, may cost the Union a major battle if not corrected... ![]()
5 posted on
05/02/2021 2:14:14 AM PDT by
BroJoeK
((a little historical perspective...) )
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson