1913 Gettysburg Reunion of Blue and Gray

Huntington News ^ | June 14, 2013 | Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.

[BigReb555]

A highlight of the reunion was the Confederate Veterans walk on the path of Gen. George Pickett’s charge that was greeted, this time, by a handshake from the Union Veterans.

[rockrr]

Since the secessionists were democrats I suspect vote fraud ;-)

[tanknetter]

I’m not a Civil War scholar by any means, more of an enthusiastic amateur who knows more about it than the average bear, but I’ve never heard the bit about Lee really going after Harrisburg and specifically the rail lines for use as a bargaining chip. Any further information you have on that - detailed articles you can point me to etc, would really be appreciated.

Popular wisdom on the Pennsylvania Campaign has Lee going there to feed and supply his forces, getting them out of Virginia and giving the Shennadoah Valley a respite. Secondary goal was to try to draw the Army of the Potomac into a decisive battle on Lee’s terms.

Something that I’ve seen overlooked in discussions about Gettysburg is that while Meade couldn’t allow Lee to get behind him and between him and Washington, Lee was in a similar position. Lee needed to prevent Meade (or, rather, the Army of the Potomac) from getting between him and Cashtown Gap - his escape route to VA if things went bad.

It seems to me that if Lee was really going for Harrisburg he would have gone straight for Harrisburg instead of fanning his army out across a wide arc to the a Southeast like he did.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "The vote was razor thin in Virgina, with the secession just barely passing 114,260 to 20,352.
A real sqeaker."

Interesting to note, if I counted correctly about 1/3 of West Virginia's counties voted for secession.

But the first vote in the Virginia Secession Convention, on April 4, 1861, was 88 to 45 against secession.

At the same time a convention leader met with President Lincoln, who reportedly offered to abandon Fort Sumter if the Virginia convention would adjourn.
Lincoln's offer was refused and so he went ahead with the Sumter resupply mission.

After Sumter, and Lincoln's call for troops, all Upper South states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas) felt compelled to chose sides, and however reluctantly chose their fellow slave-holders' Confederacy.

In Border States (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri) the Slave Power was simply not numerous enough to win a secession vote.
So while some of their young men did serve the Confederacy, far more supported Union forces.

[0.E.O]

central_va: "The vote was razor thin in Virgina, with the secession just barely passing 114,260 to 20,352. A real sqeaker."

Squeaker or not, it was a total farce. The Confederate Congress had voted to admit Virgnia as a state a week or so before the referendum was held. Regardless of what the vote count had been, Virginia was headed into rebellion.

[BroJoeK]

tanknetter: "I’ve never heard the bit about Lee really going after Harrisburg and specifically the rail lines for use as a bargaining chip.
Any further information you have on that - detailed articles you can point me to etc, would really be appreciated."

It comes from this book, which I have in paperback, but see now it's also available by Kindle.

The book and its authors are highly regarded in their efforts to provide backgrounds and explanations for what Lee did at Gettysburg, and why.

Among other things, it explores strategic thinking that Lee and Davis shared.
Their goals for this operation went far beyond a mere raid (such as Morgan's raid into Kentucky, Indiana & Ohio).
Instead they saw it as an opportunity to strike a decisive blow and break the Union's will to fight.

In this discussion, they mention a plan to take and hold Harrisburg's major rail yards, and at this point, I'm posting from memory (away from home) and can't tell you more details.

But, for whatever my opinion might be worth: it's a great book, and I think you'll finish it with a higher respect for Robert E. Lee as a general than the common view of his performance at Gettysburg would lead one to expect.

[tanknetter]

It comes from this book, which I have in paperback, but see now it's also available by Kindle.

Thanks! I'm going to look into getting it (prefer paper to electrons for things like this). I think I may have spotted it on the shelf of my local used bookstore last week (they had Bruce Catton's Army of the Potomac trilogy that I bought instead of the other books I was looking at).

But, for whatever my opinion might be worth: it's a great book, and I think you'll finish it with a higher respect for Robert E. Lee as a general than the common view of his performance at Gettysburg would lead one to expect.

I've never really thought that the common view of Lee's performance at Gettysburg did him enough credit. There were a heck of a lot of mistakes to spread around on both sides of Emmitsburg Pike. One book I really enjoyed on the subject was "Lost Triumph" by Tom Carhart that, albeit relying on a lot of circumstantial evidence, claims that Lee really did have a winnable plan for the third day. If you haven't read it yet, I'd highly recommend it.

[dsc]

I haven’t responded to those who have posted responses on this topic for a few reasons, the main one being that I just don’t have the time and energy to rehash this yet again.

I have no idea how to shake the faith of those who have been taught that “the South started the Civil War to protect slavery.”

The North started the war to prevent the southern states from seceding peacefully, as was their right. The notion that the war was being fought to free the slaves caused a draft riot in New York City.

If you’d asked a southern soldier if he was fighting to protect slavery, he’d probably have thought for a moment, scratched, spit some tobacco and said, “Well, yes, that too, I suppose.”

The way the basic humanity of the southerners is denied is a damned shame.

When the northern army of occupation moved into the South after the war, the ladies of the northern officers complained that they could find no suitable household servants. Some southern ladies, hoping to help people they had known all their lives, recommended former slaves of their acquaintance.

Oh, no! Quoth the northern ladies. We wouldn’t have negroes around the house.

The black and white, comic-book caricature showing the North as heroic and the South as demonic haters of negroes is nothing more than garbage ginned up by leftards to serve their own cause.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

[rockrr]

No doubt the kool-aid flavor you prefer is mint julip?

[BroJoeK]

dsc: "I haven’t responded to those who have posted responses on this topic for a few reasons, the main one being that I just don’t have the time and energy to rehash this yet again."

You sound like that IRS administrator who recently testified before Congress: "I am totally innocent of all wrong-doing, and now I take the fifth and refuse to answer any questions."
Why do you suppose nobody believes her?

dsc: "I have no idea how to shake the faith of those who have been taught that 'the South started the Civil War to protect slavery.' "

Of course, it's not "faith", it's facts.
To state those facts precisely, it's:

1. Seven Deep-South states declared their secession for the sole purpose of protecting slavery against the perceived threat represented by anti-slavery Republican President-elect Lincoln.
   So how do we know this for sure?
   They told us, in their official Reasons for Secession.
   • South Carolina,
   • Mississippi,
   • Georgia,
   • Texas

2. At the same time, four Upper South states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas) refused to secede just to protect slavery.

3. The Deep-South Confederacy, realizing it would fail if more states didn't join, determined a course of action to provoke (by seizing Federal properties), start (at Fort Sumter) and formally declare war on the United States (May 6, 1861).

4. Now, facing the necessity of choosing sides in war, those four Upper-South states switched from Union to Confederacy.
   Meanwhile, four Border-States remained loyal to the Union.

dsc: "The North started the war to prevent the southern states from seceding peacefully, as was their right."

Of course, they did not "secede peacefully", far from it, and the North did not start war.
Instead Secessionists immediately began seizing Federal properties (i.e., forts, ships, customs houses, arsenals, armories, mints, etc.), and threatening Federal officials.
When newly-inaugurated President Lincoln attempted to resupply troops in Federal Fort Sumter, the Confederacy militarily assaulted and seized it.
When Lincoln called for Federal troops to retake the fort, the Confederacy declared war on the United States.

dsc: "If you’d asked a southern soldier if he was fighting to protect slavery, he’d probably have thought for a moment, scratched, spit some tobacco and said, 'Well, yes, that too, I suppose.' "

I think it's even simpler than that, since most Confederate troops served very close to their own homes until or unless a Union force threatened them.
Then they would muster -- like Minute Men of old -- to fight off the aggressor, and after a battle return home until the next time.
That's exactly how their descendants came to believe it was only a "War of Northern Aggression", having little or nothing to do with slavery.

But in reality, Slave-Power started the war in order to achieve by military force what they could not through elections and negotiations.

dsc: "The way the basic humanity of the southerners is denied is a damned shame."

Nobody on Free Republic has ever denied your "basic humanity".
So the real "d*mned shame" is you people forever whining, complaining and crying about alleged insults which never happened.
Sure, maybe that's just typical of Southerners, but I say: it's time for you to man-up, suck it in, and move on with life, FRiend. ;-)

[rockrr]

Good post.

One of the reasons for the unCivil War that doesn’t get enough airplay is sectionalism - the two-edged sword of regional bias. The positive side of it is an affinity for “home” - wherever that may be. The downside is when someone - or a group of someone’s - transcends hometown pride with regional bigotry.

There was ample amounts of bad-mouthing that took place in the years leading up to the war - both north and south. Elements that sought enmity, discord, and dissention between neighbors. It’s ironic that we still have a few of those bad apples running around ;-)

I don’t doubt for an instant that, at the individual level, a farmer would hear of the discord and impending fight, and want to protect his own. That’s natural. What wasn’t natural was the “chumming” that agitators did that whipped up emotions against one another for no good reason.

[Ditto]

I think you are the one with the comic book images of the forty plus years leading up to the civil war where the arguments were over the expansion of slavery, the sectional divides those arguments bread, and the absolute insane level of hubris the radical fire-eaters of the deep south harbored at that time.

They really did think that one Southern 'Gentleman" was worth ten 'Pasty Faced' Yankee mechanics on the battlefield.

Some idiots hanging around these threads still think that BS is true.

The South paid one hell of a price for that hubris of the elite class.

[dsc]

As I said, I don’t care to debate the Civil War question again, but I do have the inclination to respond to your personal slurs and misrepresentations.

(Isn’t it peculiar how people who are on the wrong side of an issue so often argue like liberals?)

Firstly, there’s this: “You sound like that IRS administrator who recently testified before Congress: ‘I am totally innocent of all wrong-doing, and now I take the fifth and refuse to answer any questions.’ ”

Aside from the fact that your assertion is false, in that I am not accused of wrong-doing, am not being questioned by any legally constituted body in regard to wrong-doing, and am not taking the Fifth—but am only declining to participate in an informal and anonymous debate—your statement is gratuitously malicious, in that you must have been aware of these things.

Then you sum up, “Nobody on Free Republic has ever denied your “basic humanity.” So the real “d*mned shame” is you people forever whining, complaining and crying about alleged insults which never happened. Sure, maybe that’s just typical of Southerners, but I say: it’s time for you to man-up, suck it in, and move on with life, FRiend.;-)”

1. It should have been apparent that I did not say that *my* basic humanity is denied, but that the basic humanity of those who fought against northern aggression is so often denied. Did you really not get that?

2. I said nothing about “insults” until this post, so I am inclined to view your comment about “crying about alleged insults” as a cynical attempt to head off or discredit comment on the very real insults in the post to which I now respond—directed at me, and not at 19th century southerners.

3. Misrepresenting disagreement as “whining, complaining, and crying” is quintessentially liberal behavior. If you do not think yourself to be a liberal, you might ask yourself why you are behaving like one in this post.

4. Your comment, “Sure maybe that’s just typical of Southerners” rather supports my point that the basic humanity of southerners gets short shrift from those who argue your position on this issue.

5. Moving on with life is exactly what I am doing in declining to debate the Civil War issue with someone who obviously lacks the capacity for reasoned discourse.

Further remarks will be ignored.

[BroJoeK]

dsc: "As I said, I don’t care to debate the Civil War question again, but I do have the inclination to respond to your personal slurs and misrepresentations."

And that is the key: while caring little enough about historical facts, you are super-quick to take offense, and respond to the smallest perceived slight -- typical southerner.

dsc: "Aside from the fact that your assertion is false, in that I am not accused of wrong-doing..."

Your "wrong-doing" is falsification of history.

dsc: " and am not taking the Fifth—but am only declining to participate in an informal and anonymous debate..."

So, in effect, you are "taking the fifth" to Free Republic.

dsc: "It should have been apparent that I did not say that *my* basic humanity is denied, but that the basic humanity of those who fought against northern aggression is so often denied.
Did you really not get that?"

Nobody's "basic humanity" is ever denied here, so what in the h*ll are you talking about, pal?
What, do you object to those who refer to "Ape Lincoln"?
Is that your problem?
Yes, that's a "denial of humanity" but who is it coming from?

dsc: "Misrepresenting disagreement as “whining, complaining, and crying” is quintessentially liberal behavior. "

In fact, you have not responded or disagreed with any fact I've posted.
You have only whined, complained and cried about being somehow mistreated.

dsc: "Further remarks will be ignored."

Have a nice day, FRiend.

[rockrr]

(Isn’t it peculiar how people who are on the wrong side of an issue so often argue like liberals?)

We were hoping that we could induce you to rise above it but it appears that your heart is set on that tactic.

Bless your heart.

[central_va]

If you’d asked a southern soldier if he was fighting to protect slavery, he’d probably have thought for a moment, scratched, spit some tobacco and said, “Well, yes, that too, I suppose.”

I disagree here. Lincoln said the war wasn't about slavery, up until early 1863 when he delivered his Emancipation Proclamation. So that question to the southern soldier wouldn't have made sense up until early 1863.

[dsc]

“Lincoln said the war wasn’t about slavery, up until early 1863 when he delivered his Emancipation Proclamation. So that question to the southern soldier wouldn’t have made sense up until early 1863.”

True, but truth is irrelevant to several posters to this thread.

[rockrr]

You shouldn’t talk that way about yourself.

[CodeToad]

“In before the America haters”

Like you, that hates the South. Got it.

[rockrr]

I’ve never known anyone so consistently wrong as you. Keep up the good work!

[donmeaker]

If your definition of Treason is making war against the government of the United States, I would say, yes, there were quite a lot of people in the southern government who committed treason.

General Grant gave the contents of his wallet to Simon Bolivar Buckner as the latter was on his way to a prisoner of war camp. I don’t think I would count that as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, considering that SBB had surrendered.

Your mileage may differ.