Posted on 07/11/2004 7:17:56 PM PDT by SamAdams76
Yeah there might be a few vestigages left of its Southern heritage. But too many Northerners came in and changed the demographics. The same thing happened to Fairfax where I live.
Northern Virginia, my own abode, is not Southern anymore--to any extent--one has to get down near Richmond to feel like you're in the true South really.
Manassas, Faquier, and Front Royal are a little still. Personally when my parents made me move here when I was three I would have rather moved there then the liberal hell hole of Fairfax. But at least it beats Chicago.
I am astonished that Lincoln could even find the battlefied at Manasas to deliver his famous address.
"We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. (which is one of the things that makes debating history so much fun.)"
Hey, we agree on THAT!.....LOL!
As for Fredericsburg.....there wasn't an alternative for placing of the guns, any 2nd year West Point grad would have seen that. After walking the ground myself....I don't know that was a sign of ability, or just competency.
That "chicken" quote was accurate, and remains one of the more famous in a war full of them.
The fact remains the CSA had a curious ability to overshoot their targets. Perhaps it was due to poor manufacturing from gunpowder to fuses to the shells themselves. But in my mind, the CSA artillery was inferior to the Union's in most battles both in the Eastern and Western theaters.
A very good example is Gettysburg. ON day one, six horse artillery pieces fought to a virtual standstill an entire division worth of artillery from around 11 AM til the "rout" began back through the streets of the town.
On the second day, the Union Artillery performed very well by all accounts, with the CSA artillery contributing little if anything to that days events.
Both of the above are highly debatable, btw.
What can't be debated is the performance of CSA artillery on that famous third day. The "box barrage" as envisioned by Lee overshot the point of attack by more than 100 yards, causing significant damage among the Union's trains and "reserve artillery" but missing almost completely the aim point for Two Hours.
Alexander was a good artilleryman, no doubt about it. But lets not overlook how the CSA came to rely on a 28 year old (his age at Gettysburg). It was because they had no viable alternative to him. Alexander was no Henry Hunt on this score in my opinion.
I will say this. Alexander forever will be known as the man that formed the last line of battle for the CSA. That alone makes him special.
"Yes, they had minor disagreements, but as for Jackson wanting to do lots of things and Lee just ignoring him or ordering him not to do... just not true."
The "pike" story comes to mind.....as in Jackson's ordering the commission of thousands of pikes for his infantry. At the end of the war, they were still in the same warehouses in Richmond where they were originally sent after being made.
"Suppose that I detested the Shaara triology?"
Then it comes down to do you want to explore alternatives as they relate to the Civil War.
I find it facinating. Especially if you first do the "homework" to understand what really happened.
Gingrich's books explore the most intriguing (to me anyway) aspect of Gettysburg....what if Lee had followed Longstreets suggested course of action? That Gingrich takes it to a new extreme, having the CSA move almost fifty miles, not just "swing around to the right" but perform a forced march ala Jackson's run to Pope's supply base at Second Manassas, is stunning.
The fact Gingrich then sets up Longstreet defending Meade's "pipecreek line" just adds to it, in my opinion.
But, if you "detest" the Sharaa books, you probably are best served avoiding these books.
Thanks to the Reconstruction Era.
Hey, I resemble that remark.
"Yes, they had minor disagreements, but as for Jackson wanting to do lots of things and Lee just ignoring him or ordering him not to do... just not true."
Something else just came to mind. Jackson wanted to order his troops forward at Fredericksburg to contest the Union's crossing. Lee had to order him not to do so, citing the very obvious fact of the Union artillery on the other side of the river.
Always fun to consider this stuff.....(grin)
Sheesh. I am getting my geography confused. I am at work and didn't have time to check a map and am quite busy at the moment.
I meant South Carolina.
There were a couple of Forts around the Charlston Bay with Fort Sumtor in the middle of the bay.
If I remember correctly Fort Johnson was a Federal tax collection location. (I may be wrong as it has been awhile since I read about battle in Civil War History Magazine.) The fort was abandoned by the Federal troops and the southern troops took control of the fort. The Federal troops sought refuge at Fort Sumtor.
"The Civil War was the last Napoloeonic war, and the first fully modern war dependent upon railroads, and telegraphs."
Good post from you.
The three major facilities in the Charleston area, other than the arsenal, were Fort Sumter, Fort Moultrie, and Castle Pinkney. There was (and still is) a large customs house on (if memory serves) East Bay Street, built near the warfs where the duties would be collected. The forts were merely military faciliteis and none of them served as customs houses.
If there was a disagreement between the two, it came because Jackson wanted to fight at Anna Creek. This line would give the Confederates room to maneuver. Jackson realized that they could win at Marye's Height but not gain any advantage from the victory. The Union Army would slip across the river without pursuit.
When Lee set the line at Marye's Heights, Jackson obeyed... again according to his nature.
Well, winners do get to write the history books. You may be interested in reading "The Lost Cause," a history book written very shortly after the war (1866) for a more contemporary view. The book is written by E.A. Pollard.
If it is true that the winners write the histories, then it is also undoubtably true that the losers write the myths. And nowhere is that more true than when dealing with the Civil War.
You may be interested in reading "The Lost Cause," a history book written very shortly after the war (1866) for a more contemporary view. The book is written by E.A. Pollard.
And you may enjoy reading "The Cause Lost: Myths and Realities of the Confederacy" by William C. Davis.
Actually, when the pikes were ordered they were necessary. The Confederacy lacked weapons. They lacked rifles. Many volunteers who showed up at Camp Lee (Camp Instruction) or at Harpers Ferry where Jackson was to train them didn't have rifles. The pikes were ordered as defensive weapons. They weren't used because the rifles did come either via running the blockade or through the tremendous amount of guns that Jackson captured as he triumphed through the Valley.
Queenan's just trolling.
The DVD's are much more superior. On Disc 1 of the DVD series, there is a special feature that shows how the original film was totally remastered using some pretty impressive technology. They showed side-by-side scenes from the old and new film and the difference is astounding. The sound was remastered as well. The original version wasn't even in stereo!
I'm in the middle of volume 1 of the Shelby Foote series and I am hooked. It is the best account of the Civil War I've ever read.
Been there, done that, have the book (and read it).
My memory tells me it is more like this:
Ten Thousand theiving Yankees lie dead in Southern dust.
WE got ten thousand of um afor they got to us.
They died of Rebel Fever, of Southern shot and shell.
Those dirty theiving Yankees are better off in Hell!
:) Either way, the sentiment is the same....
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.