Military History: Gettysburg

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-01 10:50:40

I betcha Cobra colored outside the lines, in pre-school.

I didn't color, I painted.

I suspect from Cobracommanders view he believes it comes from the way that the nature of the political makeups that the different side expoused and there general causes that made the war happen in the first place.
Federal North or Confederate South. In this there is an actual clue.

Yep, you hit on it pretty close Grypd. What we had pre-war was a federation of sorts but with very rigidly defined federal powers, a Union of several sovereign states bound together for mutual interest and by language, history and culture. Some of the Southern states, as sovereign entities, believed (rightly in many repsects) that they were legally and morally justified in leaving the Union when the federal entity overstepped its authority.

Which leads me to this: I have very strong and very mixed feelings about our 16th President. I firmly believe that shattering the Union would have been a great tragedy. An experiment undertaken with such hope and promise torn apart. I admire that Abraham Lincoln did not compromise his principles and did what he felt was necessary to preserve that Union. But I damn him for destroying the very thing he sought to defend. Which requires perhaps more explanation.

"United States of America". Plural. At least at one time. Through the civil war not only were the secessionist states not permitted to leave the Union, but the Union ceased to be and was instead forged into a single nation, not a federation at all. States are no longer sovereign and the federal government grossly overextends itself beyond the confines the Constitution set for it. In that respect, the Confederacy was truer to the spirit and the letter of the US Constitution. Chunks of which Lincoln threw out. Imposing an income tax, illegal militia calls (fed using one state's troops to subdue another) ordering the arrest of a Supreme Court justice for ruling the prior unconstitutional, suspension of habeus corpus, et al.

Whatever the case, the Union no longer exists, just a centralized nation in its place. Perhaps it's for the best, I don't claim to know what lies down the path of "might have been," but the United States of our forefathers is long passed as a direct result of the Civil War.

On a related note, it is interesting to wonder whether and how slavery would have persisted. Would the agrarian South have eventually abandoned it as industrialization made large numbers of field hand slaves inefficient? Or would slavery have been adapted to an industrial society, slaves in textile mills and factories instead of the near-slaves that did the work? Likely any outcome of the Civil War would have led to vile outcomes, but that doesn't change our vile outcome.

BWhite · 2005-08-01 11:42:05

Federalism is one of those issues that cuts sideways to "Left" vs "Right"

State level minimum wage laws and safety regulations have been struck down (pre-New Deal) as unconstitutional. Medical marijuana and national opposition to "gay marriage' are modern examples where the Right does not want states going their own direction.

Minnesota very recently reduced the blood alcohol level to 0.08 for drunk driving purposes, becoming the 50th state to do so and now joins the other 49 in qualifying for federal highway dollars. While I have no problem with 0.08 as a matter of policy, it is an example of law and order types in Washington passing a one size fits all policy.

= = =

What if the Confederacy "won" and by 1914 the CSA and the USA choose different sides in World War One? Under the CSA model, could states switch back and forth between the USA and the CSA?

Calling Harry Turtledove, calling Harry Turtledove.

Last week on my Barnes and Noble adventure I saw his latest before I saw Carhart's book on Gettysburg.

clark · 2005-08-01 12:09:10

Harry Turtledove? Great ideas in alternative history. Poor execution.

I didn't even bother with the Civil War series (however, he does have one where time travellers go back and use modern weapons during the Civil War... that was pretty good). Generally, in my experience, Turtledove does better with the standalone stories- where as his series are often plodding, dry, and the characters so-so.

Another book/series to consider is by S.M. Sterling.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de … s&n=507846

A great "what-if" where loyalists are sent off to South Africa and end up pursuing slavery over the entire continent. This is a boy's book. Paging Cobra!

It diverges, but there are some great concepts, and the story line pretty cool. Careful though, Sterling can give Ann Rice a run for her money on the whole sexual escapades.

A world full of slave girls... you dop the math.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-01 12:09:27

Medical marijuana and national opposition to "gay marriage' are modern examples where the Right does not want states going their own direction.

Bans on medical marijuana, or recreational marijuana for that manner do represent a case of clear federal over-reaching. The gay marriage issue is a bit more complex, as one state enacting it could lead to it de-facto throughout the country unless states are permitted to not recognize marriages from other states, which has the effect of essentially rendering the whole thing a pointless confusing mess.

My solution solves it, simply get government out of the marriage business, but we both know the chances of that happening without explosions in the interim.

While I have no problem with 0.08 as a matter of policy, it is an example of law and order types in Washington passing a one size fits all policy.

I completely agree.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-01 12:18:33

however, he does have one where time travellers go back and use modern weapons during the Civil War... that was pretty good).

Guns of the South, with Robert E. Lee holding an AK-47 on the cover. Yep, that was pretty good, despite my usual loathing of time travel stories.

great "what-if" where loyalists are sent off to South Africa and end up pursuing slavery over the entire continent. This is a boy's book. Paging Cobra!

Read that too, years ago. It's much better in the three separate books it was originally published as, skimming through the compiled reprint it dropped some stuff. Some interesting concepts in there.

I always thought it would make a great miniseries, I just don't know who could air it.

Incidentally, I once saw a t-shirt some guy at a concert was wearing, black with white lettering, that said "Draka piss me off." No one else had a clue why I thought that was funny.

clark · 2005-08-01 12:31:07

Turtledove pulled off some good stories with the spy in Constainople (IIRC). Stole the gunpowder secret from China. Like a superagent in the ancient era.

I read the WW2 series where the aliens come down in the middle of the war. Bleh. When I saw the WW2, except with magicians and dragons, I knew I had to get off this merry-go-round.

I occasionaly pick up the Civil War books of his, but the dust-jackets are not winning me over, and I've burned enough not to want to give him any more money. [shrug]

I liked the Draka series, primarily because I thought Sterling did such a fantastic job of creating such a rich and believable universe. More villains you can enjoy.

I used to read the "Stainless Steel Rat". More Sterling, pure fluff, but good.

The Riverworld series is pretty godd (what if all these different people from different ages were thrown together).

Grypd · 2005-08-01 12:42:04

It is not only Turtledove who wondered what would have happened if the South had won and one of these was Sir Winston Churchill. He had considered what would have happened if Lee had suceeded at Gettysburg and what the worlds events from there on would have been.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pag … ageid=674][Winston Churchill center on If Lee had won the war]

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-01 13:07:30

Churchill, like Lincoln is another statesman about whom I have mixed impressions.

But we've strayed from the topic enough already.

Palomar · 2005-08-01 13:14:30

*Of course if the South had won the "U.S." would be very different...which concept I'm sure pleases a lot of people.

A North-South issue came up last year on the boards, just briefly. I made a few comments which I thought were reasonable and polite; I got an "oh yeah?" private message riddled with abusive and insulting comments (many based on my gender) from someone claiming to be from Texas who apparently registered solely for that purpose; he never returned and my e-mail address was inaccessible (thus the private message). It sounded very much like what I've come to expect and only served to reinforce observations over the years. Congratulations to that jerk (sore they lost and can't get over it).

I'm tired of Southern posturing as though they're the greatest of U.S. citizens, as though they're more patriotic towards the U.S.A. than anyone else; obviously this nation wouldn't exist as it does if they'd won. Duh. Hypocritical to fly/pay homage to both the Stars & Stripes and the confederate flag, IMO.

Back on topic...

--Cindy

clark · 2005-08-01 17:14:53

So on topic...

What I think is a more rationale overarching strategic plan is that Lee goofed, but had a plan for success.

That success was not predicated on Stuart riding to the rescue. That seems to be beneath the strategic assessment of a general of Lee's caliber (the man was a military genius to do what he did with what he had).

I think that Lee thought his men could break the Union lines, without the help of Stuart. I think there was no grand assault plan requiring unheard of timing.

Lee took the fight to the North in order to have the opportunity to have a fight of his own choosing. He saw the writing on the wall, and knew a defensive campaign could not be waged effectively in the long term by the South.

General Lee wanted, *needed*, to defeat the Union at Gettysburg in order to end the war once and for all. That need led to desperation in his ill advised (his juniors thought it a mistake) assault on the third day.

However, Lee was still a strategist, and a damned good one. He would have had a plan for victory (as well as defeat, which is why he did not commit ALL his troops to the assault). Lee probably thought that the Confederate artillery barrage might soften the Union lines enough for a breakthrough. He probably thought that a breakthrough would have led to a route as the remaining forces of the Confederates rallied and used the breakthrough to drive the Union forces from their position.

However, that would not have been enough! Lee needed to *defeat* the army of Meade, utterly.

A rear guard cavalry unit on the retreat path of a Union route would have decimated the Union army. I believe that was Stuart's primary role.

If the Union army was routed, they would have simply reorganized somewhere else. That would still leave Lee the problem of trying to defeat the Union at another point. Lee felt the pressure and decided to gamble big- by ordering an ill advised frontal assault with the hopes of breaking the lines, routing the Union, and drive the disorganized retreating forces into Stuart's waiting cavalry units.

Look where they are! They are sitting on the roads of retreat.

To me, that plan makes the most sense. It is risky enough to be plausible, yet conservative enough to make the most strategic sense based on the given conditions.

What we have in this book is some eye witness accounts that describe Stuart in a certain area. But know one knows what exactly they were doing there.

In my mind, it would make more sense that Stuart tried to capitalize on an opportunity, but Lee had his own strategic plans. Even if Stuart attacked the artillery, I'm sure he thought that his forces could still play their primary role, which was to destroy the retreating Union forces.

Thoughts?

BWhite · 2005-08-02 17:00:11

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-rev … =UTF8]This review gets the Carhart quote right. Does Carhart gets Lee's quote right? Don't know.

Anyway Robert E. Lee is said to have said, a day later, before any communication with Stuart:

"I never saw troops behave more magnificently than Pickett's division of Virginians did to-day in that grand charge upon the enemy. And if they had been supported as they were to have been, -- but, for some reason not yet fully explained to me, were not -- we would have held the position and the day would have been ours. Too bad! Too bad! OH! TOO BAD!"

clark, to answer you I will need to sift Carhart's original evidence.

= = =

The amazon.com reviews set up quite a flame war on this book.

clark · 2005-08-02 17:12:11

I am by no means a historian. I am by no means an expert on the Civil War.

I liked General Sherman's march to the sea, but entirely for sentimental reasons.

I am merely presenting an alternative theory on the given facts at hand (and without benefit of the book).

Through challenge comes an ultimate and lasting success - Martian Proverb

I am more than willing to defer and recant, but the onus is on the one espousing a new theory to demonstrate why we should evaluate exsisting doctrine to account for this new information.

A quote from Grant, such as the one linked to, could just as easily be attributed to a refrence to "God". I think the author needs more than a slanted perspective and circumstantial evidence to rewrite history as we know it.

BWhite · 2005-08-02 20:19:58

I had the good fortune (perhaps) to have written a genuine history paper my 4th year in college based on original records from the National Archives in Washington.

I reviewed about 500 pension applications handwritten (d'oh!) between 1810 and 1830 (as I recall) from Revolutionary War veterans and drew conclusions about social mobility. It was an undergraduate's work but I saw first hand the tedious BORING nature of shifting through original records - - not the ebb and flow of ideas but adding up how many acres of land and how many children these veterans had.

To evaluate Carhart's theory in detail for myself I will need to get copies of the sources he cites and examine them myself, and decide. That said, I am sure plenty of professional historians will want to tackle this same assignment and waiting for a consensus of scholars is another way to go.

The book was dated April 2005 so its too early for any serious response.

All this said, the introduction was written by an esteemed Civil War scholar and he seems persuaded.

clark, I agree with your last post as far as the onus to establish a revisionist theory. What is cool for me is an opportunity to witness nuts and bolts historiography (doing history) which was an academic path I very briefly considered.

srmeaney · 2005-08-07 18:08:52

The North wanted absolute control and "an end to slavery" and The South wanted State Independence "and Continuation of slavery". If you wack Lincon down as the adolf hitler of his time, cutting deals with the corporate interests of the day, and laying seige to those who refused his orders it comes down to power and money, not human rights.
The lack of wilingness on the part of either side to pursue social reforms defines the nature of the individuals involved. These philosophies are carried into the dark and nasty world of today. States fighting for recognition and a hated federal government crushing disent.

Before them we have Washington who offered slaves who fought the British, freedom. Yet this was tainted by the fact that this individual was a bandit warlord struggling to free himself. He was loosing support rapidly. He was desperate to forment revolution in the camps of those who were not with him.

On both occasions the victor formented instability amongst his enemies ranks by offering to free the slaves resulting in victory and then failed to push the social reforms necessary to protect the rights of the individual to an equal share of the benifits of citizenship. This perpetuated social problems in the long term.

Learning a Lesson from History

Offering socialy benificial reforms to the populace seem the most likely way of achieving victory in any rise to power. From an ethical standpoint, you would be beholden to the populace to provide as promised.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-15 08:03:09

'Local couple shares love of history through reenactments of War of 1812, Civil War'
https://news.yahoo.com/local-couple-sha … 10239.html

The role of pirates in the War of 1812
Pirates were skilled seamen and fighters, just what the military needed in 1812, so the country made them privateers and gave them legal rights to harass and confiscate cargo on English ships. The pirates wanted America to win and their contribution made a difference. Betty's been in Charlestown on Living History Day since 2000, telling visitors from all over the world the important role the pirates played.

Cannon Fire and Cotton Candy: The 125th Anniversary Reenactment of Gettysburg
https://www.historynet.com/largest-civi … ettysburg/

In Feb of this year

'At Gettysburg's historic battlefield, archaeologists have uncovered a live 160-year-old artillery shell that required a specialized U.S. Army disposal team to detonate.'
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/4 … ogists.htm

In more modern times Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction of 1997

164 states had ratified or acceded to the treaty, Major powers, which are also past and current manufacturers of landmines, are not parties to the treaty, include the United States, China, and Russia and other non-signatories which include India and Pakistan.

Turkey reported that between 1957 and 1998, Turkish forces laid 615,419 antipersonnel mines along the Syrian border "to prevent illegal border crossings". These mines are killing Syrians stuck on the border or trying to cross near Kobanî. Turkey is required under the treaty to destroy all antipersonnel mines, but has missed deadlines. Human Rights Watch claims in its report that as of 18 November 2014, over 2,000 civilians were still in the Tel Shair corridor section of the mine belt because Turkey had been refusing entry for cars or livestock, and the refugees did not want to leave behind their belongings.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170426044 … ing-kobani

after a Civil War how expensive the costs in treasure and blood would be, the clean up operation for many years.

in modern politics

Newt Gingrich: We are drifting towards the greatest Constitutional crisis since the 1850s
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6333547137112

How a new twist in the Hunter Biden case and Trump’s possible third indictment are defining the 2024 campaign
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/27/poli … -campaign/

I think fringe 'Secessionist' movements might grow in 2024 but they will be small, how could California and Alaska and such places survive by breaking away it seems ridiculous now but politics has a ridiculous element now. How crazy has US politics got during strange decades and politically heated years

Second Vermont Republic (SVR, 2VR) is a secessionist group within the U.S. state of Vermont which seeks to restore the formerly independent status of the Vermont Republic. Links to Walter Joseph Hickel, radio host, and founder-former pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church and rightwinger 'Chuck Baldwin' and one time Sarah Palin linked to the Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan nationalist political party that advocates an in-state referendum which would include the option of Alaska becoming an independent country, Seats in the Senate None, Seats in the House 'Zero' links with a radio broadcaster Bob Bird,

but a year for parties that get less than 1% of the vote?

there are Libertartains

and Greens some might accuse them of being 'Luddite'

and the radicals?

After leaving Russia in the prelude to the illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine and living out of his suitcase for the past year and a half, CalExit founder Louis Marinelli is finally returning to the US, as his wife's immigrant visa was approved today at the US Embassy.
https://twitter.com/YesCalifornia/statu … 1815104516

Mainstream media is to blame for the rise of CalExit, not Russia
https://marinelli.substack.com/p/mainst … -blame-for

CalExit opponents say Russia was behind CalExit, but it was the mainstream media that provided us with a platform assuming we would use it to attack President Trump following the 2016 elections

Constitution Party, formerly the U.S. Taxpayers' Party until 1999
Tancredo lost the primary to Beauprez. He once again left the Republican Party in 2015, becoming an independent
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/201 … in/123638/
The Denver Post revealed that Tancredo had probably lost a significant amount of money invested in hedge funds with Agile Group, a Boulder-based investment company with substantial investments in Bernie Madoff's investment firm.
http://www.denverpost.com/allewis/ci_11619072

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-15 08:27:37)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-04-12 13:43:53

perhaps a movie about the modern divide and journalists and not Vicksburg or Fort Donelson or other captures, siege and battles

“Civil War” Presents a Striking but Muddled State of Disunion
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024 … vie-review
A very different civil war swirls around Dunst in “Civil War,” a dystopian shocker set in a not too distant American future.

Civil War Is a Brutal, Intense No-Sidesing of American Political Divisions
https://www.aol.com/news/civil-war-brut … 45909.html

about a broken America at war with itself

Alex Garland's 'Civil War' will make you not want to be a journalist
https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/artic … 399994.php

Civil War is a brutal epic that takes no prisoners
https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a6042 … ar-review/
Civil War is going to be one of the most divisive movies of the year.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-08-01 10:50:40

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#27 2005-08-01 11:42:05

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#28 2005-08-01 12:09:10

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#29 2005-08-01 12:09:27

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#30 2005-08-01 12:18:33

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#31 2005-08-01 12:31:07

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#32 2005-08-01 12:42:04

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#33 2005-08-01 13:07:30

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#34 2005-08-01 13:14:30

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#35 2005-08-01 17:14:53

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#36 2005-08-02 17:00:11

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#37 2005-08-02 17:12:11

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#38 2005-08-02 20:19:58

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#39 2005-08-07 18:08:52

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#40 2023-08-15 08:03:09

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#41 2024-04-12 13:43:53

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

Board footer