The Never-Ending Question

[W. Richardson]

So the name is what define it? Then I guess what the south did was Rebellion because that is what it was called.

Or lets look at the IRA... a independence movement/terrorist organization...
Or how about The Salvation Army...

So the dance has started ?

Respectfully,

William

 

[thomas aagaard]

Yep you started it long ago. When you insisted that the Union had a clear advantage in having an army.

You say that the name define something... It was called an army so it was an army.
Since the legal stuff of the CSA regular army was passed in February 61, then by you definition both sides had an army when the war stated.

I say we actually have to look at the characteristics and judge what it is. The CSA did not have an army when the war broke out... The Union was closer but The organization was missing vital elements. Training, organization, size, procedures, support structures and so on to be an actual army in effect and not just in name.

 

[W. Richardson]

Yep you started it long ago. When you insisted that the Union had a clear advantage in having an army.

You say that the name define something... It was called an army so it was an army.
Since the legal stuff of the CSA regular army was passed in February 61, then by you definition both sides had an army when the war stated.

I say we actually have to look at the characteristics and judge what it is. The CSA did not have an army when the war broke out... The Union was closer but The organization was missing vital elements. Training, organization, size, procedures, support structures and so on to be an actual army in effect and not just in name.

The Union had a clear advantage in the fact they did have a standing, organized, and trained army........
The U.S. Regular army may or may not have been well trained, but it was not a mob........
It had training, It had organization, it's size, though small, does not disqualify it from being an army........

The CSA did have an army, not a trained army at that time, and definitely not the long standing tradition of the U.S. army. That is where I give the advantage to the Union. Where they able to use that advantage ? I do not know if they were able to or not, they didn't........I realize the U.S. army was scattered, stationed, for the most part, west of the Mississippi fighting indians........and could not just be withdrawn, but to state the U.S. had no army and no advantage in that department (trained, organized) or make that assumption is totally untrue.

To make that assumption based on............was the U.S. army as well trained, organized and as large as the European armies is an opinion I can accept............

The U.S. army was far, far from being a major well trained, well organized army as compared to European armies, but it was organized enough and trained well enough to be an advantage.

The Union failed/or could not take advantage of that for whatever reason, fighting indians, it being scattered, not enough time to regroup and move east.

Did the Union need the advantage of the U.S. army ? Either way they went with the militia and on that grounds and in the words of Lincoln.............both were green alike................


One having an army vs one having to raise an army is a clear advantage..........


Respectfully,

William

 

[unionblue]

So now we are in the business of "making" one understand ?

I have never stated the U.S. army had a major impact on the war, I have stated, and factually, the U.S. had a standing army...........if it's one's opinion that the U.S. had no standing army then I can accept an opinion, but fact is the U.S. had a standing army and used it however they decided to use it, however that does not take away from the fact the U.S. had an army. You can twist it, shake it, throw it up in the air or down on the ground...........Fact is the U.S. had a standing army.

All those US army forces in the forts, and arsenals, ships, mints, and shipyards were outnumbered, never have I stated they were not. I will give you a hint............... it is a good thing to outnumber your opponent when attempting to take a fort, an arsenal, a ship, a mint, or a shipyard.

Respectfully,

William

William,

I doubt if I could "make" you understand anything you did not want to.

You keep stating over and over again, that the United States had a standing army, as thought it had some advantage over the seceding states of the South when the conflict began.

I will agree with you that the United States did have a standing army, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why you consider it such a repeatable fact or why you think it was such an advantage to have such at the outbreak of the Civil War.

A few questions for you, William, if I may.

How many US Army officers left it to enlist in the Confederate army? How many US Army enlisted men went South to fight for the Confederacy? How many US Navy officers and sailors did such?

Then one other important observation.

If the small, scattered US army was of such an asset being a "standing army" then why did the Southern State rebel in the face of such an advantage?

The answer is because the leadership that led the rebellion considered the United States government so weak it thought it could get away with an unconstitutional rebellion and that government, with its scattered, small, "standing army" would be completely unable to stop it from doing so by force of arms.

Just an attempt at understanding, William, not "making" you go against your beliefs.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[W. Richardson]

William,

I doubt if I could "make" you understand anything you did not want to.

You keep stating over and over again, that the United States had a standing army, as thought it had some advantage over the seceding states of the South when the conflict began.

I will agree with you that the United States did have a standing army, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why you consider it such a repeatable fact or why you think it was such an advantage to have such at the outbreak of the Civil War.

A few questions for you, William, if I may.

How many US Army officers left it to enlist in the Confederate army? How many US Army enlisted men went South to fight for the Confederacy? How many US Navy officers and sailors did such?

Then one other important observation.

If the small, scattered US army was of such an asset being a "standing army" then why did the Southern State rebel in the face of such an advantage?

The answer is because the leadership that led the rebellion considered the United States government so weak it thought it could get away with an unconstitutional rebellion and that government, with its scattered, small, "standing army" would be completely unable to stop it from doing so by force of arms.

Just an attempt at understanding, William, not "making" you go against your beliefs.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

I keep having to repeat it due to one here continuing to attempt to pass off the U.S. having a standing army as a myth.
Having a standing army is an advantage to any nation over another nation that does not have a standing trained army.
How the U.S. used their army was up to them. They failed to take advantage of having a standing trained army.

I have never stated it was a GREAT advantage, just that having a standing, trained, army is more of an advantage than not having a trained, standing army.

If you want to continue to say it was no advantage for the U.S. so as to play up the rebel army as being superior, then that is your choice but it is a false fact.

As far as my beliefs go, they are open to be changed but not by myth making that the U.S did not have an advantage in having a standing, trained army. They failed to properly use it.

Respectfully,

William

 

[unionblue]

I keep having to repeat it due to one here continuing to attempt to pass off the U.S. having a standing army as a myth.
Having a standing army is an advantage to any nation over another nation that does not have a standing trained army.
How the U.S. used their army was up to them. They failed to take advantage of having a standing trained army.

I have never stated it was a GREAT advantage, just that having a standing, trained, army is more of an advantage than not having a trained, standing army.

If you want to continue to say it was no advantage for the U.S. so as to play up the rebel army as being superior, then that is your choice but it is a false fact.

As far as my beliefs go, they are open to be changed but not by myth making that the U.S did not have an advantage in having a standing, trained army. They failed to properly use it.

Respectfully,

William

William,

Won't deny the facts in your above post.

As for the rest, we shall have to be "made" to agree to disagree.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

To All,

FYI this topic has been brought up before.

US Army Officers Going South, provided by our fellow forum member, trice.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/us-army-officers-going-south.86711/

Going South: US Navy Officers Going South.

http://thomaslegion.net/list_of_us_navy_resignations_on_the_eve_of_the_civil_war.html

Enjoy,
Unionblue

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

To All,

FYI this topic has been brought up before.

US Army Officers Going South, provided by our fellow forum member, trice.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/us-army-officers-going-south.86711/

Going South: US Navy Officers Going South.

http://thomaslegion.net/list_of_us_navy_resignations_on_the_eve_of_the_civil_war.html

Enjoy,
Unionblue

I also recently broke down the exact numbers for the army here, including trained officers already out of the service and experienced non-West Pointers:
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/superior-military-leadership.111040/#post-1076820

 

[unionblue]

I also recently broke down the exact numbers for the army here, including trained officers already out of the service and experienced non-West Pointers:
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/superior-military-leadership.111040/#post-1076820

IcarusPhoenix,

Excellent work.

Thanks for providing it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[ole]

Edited by moderator.

The "standing army" you persist on claiming was not exactly an army. Technically yes; actually no.

The "standing army" to which you refer was not available for call up for duty to put down the rebellion. Therefore its presence is immaterial.

Almost all of that "standing army" was scattered across the frontier. The units had names, but they were not a collective unit. They were just scattered posts that some desk-jockeys in Washington had to send rations and funds to.

You seem to believe that the "standing army" was a cohesive unit ready, willing an able to come together immediately to threaten the rebellion. Get real. There are many reasons they were not called to duty when the war broke out. I don't believe I have to enumerate them to you.

Edited by moderator.

 

[Rebforever]

Standing Army 1861.

http://archive.org/stream/reportsofbvtbrig00unit#page/n185/mode/2up

http://archive.org/stream/reportsofbvtbrig00unit#page/n187/mode/2up