Buford & His Boys - Page 2

johan_steele · #11 01-07-2005, 12:20 AM

None of Bufords men had Spencers. Buford's men had Sharps & Smith carbines and I belive some Burnsides in the mix though I may be wrong on that note. Custers Michigan boys were the ones w/ Spencer rifles.

Shermans men adored him, he won battles and helped to win the war... for that he deserves respect. He was a professional soldier of the highest order.

Stephen Ambrose had some interesting views on Grant, Sherman & Sheridan... being what I consider one of the finest historians of the last 50 odd years I think his opinion warrents a look at.

unionblue · #12 01-07-2005, 01:11 AM

Shane,

Could you please tell me which book Stephen Ambrose made these interesting views on Grant, Sherman and Sheridan known? I'd like to check it out and read it myself as I admire Mr. Ambrose and his books on WWII and the building of the Trans Continential Rail Road.

Unionblue

dawna · #13 01-07-2005, 03:43 AM

One persistent myth regarding Buford's two cavalry brigades at the Battle of Gettysburg is the assertion that the troopers had repeating carbines, thus enabling them to more effectively delay the advance of the Confederate infantry on the morning of the first day, July 1, 1863. The myth is due in large part to poor scholarship in such works as even the popular Stars in Their Courses by author Shelby Foote. The myth is plainly that - a myth. Ordnance returns show that not a single repeater was in the hands of Buford's troopers during the campaign. The troopers had, the previous May, been issued single-shot breech-loading carbines, the vast majority of which were Sharps. There are existing ordnance returns for 92% of the brigades' companies. In addition, there is not a single contemporary account confirming the use of any repeating weapons, from either side, during that action. The only repeaters that showed up in the hands of cavalrymen at Gettysburg were on the last day of the conflict, July 3, when some of Brigadier General George A. Custer's Michigan troopers carried them and used them in the cavalry battle east of town during that day's afternoon. The first day's troopers' success in delaying the Confederate advance was due primarily to the defense-in-depth tactics employed, and aided by the higher rate of fire of their single-shot breech-loaders.

www.bufordsboys.com

johan_steele · #14 01-07-2005, 07:40 AM

Neil, there are at least two pieces by Ambrose on the CW... one was a paper he wrote while a professor... his first job was teaching the Civil War. It was provided as a source for one of my classes in college. It may have been a chapter from one of his books but I don't know. THe other is his book spanning US history where he deals w/ everything from Jefferson to the end of the 21st century. The title escapes at the moment. I will get it for you.

His parallel biography on Custer & Crazy Horse is an absolute must read as is his biography of Eisenhower. I think he does more to explain the American Spirit than any historical author I've read.

larry_cockerham · #15 01-07-2005, 09:27 AM

"I gave notice of this purpose, as early as the 4th of September, to General Halleck, in a letter concluding with these words:

"" If the people raise a howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity-seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war.""

I knew, of course, that such a measure would be strongly criticised, but made up my mind to do it with the absolute certainty of its justness and that time would sanction its wisdom. I knew that the people of the South would read in this measure two important conclusions: one, that we were in earnest; and the other, if they were sincere in their common and popular clamor "" to die in the last ditch"", that the opportunity would come soon."

That's no Robert E. Lee writing above, but rather a hardened soldier. If I were starting a fight, or as he claimed, trying to stop one, he would be a useful team member. If he walked into one of our SUV meetings here in Nashville, I'd be the first to step behind something solid and we meet in a church!

dawna · #16 01-07-2005, 12:40 PM

Larry:

If I wanted to exterminate a race of people there is no question who I would ask to lead the troops. I questioned Sherman's sanity in another thread but I do believe that Sherman's unhappy childhood, unhappy marriage, a foundered career in the pre-war CW army, and a series of business failures all contributed to Sherman's mental instabilities.

It is apparent that Sherman hated not only blacks but Jews as well. He had Grant expel all Jews from his army (Citizen Sherman: Michael Feelman) and Fellman further writes that to Sherman, Jews were "like ••••••• and "like greasers (Mexicans) or Indians" in that they were "classes or races permanently inferior to his own." As for the Indians, that infamous quote of Sherman's: "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Sherman wrote to Grant that "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children." (Fellman). I see no difference in the tactics that Sherman used in his attempts to destroy the South.

At the beginning of the Indian Wars, Sherman issued this order to his troops: "During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discrimate as to age." As long as resistance is made, death must be meted out." (Marzalek). And part of Sherman's genocide program of course included the massive slaughter of the Indian's primary source of food.

In a July, 1862 letter to his wife, Sherman wrote that the purpose in the war was "Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the Southern people." Mrs. Sherman response was that her "fondest wish was for a war of extermination and that all Southerners would be driven like Swine into the sea." It would appear that the the Shermans were well suited.

To this end, women were raped, innocent civilians murdered, crops destroyed, homes, churches and schools etc. needlessly destroyed, personal property looted, women illegally deported. Women, children, old people and the sick and wounded were all left starving and homeless because Sherman believed that the South "needed to be taught a lesson."

War is war, but I believe that Sherman blatantly disregarded the rules of warfare and of civilization. And Sherman did admit later in life that he had "departed from civilized warfare" with his "passion for order."

Dawna

larry_cockerham · #17 01-07-2005, 02:53 PM

More from Sherman:

"Before I had reached Savannah and during our stay there the rebel officers and newspapers represented the conduct of the men of our army as simply infamous, that we respected neither age nor sex; that we burned every thing we came across - barns, stables, cotton-gins and even dwelling houses; that we ravished the women and killed the men and perpetrated all manner of outrages on the inhabitants. Therefore it struck me as strange that Generals Hardee and Smith should commit their families to our custody and even bespeak our personal care and attention. These officers knew well that these reports were exaggerated in the extreme and yet tacitly assented to those false publications, to arouse the drooping energies of the people of the South"

Was he a liar? Perhaps. Insane? I doubt it.

johan_steele · #18 01-07-2005, 05:34 PM

Neil... and I'll add the suggestion to anyone else. Take a look at Steven Ambrosee's final work To America, Halleck, Lincolns Chief of Staff and his biography of Upton is quite well done as well. HIs other CW works include: A Wisconsin Boy in Dixie, and his history of West POint (I believe the title isDuty, Honor, Country but am uncertain on that point)has quite a bit on the CW men from the Point. HIs book on the Transcontinental RR Nothing Like it in the World should be required reading on the subject and is I believe for some courses.

Dawna, there has been legion written about Sherman on another thread, not the least of which is the firm belief among many, including myself, that the charges of rape and personal property destruction were grossly exaggerated. Frankly, I believe the jury is still out.

Sherman was a general I would prefer to have on my side... and if I were to be a CW soldier I would rather be under his command than any other Army Commander. Sherman, Grant, Upton and Halleck are must studies alongside Lee, Jackson & Cleburne in any look at CW Generals.

Was Sherman a racist? Absolutely, I don't think he would have denied it. But his racism was much the same as most Americans at the time. Sherman was a man I would want to lead men and fight battles... I doubt he would be invited to dinner by many. I believe the best description and explanation of the pervasive racism in America is Woodwards THe Strange Career of Jim Crow as it doesn't pull any punches.

Lincoln and his Generals by Williams is also quite good.

dawna · #19 01-07-2005, 07:27 PM

Larry:

In his message of February 17, 1865, Governor Brown, after recounting the destruction wrought by Sherman, said:

In these misfortunes Georgia has been taunted by some of the public journals of other States because her people did not drive back and destroy the enemy. Those who do us this injustice fail to state the well-known fact that of all the tens of thousands of veteran infantry, including most of the vigor and manhood of the State, which she had furnished for the Confederate service, but a single regiment, the Georgia regulars, of about 300 effective men, was permitted to be upon her soil during the march of General Sherman from her northeast border to the city of Savannah, and that gallant regiment was kept upon one of our islands most of the time and not permitted to unite with those who met the enemy. Nor were the places of our absent sons filled by troops from other States. One brigade of Confederate troops was sent by the President from North Carolina, which reached Georgia after her capital was in possession of the enemy. For eight months the Confederate reserves, reserve militia, detailed men, exempts, and most State officers, civil as well as military, had kept the field almost constantly, participating in every important fight from Kenesaw to Honey Hill. If the sons of Georgia under arms in other States had been permitted to meet the foe upon her own soil, without other assistance, General Sherman's army could never have passed from the mountains to the seaboard.

Doesn't this make you wonder who Sherman was fighting?

Dawna

larry_cockerham · #20 01-08-2005, 08:26 AM

First off, I ain't defending the poor ....., just trying to get the facts more nearly straight. One of Gen. Sherman's guns threw a shell toward my gg grandfather Parker which exploded and hit Whit in the butt. Made for a long painful life afterward. I've been researching the travels and travails of the what became the Army of Tennessee from Chickamauga Sept 1863 until the end of the war. As you know, Sherman was a big part of that play. Sherman was an arm of Grant, keeping constant communication until the war's end in 1865. What many folks also apparently don't realize is that he (Sherman) was calling the shots (small pun unintended) after Atlanta, as evidenced by the ORs concerning Thomas, Wilson, Scofield etc in Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina (where Sherman's two wings again met the remnant of the Army of Tennessee for a few rounds in South Carolina before the conclusive battle at Bentonville). The first few months after Chickamauga were spent battling the weather and Joe Johnston, a worthy foe, had he been allowed to continue his command. Hood was a poor choice for a substitute. When Sherman did decide to advance on Atlanta and Jonesborough, he had all the fight he could handle. At that point he sent the aforementioned troops into Tennessee to defend and eventually overwhelm the crippled army under Hood. Governor Brown, bless his little pointed head was a political animal and would have made some of today's politicians proud. He was a most inconsistant player who bent with the wind. He moved back and forth between Milledgeville and Macon. Sherman essentially ignored him and went on with his plan to sever railroad and communication lines separating the Army of Tennessee, should it survive, from any hope of uniting with Lee in Virginia. From Savannah Sherman could fight or close with Grant. Did he fight his way from Macon to Savannah. No, not really. Did he move up the coast and leave himself the option of going on to Virginia to assist Grant should it be needed? Yes. On the way he was met by the one Confederate, aside from Forrest and Walthall with some tactical sense, the semi-retired Joseph E. Johnston, who gave Sherman one last opportunity to fight. Sherman oblidged (make that fought) at Bentonville, and following orders from Grant sent the Confederates back to their farms from Durham and Greensboro. No, Sherman didn't fight all the time, (partly because the opposition was not up to it), but when he did, it was unfortunately, for my Southern sentiment, decisive. He was a general in command of his theater of the war and brutally as it was achieved, did his part to end the conflict. What fascinates me is the strength of the 15-20 thousand survivors of Hood's lunacy (there's a crazy one for you) who lived to walk home, in Whit's case for a drink of clear mountain water.