Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Union troops used Confederate officers as human shields
newsleader ^ | April 24, 2004 | Terry Shulman

Posted on 04/27/2004 6:28:54 AM PDT by stainlessbanner

Edited on 05/07/2004 9:28:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Saddam Hussein's devilish practice of using human shields isn't exactly new. It was pioneered by an American, in fact, during the last year of the Civil War.

"Your officers, now in my hands, will be placed by me under your fire, as an act of retaliation," Union departmental commander Gen. John G. Foster wrote his Southern counterpart in an edict, and with that a sordid new standard was set in the conduct of war.


(Excerpt) Read more at newsleader.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: boysnotmen; culture; damnyankees; dixie; dixiecranks; dixielist; fauxchiponshoulder; flagobsessors; gayuniontroops; grantwasnotgay; history; masondixonline; poorpoorme; rebelwhiners; robertbyrd; shields; sorelosergirls; southernhonor; southronbullcrap; victimology; warcrimes; wbts; yankeeslavery; youlostgetoverit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-195 next last
To: Badeye
Whoa! I've read alot of things about Robert E Lee, and I've read alot of historians on the relationship between Lee and Jackson... and your take on it is the first I have ever heard.

Lee stated flatly that if Jackson had been at Gettysburg, he would have won. The three scholars (Gallagher, Krick, Robertson) on THE CIVIL JOURNAL (recent episode on RELee) on the History Channel say that the problem Lee had after Jackson's death was he fought still believing that Jackson was there.

Jackson won battles because Jackson won battles. He was a great general.

Personally, I don't believing having blind faith in God is a liability, but an asset... but that's just me.

The comment attributed to Lee in this regards was along the line that Jackson was a "wild animal, that left on his own would attack until not a man was left" which is a poor strategy when faced with overwhelming opposition.

Yet, how many times did Jackson do that? None that I know of.

Did you know Jackson actually commissioned thousands of pikes for his troops?

But he never used them. They were left rusting in a warehouse.

When left to his own devices, Jackson rarely ordered a frontal attack. That was Lee and Grant. Jackson did attack the front when ordered by Lee. Jackson was the great flanker. Who disappeared from the front and showed up in the rear.

If Jackson had been at Gettysburg, there would have been no Gettysburg. And if Gettysburg had happened the way AP Hill forced it to happen, then Meade would have pulled back to the creek line he advocated because Jackson would have taken the heights that were left undefended while the 1st and 11th corps were running for their lives.

121 posted on 04/29/2004 9:39:24 AM PDT by carton253 (I don't do nuance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: carton253
Lee's view of Jackson that I related was towards the very end of the war, circa 1864 I believe at Petersburg. Yes, Lee did claim if he had Jackson, he would have won "a great victory". As it was, Lee deluded himself into stating publicly Gettysburg "wasn't a defeat" citing the AOP's lack of movement for the six months after the battle. Thats absurd in my view, it was one of the few "rationalizations" General Lee ever offered concerning the conduct of the war.

He also claimed that Picketts Charge failed due to a "lack of coordination"....sorry, thats the most ridiculous excuse for a complete and total command failure in the annuals of war, in my opinion. Fact is to this day, Robert E Lee is the only man I know of that looks across that field towards the copse of trees and thought "Yep, thats the place to hit em!" The fact Lee acknowledged the gross error afterwards speaks for itself.

Those that want to believe Jackson would have made difference have to disregard quite a few military realities. For example, what was in fact waiting at the top of Cemetary Ridge for any southern forces that might attempt an attack in the twilight of July 1st. Uphill, against troops that had been digging in for approximately eight hours, backed up by corps level artillery?

It would have made Malvern Hill (a notable CSA defeat) look like a walk in the park. It would have made Fredericksburg look "rational" in comparision afterwards (in my opinion).

If the Confederates, under ANY commander, living or dead, had attempted that assault, they would have either been wiped out in the attempt, or in the extremely unlikely event they had been sucessful, it would have cost the Army of Northern Virginia one of its three Corps for all intents and purposes, again in my opinion. On July 2nd, Lee would be a full corps "down" with nothing but a meaningless hilltop in Pennsylvania to show for it, and I believe would have been forced to retire back to Virginia. No way could he attempt a ongoing "meeting engagement" smashing one Union corps after another, to even the odds, as he suggested to Trimble, among others, at Cashtown on the 29th or 30th of June.

The stated goal was to get the Union "out in the open" and destroy it. The fact is, Lee on the morning of July 2nd had the Union army in his sights, all right....however "in the open" isn't an accurate description of its state. It was dug in on the highground, with more than ample arty, and more on the way. They were fighting on their own "turf" which most historians note as a primary reason the Union troops fought much better than previously they had while in Virginia.

The simple truth is Bobby Lee let the previous victories, and the press reports, go to his head in June and July of 1863. He thought his "magnificent infantry" could accomplish anything he wished. That failure of command cost him any hope of ever winning the war.

I don't think Jackson's presence would have changed anything, with the possible exception the South might have lost the war right then and there. Just my opinion.

(I appreciate your knowledge on this topic, btw.)
122 posted on 04/29/2004 10:10:08 AM PDT by Badeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Really appreciate the maps you posted yesterday. I the "set" of three for Gettysburg hanging in my den, with another map of the Chancellorville, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania battlefields commissioned by Lee also hanging on the opposite wall.
123 posted on 04/29/2004 10:17:08 AM PDT by Badeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
Really appreciate the maps you posted yesterday. I the "set" of three for Gettysburg hanging in my den, with another map of the Chancellorville, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania battlefields commissioned by Lee also hanging on the opposite wall.

If you like Civil War maps, I would highly recommend:

The Official Military Atlas of The Civil War

This is a reprint of "The Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies." published by the War Department in the late 1800's.

What is fascinating it that the maps in the books are copies of actual Civil War maps used by both the Union and Confederate Generals during the war. Thus, you will find maps draw by Jedediah Hotchkiss, the map maker for Stonewall Jackson.

As these were maps drawn under time pressure, they may not always be accurate. However, they do represent the geographical "reality" that both Union and Confederate Generals had at the time.

124 posted on 04/29/2004 10:57:14 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
Badeye...

Lee didn't have that view of Jackson. Not during the war and certainly not after the war.

Lee called Gettysburg a defeat and offered to resign. Of course, it was turned down.

Pickett's Charge failed because (and I quote Longstreet) there are no 15,000 men alive that could take that ridge. Lee thought his men were invincible (his words) and he never thought they would be defeated.

Now let's talk the reality of Gettysburg with Jackson in charge of the 2nd Corp.

Eliminates 2 problems right there -- Ewell and AP Hill.

The 2nd Corp under Ewell was to menace or capture Harrisburg. At the same time, they were to gather supplies to help feed and outfit the army. Early went to Gettysburg and cleaned them all out of shoes.

Ewell moved cautiously toward Harrisburg, allowing the Militia to burn the bridges over the river. Jackson, known for his great speed, might not allowed that to happen.

Ewell was called back from Harrisburg to Gettysburg. Gettysburg was never Lee's objective. It became Lee's objective because of the roads.

AP Hill did four things... He ignored reports from Johnston Pettigrew that dismounted Union calvary was in Gettysburg. He told Lee it was militia. He ignored Early's reports that Gettysburg had been cleaned out of shoes. Third, he sent Heth's whole brigade into Gettysburg under the pretext of getting shoes. He did not use the Calvary that he had to check and see if Pettigrew was correct.

Now, suppose that Jackson sat where Hill sat. The whole battle started because of Hill's provoking the fight. Would Jackson provoked the fight in such a slip shod manner when he was under orders not to. No. One thing about Jackson. He was literal on orders.

Lee's army had calvary. The notion that JEB Stuart was skylarking through Pennsylvania while Lee was stumbling blind in enemy territory was wrong. Jackson knew how to use his calvary. There would have been no stumbling into the fight.

But let's say that Jackson did stumble into the battle the same way that Heth did. That first day, things worked out great for Lee. The 1st and 11th Corp were caught between two flanks of the Confederate Army. Reynolds was dead and Oliver Howard was in charge. Hancock would arrive around 4:00, but by then, the Union Army was in route.

What you are suggesting is that Jackson would not have pursued the disorganized and retreating Union Army. What you are suggesting is that Jackson would never have realized that the heights had to be taken. (They were unoccupied until late in the evening... late afternoon, the two round tops had no Union Soldiers. ) That some how Jackson would have forgotten his military training and genius. I don't think so.

What you are asking someone who has studied Jackson to believe that Jackson would have stopped the pursuit, then turned against his very nature, and go cautious...

Trimble and Jackson's staff now assigned to Ewell realized that Ewell had made a mistake that Jackson would have never made it. Trimble told Ewell directly, "General Jackson would have never stopped like that...with the Yankees on the run and the heights open." Sandy Pendleton left Ewell and cried out, "Oh, for the spirit of Jackson for an hour."

But let's say that Jackson, for all intents and purposes, stopped cold like Ewell.

What you are suggesting is that Jackson, the great flanker, who's Valley Campaign was studied by Patton and Rommel, who's Valley Campaign is still studied in the US Army, would have not flanked the Union Army at the Round Tops?

No, the end result of the first day of battle would have been the 2nd Corps on the Round Tops... Cemetary Ridge abandoned by Hancock, who would have realized that he couldn't hold the position with Confederate artillery on his flank.

Meade would have gone ahead with his defensive line at Pipe Creek... If there would have been a battle, it would have been there.

125 posted on 04/29/2004 11:31:56 AM PDT by carton253 (I don't do nuance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
You are certainly welcome to keep your opinion of Sherman. That is fine with me.

But you should keep in mind that in dealing with people like Sherman, observable behavior is the window of character, and his behavior is well documented as destructive for expediency.

"this portrayal of what happened" is based on letters, first hand observations, and records from the day. It is not a Ken Burns portrayal. It is the record of anguish of common people. It is the proof of the level of depravity of Sherman's march.

In your own words, your opinion of Sherman is based on his letters. His duality was schizophrenic in nature, as was well documented, especially in his letters.

And by the way, I can certainly understand my friends north of Virginia that would take Sherman, and Lincoln who advocated his depravity, out of context and advocate their humanity as documented in their prose and poetry, not their actions. Very prudent.

126 posted on 04/29/2004 11:59:56 AM PDT by PeaRidge (Lincoln would tolerate slavery but not competition for his business partners in the North)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

Comment #127 Removed by Moderator

To: Badeye
The reason I feel what I said is right is the fact that both Lee and Grant was line up every thing you have got and go regardless of loses. This tactic would have broken the back of the South very early in the war. The reason Lee was so succesful in the defense was because the early Union commanders simply let him.
128 posted on 04/29/2004 6:45:19 PM PDT by U S Army EOD (John Kerry, the mother of all flip floppers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
But you would note that some of the Yankees will be the first ones to castigate a Southerner for flying the CBF. They would also be first in line to slander the Southern soldier who did his duty, fought HONORABLY, and never brought harm to civilians.

YANKEES SUCK!

129 posted on 04/29/2004 8:02:05 PM PDT by Colt .45 ( Veteran - Pride in my Southern Ancestry! Falsum etiam est verum quod constituit superior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
You haven't "added" anything. You are just perpetuating your apparent lack of understanding of "on the average".

You implied that it was the area that makes a voter. I disagree with that implication and provided proof on my homepage to back up my point. The map on my homepage shows it is rural vs urban, not north vs south, contrary to your misleading post.

I never said that. I mentioned that the Northern population, "on the average" and in absolute numbers is more liberal than the Southern population.

That is an incomplete point that misleads. I think that the number of urban vs rural should be pointed out and so I pointed it out. Why are you so against me pointing that out? I'm simply adding my opinion to your point. Can't you accept that on a discussion forum opinions will be presented?

I went to a conference in San Fransico last month so, for three days, I was included in the day to day population of San Francisco. The fact that I was not gay or far left-wing in my politics did not change the fact that, on the average, the poulation of San Francisco is more gay and far left wing than any other city I have ever spent three days in.

A relevant point would be that it is a gay mecca, that it may not be the city, but that gays tend to congregate there.

Your point is that there is no difference in the population of San Francisco considering straight conservatives vs gay ultra-liberals.

Where did I say that? I said nothing about San Francisco or gays. All I said was that the northern states are affected by the populations of the cities to contradict your implication that southern voters were better because of the area. I think my homepage proves your implication false.

You insist on comparing individual apples with orange populations.

Yes because it is relevant. My map is a very important map. It shows the true separation in America and while you try to imply that it's south versus north, my map proves it is really rural vs urban.

130 posted on 04/30/2004 3:20:16 AM PDT by #3Fan (Kerry to POW-MIA activists: "You'll wish you'd never been born.". Link on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie; billbears
"Well, if I was one of your coworkers, I would remind you that my ancestors kicked your ancestors' asses six ways til Sunday, then spend the rest of the day laughing."

Yeah, they did, didn't they? An ill-equipped army, old men, women, children. They really kicked them. Something only a true Yankee can be proud of...

131 posted on 04/30/2004 3:30:41 AM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Josef Stalin
The slavery issue was the main lightning rod in the controversy between the two nations. Slavery happened to be the big issue that was dividing the camps, but it was really not so much a discussion of the morality of same, as much as an issue of politics. The proof in that is that the emancipation proclamation itself, as it did not free the slaves in the Union controlled areas,...

The EP has nothing to do with secession. The south seceded much earlier than when the EP was proclaimed, and because they felt slavery was threatened by the election of Lincoln, as their Declarations of Secession make clear. Plus, Lincoln could not control the northern states as he could the southern ones, being that they so-conveniently rebelled, and he ended slavery where he could.

...secondly, the fact that Linkum offered to allow the South back into the Union as slave holding States with a cessation of hostilities, and thirdly the fact that slavery existed for another year after the fall of the CSA belies that the North opposed it on moral grounds. The only "morality" issue was rhetoric from the extremist abolitionist nut cases...

You say that anyone who is against slavery is a "nut case"?

...and for political propaganda.

No way. Some really believed slavery was wrong. Even Jefferson, a slave-owner, knew that slavery was wrong.

The issue was that the Federal government was imposing its will upon the sovereign States. Similar to the forced busing mandate of later.

It was in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution and the Word of God.

We were effectively two nations before secession anyway, and the Radical Republicans overtly reperesented the Northeastern liberal establishment and made it clear that their policies were for the best interests of the Northeast and to the detriment of the South.

Actually, slavery was killing the south because it was holding up technological innovation. We see the same thing today. The liberals love their filthy lucre of high taxes, even though high taxes hurt everyone.

The election of Linkum by barely winning a third of the overall vote basically forced the South to either secede or continue on in servitude. They chose freedom from tyranny and unfortunately we lost the second War of Independence.

Slavery was tyranny and your secession was for filthy lucre, not for freedom.

Some of the "POWs" probably were escaped slaves trying to kill their masters, that in itself was a capital offense.

They were POWs and their murder was a war crime.

This occurred just on the heels of Shermans "famous" March to the Sea, and I am sure most of Forrests men were all too aware of what crimes were being waged against their homes and families by the war criminals Sherman et al.

Sherman went after supplies, not after POWs.

Being human they finally tossed out their Southern manners which Lee displayed twice when invading the North, and took it out on those unfortunate goaded souls at Pillow. Don't judge from your Ivory Tower in liberal la la land, you must put yourself back in those times and in the same context.

No way. Murder is murder and the murder of POWs is especially atrocious.

I would be a bit peeved at the North and the runaway slaves about that time too,...

Imagine the nerve of those runaway slaves, not willing to put up with the tyranny of slavery all their lives. /sarcasm You're really showing the ugly side of neoconfederatism.

...especially if I had people and property under the boot of Sherman.

The south wanted war, started war, and got war.

I must have wrongly assumed from the CNN like mantra you were parroting out that you were a Rat, sorry. Is it the Green Party then, or Socialist International instead?

I repeat that you are a liar.

Their you go again with the Al Sharpton routine.

It's the truth. That's why they formed...to harass blacks and those that would help blacks.

The blacks were then as they are today manipulated by their carpetbagger masters into voting for and keeping in power the cabal of socialist tyrants bent on punishing any who dare achieve. Republicans at that time hated the South and all that it stood for, that was there election platform in 1860. So while the carpetbaggers were plundering the South and having their "useful idiots" (blacks) give them the votes they needed the regular folks were losing their farms, and were desperate. There was no where to turn as the Federal government was still in punishment mode. Therefore a free people gathered together and formed the original KKK to fight back against the tyranny imposed on them. They in fact were quite successful as they put the fear of God into the carpetbaggers and their dupes.

So you support their lynchings of blacks??!! Like I said, you are really showing the ugly side of neoconfederatism.

They were anti tyranny under Forrest. Shermans lawless troops, killed, raped, and burned out more blacks than did Forrest and his band of merry men.

Prove your extraordinary claim with a link. Union armies actually would have mobs of blacks following them as they freed the slaves.

Shermans animals did not distinguish black or white and did as they pleased to all. He also, under Linkums directives used the point of bayonet to recruit captured blacks for the Army. More socialist tyrrany at work.

I don't know whether what you say is the truth but as freed people they could be drafted even if true.

Yes, the KKK was formed after the demise of the CSA, the KKK therefore was made up of oppressed countrymen, not "rebels".

Rebels.

That comment belies your CNN-bred bias.

Liar.

How do you know the slaveholders were "full of hate"?

The murder of blacks and Republicans is a pretty strong hint. Even Forrest left them because he knew the murders they were committing could not go on.

Actually De Toqueville wrote about his tour of the USA circa 1830 that the races got along best in the slave States, and racism was worst in the so called "Free States".

The same could be said about the Soviet Union. Where there is tyranny, there is discipline in a lot of cases and crime was low in the Soviet Union.

The slave owners kids were raised by slaves and their kids grew up together, so upon reaching adulthood had a close relationship. Many Slaves followed their masters into battle, others stayed behind to run the farms and plantations.

When the Siberian slave camps were shut down many slaves stayed there because it was the only life they knew. So the fact that some masters had their slaves brainwashed makes no difference to the wrongness of slavery.

If these same slaves were so oppressed as CNN et al blather they would have run amok with no law to rein them in.

Wrong. They lived under slavery so long they didn't know how to live otherwise. That doesn't make slavery right.

As De Toqueville noted the real racism was in the North as that was a big reason they outlawed slavery, not becuase it was immoral but because they wanted all the blacks out of their States. Again the flag of hate was the Stars and Stripes, where racism reigned and whose slave ships it flew on. All slaves were imported under the stars and stripes, not the under the flag of secession, again contrary to Al Sharptons bilge.

At least we didn't vow to perpetuate slavery as the south did. The Underground Railroad ran north, not south.

Self evident.....

No answer?

132 posted on 04/30/2004 4:31:05 AM PDT by #3Fan (Kerry to POW-MIA activists: "You'll wish you'd never been born.". Link on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
I don't think you can say that.

First of all, except for Fredricksburg, Lee wasn't on the defense, he was on the offense.

Second of all, he did things that the Federals didn't expect.

The reason that the sightings of the II Corps flanking at Chancellorsville were reported as retreat was because the Union Generals did not believe that Lee would divide his army twice. Because Lee was unconventional (audacious is the word bandied about the most) he confounded the Union Army.

Another thing so easily dismissed in your post is that Lee knew the character of the Union Generals. He had fought with or taught many of them. The fact that he could accurately gage how McClellan or Burnside would react was Lee's strength and not a Federal weakness.

I've heard this line of reasoning trying to explain away Jackson's Valley Campaign. The Union Generals who fought Jackson had an enigma on their hands. Jackson didn't fight like they expected. At night, he would be in their front... In the morning, he would be gone. A day later, he would be in their rear. When he disappeared, they didn't know where he went.

Furthermore, by time Grant got to Lee, Lee's army was defeated. He had lost too many generals, too many men and didn't have enough munitions, food, and war materiel to do much against a relentless war machine. When Lee got into Petersburg, Lee himself knew that he had lost.

I think it would have been an interesting match up to have Lee go up against Grant when both the Confederate Army and Union Army was at full strength. When Lee had both the services of Longstreet and Jackson. BeforeJEB Stuart's horses lacked so much fodder that they could only ride two or three hours before having to stop and be rested. Sheridan might not have had an easy time of it. (Actually, Union officials said it was only after the death of Stuart did the Confederate Calvary become beatable).

I know that last paragraph makes war sound like a football game and that is not my intention.

But I think your statement that Lee was only successful because the Union Army was incompetent is dismissive and wrong.

What say you!

133 posted on 04/30/2004 5:09:41 AM PDT by carton253 (I don't do nuance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
Sorry, but "some practices that would get you shot as a spy (fighting "out of uniform" or in the other sides uniform) were regularly done by cavalry troopers on both sides" is still doctrine. The Germans you refer to were in US uniform illegaly, they were shot legally.

The 'regular' events you cite concerning cavalry troops in the war of Southern Independence had much to do with rival forces trying to intimidate their adversaries - and they were usually hung.

134 posted on 04/30/2004 5:28:22 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: carton253
...the Union Army was incompetent...

McClellan was incompetent!...or antiwar...or pro-CSA...or maybe all three. Sherman had no problems with the Union army, that's for sure.

135 posted on 04/30/2004 5:31:00 AM PDT by #3Fan (Kerry to POW-MIA activists: "You'll wish you'd never been born.". Link on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Don't post to me... I found you to be dishonest and a boor!
136 posted on 04/30/2004 5:40:15 AM PDT by carton253 (I don't do nuance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: carton253
Crybaby. lol
137 posted on 04/30/2004 5:42:39 AM PDT by #3Fan (Kerry to POW-MIA activists: "You'll wish you'd never been born.". Link on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: carton253
Dishonest where, by the way? Or are you like most other neo-rebs who accuse on no evidence?
138 posted on 04/30/2004 5:43:48 AM PDT by #3Fan (Kerry to POW-MIA activists: "You'll wish you'd never been born.". Link on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
So, because the Yanks decide to bombard a city, you think that is a just comparison? I think not.
139 posted on 04/30/2004 5:49:56 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Bite me!
140 posted on 04/30/2004 5:54:28 AM PDT by carton253 (I don't do nuance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-195 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson