Difficult Topics

[PaulaPerry]

Yeah why? Why give up so easily after getting so riled up to fight. The first impression I got when I first read about the forts was the Southerners (out West at least) had no stomach for war. War is hard and they didn't have the fight in them, except for "that guy" and his men.

What do you mean by "out West". I don't see that here in Texas, my husband had 1o Texas ancestors that fought. (From family stories the women were as militant as the men.)

 

[Nathanb1]

What do you mean by "out West". I don't see that here in Texas, my husband had 1o Texas ancestors that fought. (From family stories the women were as militant as the men.)

Wellllllllll........yeah. And we had to fight Comanches, too.

 

[Elennsar]

We recently had a really good thread on "trained" vs. "untrained." For every Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and Forrest there were lots of failures. Lots.

Yeah. It takes a special combination of qualities to be a capable officer, and while education can help, we're still left hoping it all adds up.

Why some men who appeared promising turned out as duds is an interesting thing. Bragg comes to mind.

If we were to look at his Mexican War career, he should have been hell on wheels.

But despite what he did well, he certainly wasn't that.

 

[PaulaPerry]

Why on Earth Jefferson Davis thought it was a remotely good idea to make Leonidas Polk a major general.

Ouch! I didn't remember Gen. Leonidas Polk. I had a cousin 5 times removed, Leonidas Bills, who was from Tennessee and served in the CSA. I knew the Bills were related to the Polks by marriage, so I looked it up. Yep, Gen. Leonidas Polk was his uncle. Seems Gen. Polk was a good man, too bad he was not a better officer.

 

[PaulaPerry]

Wellllllllll........yeah. And we had to fight Comanches, too.

Seriously, I didn't know if he included Texas in "out West". I know we often don't consider ourselves Southern or Western, just Texans.

 

[PaulaPerry]

Or Bragg?

and yet Ft. Polk and Ft. Bragg stand today

 

[PaulaPerry]

I would say the inability to get food. Both for the Southern Troops and for their families.

There wasn't enough to start with, the women and young boys were having to try to put in and harvest crops and very little was coming through the blockade. Then the Northern Troops started confiscating everything.

It is hard to fight with an empty belly. It must be even harder to fight; knowing your family is hungry.

 

[leftyhunter]

I would say the inability to get food. Both for the Southern Troops and for their families.

There wasn't enough to start with, the women and young boys were having to try to put in and harvest crops and very little was coming through the blockade. Then the Northern Troops started confiscating everything.

It is hard to fight with an empty belly. It must be even harder to fight; knowing your family is hungry.

Professor Williams in his book "The South bitterly divided' argues based on his research that Southern planters devoted their fertile land to growing cotton to smuggle overseas or sell illegally sell it to Northern cotton brokers. Williams argues that they could of produced plenty of food but cared more for their pocketbooks.
Leftyhunter

 

[Elennsar]

I've read, though I cannot recall where, that food supplies were adequate, but transportation was anything but.

Whatever it was, logistics were a huge Confederate failing. Although with Whitworth's contributions, I don't think it quite merits being considered an uncovered topic.

 

[unionblue]

All three of them?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Rebforever]

By cruel do you mean has in murdering unarmed men and boys like Quantrill did in the Lawrence Massacre in Kn? By cruel do you mean when Confederate troops during Lee's invasion kidnapped free blacks into slavery? If you have studied outer wars pre and post ACW one will notice that Union soldiers are *****cats compared to other armies in the treatment of civilians even compared to US soldiers in post ACW conflicts.
Leftyhunter

So. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Placing one cruelty against another? One poster making a comment about some
cruelty, another poster reenforces!

 

[Nathanb1]

So. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Placing one cruelty against another? One poster making a comment about some
cruelty, another poster reenforces!

Now you've got it.

 

[Elennsar]

I look at it this way.

Most soldiers in both armies didn't do anything truly awful. Most of them did do at least some foraging.

Some of them were scum.

And then there are the brigands.

While the issue of kidnapping blacks to take South is certainly something to hold some on one side accountable, everything else of any sort you can name was found on both sides. Civilians in the South had it worse because they had to deal with the armies more, that is all.

 

[OpnCoronet]

One of the more difficult topics, at the time, was the relationship of Revolution to the Constitution. There is no relationship(or, at least, not a very direct one), but, many people of that era(and a few fringe elements of the post-war era and even today) assumed there was.

 

[Nathanb1]

Seriously, I didn't know if he included Texas in "out West". I know we often don't consider ourselves Southern or Western, just Texans.

I think he actually meant Western Theatre, as opposed to us, since we're trans-Missippi. You know, the boring part. (Unless you've been to one of Dr. Donald Frazier's lectures...then you'll sit up and listen!)

 

[Elennsar]

The Trans-Mississippi strikes me as a place that wasn't decisive to "the overall war", but is sure worth studying if you can put up with the relatively scanty sources out there.

Just as much guts and gore and glory and fun and madness as anywhere else, just less war effort supporting stuff.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Losing Missouri, would almost certainly have had a significant impact on the outcome of the over all war.

 

[Pat Young]

I expected that the new Immigrants forum would be "hard", but actually most of the discussion has been pretty good and compares well with other forums. I do note that a lot of folks who comment frequently in other forums do not chime in on the immigration forum.

 

[Pat Young]

The Trans-Mississippi strikes me as a place that wasn't decisive to "the overall war", but is sure worth studying if you can put up with the relatively scanty sources out there.

Just as much guts and gore and glory and fun and madness as anywhere else, just less war effort supporting stuff.

I have written a lot on the West and the Trans in my series The Immigrants' Civil War. There is much less interest among my readers in these articles than in my articles on The East. I get a 10% drop in readers for Tennessee and a 25% drop for west of the Mississippi. It is tough because there are a lot of great immigrant stories to tell out there. For crying out loud, Pat Cleburne is out there and he is one of my most interesting characters. So are Unionists like Franz Sigel. Oh well.

 

[Rebforever]

I disagree with the Immigrants forum. One reason why I will never post there.
That will be all I say. Back to the OP.