Civil War History - The Eastern TheaterDiscuss any and all battles, movements, and events occuring in the Eastern Theater here! This includes any actions in tha area east of the Appalachian Mountains in the vicinity of the river capitals of Richmond and Washington D.C.
When discussing these large unpermanent housing sites such as army camps and prisons, with a better review of latrines, outhouses and sinks(the more prevalent term for latrine), one would not wonder why disease killed more soldiers in the Civil War, than battle.
When I've read of the high death rates in prisons, one rarely ever sees a realistic mention of the use of sinks in those prisons.
Ewww... I did not realize "sink" was another name for a latrine or outhouse. This makes all those journals and diaries I just read about Andersonville in a whole new lite! They constantly talked about sinks lining one end of the stream that ran through the center. It was already the most disgusting place I had heard of, but this new knowledge makes it even worse! They drank from that water and bathed in it... i can't begin to imagine what it was alike in there.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
No, I have not... altho I had hardtack and coffee at one time but lost it before I ever got around to reading it
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Dred, my compliments, sir. Seems you've read back in the posts some and that, to me, marks a man as one who looks before he leaps. (My apologies if I should have said, Miss Dred. Do not respond--makes no nevermind.)
Ask. Tell. It's all good. Welcome. (Seems I've done that already but can't be entirely certain without more research.) And so it goes.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Just reading through some of the economic history of the nation, particularly that of the 19th century, its pretty clear that the US was what we would consider today to be a Third World country. Typhoid, Yellow fever, malaria, and from our Civil War reading dysentery were major maladies, the average life span was something like 40 (though if you made it to 15 you would obviously live longer), definitely some rough times, and in many cases people really didn't know what to do about it, the scientific knowledge just wasn't there yet.
Just reading through some of the economic history of the nation, particularly that of the 19th century, its pretty clear that the US was what we would consider today to be a Third World country. Typhoid, Yellow fever, malaria, and from our Civil War reading dysentery were major maladies, the average life span was something like 40 (though if you made it to 15 you would obviously live longer), definitely some rough times, and in many cases people really didn't know what to do about it, the scientific knowledge just wasn't there yet.
Yes, that is true. But at the time the US was one of the most advanced nations in the world, and very similar numbers would be found for France, Britain, etc.
Also, when the French Army finally sent official observers here in 1864 (two officers, only one of whom spoke English), they spent the Summer with Grant's force outside Richmond. One of their recommendations was that the French Army adopt AoP sanitary and hygene procedures, so imagine what the French were like at the time.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a clergyman, editor, novelist and radical abolitionist became a colonel of black troops during the war. You would think he would be unsuited to such a responsibility, but in fact he demanded the most careful discipline, both in maneuvers and in camp.
The old regular army had acquired some practical sanitary procedures that Higginson thought were often neglected by the volunteer troops, which let to disease. Higginson followed these regulations, and wrote an essay about the importance of strong leadership by noncoms and junior officers in mundane camp regulations.
"No CS army ever lost a battle for want of ammunition."
I'm not sure that is 100% acceptable.
Confederate artillery did run out of long-range ammunition at Gettysburg, just prior to Pickett's Charge. So it did affect any possible follow-up by Lee's Army, and probably was the reason Lee made his move directly back to Virginia, with no large intermediate defense position planned, just south of Gettysburg.
E.P. Alexander did note that conservation of ammunition was the watchword in the Confederate artillery, and that would affect tactics. I've wondered how much ammunition, the Confederates had on hand after the battles of Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville, to counter-attack or continue an attack.
Did the Army of Northern Virginia have enough ammunition left to continue these battles? The battle at Chancellorsville had a time line. Could the Confederate army renew the fight - another day - two days?
We do have the Seven Days Battle. But that was within seeing distance of Confederate supplies in Richmond, more easily moved by mules and wagon.
Were their any instances of the Confederate armies breaking off the fight because ammunition, though not completely expended, was running low?
Of course, most historians never seemed to look at inherent Confederate weaknesses too closely. I think this is one of the great short-comings in studying the Civil War.
"No CS army ever lost a battle for want of ammunition."
I'm not sure that is 100% acceptable.
Confederate artillery did run out of long-range ammunition at Gettysburg, just prior to Pickett's Charge. So it did affect any possible follow-up by Lee's Army, and probably was the reason Lee made his move directly back to Virginia, with no large intermediate defense position planned, just south of Gettysburg.
E.P. Alexander did note that conservation of ammunition was the watchword in the Confederate artillery, and that would affect tactics. ...
At the end of July 3, Lee's army seems to have had about enough artillery ammo for one more day of battle. That's a precarious position for an army to be in, particularly one so far from home.
The support for Pickett's charge was an issue of immediate supply to the batteries at the front, not of the army train running dry. Overall, it had an effect on the timing, but realistically the bombardment was not having a decisive effect anyway. (horrible enough if you happened to be in the area immediately behind the front, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitworth
... I've wondered how much ammunition, the Confederates had on hand after the battles of Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville, to counter-attack or continue an attack.
Did the Army of Northern Virginia have enough ammunition left to continue these battles? The battle at Chancellorsville had a time line. Could the Confederate army renew the fight - another day - two days?
I have never heard of a shortage at Fredericksburg, and the reason a counterattack was rejected had to do with the dominant effect of the Union artillery if the Confederates desceeded into the lower ground closer to them.
At Chancellorsville, Lee was preparing another assault when the Union withdrew across the river, so I'd have to say he thought he had enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitworth
We do have the Seven Days Battle. But that was within seeing distance of Confederate supplies in Richmond, more easily moved by mules and wagon.
Doesn't seem to have been a problem here, as you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitworth
Were their any instances of the Confederate armies breaking off the fight because ammunition, though not completely expended, was running low?
It was a factor at Gettysburg, but so were the 25,000+ casualties the ANV had. All nine of Lee's infantry divisions had been committed and the Union had held. Hard to argue with the decision to withdraw.
I can't recall any major battle where the Confederates pulled out over ammo shortages. The Arizona/New Mexico expedition did lose its train.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitworth
Of course, most historians never seemed to look at inherent Confederate weaknesses too closely. I think this is one of the great short-comings in studying the Civil War.
People don't like to think their people died in a helpless cause -- and the Confederacy probably could have done much better -- perhaps even won its independence -- with better leadership of the defense effort. Davis wasn't what was needed, and neither were the Johnstons, Beauregard, Bragg, etc. Lee was marvellous at what he did, but never applied his genius at the real needs outside of VA.
But what people really don't look at is that the Union crushed the Confederacy militarily. Conquest of the Confederacy was a daunting task. The Union managed it.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
"People don't like to think their people died in a helpless cause -- and the Confederacy probably could have done much better -- perhaps even won its independence -- with better leadership of the defense effort. Davis wasn't what was needed, and neither were the Johnstons, Beauregard, Bragg, etc. "
Just a quick response, I really don't have a problem with anything that you're writing, but all things considered when you look at the Union's advantages I actually find it surprising that the South makes it beyond 1862.
Of course, in hindsight its easy to criticize leadership that ultimately fails in its objective, but really when you look at it, from the South's point of view, looking at their frontiers are large union armies, their response: put soldiers in their way and stop them. And the South actually does do this and from reading the accounts, I'd say up through Murfreesboro in 1862/1863, I can almost feel Lincoln's exasperation at his inability to project military force into the south. And yes, clearly there are major issues with Bragg, but even in 1864 the South still has the mettle to put a charge into Chickamauga (which is why I think he's better than Hood).
By November 1864, I think the Confederacy had done all that it pretty much had the capability of doing: 1. they definitely inflicted more casualties than they took and 2. they made the war exorbitently expensive. 45% of the voters actually DO vote for McClellan (I'm assuming that every vote for McClellan is of course an anti-war vote which is obviously an oversimplification)
Now, we can say that the South failed to realize exactly what the Federals resolve was to continue the war effort, but resolve is a subjective quality which is difficult to measure, particularly in the pre-mass media days.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
