RE: Civil War 150th (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (8/27/2011 9:31:08 AM)

I wonder how many people in the States had even heard of the Hawaiin Islands in that time.



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (8/28/2011 5:52:16 AM)

150 Years Ago Today:

[image]local://upfiles/4250/083CFCB7DF3D4F9D862E530D6463B8A4.jpg[/image]
In what may have been the first combined amphibious assault of the U.S. Army and Navy, a fleet and landing force began its attack on the forts at Cape Hatteras, off the coast of North Carolina. The ground troops were commanded by Benjamin Butler, which did not inspire confidence. However, the ships were under the command of flag officer Silas Stringham, who knew his business.

The flagship of the fleet was the USS Minnesota, interestingly a sister ship to the former Merrimack, which was being rebuilt as the famous ironclad CSS Virginia.
[image]local://upfiles/4250/9A690EF2CC634435B7AFCD45C02BE006.jpg[/image]

Although in earlier times shore batteries had a great advantage over sinkable sea-going vessels, the Union ships tried a tactic from the Crimean War. They sailed back and forth while keeping up a bombardment with their longer-ranged guns. The Confederate shore gunners were unable to aim accurately at the moving targets, and shortly after noon abandoned the first outpost, Fort Clark.

With Butler in charge it was not surprising that the landings against the second fort, Fort Hatteras, did not go well. As night fell, only a little over 300 men, less than half the force, were ashore.



ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (8/28/2011 8:52:15 AM)

What was the problem with Butler?



parusski -> RE: Civil War 150th (8/28/2011 7:37:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I wonder how many people in the States had even heard of the Hawaiin Islands in that time.


How many Americans had heard of the
Hawaiian Islands in 1941.



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (8/28/2011 8:47:41 PM)

quote:

What was the problem with Butler?


Benjamin Butler AKA "Beast" Butler was arguably the most incompetent general on the Northern side. At one point he managed to get his army so completely stopped that Grant compared his position to "a bottle strongly corked". He was a classic political general, having achieved his rank by his connections with the Massachusetts political elite. As mentioned before, he also became the South's most hated man for his declaration that escaped slaves were "contraband of war", and later for his behavior as the military governor of New Orleans.

Oddly, he did have a remarkable talent for pacifying restless cities under martial law. His administration of New Orleans was one of the most efficient in the city's history. He was also the man called in to restore peace to New York City after the draft riots, which were the worst riots in American history.

[image]local://upfiles/4250/A87135BB656C467484EB65249631FFAA.jpg[/image]



ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (8/28/2011 8:52:14 PM)

Thanks Captain!



ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (8/28/2011 8:55:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

]

How many Americans had heard of the
Hawaiian Islands in 1941.


I remember reading somewhere that Hitler had to find it on a map after hearing about the attack.



parusski -> RE: Civil War 150th (8/28/2011 9:55:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

]

How many Americans had heard of the
Hawaiian Islands in 1941.


I remember reading somewhere that Hitler had to find it on a map after hearing about the attack.


I heard that too. Hitler searching his battle maps, looking for Hawaii would be a great scenario for those German to English "DownFall[Der Untergang]" videos...



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (8/29/2011 8:36:19 PM)

150 Years Ago Today:

With one of the two Confederate forts off Cape Hatteras captured, the Union fleet realized it could change tactics. The forts were made of logs and sand, and mounted no long-rage guns. The major Union warships anchored just in range of their biggest guns, and commenced a slow but accurate fire on the remaining fort, Fort Hatteras. The shells arced over the log walls and landed inside, forcing everyone within to retreat to the "bomb-proof". By a little after 11:00 AM, the defenders had had enough, and the white flag went up.

A small step in the "Anaconda Plan", to surround and cut off the South, had been taken. But there were still thousands of miles of coast to blockade, and many forts that would not be so easy to reduce.



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (8/30/2011 5:47:18 AM)

150 Years Ago Today:

In Missouri, Union commander John Fremont had decided that putting St. Louis under martial law was not enough. He issued a proclamation of martial law for the entire state (although he had lost control of half of it to the advancing Rebels). And there was more:

"All persons who shall be taken with arms in their hands within these lines shall be tried by court-martial, and, if found guilty, will be shot. The property, real and personal, of all persons in the State of Missouri who shall take up arms against the United States, and who shall be directly proven to have taken active part with their enemies in the field, is declared to be confiscated to the public use; and their slaves, if any they have, are hereby declared free."

In other words, he intended to execute even uniformed soldiers fighting for the other side. And the policy on slaves moved beyond the idea of "contraband" and the Confiscation Act. Even if slaves had not been used for any military purpose, they were to be freed. This was a step too far for the slaveholders who still favored the Union in the border states, and President Lincoln would receive many an outraged complaint. Especially, Kentucky was still undecided.



ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (8/30/2011 7:09:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock


In other words, he intended to execute even uniformed soldiers fighting for the other side.



I bet that would just make them fight even harder.



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/2/2011 8:15:52 PM)

150 Years Ago Today:

"Bleeding Kansas" had a head start of nearly a decade on the rest of the country when it came to violence. During the 1850's, anti-slavery "Jayhawkers" and pro-slavery "Border Ruffians" had ambushed each other and burned each other's houses with a frequency that had done as much as anything else to widen the split between North and South. One of the chief Jayhawkers was James H. Lane, who had then been elected one of the Senators from Kansas when it joined the Union as a Free state.
Now, Lane had also become a Colonel by raising a 600-man battalion of cavalry, nominally part of the Union Army but more like a large band of Jayhawkers. Lane led his troop from Fort Scott to learn the whereabouts of the Confederate forces in Missouri. Sterling Price's troops were not hard to find; they were encamped near Big Dry Wood Creek, roughly 12 miles from the fort. Lane surprised the Confederates, but he was outnumbered. After a two-hour fight, the Northern cavalry retreated back to Fort Scott, leaving their mules to the rebels. From the fort, Lane proceeded towards Kansas City. The Confederates continued on towards Lexington, while Price recruited more men.
Federal losses were 14 men. Confederate losses were 4 killed and 16 wounded.

In Washington D.C., President Lincoln sent a letter to General Fremont concerning the general's new policy of shooting Rebels and freeing slaves. "Two points in your proclamation of August 30th give me some anxiety,” was the President's understated beginning. He ordered that Fremont “allow no man to be shot, under the proclamation, without first having my approbation or consent.”




ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/2/2011 11:44:50 PM)

Captan, I love reading your stuff. Don't stop!



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/3/2011 4:09:56 AM)

150 Years Ago Today:

The conflict between Unionists and Secessionists in the Missouri-Kansas theater was already vicious. Now it took a still worse turn. A 160-foot railroad bridge spanned the Platte River east of St. Joseph, Missouri.
Confederate partisans burned the lower timbers of the bridge, leaving the top looking intact. At 11:15 p.m. on a moonless night, the westbound passenger train from Hannibal, Missouri, to St. Joseph started to cross the bridge. The supports cracked and gave way. The locomotive flipped, falling 30 feet into the shallow river and bringing with it the freight cars, baggage car, mail car, and two passenger cars, killing between 17 and 20 and injuring 100.
Union soldiers were ordered to track down and execute the pro-Southern guerrillas, now becoming known as "Bushwackers".



ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/3/2011 7:04:39 AM)

Ok, even though I'm a Confederate fanboy, I have to say rigging a bridge that way was not cool.



Greybriar -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/4/2011 1:09:27 PM)

I remember reading about the bridge burning incident, Capt. Harlock. IIRC the guerillas did it because the train was supposed to be loaded with Union troops. Or was that just the story the Bushwackers circulated?



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/4/2011 5:26:14 PM)

quote:

IIRC the guerillas did it because the train was supposed to be loaded with Union troops.


It was a mixed train; there were some Union soldiers on board, bound for Fort Leavenworth. (One of the soldiers killed was a survivor of John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry.) But there were also women and children among the passengers.



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/4/2011 5:39:14 PM)

150 Years Ago Today:

Union theater commander John Fremont and Confederate theater commander Leonidas Polk had both come to the conclusion that a neutral Kentucky was too big a threat. Fremont had ordered one of his subordinates, a fellow by the name of Ulysses S. Grant, to move his troops into Kentucky as soon as possible. Grant wisely decided that it was not possible to do so immediately. In the meantime, Polk was even more concerned, because there was already a camp of pro-Union soldiers in the state. Technically they were Kentucky state troops, but Robert Anderson of Fort Sumter was involved and there was little doubt which way their allegiance would go.
On this date, Brigadier General Gideon Pillow promptly executed Polk's orders and occupied Columbus, Kentucky. Columbus was of strategic importance both because it was the terminus of the Mobile and Ohio Railroad and because of its position along the Mississippi River, but this move formally violated the Kentucky Commonwealth's neutrality. The Confederates constructed Fort DuRussey in the high bluffs of Columbus, and equipped it with 143 cannons. Polk called the fort "The Gibraltar of the West." To control traffic along the river, the Southerners put an anchor chain across the river from the bank in Columbus to the opposite bank in Belmont, Missouri. Each link weighed twenty pounds, and not surprisingly the chain soon broke under its own weight. However, the Union side would not realize this until early 1862.



ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/4/2011 7:43:32 PM)

Each link was 20 lbs. That had to have been heavy.



parusski -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/4/2011 10:24:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

Captan, I love reading your stuff. Don't stop!


I too look forward to a few years of Capt. Harlock's posts.

BUT, I can't believe there are only 7,937 hits on this thread(you and I probably account for a lot of those hits).



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/6/2011 5:41:31 AM)

150 Years Ago Today:

Now that a part of Kentucky had been occupied by Confederate troops, Brigadier Ulysses S. Grant and his troops became more energetic. He marched from southern Illinois into Paducah, Kentucky, taking control of the northern end of the New Orleans and Ohio Railroad and the mouth of the Tennessee River.

Kentucky was a politically divided state. Governor Beriah Magoffin was a pro-slavery and Southern-leaning man, but he also opposed secession. Much of the legislature, however, was by this time solidly pro-Union. Hearing of the dual occupations, Governor Magoffin denounced both sides for violating his state's neutrality, and called for both sides to withdraw. Neither side paid much attention.


[image]local://upfiles/4250/E9DB6DA3FC8545D1A15FBA13259291B8.jpg[/image]



ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/6/2011 8:52:55 AM)

It seems to me that both sides were nothing more than invading forces.



parusski -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/6/2011 3:15:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

It seems to me that both sides were nothing more than invading forces.


Oh yeah, both were invading forces. As much as the South loved to say they were fighting against Northern aggression they invaded a the North a rather large number of times.



ilovestrategy -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/6/2011 5:00:54 PM)

The more I study this, the more I find that the issues of time were not black and white like everyone thinks. There was a lot of murky grey in all the politics and issues of the time. Both sides waved their proverbial flags but it seems to me that no one was a saint.



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/7/2011 5:03:19 AM)

150 Years Ago Today:

The Kentucky state legislature now responded to the occupations of Columbus and Paducah. The House and Senate passed a resolution ordering only the withdrawal of Confederate forces. Governor Magoffin vetoed the resolution, but both chambers of the legislature were now leaning heavily towards the Union side, and would soon override the veto.



t001001001 -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/7/2011 5:43:02 PM)

I remember reading about the bridge burning incident, Capt. Harlock. IIRC the guerillas did it because the train was supposed to be loaded with Union troops. Or was that just the story the Bushwackers circulated?

Outrage after outrage is being listed here.  For example General Fremont ordering ppl bearing arms to be shot on sight was so far out of scope of his command that's he's the one who should have been restrained and shot.  It gave President Lincoln the willies and he ordered the General to knock that **** off straightway.

A war about slavery [8|]  Indeed [8|]  What bullshit.



parusski -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/9/2011 8:15:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: t001001001

I remember reading about the bridge burning incident, Capt. Harlock. IIRC the guerillas did it because the train was supposed to be loaded with Union troops. Or was that just the story the Bushwackers circulated?

Outrage after outrage is being listed here.  For example General Fremont ordering ppl bearing arms to be shot on sight was so far out of scope of his command that's he's the one who should have been restrained and shot.  It gave President Lincoln the willies and he ordered the General to knock that **** off straightway.

A war about slavery [8|]  Indeed [8|]  What bullshit.



LOL. Do you know or think Lincoln said know "that s**t off straightaway". I would like to think he said it that way!



Capt. Harlock -> RE: Civil War 150th (9/9/2011 8:38:37 PM)

quote:

LOL. Do you know or think Lincoln said know "that s**t off straightaway". I would like to think he said it that way!


Well, if you go back to my post on Sept. 2, Lincoln did use language much more appropriate to the Victorian era:

"Two points in your proclamation of August 30th give me some anxiety,” was the President's understated beginning. He ordered that Fremont “allow no man to be shot, under the proclamation, without first having my approbation or consent.”

Incidentally, Fremont sent his wife, who was also the daughter of the famous Senator Thomas Hart Benton, to try to convince Lincoln to let the proclamation stand. She was no diplomat, reminding Lincoln that Fremont had more political and military experience than he. Lincoln's language off the record after this little chat might well have been , shall we say, intemperate, but all we know is that this was very likely the final straw in his decision to replace Fremont.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.419922