Persistent Civil War myths

Did Willams mention anywhere in his book where the Lowrie gang attacked a Confederate force or installation? I would be interested in what he had to say about the important Confederate supply line running smack dab through Lumbee territory – a railroad running from about 12 miles west of Laurinburg to Wilmington. The line remained opened until Sherman came through March 8-9, 1865.

The Lumbee grievance was against the local Confederate Home Guard, not the Confederacy itself. The Lowrie gang didn't exist until the closing months of the war and never ventured far from their hiding place in Raft Swamp. Most of the gang activity didn't occur until post war --1872.'s

The Lowrie History: As Acted In Part By Henry Berry Lowrie.

https://archive.org/details/lowriehistoryasa00norm

http://www.uncp.edu/academics/libra...lmer-w-hunt-photograph-collection/strike-wind
I quoted what Williams stated including attacking railroads. The Lumbees where enslaved by the Confederates to build fortifications. To say the Lumbees only fought against the Confederate homeguards vs the Confederacy is a distinction without a difference.
Leftyhunter
 
That the war in the Trans-Mississippi was mostly guerrilla actions, aside from a few small battles. From 1861-64, large battles and campaigns were fought by regular armies, not just guerrilla bands.
 
Last edited:
1. Grant was drunk almost all the time he was fighting.
2. Lee needed only a draw but he went for a victory--and lost.
3. The Overland Campaign was a victory only by Northern superior numbers.
4. This has already been stated a few times before, but it still irks me that John Bell Hood was accused of drug use.
5. The probably-apocryphal story of a soldier sticking his leg out to stop a slow-moving cannonball and...well, you can guess the rest, and it sure doesn't look good.
 
1. Grant was drunk almost all the time he was fighting.
2. Lee needed only a draw but he went for a victory--and lost.
3. The Overland Campaign was a victory only by Northern superior numbers.
4. This has already been stated a few times before, but it still irks me that John Bell Hood was accused of drug use.
5. The probably-apocryphal story of a soldier sticking his leg out to stop a slow-moving cannonball and...well, you can guess the rest, and it sure doesn't look good.
Could the Union have won the Overland Campaign without outnumbering the AnV?
Leftyhunter
 
Could the Union have won the Overland Campaign without outnumbering the AnV?
Leftyhunter
This is a topic worthy of its own thread--which I might get around to one day--so I'll try and be brief. It's important to keep in mind what Grant was thinking and what had become of the Army of Northern Virginia (and most of the Confederacy, for that matter). Lee's army was emaciated, half-starved (the total starvation would come later), and poorly equipped. It's numbers were at it's lowest, and it was still reeling from the aftershock of Gettysburg. Grant's overall strategy was to utilize the great numbers of the Army of the Potomac, yes, but that wasn't the only strategy. Grant was working within two theaters--his own and William T. Sherman's. While Grant's goal was to destroy Lee, Sherman's was to prevent Joseph Johnston's army from joining Lee and combining forces, thereby prolonging the war. This was, in fact, Johnston's goal. Lee's goal, as determined by Jefferson Davis, was to prevent the Federals from taking Richmond and basically pray that Johnston got there quickly. Thus, thanks to Davis's strategy and the incredibly-small numbers of the Army of Northern Virginia, Lee was for the first time forced onto the defensive, fighting from behind heavy fortifications that would make Grant pay for every inch of land he would gain. The result was the bloody Overland Campaign, in which Grant did what he always did and moved quickly to keep Lee bottled up in Virginia while Sherman pressed Johnston. Did the high numbers have a part to play in the final victory? Yes. Was it the only factor? Not by a long shot.
Interestingly, your question raises a nice bit of speculation: What would have happened if Grant had battled Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the glory days before Gettysburg? After his Vicksburg victory, Grant had been offered command of the Army of the Potomac, which he turned down at the time, believing he would be better suited to wrapping up the western theater. If Grant had said yes? If he had fought Lee when the Army of Northern Virginia was in a better condition? We may never know...
 
That Southern men were "defending their homes". That ain't necessarily so. Southerners gathered by the thousands to welcome General Burnside when he liberated Knoxville, Tennessee. A similar event occurred in Northern Alabama. Plus black men weren't fighting to protect their homes from the Union.
If I am wrong about that please show doccumented examples.
Leftyhunter


You are generally correct. There were, however, at least two instances of Alabamians defending their homes. In north Alabama, men served under General Phillip Roddey for this purpose. In southeast Alabama, men served under General James Holt Clanton.
 
You are generally correct. There were, however, at least two instances of Alabamians defending their homes. In north Alabama, men served under General Phillip Roddey for this purpose. In southeast Alabama, men served under General James Holt Clanton.
Of course Unionist home guards and troops were defending their home for example the Unionist troops at New Berne,North Carolina or the the 2nd Florida Union , the First Arkansas at Fayetteville, Arkansas.
My point is the meme of "Southerners" defending their homes is complicated.
Many pro Confederate men in Missouri did want to protect their home's and refused to fight out of state.
Leftyhunter
 
Here's one:

* That the Confederate slave-soldier bill did not authorize emancipation, that only Jefferson Davis's implementation order did so. In just about any book that talks about the CSA slave-soldier bill, it says the bill did not authorize any change in the slaves' relation to their owners. If they quote the bill at all, they quote only the first half of Section 5. However, if you read the remainder of Section 5, it makes it clear that a slave’s relationship to his owner could be changed as long as the owner and the state agreed–this clearly opened the door to emancipation, and everyone knew it. Let’s read it:

“SEC 5. That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners and of the States in which they may reside, and in pursuance of the laws thereof.”
 
Last edited:
:wink::wink:
Here's one:

* That the Confederate slave-soldier bill did not authorize emancipation, that only Jefferson Davis's implementation order did so. In just about any book that talks about the CSA slave-soldier bill, it says the bill did not authorize any change in the slaves' relation to their owners. If they quote the bill at all, they quote only the first half of Section 5. However, if you read the remainder of Section 5, it makes it clear that a slave’s relationship to his owner could be changed as long as the owner and the state agreed–this clearly opened the door to emancipation, and everyone knew it. Let’s read it:

“SEC 5. That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners and of the States in which they may reside, and in pursuance of the laws thereof.”
How very noble of the Confederacy.
The Union offeted immediate emancipation to slaves who enlisted in the USCT even from border states. Why didn't the Confederacy openly enlist black soldiers in 1862 as did the Union? If so many blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army why all the de jure racial discrimination for a hundred years latter ?
Leftyhunter
 
That the South ever had a chance for victory
If the Union lost the will to fight then the Confederacy could of gained it's independence. Their was indeed a large copperhead political movement in the North that was willing to do just that. Their was draft riots in the North. If it wasn't for armed dissent in the Confederacy from one hundred and ten thousand white Unionist soldiers and well over one hundred thousand USCT plus Unionist guerrillas and home guard plus many Confederate deserters and mossbacks the Confederacy may very well of gained it's independence.
Leftyhunter
 
:wink::wink:
How very noble of the Confederacy.
The Union offered immediate emancipation to slaves who enlisted in the USCT even from border states.

How very noble of the Union. Why should Union slaves have had to enlist to be free? If the war was "all about slavery," why wasn't Lincoln's second act of the war to emancipate all Union slaves?

Why didn't the Confederacy openly enlist black soldiers in 1862 as did the Union?

Why did Lincoln and so many other Republicans doggedly oppose enlisting black soldiers in the Union army? What made them change their minds? (That would be the long lists of white casualties.) Why did Lincoln oppose equal pay for USCTs? Why didn't he pardon USCT Walker?

Anyway, to answer your question: Mainly because Jefferson Davis just was not ready to take that step yet, even though Lee began to privately urge it in 1862.

If so many blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army why all the de jure racial discrimination for a hundred years latter? Leftyhunter

Because the Radicals poisoned race relations via Reconstruction.
 
Guys,
Maybe we could have a thread with a close examination of the measures Mike Griffith mentioned in his post.


We could also have a thread about which side was nobler. More noble? Hmmm maybe not my best idea.
 
There are some myths/falsehoods/inaccuracies about the civil war that just seem to persist over time despite evidence to the contrary.

What are the ones that annoy you the most?

For me, some that come to mind are:

1) That John B. Hood was addicted to opiates that "dulled" his mind during the Franklin-Nashville campaigns.
2) That Jefferson Davis and Braxton Bragg were close personal friends.
3) That Albert Sidney Johnston's life could have been saved by the tourniquet that was in his pocket.
4) That Erwin Rommel visited the USA to study the campaigns of Stonewall Jackson and Nathan B. Forrest.
5) That Stonewall Jackson's favourite fruit was the lemon (it was peaches).
A.S. Johnston might have been saved. His surgeon, a doctor named Yandell, had ordered that all men in Johnston's army carry a tourniquet. Unfortunately, Johnston's wound wasn't discovered until he had already lost a lot of blood, meanwhile his surgeon had gone to another part of the field. Too much time was lost, but I think it was possible to save him if the wound had been discovered in time.
 
View attachment 37028

One of my favorite myths is that surgeons amputated so many legs/arms because they didn't know any better. And ALL amputations were done with NO anesthesia.

The bullet above was found at a Civil War campsite and most likely chewed upon out of boredom rather than pain. Although waiting at the doctor's office or DMV can be painful enough to make one want to chew on an ounce of lead.:wink:

A .58 caliber soft lead projectile with a low muzzle velocity flattened when it hit bone and destroyed same.
A battlefield surgeon today would do the same thing the surgeon did in 1861-1865 but with sterile instruments. Amputation was the only choice.
 
Here's one:

* That the Confederate slave-soldier bill did not authorize emancipation, that only Jefferson Davis's implementation order did so. In just about any book that talks about the CSA slave-soldier bill, it says the bill did not authorize any change in the slaves' relation to their owners. If they quote the bill at all, they quote only the first half of Section 5. However, if you read the remainder of Section 5, it makes it clear that a slave’s relationship to his owner could be changed as long as the owner and the state agreed–this clearly opened the door to emancipation, and everyone knew it. Let’s read it:

“SEC 5. That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners and of the States in which they may reside, and in pursuance of the laws thereof.”

Except it's not a myth. Interesting to see an attempt to make a myth in order to mythologize the truth.
 
A.S. Johnston might have been saved. His surgeon, a doctor named Yandell, had ordered that all men in Johnston's army carry a tourniquet. Unfortunately, Johnston's wound wasn't discovered until he had already lost a lot of blood, meanwhile his surgeon had gone to another part of the field. Too much time was lost, but I think it was possible to save him if the wound had been discovered in time.

Three surgeons published a paper in 2008 regarding Johnston's death:
ALBERT SIDNEY JOHNSTON’S SCIATIC DUELING INJURY DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO HIS DEATH AT THE BATTLE OF SHILOH, J. Anderson, D. Peace & M.S. Okun, Neurosurgery 63:1192–1197.

They state: "... the timeline for Johnston’s death reported by historians is flawed. Johnston was aware that he was severely wounded, but it is unclear whether he was aware of the locations of his multiple wounds because of his rapid deterioration and likely shock from blood loss. The general quickly lost consciousness from blood loss and died within minutes of his injury."

"...the popliteal artery had been severed just above the bifurcation into the anterior and posterior tibial arteries... The doctor was convinced that Johnston could have easily been saved by using the tourniquet he was carrying. However, in actual battlefield medical practice, by the time they navigated Johnston on his horse with his leg extended (and bleeding) to a safe place, the blood loss may have already led to his death, even if the wound was immediately identified."
 
If that's the case the confederate leadership were the worst war criminals in history for starting a war they could never win.

I don't think they were, because the confederates had a very real chance to win.


It is debatable whether the Confederates should have seceded or gone to war, but I agree with you that they had a chance to win it. I also think that those in the know realized that it had to be won quickly or the chance to win diminished to somewhere between slim and none. That is why there were public expressions of concern in the South when the Confederate army failed to follow up on its victory at Bull Run by taking Washington. After that, the North had time to gather its superior manpower, industrial might, and finances. Defeat was only a matter of time.
 
Three surgeons published a paper in 2008 regarding Johnston's death:
ALBERT SIDNEY JOHNSTON’S SCIATIC DUELING INJURY DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO HIS DEATH AT THE BATTLE OF SHILOH, J. Anderson, D. Peace & M.S. Okun, Neurosurgery 63:1192–1197.

They state: "... the timeline for Johnston’s death reported by historians is flawed. Johnston was aware that he was severely wounded, but it is unclear whether he was aware of the locations of his multiple wounds because of his rapid deterioration and likely shock from blood loss. The general quickly lost consciousness from blood loss and died within minutes of his injury."

"...the popliteal artery had been severed just above the bifurcation into the anterior and posterior tibial arteries... The doctor was convinced that Johnston could have easily been saved by using the tourniquet he was carrying. However, in actual battlefield medical practice, by the time they navigated Johnston on his horse with his leg extended (and bleeding) to a safe place, the blood loss may have already led to his death, even if the wound was immediately identified."
Yeah, I read that paper a few years back. I don't recall them saying he would necessarily have died even if his doctor was there. Granted, the doctor would have needed to work quickly. The only myth I think these doctors were dispelling was that his dueling wound would have dulled the pain to the point that he wouldn't have known he was hit.
 
Back
Top