Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
There's another thread on this book at the cite below. The book is well worth reading because it's thought-provoking and provides a very different perspective, even if you ultimately disagree with some or many of Buell's conclusions. Tim Rice's posts in the other thread are particularly useful to bear in mind.
The link answered all my questions, and was very instructive. I think I'll be more careful to search the site for prior topic discussions next time rather than continue "to hoe the same ground".
Clara, dear lady, you mention an interest in nursing/medicine above. One of my grandson's ancestors was a Sergeant in the 41st TN, part of the TN campaign of the CSA in late 1864. He had been wounded at Raymond, Mississippi much earlier and apparenty became a nurse during a hospital stay after that battle. I've so far had no luck finding much mention of medical organization if any in the AOT during the Tennessee campaign. Might you have some research suggestions? Thanks.... and welcome aboard!
Larry,
If you are interested in particular people, the Museum of Civil War Medicine may be of assistance. Here's some contact info:
"If you are searching for information on a specific nurse, start with the records of the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, DC. The National Archives has pension records for many Union nurses, starting after 1898. Other groups of records also contain information on individual nurses, and hospital employee lists often contain the names of female nurses. For information on these records, call the Old Military and Civil Records Division of the National Archives at (202) 501-5390 or go to www.archives.gov."
I'm not sure about the Tennessee Campaign directly, but the most definitive source of medicine throughout the WBTS is: The Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion. This is a multi-volume set which is still available in volumes but cost some thousands of dollars. However, you can search the volumes on Internet Archive (www.archive.org) which has all 3 volumes). There is some detail on the AOT.
Another far more recent work is: Civil War Medicine: Challenges and Triumphs by Alfred J. Bollet. There is a blog that addresses Civil War Medicine (as well as other Civil War aspects): http://civilwarmed.blogspot.com/
As you are aware, medicine at the beginning of the War was very primitive, and was not immediately addressed in a coherent way (both sides thinking it was going to be a war of a few months). As the War progressed, medicine became ever more important and advances in medicine did occur during those years. Doctors (called surgeons) had little training, mostly apprenticeships, and there was little in the way of medicine, sanitation, or equipment (none actually, except morphine, chloroform, ether, quinine). The sanitation was so poor throughout the camps, that this sponsored the growth of the Sanitation Commissions.
Once the wounded were somewhat 'stable' in the field 'hospital' (usually a makeshift tent, if that), they were removed, if possible, to the closest large town or city with somewhat better facilities. Actually, the War created the hospital building design that is still in use today.
Larry, you could possibly see if there are hospital records available from local towns/cities near where the Tennessee Campaign was engaged.
Not much actual help, I'm afraid. I'll close with a description of some actual conditions (unfortunately, it's Andersonville's 'hospital'; but, their condition was not much worse than most field conditions):
"We will close this paper, lest we weary you with dry and uninteresting matter, by giving a short description of our so-called hospital. We have from 1,600 to 2,000 patients, besides nurses and attendants, crowded together in small and almost useless tents erected on less than three acres of ground. The hospital is located on a narrow tongue of land between two small creeks on each side of which are swamps forty or fifty yards in width; on the west and up these creeks from the hospital are the camps and stockade. Now, all the debris from over 30,000 human beings have to pass along the small brook on the north of the hospital grounds and within a stone's throw of patients' tents. A large portion of this filth is deposited on the marsh and produces a most sickening stench. Our patients are carried from the stockade and placed in the tents by the attendants, We put in the common small A tent four patients, in the large wall tent eight, and in the common fly from six to eight. About one-third have bunks or scaffolds and the remainder have to lie on the ground without straw or anything else to protect them from its dampness.
Those who are not fortunate enough to have a blanket are compelled to lie on the damp ground with no covering but their clothing, which in many instances they have worn for six months without washing.
The diet is of the coarsest kind, consisting of boiled beef, rice, molasses, and coarse corn bread baked without sifting, and from one to two ordinary-sized biscuits. To this we sometimes have added a small allowance of vegetables, such as peas, potatoes, and collards. These vegetables are generally issued raw and the patients are compelled to hire their comrades to cook them in some sort of style and pay them out of their scanty allowance.
We also have great difficulty in procuring medicines. The supplies for a month are usually exhausted in ten days, and the remainder of the time we are compelled to rely on such indigenous remedies as we can procure from the adjacent woods. Our cooking department has been very deficient all summer, consisting of two large salt kettles placed on a furnace in the open air. The water is good and the supply plenteous.
With these facts before you you will not wonder at the fearful mortality presented in our report and in the tabular statement from our ward, presented above.
Feeling we have done our whole duty, both in the eyes of God and man, we leave the matter to rest with those whose duty it was to furnish supplies and build up a hospital that might have reflected credit on the Government and saved the lives of thousands of our race."
"We have had no chance of settling the question of contagion in this hospital. Our patients have been crowded together on the same ground with other patients suffering from the various diseases incident to the prisoners, and in very many instances in the same tent, or even on the same bed. Again, we only have one wash pan to the tent, and it is utterly impossible for the nurses, if they were ever so particular, to keep those who have no gangrene from using the same basin used by the gangrene patients. The same sponge is doubtless often used for every patient in the tent, and owing to the great scarcity of bandages we are compelled to use the same bandages several times, and in washing they not unfrequently get changed, and thus the disease may be transmitted from one patient to the other by actual contact. So we are not in possession of the proper data to justify us in giving an affirmative answer as to the disease being contagious; but from our limited experience with the disease, and from what we know of its nature and general character, we are inclined to the opinion that it is highly contagious."
clara_barton
Last edited by clara_barton; 11-24-2007 at 03:22 PM.
The book is generally pretty good, but the case for Thomas being the best general of the war is quite overstated. Grant and Lee were better than Thomas.
Regards,
Cash
Having read the posts in the link provided, I understand your post, Cash; no need to reply. Tim really has an understanding of the author's mind and perspective with his discussion with him. You all have forgotten more than I'll ever know in 50 lifetimes. I'll remember that the next time I approach the front lines, except as a nurse, of course!
What was in it for Commander Thomas B. Buell (retired, 1936-2002) to overstate the case for Thomas? Seems from his military perspective, (From 1975 to 1979 he taught in the history department of the Military Academy at West Point), he had nothing to gain and a lot of insight to bring to the issue. Thomas is generally a footnote for most Civil War buffs (an obvious exaggeration on my part): what from your perspective was overstated?
Thanks.
I have a fair military perspective [28 years] myself. Buell overstates Thomas' case because while Thomas was an excellent general he doesn't match either Grant or Lee. Solid on defense, he was slow on offense. When he finally got moving he was good, but he gave his opponent too much time to be able to get ready. He was fortunate that his opponent at Nashville, John Bell Hood, had foolishly spent his army in a futile series of frontal charges at Franklin. Put him against an abler opponent and things could have been much different. His victory at Mill Springs was actually a very minor affair. When Grant and Lee met in the east, it was the two titans against each other.
Haven't read the book and am not likely to. Whenever someone writes a book speculating on which general was best, it's usually because he/she is intentionally creating a controversy to sell books, or because he/she has an agenda intending to deflate some to inflate others.
If it were a book discussion the various characteristics of field generals, I might be interested. If the book attempts to show that Thomas was the greatest (or maybe that was just your manager's insistance), or even to rank the generals.......I don't think so.
But thanks for the thread. Good to have you here.
ole
It's an enjoyable book, Ole. You might want to consider putting it on your read list. He goes into some officers that we usually don't get very deeply into.
It's an enjoyable book, Ole. You might want to consider putting it on your read list. He goes into some officers that we usually don't get very deeply into.
Thanks for the recommendation, Cash. I can be certain it's worth reading when you commend it. But. My "To Read" and "To Finish" lists are already too long to consider a "Wanted" list. Have bought only one book since June. To my amazement, I've beaten the withdrawal symptoms.
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
What was in it for Commander Thomas B. Buell (retired, 1936-2002) to overstate the case for Thomas? Seems from his military perspective, (From 1975 to 1979 he taught in the history department of the Military Academy at West Point), he had nothing to gain and a lot of insight to bring to the issue. Thomas is generally a footnote for most Civil War buffs (an obvious exaggeration on my part): what from your perspective was overstated?
Thanks.
I had many conversations with Tom Buell online at the time he wrote the book. I was fortunate enough to have an advance copy of his book before the discussions began, and one of the parties in our discussions was a former student of Tom's when he was teaching at West Point (my friend Clair, third generation USMA on both sides, one grandfather captured in the Phillipines, survived the Death March, killed on a ship sunk by US planes while being taken to Japan in 1944; the other at Kasserine Pass, in Italy, and in the invasion of southern France.)
When looking at Tom Buell's book, it is very important to remember that he deliberately wrote it to be controversial. Many of his stylistic decisions were made to support the stylistic goal of enticing more people into reading history. He felt that in today's society, most young people saw history as dull and he was definatly trying to write to excite and interest people who did not normally read history.
This was one of the reasons, for example, you will find no footnotes in his book. It is also one of the reasons he fixed each of his six targets with labels (the Yeoman, etc.). He forces his discussion into those templates, IMHO, because certainly those of his subjects I know a good deal about were far more complex and multi-faceted than the pictures he shows.
I do recommend the book. I just think that in order to get the most out of the book you either need a strong background before reading it or need to go on to look at these men in greater depth afterwards. Of course, that second course is exactly what Tom Buell wanted to encourage, so ...
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.
Having read the posts in the link provided, I understand your post, Cash; no need to reply. Tim really has an understanding of the author's mind and perspective with his discussion with him. You all have forgotten more than I'll ever know in 50 lifetimes. I'll remember that the next time I approach the front lines, except as a nurse, of course!
Dear Miss Clara,
Please don't hesitate to make a contribution, even if you think we've gone over that ground before. We can all benefit by refreshing our memories, and some are new and haven't had a chance to contribute. Also, we're interested in your viewpoint on these subjects. So have at it and don't worry about a thing. If you learn something or if we learn something, that's a good thing.
The front lines are safe. The only bullets fired are rhetorical.
The front lines are safe. The only bullets fired are rhetorical.
Amen!
Clara, as a group, we depend on the new perspective. Observe and comment without fear. Even if we ultimately ignore you, you've done us a great service by stimulating a new avenue wherein we can quarrel and pontificate and explore. It's why we are here. You go, girl.
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
"Amen!
Clara, as a group, we depend on the new perspective. Observe and comment without fear. Even if we ultimately ignore you, you've done us a great service by stimulating a new avenue wherein we can quarrel and pontificate and explore. It's why we are here. You go, girl.
ole"
Ole wrote something of value. (It happens.) He's well on point with this one and we all look forward to learning from you!
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
