Don Dixon
Sergeant
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2008
- Location
- Fairfax, VA, USA
Bottom line. Who won?
i would assume after enduring battle after battle with the same men, you'd begin to trust and rely on one another. This trust may have given a certain regiment an advantage over one that was newly formed with men who didn't know each other.
This war gave a lot of participation trophies.I think it came from the same school of thought expressed by the actor Dustin Hoffman in the Movie " Meet the Fookers" who spoke about having trophies made for his son ( played by Ben Stiller) celebrating fifth place wins at summer camp competitions.
Unfortunately war doesn't give participation trophies. War is as Von Clawdwitz wrote " politics by other means". Either the Confedracy achieved it's politcal goals or it didn't. The Lost Cause and it's present day advocates are more in the Hoffman school of thought that the Confedracy should get participation trophies.
Leftyhunter
Highly unlikely. If a young man in a crowded duty can make it to adulthood in a crowded city more likely then not can handle diseases better then a young man from a rural area.Speculation here: Other than disease resistance, isn't a farm boy the ideal infantry grunt? Used to rough conditions and hard labor, and more likely to be experienced with firearms.
If so, the South had an advantage that most Southern enlisted men were from such families whereas the North was much more varied. You had lots of Midwestern farm boys but lots of cityslickers in the East (NYC, Boston, Philly).
True but the Lost Cause have handed them out to the loosers.This war gave a lot of participation trophies.
There is an interesting book I have at home from an officer that was verified by a historian that Humphreys was a lousy drunk. When I get home I can if you want give you the title. There were plenty of good Union officers in the West and of course some bad ones. It certainly wasn't like the Confedracy had better officers then the Union.
Leftyhunter
When I get home I will quote the title of the book concerning Humphrey. It gives a different point of view about Humphrey.If that was true (and I highly doubt it) it certainly didn't affect Humphrey's career prior to the CW, as a military officer during the CW and in his post war years. He graduated from the USMA at West Point 13th out of a graduating class of 33. He fought in the Seminole War and was posted in garrison duty afterwards. He resigned his commission and became a civil engineer for the government. Back in the army a couple of years later as a Topographical engineer, working on bridges and harbors and doing coastal and railroad surveys. "His Report upon the Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi River (1861), co-authored with Henry L. Abbot (another very successful Topographical Engineer), formed the basis for subsequent flood control and navigation improvement." see; Mark M. Boatner, III; CW Dictionary
During the period Palfrey writes his book The Antietam and Fredericksburg Campaign Humphrey's commanded the 3rd Div. of the V Corp of the AOP. When he took over the newly created 3rd division (7 of 8 regiments were newbies) about half had been equipped with lousy Belgian rifles that did not work properly. He insisted his division be properly equipped with working rifles and would not leave to join V Corp until the division was so equipped. It was. His 3rd division then made a three day march from Washington D. C. to Frederick, MD. After resting for some 12 hours he continued the march to the battlefield at Antietam, 23 miles in less than 12 hours marching mostly at night. His division reached the field on the morning of the 18th and was placed in reserve.
At Fredericksburg Humphrey's 3rd division made the last charge with bayonets only upon Marye's Heights. It is said that the division course was upset by the wounded and those who were seeking cover from previous units that had valiantly tried, but were viciously cut down, storming Marye's Heights. This gallant effort was applauded by Palfrey as the model that had the best chance of breaching the defenses at Marye's Heights and the one that should have been adopted from the start.
At Chancellorsville Humphrey's led the 3rd division and briefly commanded the V Corp. At Gettysburg Humphrey commanded the 2nd Div. III Corp and replaced Butterfield as AOP CoS. As CoS to Meade he continued in this position until he replace Hancock as II Corp commander during the early stages of the Petersburg Campaign. He was considered as Warren's replacement of the command of the V Corp in May, 1864 but Warren won a reprieve at Spotsylvania.
After the war Humphrey was named Chief of Engineers with the rank of BG in 1866. After retiring from the military he became a who's who in the worlds Science and Arts field. He was a member of several philosophical and Science societies and academies and was made an "honorary member of scientific and philosophical societies in Austria, France and Italy. Of his war experiences he wrote From Gettysburg to the Rapidan (1883) and The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865 (1885). The latter is a standard work." ibid.
This post should serve as a reminder that rumors of the kind as put forward by the distinguished member of this forum do not serve any purpose other than to undeservedly smear the reputation of an accomplished individual. This type of smear has been one that Grant had to put up with even though he was actually a drunk for a very sad but small part of his life. It sure as heck didn't seem to affect his performance as a soldier and statesman.
Now, if the quoted OP position had been: was the average Confederate soldier on the front lines more often under harsher material conditions than his average Federal counterpart...
When I get home I will quote the title of the book concerning Humphrey. It gives a different point of view about Humphrey.
Leftyhunter
I am going to quote one example that should put this debate to bed.
124th NY with 220 men held off the famed 2nd Texas and part of Benning's brigade before retiring both its commanding officers were killed.
I could quote many many more from both-sides which goes to prove that a cohesion of a unit is vastly more important than where that unit comes from geographically.
And i must stress once again that defending will cause more casualties than attacking and considering the Union virtually steamrolled down the Mississippi taking various strong points along the way i would suggest the myth about Northern Troops being inferior is one of the biggest myths in the ACW.
Just to give you another example of myths like these being debunked.
A Scotsman is considered tough as nails and yet time and time again the English beat them in battle and yet all we ever here is Bannockburn and bloody Mel Gibson you don't hear anything about Flooden Fields , Pinkie Clough , Falkirk , Dumbar the list could go on so this Celtic nonsense is rubbish as well.
History and people mentality tend to big up the underdog giving them super human powers and the moral high ground most historians do it to sell books most film-makers to sell tickets.
The truth is we are all men and each of us is an individual but its how we work together that counts being inspired like the 124th NY by their two commanders or being proud of your battle flag is what makes better soldiers not where you come from.
All my opinion of course.
A very good example. But this thread is not intended to be a debate about which side had the better fighters but about Palfrey's reasons for arriving at his conclusions. It's in the OP:
"What I find of interest in this question are Palfrey's own conclusions. He's very "diffident" with his opinions and says he only raises this question "as a contribution to the discussion of the subject, than as an absolute solution to the problem." This is a good guide to follow and it's within the spirit in which this thread is created.
I am just pointing out that the book is a very interesting counterpoint to Humphrey being a good general or not. People interested in the subject can make up their own mind's.Ok, but it's not going to change anything about his accomplishments in life. If he was really a drunk is it possible that he would have not only kept his rank and be promoted to responsible positions such as CoS and Corp command?
@major bill had a thread a while back that showed even the Union Army couldn't always provide all it's soldiers with shoes. It wasn't unknown for Union soldiers to go hungry particularly during the earlier part of the siege of Chattanooga before General Hooker could establish the Cracker Line.I think it is:
"5) "the needy condition which was common among the Southerners......while the Northern soldier were abundantly provided with everything" (typical Lost Cause argument?)"
But this thread is not intended to be a debate about which side had the better fighters but about Palfrey's reasons for arriving at his conclusions.
"different modes of life at the South and at the North ... the intenser and more passionate character of the Southerner ... the comparatively lawless (not to speak invidiously) life at the South... The Southerner felt the gaudium certaminis (joy of battle). With the Northerners it was different. ... the needy condition which was common among the Southerners......while the Northern soldier were abundantly provided with everything" (typical Lost Cause argument?)
6) For the Southerner a field won was a field to plunder.
If he was really a drunk is it possible that he would have not only kept his rank and be promoted to responsible positions such as CoS and Corp command?
Well said.Out-Manned, Out-Gunned, Out-Supplied, but Never Out -Fought.
The one thing that carried the South for so long, was the superior leadership of it’s Generals,& the Soldiers complete trust in them ! It took real leadership to inspire their men to repeatedly fight overwhelming odds with amazing success until depredations & attrition wore them down. Soldiers often fought without guns, ammo, food, winter coats or shoes. I haven’t read of Northern soldiers fighting in similar conditions. They were so well supplied & cared for.