Grant had nothing to do with the Union winning the war

Status
Not open for further replies.

JCM6395

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Location
Southwest Indiana
In the current time line it was the margin of victory. There was that untapped reserve, but also political minefield if tapped. I'd hate to have a big call up during the summer of '64 for example. There are likely other bad times politically too. The USCT solved a number of political problems.

True....I haven't read a lot on the Colored Troops but I believe something like 200,000 served during the war. Out of that 10,000 died from combat and about 20,000 more from disease. I'm really surprised they weren't used more than they were. They definitely were motivated to fight.
 

R. Evans

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Location
Salem, Ohio
True....I haven't read a lot on the Colored Troops but I believe something like 200,000 served during the war. Out of that 10,000 died from combat and about 20,000 more from disease. I'm really surprised they weren't used more than they were. They definitely were motivated to fight.

I think they would've been used more in fighting if predjudices didn't die so hard. And from my reading of Noah Andre Trudeau's Like Men Of War, USCT training varied wildly from regiment to regiment. Some like the famous 54th Mass. were trained just as well if not better than most white units. Other USCT units barely knew the rudiments of marching, loading and firing their weapons before being thrown into battle and understandably performed poorly thus reinforcing the predjudice of the generals who committed them to battle. Which is the reason we see quotes praising their qualities as fighting men and others saying that they should never be used in combat but for merely "digging ditches".
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
I think they would've been used more in fighting if predjudices didn't die so hard. And from my reading of Noah Andre Trudeau's Like Men Of War, USCT training varied wildly from regiment to regiment. Some like the famous 54th Mass. were trained just as well if not better than most white units. Other USCT units barely knew the rudiments of marching, loading and firing their weapons before being thrown into battle and understandably performed poorly thus reinforcing the predjudice of the generals who committed them to battle. Which is the reason we see quotes praising their qualities as fighting men and others saying that they should never be used in combat but for merely "digging ditches".
What did you think of Trudeaus book, I've been debating on getting that one.. His other two on Gettysburg and Shermans march I thought were superb..
 

Stefany

Banned
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Location
Bulgaria
True....I haven't read a lot on the Colored Troops but I believe something like 200,000 served during the war. Out of that 10,000 died from combat and about 20,000 more from disease. I'm really surprised they weren't used more than they were. They definitely were motivated to fight.


Well I know that Sherman hated the colored troops and he said that fighting side-by-side with a black soldier only weakened the moral of his troops. He especially hated the recruiters DC tended to send to collect blacks to enlist in the army. He kept complaining that the recruiters ate too much food and took too much space on the trains or some lame excuse like that he used to send them away, hehe. That really crawled on the nerves of the politicians in DC.

At least this is what historian John F. Marzalek claims about Sherman...
 

R. Evans

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Location
Salem, Ohio
What did you think of Trudeaus book, I've been debating on getting that one.. His other two on Gettysburg and Shermans march I thought were superb..

I can't recommend that book enough. Very well written and researched. And he covers just about every combat action the USCT took part in. From the smallest skirmish to large battles.

Debate no longer and get it!:D
 

Diana9

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Location
Southern California
Probably because she's tired of hearing about how the South would've won but for the superior numbers and resources of the North. Well guess what, that's what usually happens when a smaller country starts a war with a country with more people, more industry, more resources and more money and the will to see the thing through to the end. The smaller country loses precisely because of those things. To whine about it, like some here do, seems to be sour grapes.

I'm not pretending to know Diana's mind, but that seems a pretty good guess.:smile:


You expressed my mind better than I did. Thank you :smile:
 

Diana9

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Location
Southern California
D9, as I read your post, both S.D. Lee and W.T. Sherman agreed. So why all the histrionics?

I mentioned Sherman because he assessed the situation correctly BEFORE the war began. I don't think he had a crystal ball. He was just using common sense, which the South apparently lacked. Since the greater assets of the North over the South were obvious from the start, the calamities of the war S.D. Lee wrote about AFTER the fact could have been avoided. The lesson being: Don't start a war you don't have a chance in hell of winning! No use in whining about what had been a predictable outcome 150 years later. It's pointless and, frankly, I've grown impatient with this line of argument being peddled as legitimate by Lost Causers.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
True....I haven't read a lot on the Colored Troops but I believe something like 200,000 served during the war. Out of that 10,000 died from combat and about 20,000 more from disease. I'm really surprised they weren't used more than they were. They definitely were motivated to fight.

Not really.


USCTS total deaths

Killed in action or mortally wounded --2,894

Died of disease--29,658

Died as prisoners—98

Died from accidents—576

Died from all causes except battle-- 3,621

Total deaths-- 36,847

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_furnished_losses.html
 

Diana9

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Location
Southern California
Well I know that Sherman hated the colored troops and he said that fighting side-by-side with a black soldier only weakened the moral of his troops. He especially hated the recruiters DC tended to send to collect blacks to enlist in the army. He kept complaining that the recruiters ate too much food and took too much space on the trains or some lame excuse like that he used to send them away, hehe. That really crawled on the nerves of the politicians in DC.

At least this is what historian John F. Marzalek claims about Sherman...

He didn't "hate" the colored troops. They were untrained and inexperienced, and it was this that he feared would have a negative impact on the moral of his troops. He also didn't want slaves following him on his March to the Sea, not because he didn't like blacks but because he didn't want to deal with having to care for 10 to 20 thousand people, including women and children. When you consider having to feed that many people in addition to foraging and feeding 60,000 troops, you've got one heck of a logistical problem.
 

Stefany

Banned
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Location
Bulgaria
He didn't "hate" the colored troops. They were untrained and it was this that he feared would affect the moral of his troops. He also didn't want slaves following him on his March to the Sea, not because he didn't like blacks but because he didn't want to deal with 10 to 20 thousand slaves on his March. When you consider having to feed that many people in addition to foraging and feeding 60,000 troops, you've got one heck of a logistical problem.


Sherman was a racist and he hated the blacks, that's a fact. He even said that when the war ends, he would buy some slaves for himself. Why else do you think he defended general Jeff C. Davis after he cut the bridge and left so many former slaves on the mercy of Wheeler's cavalry? Also, Sherman was constantly receiving numerous scoldings from DC to restrain from his racist remarks all the time.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
Sherman was a racist and he hated the blacks, that's a fact. He even said that when the war ends, he would buy some slaves for himself. Why else do you think he defended general Jeff C. Davis after he cut the bridge and left so many former slaves on the mercy of Wheeler's cavalry? Also, Sherman was constantly receiving numerous scoldings from DC to restrain from his racist remarks all the time.

Sherman was indeed a virulent racist. I don't know that I would go so far as to say he hated blacks, but he did think they were inferior.
 

Diana9

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Location
Southern California
Sherman was a racist and he hated the blacks, that's a fact. He even said that when the war ends, he would buy some slaves for himself. Why else do you think he defended general Jeff C. Davis after he cut the bridge and left so many former slaves on the mercy of Wheeler's cavalry? Also, Sherman was constantly receiving numerous scoldings from DC to restrain from his racist remarks all the time.

Why don't you start a new thread on the racism of Sherman. We're still on your other subject of how "Grant had nothing to do with winning the war."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top