151st at the Battle

[marco75]

Like I said before I'm reading about the civil war almost in the confederate Point of View, for whatever reason.
Now I have read the Story of the 154th Pennsylvania Infantry, called the Schoolteachers Regiment. It is as impressive as any Story about any confederate unit. They suffered around 75 of hundret casualties shortly before theire time in the Army was over. I think that shows that Union soldiers fought as brave as confederates did and that's maybe the main reason why the South lost the war. If the soldiers had performed as poor as many of theire Generals in high positions, maybe the Confederates had won the war. But spirit of Union soldiers kept high even if the spirit of theire commanding General was broken.
As always it's just my opinion

 

[RayDoolittle]

I think that it was the 151st PA, not 154th, and yes -- their story at Gettysburg is remarkable. Are you reading, "Like Ripe Apples in a Storm," by Dreese? If not, get ahold of that book, too.

Although I'm a Pennsylvanian, I've always had an immense amount of respect for the valor of the Southern soldier. That being said, there is plenty on the Union side, too. The Iron Brigade, the 105th PA (from my hometown) -- in fact, too many to even name.

You may find, too, that as you dig into units from both sides, you'll find that they acknowledge, admire, and respect the courage of the men from the other side of that struggle as much as the men their own side, and they were in a far better place to know that we are today!

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

"Said a captured Confederate brigadier general to me that evening, in speaking of this final Union charge …:
"Why, sir, it was the most wonderful thing I ever witnessed. I saw your men coming and held my fire — …and then poured my volley right into their faces.

I supposed, of course, when the smoke lifted, your line would be broken and your men gone. But, it is surprising, sir, it never even staggered them. Why, they did not even 'double-quick' or 'rush,' but right along, as cool as fate, your line swung up the hill, and your men marched right up to and over my works and around my brigade, before we knew they were upon us. It was astonishing, sir, such fighting. If I must say it, it was really splendid!"

'I thanked him for this hearty tribute to Yankee pluck and heroism, and proffered him some friendly cigars and my pocket-flask, both of which he accepted; and so we parted, he for the provost marshal's, and I for my command. Two other Confederate brigadiers, en route from the front to the rear as prisoners, dined with our mess that night on the field. We found them penniless, our boys having "gone through" them when captured, as usual on both sides. We tendered them loans, which they gratefully accepted; and, subsequently, when the war was over, they both repaid the money duly. Of course, after all, they were yet American soldiers and gentlemen." *


I grew up on a steady diet of Confederate stories of valor, honor and righteousness. I didn't even want to read anything about the Union feelings or beliefs regarding the war! Bluecoats were enemies. But somewhere around my 50th year I did start reading their stories. And surprise - they were good Americans too.

* Source: page 101

Men and things I saw in civil war days : Rusling, James Fowler, 1834- [from old catalog] : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

411 p. 22 cm

archive.org

 

[RedRover]

Like I said before I'm reading about the civil war almost in the confederate Point of View, for whatever reason.
Now I have read the Story of the 154th Pennsylvania Infantry, called the Schoolteachers Regiment. It is as impressive as any Story about any confederate unit. They suffered around 75 of hundret casualties shortly before theire time in the Army was over.

The 154th, as previously mentioned, was not at Gettysburg. The "schoolteacher's regiment" there was the 151st Pennsylvania.
The more interesting considering the 151st Pennsylvania was a militia regiment of 9 months volunteer militia. There has been alot of suggestion militia corps could not fight, which they did their part to disprove at Gettysburg.

I think that shows that Union soldiers fought as brave as confederates did and that's maybe the main reason why the South lost the war. If the soldiers had performed as poor as many of theire Generals in high positions, maybe the Confederates had won the war. But spirit of Union soldiers kept high even if the spirit of theire commanding General was broken.
As always it's just my opinion

Indeed. All the soldiers in the Civil War were Americans. There was no difference between them other than which army they served in. And some even served in both armies during its course.

Captain B.F. Rittenhouse USA, commanding the Union battery on Little Round Top pummeling the flank of Pickett's charge, noted afterward of the Confederates:

The Confederates were equally impressed with the unexampled courage of Union soldiers in many incidents.


According to Lieutenant General Daniel Harvey Hill, C.S.A., the distinction between the Union and Confederate troops generally was that the former had the advantage of more system and discipline, and so the latter, lacking a regular army as an example, attempted to emphasize the troops' bravery, where everything else was lacking... and perhaps even too often in lieu of proper military modes...

This, says Hill, was partly due to the many CSA officers with political interests seeking to keep in with their men and the party line, who were their past or future constituents...

At the outset of the war, the popular "political gasconade" in the South, to cover for all disadvantages, was the puffing up claims to the Southern volunteers their native bravery was worth five or ten Yankees, etc. Mr. Robuck of Mississippi recalled:

Lt. John S. Wise recalled of the puffing up...

This puffery was quickly exploded by experience in the field (Sam Watkins noted Shiloh demonstrated it to him). But it was never surrendered by the Secession party's rhetoricians.

In 1864, Mr. A.B. Longstreet continued to press it upon the soldiers...

But by then such claims were too fully exploded among the men who had been at the front. The Union soldiers were equally brave as the Confederates, and there WERE more of them. General Cox recalled of a conversation with Confederate General W.J. Hardee upon the surrender in 1865:

General Joe Johnston claimed post-war he never believed the Southern brave/yankee coward rhetoric of the politicians. And that as a military commander, he had no interest in acting as if it was in any wise true, in spite of its "political correctness..."

Mary Chesnut recorded a conversation with Confederate President Jefferson Davis in the summer of 1861, in which he admitted the idea Yankees were less courageous than Southerners was merely political clap-trap for the Southern public's consumption...

Post-war, Confederate veterans lamented that the wartime "carpet-knights" and "bomb-proofs" who remained at home, spouting the party line about the superior bravery of the southerners, (never having been at the front, thus at least their ranks yet full after Appomattox), felt themselves at liberty to claim the limited successes of the Confederate armies were wholly the results of their town-square rhetoric, rather than what discipline, order, and efficiency the Confederate army and its leaders were able to instill, and the soldiers accept, under EVERY military disadvantage.


In the postwar period, the carpet knights, still promoting the superior bravery of the Southerners stuff, for example in Mr. Pollard's "Lost Cause" books series (1866-69), still claimed their rhetorical party-line was true, that Southerners' native bravery should have overwhelmed the vast Union armies, but that the Confederates had betrayed the South, and The Confederate troops surrendered unnecessarily. Pollard claimed that the suggestion the Union troops were equally brave, and that in consequence their superior numbers proved overwhelming was the false "vanity" that had to be suppressed:

"We cannot afford at the expense of history to gratify the vanity of the South, or even to console its mortification on defeat. If the plain truth is to be told, the South lost the contest because of the moral desertion by her people of the cause they had espoused; not from their physical prostration or actual destitution of the means to continue the war." (Pollard, Life of Jefferson Davis, 1869, 353-354.)

Consequently, per this "lost cause" view, only a new combination of Southerners with the Copperhead democracy of the North could raise a new generation of Southerners, willing to equal to ten yankees, etc. And so the puffery continued in spite of the testimony of the South's veterans, and even many of former Confederate politicians, to the contrary.

 

[rpkennedy]

The 154th, as previously mentioned, was not at Gettysburg. The "schoolteacher's regiment" there was the 151st Pennsylvania.
The more interesting considering the 151st Pennsylvania was a militia regiment of 9 months volunteer militia. There has been alot of suggestion militia corps could not fight, which they did their part to disprove at Gettysburg.

View attachment 521407





Indeed. All the soldiers in the Civil War were Americans. There was no difference between them other than which army they served in. And some even served in both armies during its course.

Captain B.F. Rittenhouse USA, commanding the Union battery on Little Round Top pummeling the flank of Pickett's charge, noted afterward of the Confederates:

View attachment 521402



The Confederates were equally impressed with the unexampled courage of Union soldiers in many incidents.


According to Lieutenant General Daniel Harvey Hill, C.S.A., the distinction between the Union and Confederate troops generally was that the former had the advantage of more system and discipline, and so the latter, lacking a regular army as an example, attempted to emphasize the troops' bravery, where everything else was lacking... and perhaps even too often in lieu of proper military modes...

View attachment 521411

This, says Hill, was partly due to the many CSA officers with political interests seeking to keep in with their men and the party line, who were their past or future constituents...

View attachment 521409

At the outset of the war, the popular "political gasconade" in the South, to cover for all disadvantages, was the puffing up claims to the Southern volunteers their native bravery was worth five or ten Yankees, etc. Mr. Robuck of Mississippi recalled:

View attachment 521412

Lt. John S. Wise recalled of the puffing up...

View attachment 521414

This puffery was quickly exploded by experience in the field (Sam Watkins noted Shiloh demonstrated it to him). But it was never surrendered by the Secession party's rhetoricians.

In 1864, Mr. A.B. Longstreet continued to press it upon the soldiers...

View attachment 521413

But by then such claims were too fully exploded among the men who had been at the front. The Union soldiers were equally brave as the Confederates, and there WERE more of them. General Cox recalled of a conversation with Confederate General W.J. Hardee upon the surrender in 1865:

View attachment 521416

General Joe Johnston claimed post-war he never believed the Southern brave/yankee coward rhetoric of the politicians. And that as a military commander, he had no interest in acting as if it was in any wise true, in spite of its "political correctness..."

View attachment 521417

Mary Chesnut recorded a conversation with Confederate President Jefferson Davis in the summer of 1861, in which he admitted the idea Yankees were less courageous than Southerners was merely political clap-trap for the Southern public's consumption...

View attachment 521418

Post-war, Confederate veterans lamented that the wartime "carpet-knights" and "bomb-proofs" who remained at home, spouting the party line about the superior bravery of the southerners, (never having been at the front, thus at least their ranks yet full after Appomattox), felt themselves at liberty to claim the limited successes of the Confederate armies were wholly the results of their town-square rhetoric, rather than what discipline, order, and efficiency the Confederate army and its leaders were able to instill, and the soldiers accept, under EVERY military disadvantage.


In the postwar period, the carpet knights, still promoting the superior bravery of the Southerners stuff, for example in Mr. Pollard's "Lost Cause" books series (1866-69), still claimed their rhetorical party-line was true, that Southerners' native bravery should have overwhelmed the vast Union armies, but that the Confederates had betrayed the South, and The Confederate troops surrendered unnecessarily. Pollard claimed that the suggestion the Union troops were equally brave, and that in consequence their superior numbers proved overwhelming was the false "vanity" that had to be suppressed:

"We cannot afford at the expense of history to gratify the vanity of the South, or even to console its mortification on defeat. If the plain truth is to be told, the South lost the contest because of the moral desertion by her people of the cause they had espoused; not from their physical prostration or actual destitution of the means to continue the war." (Pollard, Life of Jefferson Davis, 1869, 353-354.)

Consequently, per this "lost cause" view, only a new combination of Southerners with the Copperhead democracy of the North could raise a new generation of Southerners, willing to equal to ten yankees, etc. And so the puffery continued in spite of the testimony of the South's veterans, and even many of its Confederate politicians, to the contrary.

View attachment 521431

That's the first time that I've seen the 151st Pennsylvania described as a "militia" unit. A 9-month volunteer regiment certainly, but never a militia regiment. That's interesting.

Ryan

 

[rpkennedy]

The commander of the 151st Pennsylvania at Gettysburg, Lt. Colonel George F. McFarland suffered wounds to both of his legs on July 1 and was cared for at the Lutheran Seminary and was one of their last patients before it was closed down. His right leg was amputated below the knee on July 3 and a bullet had passed through and mangled his leg just above his left ankle.

He reopened the McAlisterville Academy for the fall semester and resumed teaching from his bedside. After the war, he converted the school from a teaching school to a school for the children of dead and disabled Union soldiers.

Ryan

 

[marco75]

The 154th, as previously mentioned, was not at Gettysburg. The "schoolteacher's regiment" there was the 151st Pennsylvania.
The more interesting considering the 151st Pennsylvania was a militia regiment of 9 months volunteer militia. There has been alot of suggestion militia corps could not fight, which they did their part to disprove at Gettysburg.

View attachment 521407





Indeed. All the soldiers in the Civil War were Americans. There was no difference between them other than which army they served in. And some even served in both armies during its course.

Captain B.F. Rittenhouse USA, commanding the Union battery on Little Round Top pummeling the flank of Pickett's charge, noted afterward of the Confederates:

View attachment 521402



The Confederates were equally impressed with the unexampled courage of Union soldiers in many incidents.


According to Lieutenant General Daniel Harvey Hill, C.S.A., the distinction between the Union and Confederate troops generally was that the former had the advantage of more system and discipline, and so the latter, lacking a regular army as an example, attempted to emphasize the troops' bravery, where everything else was lacking... and perhaps even too often in lieu of proper military modes...

View attachment 521411

This, says Hill, was partly due to the many CSA officers with political interests seeking to keep in with their men and the party line, who were their past or future constituents...

View attachment 521409

At the outset of the war, the popular "political gasconade" in the South, to cover for all disadvantages, was the puffing up claims to the Southern volunteers their native bravery was worth five or ten Yankees, etc. Mr. Robuck of Mississippi recalled:

View attachment 521412

Lt. John S. Wise recalled of the puffing up...

View attachment 521414

This puffery was quickly exploded by experience in the field (Sam Watkins noted Shiloh demonstrated it to him). But it was never surrendered by the Secession party's rhetoricians.

In 1864, Mr. A.B. Longstreet continued to press it upon the soldiers...

View attachment 521413

But by then such claims were too fully exploded among the men who had been at the front. The Union soldiers were equally brave as the Confederates, and there WERE more of them. General Cox recalled of a conversation with Confederate General W.J. Hardee upon the surrender in 1865:

View attachment 521416

General Joe Johnston claimed post-war he never believed the Southern brave/yankee coward rhetoric of the politicians. And that as a military commander, he had no interest in acting as if it was in any wise true, in spite of its "political correctness..."

View attachment 521417

Mary Chesnut recorded a conversation with Confederate President Jefferson Davis in the summer of 1861, in which he admitted the idea Yankees were less courageous than Southerners was merely political clap-trap for the Southern public's consumption...

View attachment 521418

Post-war, Confederate veterans lamented that the wartime "carpet-knights" and "bomb-proofs" who remained at home, spouting the party line about the superior bravery of the southerners, (never having been at the front, thus at least their ranks yet full after Appomattox), felt themselves at liberty to claim the limited successes of the Confederate armies were wholly the results of their town-square rhetoric, rather than what discipline, order, and efficiency the Confederate army and its leaders were able to instill, and the soldiers accept, under EVERY military disadvantage.


In the postwar period, the carpet knights, still promoting the superior bravery of the Southerners stuff, for example in Mr. Pollard's "Lost Cause" books series (1866-69), still claimed their rhetorical party-line was true, that Southerners' native bravery should have overwhelmed the vast Union armies, but that the Confederates had betrayed the South, and The Confederate troops surrendered unnecessarily. Pollard claimed that the suggestion the Union troops were equally brave, and that in consequence their superior numbers proved overwhelming was the false "vanity" that had to be suppressed:

"We cannot afford at the expense of history to gratify the vanity of the South, or even to console its mortification on defeat. If the plain truth is to be told, the South lost the contest because of the moral desertion by her people of the cause they had espoused; not from their physical prostration or actual destitution of the means to continue the war." (Pollard, Life of Jefferson Davis, 1869, 353-354.)

Consequently, per this "lost cause" view, only a new combination of Southerners with the Copperhead democracy of the North could raise a new generation of Southerners, willing to equal to ten yankees, etc. And so the puffery continued in spite of the testimony of the South's veterans, and even many of its Confederate politicians, to the contrary.

View attachment 521431

You are right, I'm sorry, it was the 151th of course, I realiced my mistake and wanted to correct. Thank you for your comment, I need some time to read and translate it all, I will do the next days

 

[marco75]

I think that it was the 151st PA, not 154th, and yes -- their story at Gettysburg is remarkable. Are you reading, "Like Ripe Apples in a Storm," by Dreese? If not, get ahold of that book, too.

Although I'm a Pennsylvanian, I've always had an immense amount of respect for the valor of the Southern soldier. That being said, there is plenty on the Union side, too. The Iron Brigade, the 105th PA (from my hometown) -- in fact, too many to even name.

You may find, too, that as you dig into units from both sides, you'll find that they acknowledge, admire, and respect the courage of the men from the other side of that struggle as much as the men their own side, and they were in a far better place to know that we are today!

I want to read the book, I will get it with my next Order. Problem is, there are many books I like to read, most of them are Not to find in Germany so I have to order from the US.
You are right, the soldiers in both sides were unbelieveble brave, one Just have to get informed about both sides, many germans interested in the civil war for what reason ever like the confederate Side more, that's my impression. There are some civil war reenactment groups, almost southern units. I get informed about the confederate side a long time, when I started read about Union Point of View and units, I realiced they were as brave as the confederate soldiers and there are impressive Storys about Union units in Battle.
That shows once again that it is importent to look at both sides of the ( any ) Story

 

[RedRover]

That's the first time that I've seen the 151st Pennsylvania described as a "militia" unit. A 9-month volunteer regiment certainly, but never a militia regiment. That's interesting.

Ryan

Many of the 9 month regiments were militia regiments, "in the service of the United States" as such. Volunteers yes, volunteer militia in federal service... President Lincoln had called forth 300,000 militia for nine months on August 4, 1862:

"August 04, 1862, WAR DEPARTMENT,
Ordered , I. That a draft of 300,000 militia be immediately called into the service of the United States, to serve for nine months unless sooner discharged. The Secretary of War will assign the quotas to the States and establish regulations for the draft."

Many of the quota of nine months militia was quickly recruited by volunteers from among the militia of the States, rather than requiring a draft. The quotas:

The distinction between militia and troops in such cases was miniscule. An 1862 act called for militia in federal service to be organized, etc. akin Volunteer troops, and due same clothing, pay etc.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Diary entries from 2nd Lt. Charles P. Potts of Company I (but commanding Company C), who was captured on July 1, can be found at this site:

PA Civil War Soldiers - Charles P. Potts Diary - 151st of Schuylkill County at Gettysburg - Free Pennsylvania Genealogy

His July 2 entry mentions Col. French's 17th Virginia Cavalry (not infantry), who were guarding Union prisoners. His July 4 entry describes an interesting assortment of plundered civilian goods being carried away with the retreating Confederate wagon train of wounded - doubtless part of Ewell's portion of that train.

 

[rpkennedy]

Many of the 9 month regiments were militia regiments, "in the service of the United States" as such. Volunteers yes, volunteer militia in federal service... President Lincoln had called forth 300,000 militia for nine months on August 4, 1862:

"August 04, 1862, WAR DEPARTMENT,
Ordered , I. That a draft of 300,000 militia be immediately called into the service of the United States, to serve for nine months unless sooner discharged. The Secretary of War will assign the quotas to the States and establish regulations for the draft."

Many of the quota of nine months militia was quickly recruited by volunteers from among the militia of the States, rather than requiring a draft. The quotas:

View attachment 521459


The distinction between militia and troops in such cases was miniscule. An 1862 act called for militia in federal service to be organized, etc. akin Volunteer troops, and due same clothing, pay etc.

View attachment 521454

In the case of the 151st Pennsylvania, I have never seen any evidence that it was composed of militia companies from around the state. Rather, they seem to have been pretty typical volunteers with some of the officers having served in other units (Colonel Harrison Allen had been a major in the 10th Pennsylvania Reserves, for example). That's what I meant when I said that I had never seen the 151st referred to as a militia regiment.

Ryan

 

[RedRover]

In the case of the 151st Pennsylvania, I have never seen any evidence that it was composed of militia companies from around the state. Rather, they seem to have been pretty typical volunteers with some of the officers having served in other units (Colonel Harrison Allen had been a major in the 10th Pennsylvania Reserves, for example). That's what I meant when I said that I had never seen the 151st referred to as a militia regiment.

Ryan

Indeed. The regiment was not composed of pre-existing militia companies, but new ones formed of volunteers for the services called for. The Governors first recruiting among the militia first by volunteers (all free white men aged 18 to 45 within their State), then once the number of volunteers fell off, the Governors held drafts to fill the balance.

Whatever volunteer companies formed for the 151st that were yet incomplete, were filled by a draft held on October 16, 1862 according to Michael Dreese's book on the regiment (p. 9).

Here's a map of the counties in which the volunteer companies for the 151st were raised:

The 151st Pennsylvania Volunteers at Gettysburg

While the Battle of Gettysburg is often remembered for Chamberlain's dramatic defense of Little Round Top, Pickett and Pettigrew's tragic charge, and the stand of the "Iron Brigade," less-remembered units like the 151st Pennsylvania were also crucial in the Civil War's most famous battle. The...

www.google.com

From the fall of 1862 in Pennsylvania:

So yes, the State made a distinction between the volunteers and drafts, for the nine months service, in the names of their units.

So the 151st was designated by the State a "volunteer" unit, and was mustered into US service as militia for 9 months:

But the State designated the regiments filled entirely by drafts as "drafted militia" rather than "volunteers:" Also mustered into US service as militia for 9 months:

But whatever the name of the units, or how organized by the State militias, entered US service per President Lincoln's calling forth of August 4, 1862. It was noted that any volunteers for that service who did not want to serve as militia under the President's draft (even in a volunteer unit formed under that purpose), they might volunteer into the army for three years:

As militia, the nine-month volunteers (legally militia in federal service) were not due the federal bounties for volunteer troops... but as militia in federal service had limited benefits.

As militia the State had authority over the commissioning of the officers. The Governors, units, etc. chose veterans of previous active service where possible.. For example, Harrison Allen of the 151st had served with the 10th PA Reserves USA in 1861 (a three year volunteer unit of the army), but resigned his army commission in early 1862 after several months of active service. In November, from civil life as a citizen of PA, he was commissioned by the State as Colonel of the 151st Pennsylvania.

For his services with the regiment at Gettysburg he was later awarded a brevet of brigadier general of volunteers to rank from March 13, 1865 by the President.

 

[marco75]

The 154th, as previously mentioned, was not at Gettysburg. The "schoolteacher's regiment" there was the 151st Pennsylvania.
The more interesting considering the 151st Pennsylvania was a militia regiment of 9 months volunteer militia. There has been alot of suggestion militia corps could not fight, which they did their part to disprove at Gettysburg.

View attachment 521407





Indeed. All the soldiers in the Civil War were Americans. There was no difference between them other than which army they served in. And some even served in both armies during its course.

Captain B.F. Rittenhouse USA, commanding the Union battery on Little Round Top pummeling the flank of Pickett's charge, noted afterward of the Confederates:

View attachment 521402



The Confederates were equally impressed with the unexampled courage of Union soldiers in many incidents.


According to Lieutenant General Daniel Harvey Hill, C.S.A., the distinction between the Union and Confederate troops generally was that the former had the advantage of more system and discipline, and so the latter, lacking a regular army as an example, attempted to emphasize the troops' bravery, where everything else was lacking... and perhaps even too often in lieu of proper military modes...

View attachment 521411

This, says Hill, was partly due to the many CSA officers with political interests seeking to keep in with their men and the party line, who were their past or future constituents...

View attachment 521409

At the outset of the war, the popular "political gasconade" in the South, to cover for all disadvantages, was the puffing up claims to the Southern volunteers their native bravery was worth five or ten Yankees, etc. Mr. Robuck of Mississippi recalled:

View attachment 521412

Lt. John S. Wise recalled of the puffing up...

View attachment 521414

This puffery was quickly exploded by experience in the field (Sam Watkins noted Shiloh demonstrated it to him). But it was never surrendered by the Secession party's rhetoricians.

In 1864, Mr. A.B. Longstreet continued to press it upon the soldiers...

View attachment 521413

But by then such claims were too fully exploded among the men who had been at the front. The Union soldiers were equally brave as the Confederates, and there WERE more of them. General Cox recalled of a conversation with Confederate General W.J. Hardee upon the surrender in 1865:

View attachment 521416

General Joe Johnston claimed post-war he never believed the Southern brave/yankee coward rhetoric of the politicians. And that as a military commander, he had no interest in acting as if it was in any wise true, in spite of its "political correctness..."

View attachment 521417

Mary Chesnut recorded a conversation with Confederate President Jefferson Davis in the summer of 1861, in which he admitted the idea Yankees were less courageous than Southerners was merely political clap-trap for the Southern public's consumption...

View attachment 521418

Post-war, Confederate veterans lamented that the wartime "carpet-knights" and "bomb-proofs" who remained at home, spouting the party line about the superior bravery of the southerners, (never having been at the front, thus at least their ranks yet full after Appomattox), felt themselves at liberty to claim the limited successes of the Confederate armies were wholly the results of their town-square rhetoric, rather than what discipline, order, and efficiency the Confederate army and its leaders were able to instill, and the soldiers accept, under EVERY military disadvantage.


In the postwar period, the carpet knights, still promoting the superior bravery of the Southerners stuff, for example in Mr. Pollard's "Lost Cause" books series (1866-69), still claimed their rhetorical party-line was true, that Southerners' native bravery should have overwhelmed the vast Union armies, but that the Confederates had betrayed the South, and The Confederate troops surrendered unnecessarily. Pollard claimed that the suggestion the Union troops were equally brave, and that in consequence their superior numbers proved overwhelming was the false "vanity" that had to be suppressed:

"We cannot afford at the expense of history to gratify the vanity of the South, or even to console its mortification on defeat. If the plain truth is to be told, the South lost the contest because of the moral desertion by her people of the cause they had espoused; not from their physical prostration or actual destitution of the means to continue the war." (Pollard, Life of Jefferson Davis, 1869, 353-354.)

Consequently, per this "lost cause" view, only a new combination of Southerners with the Copperhead democracy of the North could raise a new generation of Southerners, willing to equal to ten yankees, etc. And so the puffery continued in spite of the testimony of the South's veterans, and even many of former Confederate politicians, to the contrary.

View attachment 521431

Today I finished reading your comment, thank you again, was interesting.
I think that the best argument against the " southerners were braver meaning ' are the Union soldiers themself who fought as brave as the confederates. The confederate soldiers really fighting at the front line did'nt share that opinion, and If then not for a long time.
Have a nice day

 

[infomanpa]

Today I finished reading your comment, thank you again, was interesting.
I think that the best argument against the " southerners were braver meaning ' are the Union soldiers themself who fought as brave as the confederates. The confederate soldiers really fighting at the front line did'nt share that opinion, and If then not for a long time.
Have a nice day

Just a suggestion: You already know that the regiment is incorrectly identified in the title of this thread. As author of thread, you can edit it and change the title so when people do searches they will be directed to the correct thread.

 

[marco75]

Just a suggestion: You already know that the regiment is incorrectly identified in the title of this thread. As author of thread, you can edit it and change the title so when people do searches they will be directed to the correct thread.

You are right, that's a good Idea, I will do it

 

[infomanpa]

You are right, that's a good Idea, I will do it

The incorrect title is still there. I'm guessing that you may have exceeded the amount of time that you are allowed to edit. That happened to me once. In that case, only a moderator can change the title.

 

[marco75]

The incorrect title is still there. I'm guessing that you may have exceeded the amount of time that you are allowed to edit. That happened to me once. In that case, only a moderator can change the title.

Yes, it does'nt work. So I have to ask a Moderator?

 

[infomanpa]

Yes, it does'nt work. So I have to ask a Moderator?

Yes.

 

[marco75]

Yes.

How will I know who is the one I have to ask? I was looking for, still don't know...

 

[infomanpa]

How will I know who is the one I have to ask? I was looking for, still don't know...

Just click on the word, "Report," which is at the bottom of every post. You should probably use that function for your first post and explain that the title needs changing