Union troops used Confederate officers as human shields

newsleader ^ | April 24, 2004 | Terry Shulman

[stainlessbanner]

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.

[#3Fan]

No evidence. Figures.

[carton253]

neo-rebs

Ahhh! Typical!

Your natural default is to insult.

You might have forgotten our run-in on another thread, but I have not.

You have enough freepers on this thread to post to and insult if they allow you. But not me...

You aren't worth the time nor the effort.

[#3Fan]

Ahhh! Typical! Your natural default is to insult.

How is "neo-reb" an insult? That you consider "neo-reb" an insult tells what your subconscious actually thinks about that secession to perpetuate slavery. I certainly wouldn't be offended to be called "neo-Unionist", or "neo-patriot". Why are you insulted by "neo-reb"? What is it about the rebs that makes it an insult to be compared to them?

You might have forgotten our run-in on another thread, but I have not.

I sure have. What was it about?

You have enough freepers on this thread to post to and insult if they allow you. But not me...

Look at this thread and you can see who it is that is stooping to starting personal attacks. Hint: Colt45, Stand Watie are two of the worst ones (if I have the right thread...there's three of them right now).

You aren't worth the time nor the effort.

You could at least prove your accusation of a lie.

[Badeye]

I really enjoyed reading your post.

Couple of points I do dispute. First, the "myth of the shoes". There wasn't any. Period. Its a myth, fostered by many authors, including two that won I believe Pulitzer's.

There was no "shoe factory" in Gettysburg. I strongly believe, with no hard facts to back it up, that this was concocted to allow Heth to "save face" for completely and totally disregarding Lee's orders. Heth was a "favorite" not just of Lee, but within Richmond's society from what I've pieced together. Hence his burial at Hollywood.

Second, I believe Jackson would have charged Cemetary Ridge on the evening of July 1st....and would have been destroyed in the effort. As I noted, even if he had in fact "captured" Cemetary Ridge, his Corps would have been so badly damaged it would have in effect been removed as a viable force for the rest of the campaign. Note the avenues of retreat from the Union perspective. At worst, they would have fallen back, possibly to the creek "line" Meade favored in the first place.

In short, taking Cemetary Ridge, if it was possible on the evening of July 1st, would only have excerbated the primary problem Lee faced....being seriously outnumbered, with long vulnerable supply lines.

Second, Lee did note during the war, according to some historians, his view that Jackson might have been counterproductive in the later stages of the war. I've read this in several books (yep, I can't remember which ones exactly, but will review this weekend to provide titles for you if you desire).

Lee did offer to resign, thats true. But he also NEVER called Gettysburg a "defeat". His view was that while they didn't "acheive all that they desired" they had in fact preempted the Union's planned "campaign" for the summer of 1863, and that "those people" remained quiet for the next six months after the battle, therefore some strategic goals were achieved.

Returning to the primary question concerning July 1st, 1863. You don't mention the distances involved moving Ewell's Corps to Gettysburg. Its not a long drive...but in the heat of July of that year, its a long walk even for troops used to being used as "foot cavalry". Keep in mind, they had been marching for a couple of weeks to this point, the last march being made as fast as humanly possible. There is quite a bit of evidence that the corps coming from the North and Northeast (Ewell and AP Hill's) were in fact exhausted at that point.

I completely agree with the mistake of ignoring Pettigrew's warnings, and the spy Harrison as well, btw, that stated Union Troops, specifically a "tidy bunch of blue bellies" as Harrison put it, were in Gettysburg.

I"m not aware of any Cavalry assigned to Ewell, or Hill, in significant numbers that would allow a recon in force (given its enemy territory, you wouldn't just send a sqaudron up the road under those circumstances).

What "I'm suggesting" is the exact opposite of what you state. I suggest had Jackson been at Gettysburg, and everything played out as it did, specifically Heth running amok seeking "glory" (thats exactly how I view Heth's actions) with Ewell and AP Hill arriving as they did, Jackson would in fact have charged the guns on Cemetary Hill. The only thing Howard did correctly that day was order troops to dig in mid afternoon of July 1st. Add to it the large number of cannon's already in place, it would have been one of the biggest slaughters in a war full of them.

You are correct, Jackson followed his orders to the letter. However, his commanders had a habit of not being that strict, as Jackson's own numerous diciplinary actions against them demonstrated over and over again. (To be fair, many of those actions were due to Jackson being....odd, to be polite....LOL).

As for Picketts Charge, yep thats what Longstreet said. That doesn't change the fact the only person that thought the attack would be sucessful besides Lee was Pickett.

Nobody can look over that ground and come to the same conclusion Lee did on the evening of July 2nd, or the morning of July 3rd. Longstreets staff was correct, the position was indeed "frightening in its strength".

As for Jackson "flanking" the position....given the convergence from all points of the compass to the south and east of the entire Union Army, I think had Jackson attempted one of his famous flanking manuevers, he would have run into the oncoming Corps still arriving during the night of July 1st, and the morning of July 2nd. I have a very hard time looking at the maps, and divining just what the "route" would be, given the terrain, and the locations of the various Union Corps coming up. Had Jackson done so, its very very likely he would find himself "taken in the flank", with no hope of relief given the position of the main body of the CSA to what would have been the far western end of the battlefield. As most have noted, the primary advantage of the Union was strong interior lines, while the CSA had to shift troops over miles and miles of roads, most of which were in clear view of the Union position atop Cemetary Ridge, Culps Hill, etc. Also, on the evening of July 1st, Buford's battered troops were ordered to the flanks....and Buford certainly wasn't Howard when it came to securing the flanks.

(I really enjoyed reading your post)

[Badeye]

Thus, you will find maps draw by Jedediah Hotchkiss, the map maker for Stonewall Jackson.

The map I mentioned yesterday that shows Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville and Spotsylvania was commissioned by Lee, and drawn by Hotchkiss. It looks very good on the wall in my den. (Of course, thats due to my wife's ability with framing, matting, and other aspects of this nature that I find confusing, troubling, and not worth the effort.....ROTFL!)

Thanks for the link!

[SoCal Pubbie]

Let me u��������derstand this. YOU are proud your ancestors sent an ill-equipped army, old men, women, and children to fight for their rebellion? You southrens get more pathetic all the time. The beaming parents of Palestinian suicide bombers have nothing on you!

[Polybius]

First you say:

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.

"Area makes the voter?" Where did I ever say such a thing? If you are going to debate, then debate me about what I actually said and not your own strawmen positions.

Then, in regards to San Francisco you say:

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.

So, which is it?

The fact that San Francisco is a city and not rural or the fact that gays tend to congregate there because they feel right at home?

In your map, is not San Diego, California blue because, being a "Navy town" it attracts conservative retired veterans who would never consider moving to San Francisco?

In your map, are Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio not considerd "cities"? Are they not blue because a Left-Winger who feels perfectly at home in < sarcasm> the great urban centers < /sarcasm> of Martha's Vineyard and Northern Maine would not be caught dead living in a conservative Texas city?

The North has been a mecca for liberalism, socialism and every left-wing ideology that immigrated from Europe to America at the end of the 19th Century and in the 20th Century.

After landing in America, every immigrant group tends to go where it feels most at home. The Scandinavians tended to go to far northern, more rural areas that reminded of home. The Cubans tended to go to South Florida that reminded them of Cuba. The European Leftists tended to go to Northern cities where they felt at home and created the left-wing meccas that are found there today.

This entire exchange with you started when I pointed out to another poster that the South is just as much a part of "America" as the old Union states and, today, is much more representative of traditional American values than are the old Union states.

Left-wingers are drawn to New England and New York like flies are drawn to honey.

If resurrected from their battlefield graves, Union soldiers would feel right at home with the average Southerner today and would look in horror at what has become of the old Union states.

[Badeye]

"The reason Lee was so succesful in the defense was because the early Union commanders simply let him."

Yep, and the fact that the Union leadership was much more concerned with not losing, instead of winning.

Throw in the laughable Allan Pinkerton's ridiculous assessments of CSA troop numbers (I can't help but laugh every time I see Pinkerton's booth at the ASIS convention each fall, when I think of the man himself during the CW), and you get a 12 month war extended to over four years.

[carton253]

The map that Lee used for Gettysburg was drawn by Hotchkiss for Jackson during the winter of 1863 while Jackson was at Moss Neck.

[Badeye]

"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."

He he he....likewise, I understand my friends, and extended family South of the Ohio river harboring thoughts that Sherman was insane, and depraved. I don't think either, obviously, but I understand the reasoning completely.

[Badeye]

"The map that Lee used for Gettysburg was drawn by Hotchkiss for Jackson during the winter of 1863 while Jackson was at Moss Neck."

So I've read. The reproduction I have hanging in my den reflects all three battles, and I think Lee commissioned Hotchkiss to draw that one up in the later stages of the war. I'll look closely at it and note the dates tonight, and post later what it says.

[Polybius]

Let me understand this. YOU are proud your ancestors sent an ill-equipped army, old men, women, and children to fight for their rebellion? You southrens get more pathetic all the time. The beaming parents of Palestinian suicide bombers have nothing on you!

Geez, SoCal Pubbie, you could put those words right into the mouth of King George III.

It it were not for the English colonies in America "sending an ill-equipped army of old men, women, and children to fight for their rebellion" and to be lead by Southern commanders in 1776, we would now be Canadians.

"Let me understand this. YOU are proud your ancestors sent an ill-equipped army, old men, women, and children to fight for their rebellion? You southrens get more pathetic all the time. The beaming parents of Palestinian suicide bombers have nothing on you."

"I cannot tell a lie, Your Majesty. Yes, the Southerners are proud that thier ancestors sent an ill-equipped army, old men, women, and children to fight for their rebellion."

[azhenfud]

"YOU are proud your ancestors sent an ill-equipped army, old men, women, and children to fight for their rebellion?"

Your question is, typically, indicative of many a Yankee understanding.
While Southern armies were fighting legitimate battles along fronts against more well-equipped troops, behind the lines of battle where only old men, women, and children were at their least defenses, Yankees raped and pillaged everything they could and burned and destroyed what they couldn't take.
Yes, I'm proud they fought as strongly as they could against a foe like Sherman and his thug "army".

[carton253]

First...the myths of the shoes. I think I said there were no shoes in Gettysburg since Early had very clearly reported that he cleaned Gettysburg out of shoes. Heth went to Gettysburg to provoke a fight... AP Hill disregarded Lee's order not to engage in a fight.

Second, there would have been no defense on Cemetary Ridge the night of July 1st... because the defense was set up only after Hancock arrived late in the afternoon. Up until then, the Yankees were in rout through Gettysburg. Howard had folded again.

Third, the round tops were not occupied by the Federals until late in the evening. Ewell did not take them when he could have. WHEN THERE WAS NO ONE UP THERE!

Please let me know what historians/books say that Lee thought Jackson was a liabilty. I have read much. From Freeman to Dabney and have never once read so much as a hint that Lee would think that about Jackson.

About whether Lee called Gettysburg a "defeat." Isn't that like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel to disregard all that Lee said and wrote about Gettysburg. He knew he had been defeated. He told the returning troops from Picketts Charge that it "was all his fault." He knew he had been beaten on the field, but he also knew that the spirit of the Army was high, and they would fight and win again...I love that about the Army of Northern Virginia.

Regarding the distance of Ewells movements that day of July 1st. This was the foot calvary. The one Jackson drove relentlessly throughout the spring, summer of 1862. No, sorry... that reasoning does not hold. As for AP Hill... he was already at Gettysburg the day of July 1st. He had arrived the night before. Both the Foot Calvary and the Light Brigade had marched under circumstances like that before, been fed into battle and emerged victorious. (AP Hill's march to Antietam is one such time).

AP Hill disregarded Pettigrew because Pettigrew was from North Carolina. Snobbery! Well, AP Hill showed his snobbish side when Jackson arrived at West Point.

Ewell and Hill had enough Calvary to do a recon if they wanted to. Furthermore, Grumble Jones and Bev Robertson were guarding the passes in the Valley. Lee knew that he had over 3600 troopers at his beck and call. He also knew that Stuart was at Hanover.

What I'm suggesting is that if Jackson had been at Gettysburg, AP Hill would not have been able to send Heth anywhere.

I don't know how you can say that the Union Position on Cemetary Ridge was secure enough to slaughter anyone on July 1st. They were only allowed to dig in for two reasons. The arrival of Hancock, who began to organize a defense, and the fact that Ewell and Hill stopped pursuing. Jackson would not have allowed that. If Hancock arrived in time for the II Corp to come sweeping down from the Round Tops and the heights, do you think Hancock would still have had time to dig in? Of course not. Only because the Union army was not pursued gave Hancock the necessary time to secure a line. Hancock is the hero of Gettysburg, but he gets very little credit.

Jackson's orders in battle were not disobeyed as wily-nily as you suggest. Yes, Jackson was eccentric...(that's part of his charm).

Pickett was a glory hound. Of course, he thought he could take that ridge. Pickett probably thought he could keep marching to Washington.

As for Jackson "flanking" the position....given the convergence from all points of the compass to the south and east of the entire Union Army, I think had Jackson attempted one of his famous flanking manuevers, he would have run into the oncoming Corps still arriving during the night of July 1st, and the morning of July 2nd.

I don't think you have your timing right.

Only the 11 Corp and the 1 Corp were at Gettysburg the afternoon of July 1st. Hancock left the 2nd Corp and rode to take control of the battle. The 11 Corp and 1 Corp were routed and falling back through Gettysburg. When they arrived at Cemetary Ridge (which was good ground), they were in chaos and badly outnumbered by the combined 2nd and 3rd Corps, which was Jackson's II Corp.

Ewell and Hill stopped the pursuit satisfied with the victory they had won. Jackson would not have stopped. That was his nature and his pattern throughout his military career.

July 2nd...

I'm saying if Jackson had been there, there would have been no July 2nd and no July 3rd. The II Corps would have command of the heights. Hancock would not have been able to dig in on Cemetary Ridge...and would have pulled back to Pipe Creek where Meade wanted to fight.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Well, either a "an ill-equipped army, old men, women, and children to fight for their rebellion" is a potent fighting force, or it's not. Which is it? You are arguing against Azenfud, since he is the one who described the confederacy in that way.

[Polybius]

Well, either a "an ill-equipped army, old men, women, and children to fight for their rebellion" is a potent fighting force, or it's not. Which is it?

It can be both.

See Valley Forge and Yorktown.

See barefoot and ill-eqippped Confederates and The Seven Days Battles, First and Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Cold Harbor, etc. etc.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Your statement is, typically, indicative of those small number of foolish southerners who bizarrely draw self aggrandizement by identifying with hundred year old lost causes and taking pride in battles they never fought.

I suppose you are equally proud of the Fort Pillow massacre, or are rebel atrocities okay? I am sensible enough to recognize faults wherever they are found, be that in Atlanta or Andersonville. This unhealthy attachment to a glorious confederacy that never existed is truly on par with the reparations for slavery crowd and the jihadists who can't get over the Crusades.

[SoCal Pubbie]

And Appomattox.

[Badeye]

"Second, there would have been no defense on Cemetary Ridge the night of July 1st... because the defense was set up only after Hancock arrived late in the afternoon."

We disagree on this key point. Howard detailed troops to dig in before Hancock arrived. This excerbated the tension between Howard and Hancock til Hancock began to cater to Howard's ego. This is clear from just about any book on the Gettysburg campaign that can be cited, as well as the better known works concerning the entire war, ala Shelby Foote, etc.

We do agree on Heth and the myth of the shoes. From what I've been told by the various Gettysburg Park employees, there wasn't even a shoe maker in Gettysburg, let alone a significant quantity of shoes. One of those Park Rangers completely and totally dispelled the myth in the past couple of years, I saw it on the History Channel at one point or another, and read his book on the subject.

The roundtops were in fact not occupied, I think you are confusing them with Cemetary Ridge and Culps Hill. No way Ewell could have reached them from his position without rolling up the entire Union defense moving from the town itself basically due south. Hence Lee pondering for a time ordering Ewell to march to the right flank of the CSA's position as it was at about 11 PM on July 1st. This was when Ewell objected, stating it would be "bad for morale to give up the town" with Lee's response being "the town does not matter, its of no military significance".

I agree with your comments attributed to Lee in the aftermath of the failed attack on July 3rd. However, Lee was quoted by many, including Porter Alexander, as saying that while they hadn't accomplished all that they had wished, he did not believe Gettysburg was a defeat. He specifically cited the fact the CSA was not "driven from the field" and again noted that the Army of the Potomac was "quiet as a dove" (paraphrase) for the next six months.

I too am in awe of the spirit of that army, btw.

In response to my comment that the "foot cavalry" was worn out from the march, you cite Jackson's abilities to move troops as undermining my statement. Jackson wasn't there, remember? His ability, not Hill's, not Ewells, was of singular importance. Either Jackson was THE driving force behind what was the 2nd Corps, or he was not. Old Jack's troops, magnificent as they were, never acheieved the legendary standards for movement they had set prior to his death, after he died. I'll also note the 2nd Corps was divided as you obviously know. His staff was still in mourning, still getting to know Ewell...to their chagrin he wasn't the man they or Lee had once known before his wounding. As is the case even today, a good Division commander doesn't necessarily make a good Corps commander.

The snobbery you note is clearly evident based on Lee's penchant for commanders from Virginia, a source of irritation to many within the Longstreets command. McLaw's in particular was in effect "screwed" the worst as a result of this, but thats another debate for another time, I suppose....(grin).

As for my timing, perhaps. I'll note that due to Lee's being blinded by his insistence on using only Stewart for recon work, the CSA had no idea where the Sixth Corps was, the largest of the seven available. A flanking attack where you know the enemy positions in detail, and know the flank is "in the air" ala Chancellorsville is one thing...a blind flanking manuever in enemy country, without adequate knowledge of the field, the dispositions of the enemy troops, and what exactly was coming from what direction....dangerous in the extreme in my opinion. Remember, Lee's biggest single complaint was that he had been "blind since coming across the river".

Lee also cited his "blindness" as a secondary reason for denying Longstreets advice to "move around to their left".

I don't think Lee would have attacked the Pipecreek Line in any event, btw. Have you read Gingrich's "what if" novel Gettysburg? Facinating book I highly recommend.

[carton253]

Okay... you are correct... I did not give Howard the credit he was due for realizing Cemetary Ridge was good ground. So, yes... Howard began to fortify the line on Cemetary Ridge before Hancock's arrival... but the key point I'm making is this occured because Ewell and Hill stopped the pursuit...something that Jackson would not have done.

Plus..there is the added bonus of the fear "Jackson is upon us..." would have played on the 11th Corp, but that's another story.

I can't believe that I confused the Round Tops with Culp Hill...Please forgive the oversight. I haven't been to Gettysburg so sometimes I get confused in the topography. That will change this summer when I go and see the battle re-enactments.

I think the conversation has changed. I thought we were doing a "what if Jackson had been at Gettysburg" kind of thing (which I like doing). I know Jackson wasn't there. I know who had the II and III Corps and the effects those generals had on the old II Corp.

What I'm saying is if Jackson had been there... Howard and Hancock would have never had a chance to set up a defensive line on Cemetary Ridge because Jackson would not have stopped the pursuit as easily as Hill and Ewell did.

The Battle would have moved to the Pipe Creek Line. Whether there would have been fighting there or not, we will never know.

I will debate that was Lee was blind due to lack of Calvary, Lee blinded himself because he insisted on Stuart and not used the men Stuart had left behind. Stuart was obeying orders by riding around the Union Army.

The 6th Corp was delayed because of Stuart. Meade was very well aware the JEB Stuart was between Washington and his Army...

I haven't read Gingrich's book... But don't bother reading Stonewall at Gettysburg. It was terrible.