Common Misconceptions/Myths

[John Hartwell]

Are you confusing being against slavery and being racist?
Do you think that every person who was an abolitionist was not racist?
Maybe that myth is one of those that should go away
Racism was rampant within the abolition movement.

I'm saying no such thing. Slavery was the issue. Racism is another matter altogether.

You can admire, praise someone for being a great soldier, scholar, writer, or artist, without questioning whether or not he is racist. Abolitionists are praiseworthy for fighting to end slavery. Noone is praising or admiring abolitionists, or anybody else, for being racist.

We're a complicated species. Good and bad at the same time. The same person can be admirable for one trait & contemptible for another. Nobody's perfect.

 

[archieclement]

Are you confusing being against slavery and being racist?
Do you think that every person who was an abolitionist was not racist?
Maybe that myth is one of those that should go away
Racism was rampant within the abolition movement.

It's the rather common myth of excusing
some racists as somehow "good racists"...

If someone was racist, it's a rather simple fact....trying to say well he wasn't as racist as this guy.......doesn't remove the original racist's racism at all.....yet certain figures some always throw in the distracting "but" comparison that doesn't remove that someone was indeed a racist at all......because in reality if one isn't trying to excuse it, there is no "but"

 

[Biscoitos]

I'm saying no such thing. Slavery was the issue. Racism is another matter altogether.

You can admire, praise someone for being a great soldier, scholar, writer, or artist, without questioning whether or not he is racist. Abolitionists are praiseworthy for fighting to end slavery. Noone is praising or admiring abolitionists, or anybody else, for being racist.

We're a complicated species. Good and bad at the same time. The same person can be admirable for one trait & contemptible for another. Nobody's perfect.

Yes, and its important to point out that abolitionists can be and sometimes are racist.
It needs to be known.

So many young people think that there were only two groups of white people in America in the mid 19th century:
Northerners, abolitionists who were angelic and "good", without any racial prejudice whatsoever and good people in all or almost facets of life.
Rebels, like Simon Legree, proslavery, racist, mean and downright evil in the way they treated pretty much everybody and everything, except their hound dogs.

I had the experience of occasionally speaking to public high school history classes and I was always amazed at how one dimensional their thinking was on this and many other topics. (Not related to slavery, civil war, or racism). They seemed to grossly oversimplify almost everything they knew about history, almost to a child's cartoon level.

 

[Potomac Pride]

Again no Southern home was taken from it's owners and not all Southern whites thought the Union was invading them. General Burnside was welcomed by people in Knoxville Tennessee has a liberator.
Leftyhunter

The home of Jefferson Davis was seized by Union forces during the war and used as a field headquarters and hospital during the Mississippi campaign. The homes of other political leaders of the south were burned down by Union troops in various states as an act of revenge. During the war, there were numerous houses of other southern citizens in cities that were destroyed as a result of the military actions of the Union troops. In addition, I stated that the protection of property against northern invasion was just one of the reasons that Confederate troops fought and not the only reason. Furthermore, Knoxville TN was in the eastern part of the state which was a pro-Union region during the Civil War.

 

[leftyhunter]

The home of Jefferson Davis was seized by Union forces during the war and used as a field headquarters and hospital during the Mississippi campaign. The homes of other political leaders of the south were burned down by Union troops in various states as an act of revenge. During the war, there were numerous houses of other southern citizens in cities that were destroyed as a result of the military actions of the Union troops. In addition, I stated that the protection of property against northern invasion was just one of the reasons that Confederate troops fought and not the only reason. Furthermore, Knoxville TN was in the eastern part of the state which was a pro-Union region during the Civil War.

So what the Southern whites in question got there homes back. It's not like the same fate didn't happen when Confederate's had the upper hand i.e. Lawrence Kansas 1863 or Chambers, Pennsylvania 1864.
Yes Knoxville, Tennessee had Unionists my point is not all Southern whites backed the Confedracy.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Yes, and its important to point out that abolitionists can be and sometimes are racist.
It needs to be known.

So many young people think that there were only two groups of white people in America in the mid 19th century:
Northerners, abolitionists who were angelic and "good", without any racial prejudice whatsoever and good people in all or almost facets of life.
Rebels, like Simon Legree, proslavery, racist, mean and downright evil in the way they treated pretty much everybody and everything, except their hound dogs.

I had the experience of occasionally speaking to public high school history classes and I was always amazed at how one dimensional their thinking was on this and many other topics. (Not related to slavery, civil war, or racism). They seemed to grossly oversimplify almost everything they knew about history, almost to a child's cartoon level.

So slave owners believe in racial equality? Better to be freed by someone who may or may not be racist then to be enslaved at all.
Leftyhunter

 

[Sbc]

In post 167 you said they were heavy as a percentage of combatants; I replied by showing that they were on par with Napoleonic battles in percentage terms. Since that's the most immediately comparable set of previous battles historically speaking, this shows the battles were not heavy as a percentage of combatants.

Well maybe because you are cherry picking battles to favor your view. Want me to cite percentages of other battles since you were wrong on Gettysburg?

 

[Saphroneth]

Well maybe because you are cherry picking battles to favor your view. Want me to cite percentages of other battles since you were wrong on Gettysburg?

I'm not particularly sure what you mean by "wrong on Gettysburg", though I was going for some of the highest-casualty battles in both cases. What about if we look at all the Army of the Potomac's battles post-McClellan (on the grounds that the McClellan era has some number nonsense which we don't have time to disentangle)?

Battle​	U​	U Cas​	C​	C Cas​	U %​	C %​
Fredericksburg​	122000​	12500​	78500​	5500​	10.25%​	7.01%​
Chancellorsville​	134000​	17500​	60500​	13000​	13.06%​	21.49%​
(Gettysburg)​	104000​	23000​	73000​	25000​	22.12%​	34.25%​
Bristoe​	76000​	1000​	45000​	3500​	1.32%​	7.78%​
Mine Run​	81000​	1500​	48000​	500​	1.85%​	1.04%​
Wilderness​	140000​	17500​	66000​	11000​	12.50%​	16.67%​
Spotsylvania​	110000​	18500​	55000​	12500​	16.82%​	22.73%​
North Anna​	100000​	4000​	50000​	1500​	4.00%​	3.00%​
Cold Harbor​	112000​	12500​	60000​	5500​	11.16%​	9.17%​
2nd Petersburg (siege assault)​	62000​	11500​	38000​	4000​	18.55%​	10.53%​
Crater (siege assault)​	8500​	4000​	6000​	1500​	47.06%​	25.00%​
Five Forks​	22000​	1000​	10500​	3000​	4.55%​	28.57%​

The Crater's numbers are skewed because not the whole force is counted, but if we discard that one then the average casualties are about 10.5% for the Union and about 15% for the Confederates; as you can see, Gettysburg is the highest % of casualties for both armies of an actual field battle.

We could compare this with e.g. Napoleon's 1812 campaign (the whole thing) or Wellington's battles in the Peninsula (plus Corunna etc. for the brief period someone else was in charge).

 

[Potomac Pride]

So what the Southern whites in question got there homes back. It's not like the same fate didn't happen when Confederate's had the upper hand i.e. Lawrence Kansas 1863 or Chambers, Pennsylvania 1864.
Yes Knoxville, Tennessee had Unionists my point is not all Southern whites backed the Confedracy.
Leftyhunter

In many cases, the southerners who had their homes destroyed were not able to rebuild them because money was scarce and bankruptcy was prevalent in the years after the war.

 

[Mango Hill]

The second one, about specific circumstances, is that there are places where you can see a pursuit phase nearly happen but it doesn't quite. Sometimes this is because nobody makes the mistake of burning through all their reserves (e.g. at Antietam - were it not for 6th Corps then Lee could have shattered 1st, 2nd and 12th, for example) and sometimes the opposite where reserves are committed but things don't reach the point where the "target" breaks (e.g. at Gettysburg, where Meade has committed all his reserves in error on both Day Two and Day Three but inconvenient commander deaths on Day Two or issues with committing on Day Three result in the situation remaining stable). You also have situations where a broken enemy can withdraw across a river to safety (post-Gaines Mill) or behind friendly troops which were just arriving (post-Second Bull Run).

Hey, Sap. Not trying to be a contrarian because I know my knowledge of Antietam does not compare to yours but....to pick up on the OP the example of using the recently arrived 6th Corp (Franklyn's) two divisions as unused reserves is a bit too broad a term. In addition to that it would be a mischaracterization to apply the term pursuit force to Jackson's desire to outflank the Union right. I also disagree that the three Union Corps (1st, 2nd, and 12th) were at that stage were something like 6,500 (going by Sears numbers) would have done any shattering. The guy who was completely demoralized was Sumner and McClellan could have easily remedied that by removing Sumner from command and taking the reins himself.

What actually occurred (IMO) is that the Confederate left was spared a humiliating defeat if Franklyn had been allowed to attack and 5th Corp (Porter) had attacked as well down the center.

 

[leftyhunter]

In many cases, the southerners who had their homes destroyed were not able to rebuild them because money was scarce and bankruptcy was prevalent in the years after the war.

That's what happens in wartime. That's why it's not a good idea to go to war to protect slavery.
Leftyhunter

 

[Saphroneth]

Hey, Sap. Not trying to be a contrarian because I know my knowledge of Antietam does not compare to yours but....to pick up on the OP the example of using the recently arrived 6th Corp (Franklyn's) two divisions as unused reserves is a bit too broad a term. In addition to that it would be a mischaracterization to apply the term pursuit force to Jackson's desire to outflank the Union right. I also disagree that the three Union Corps (1st, 2nd, and 12th) were at that stage were something like 6,500 (going by Sears numbers) would have done any shattering. The guy who was completely demoralized was Sumner and McClellan could have easily remedied that by removing Sumner from command and taking the reins himself.

What actually occurred (IMO) is that the Confederate left was spared a humiliating defeat if Franklyn had been allowed to attack and 5th Corp (Porter) had attacked as well down the center.

The reason why I put it that way is that as of the mid morning you have 1st, 2nd and 12th Corps which were all basically incapable of further offensive action - the Confederates were pushing forwards as a result of 2nd Corps giving way, and it's the insertion of 6th Corps from reserve into the battle line which stabilizes the situation.

Most of 1st, 2nd and 12th Corps in terms of human beings are still alive, but in terms of military units they're completely shattered - 2nd Corps had taken over 1/3 casualties, for example, while one division of 1st Corps was down to 300 effectives (i.e. it was down to about four establishment companies) and couldn't have fended off a fresh regiment. They're at the point where they can't effectively attack and would have trouble defending themselves - basically this is the same state that most of Napoleon's troops were in at Waterloo by the afternoon, their courage is used up for the day.


As of the afternoon of the 17th, meanwhile, you have basically one Union division left in reserve - Morell - and Burnside is asking for reinforcements because he doesn't feel confident of defending himself. McClellan's choice at this point is either a death-or-glory attack with his last troops (which might succeed, but if it fails it'll destroy his own army as there'll be nothing left able to fight) or to wait until his troops have recovered and attack then.

 

[Mango Hill]

The reason why I put it that way is that as of the mid morning you have 1st, 2nd and 12th Corps which were all basically incapable of further offensive action - the Confederates were pushing forwards as a result of 2nd Corps giving way, and it's the insertion of 6th Corps from reserve into the battle line which stabilizes the situation.

Which CSA units were pushing forwards, at what time, and where were Slocum and Smith placed that stabilized (maybe blunted, if that's what is meant by stabilized) the battle line?

 

[Saphroneth]

Which CSA units were pushing forwards, at what time, and where were Slocum and Smith placed that stabilized (maybe blunted, if that's what is meant by stabilized) the battle line?

The divisions of McLaws, RH Anderson and Walker, after 8AM by my understanding; these divisions (McLaws and Walker; RH Anderson had gone to their right) counterattack 2nd Corps (and Greene's division) and overrun Greene and Sedgwick; they continue moving forwards. (This is Lee's main movement of the battle, committing his reserve to smash 2nd Corps.)
Slocum and Smith effectively form a new battle line which the remnants of the other Union corps can pass through to safety, and McLaws and Walker are unable to continue their attack safely against fresh troops.


This results in the situation where you have 1st, 12th and the shattered divisions of 2nd Corps recuperating, and Slocum in the Cornfield while Smith is along the Sunken Road - the two divisions forming a "shield" which protects the troops behind them. The situation is still a bit touchy up there and when Couch arrives the next day he's used to relieve some of the frontline troops who weren't 6th Corps.

(this map included largely to show where Smith and Slocum were)

 

[Potomac Pride]

That's what happens in wartime. That's why it's not a good idea to go to war to protect slavery.
Leftyhunter

Well according to your earlier post, you stated that no southern homes were lost during the war.

 

[leftyhunter]

Well according to your earlier post, you stated that no southern homes were lost during the war.

And I was correct because I said no Southern home was taken from it's owners other then land from Lee which his heir's were compensated for.
If a home was burned that's just how it goes in war time.
Leftyhunter

 

[Mango Hill]

Most of 1st, 2nd and 12th Corps in terms of human beings are still alive, but in terms of military units they're completely shattered - 2nd Corps had taken over 1/3 casualties, for example, while one division of 1st Corps was down to 300 effectives (i.e. it was down to about four establishment companies) and couldn't have fended off a fresh regiment. They're at the point where they can't effectively attack and would have trouble defending themselves - basically this is the same state that most of Napoleon's troops were in at Waterloo by the afternoon, their courage is used up for the day.

From reading Sears it doesn't appear that 2nd Corps was as bad off as posted above. Richardson expected to renew the attack on the Sunken Road along with French's division as soon as their two divisions "were sorted out and resupplied with ammunition, and as soon as he received effective artillery support to clear the way, the assault would be renewed". But Richardson would never see that artillery support as 44 guns (probably part of Franklyn's Corp) and all of 1st Corps artillery were massed about a mile north of his position to be used against the expected Rebel attack. All Richardson faced was 20 guns and a few regiments, some of which were out of ammunition.

 

[Mango Hill]

The divisions of McLaws, RH Anderson and Walker, after 8AM by my understanding; these divisions (McLaws and Walker; RH Anderson had gone to their right) counterattack 2nd Corps (and Greene's division) and overrun Greene and Sedgwick; they continue moving forwards. (This is Lee's main movement of the battle, committing his reserve to smash 2nd Corps.)
Slocum and Smith effectively form a new battle line which the remnants of the other Union corps can pass through to safety, and McLaws and Walker are unable to continue their attack safely against fresh troops.


This results in the situation where you have 1st, 12th and the shattered divisions of 2nd Corps recuperating, and Slocum in the Cornfield while Smith is along the Sunken Road - the two divisions forming a "shield" which protects the troops behind them. The situation is still a bit touchy up there and when Couch arrives the next day he's used to relieve some of the frontline troops who weren't 6th Corps.

View attachment 377752

(this map included largely to show where Smith and Slocum were)

It is my understanding that by 1:00 PM the the only action any of Slocum's and Smith's divisions had actually performed that would be classified as blunting anything was the ill advised charge by three regiments of William H. Irwin's brigade; Smith's division, on the Dunker Church. This had to have occurred sometime around 11:00 AM. By the time both Smith and Slocum took up the positions as seen on the map Richardson had been mortally wounded (which happened shortly after 1:00 PM) and Hancock was sent to take over his division.

 

[Saphroneth]

From reading Sears it doesn't appear that 2nd Corps was as bad off as posted above. Richardson expected to renew the attack on the Sunken Road along with French's division as soon as their two divisions "were sorted out and resupplied with ammunition, and as soon as he received effective artillery support to clear the way, the assault would be renewed". But Richardson would never see that artillery support as 44 guns (probably part of Franklyn's Corp) and all of 1st Corps artillery were massed about a mile north of his position to be used against the expected Rebel attack. All Richardson faced was 20 guns and a few regiments, some of which were out of ammunition.

2nd Corps suffered over 1/3 of their PFD strength casualties, though - and if you look at Carman's effectives, even Richardson's division had taken 28% casualties (out of the men who were actually in line of battle) while by the same metric French had taken 32%. In a single day they suffered about as badly as Lee did in three at Gettysburg.
My understanding of that artillery stop line is that it did in fact stop a flank attack by Stuart.

The point I think I'm trying to get at here is that if 6th Corps hadn't been sent in to form their new line then McClellan's line in the north would have basically collapsed.

It is my understanding that by 1:00 PM the the only action any of Slocum's and Smith's divisions had actually performed that would be classified as blunting anything was the ill advised charge by three regiments of William H. Irwin's brigade; Smith's division, on the Dunker Church. This had to have occurred sometime around 11:00 AM. By the time both Smith and Slocum took up the positions as seen on the map Richardson had been mortally wounded (which happened shortly after 1:00 PM) and Hancock was sent to take over his division.

Clearly I'm not making my point properly, then!

Hold on a sec... this is a bit crude but hopefully it gets the point across.

Basically, in linear warfare (which is most ACW warfare) then any gap in the line is a vulnerability - in this case, a vulnerability being exploited by McLaws and Walker as they follow up on a successful advance. Without 6th Corps there then there's nothing to plug the gap; deploying 6th Corps restores the situation because it plugs the gap and means the Union line is stable again.

So long as you have enough troops to form a stable line, then attacks that don't draw on that are comparatively low risk; as soon as you no longer have enough troops to form a stable line, then you can't really resist even a moderate enemy advance. This is why putting in your last reserves is a high-risk move, as it means that if things go wrong you can no longer recover the situation by adding reserves.
This is also why most Napoleonic warfare revolves on a basic level around getting your enemy to commit his reserves, and then hitting him somewhere he doesn't have reserves to resolve the situation.

 

[Potomac Pride]

And I was correct because I said no Southern home was taken from it's owners other then land from Lee which his heir's were compensated for.
If a home was burned that's just how it goes in war time.

You said the southern whites got their homes back but having your home destroyed and being unable to rebuild it is not getting it back.