Posted on 01/16/2019 10:05:36 PM PST by vannrox
The weapon of choice was the rifled musket which as you say was made possible by the Minie ball. This combined the loading speed of the musket and the accuracy of the rifle. 57/58 caliber created horrific wounds. Doctors were called ‘sawbones’ because the big, slow Minie ball shattered bones so a wound to the arm or leg usually called for amputation.
I can’t imagine the horror of charging into a cornfield. Between the smoke of battle and the corn itself, you wouldn’t really be able to see the enemy, yet the corn would offer no protection from enemy fire.
Generals who had learned their trade in the era of the limited range of muskets took too long to take into account the much longer effective range of rifled muskets. The same thing happened in WWI. One reason why both wars were so bloody.
Stopping a larger strategy may be more important than clearly "winning" the battle of the field and carrying the day.
Lee went back to Virginia afterwards, so it does count as a Union victory.
I don't know whether Lee actually won the Seven Days' Battles outside Richmond earlier that year, but McClellan withdrew, so the Confederacy claimed the victory that time.
I’m inclined to agree with some that while Antietam (Sharpsburg) was a tactical draw, it was a strategic victory for the North because Lee had to withdraw and end his invasion of the Union.
I doubt anyone can disagree about the ghastly aspect of it all... :-(
It’s a hauntingly beautiful site and well worth visiting. The museum and lecture is very good. Plus, they have several events during the year, inclluding a great 4th of July celebration with live music, a flyover, cannon and fireworks.
Pardon me for pointing out that about 15-25% of long-arms on both sides were SMOOTHBORES & sometimes even Brown Bess & CHARLEVILLE flintlocks were used in combat & loaded with “buck & ball”.
Btw, all the “smoothies” weren’t old/military surplus arms. = BOTH sides of the WBTS built new smoothbore muskets using “up to date” parts.
The CSA’s NAVY & MARINES very much liked BROWN BESS muskets, converted to percussion, for on-board & boarding party use.
(BOTH maritime forces had plenty of rifled arms.)
Yours, TMN78247
BS to that! We’re one nation and one people with one flag, The Stars And Stripes. My ancestor didn’t serve in the Army Of The Potomac to see his service be for nothing. I don’t want to live in a Balkanized country. If that’s what you want move to Europe.
LOL!
Is that "Europe" as in the "European Union?"
28 countries and 513 million people?
It's un-governable - just like the USA, which has 50 states and 330 million people.
What exactly is your plan now that "one nation and one people" have become a permanent Democratic Party majority that will soon control the White House, the Congress, and the federal Judiciary?
No dispute here. In particular the South didn’t have a lot of manufacturing capability, and had to beg and buy guns. I’m sure they used anything that was available.
Aren’t you getting ahead of yourself here?
The Union Army (especially the STATE & VOLUNTEER units) used whatever arms that they could beg, borrow, buy or pick-up off the battlefields.
WHERE is your EVIDENCE that GEN Lee “had to withdraw”?? = SORRY but what some alleged “expert” believes/says is UNCONVINCING absent PROOF.
The period documents indicates that the CSA withdrew “not under enemy pressure” to resupply AND because the tactical objective had been met.
(Fyi, WINNING is NOT the same thing as “occupying terrain”.)
GEN Lee (& in general the CSA’s forces) intended to simply NOT lose the war.= Overthrowing the government of the USA was NEVER the goal.
Yours, TMN78247
Clearly this person knows nothing about the springfield rifle or the enfield rifle of the time. Both were deadly accurate, even by today's standards.
Example: Mitt Romney got more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump got in 2016 - and Romney LOST the state.
The House and Senate are more complicated elections.
However, since America imports 3,000 LEGAL immigrants EVERY DAY, and since 80% of those folks will vote Democrat when they become citizens, it is only a question of time before we permanently lose Congress, too.
We have Ted Kennedy to thank for this mess, that bastard. He was the one who wrote the immigration bill in 1965 that basically opened the borders. Prior to that year we only admitted 300,000 a year. We need to go back to that system.
FYI, when a 17YO cousin from (what is now) Miller County Arkansas wanted to join the one of the AR volunteer units/CSA, he was told to ARRIVE with a functional rifle or musket or TO STAY HOME.
His father bought him a Brown Bess (in good shape) & off “Ramey” went to Ft. Smith to be a Partisan Ranger.
(About 7 months later, he wrote a letter home that said that Ramey had “picked up” an a “near new” Harper’s Ferry rifled musket “off the field” & that he had given the Bess to a new recruit, who had no firearm.)
Ramey’s letters home are preserved/treasured by the AR part of our extended family, up there.
Note: Another of his letters stated that he was “pleased to have gotten” a new pair of boots from a Union SGT’s body.
(Soldiers of both armies routinely took equipment, good-quality boots & uniform items from “those who no longer needed them. Overcoats were considered a “PRIZE” by 1963.)
Yours, TMN78247
It is simple numbers. Lee was outnumbered just over 2 to 1 before Antietam. After the battle, Lee was outnumbered 2.7 to 1. At the relative rates of loss, if the invasion had continued, at the point where McClellan had approx. 43,000 soldiers left, Lee would be down to around 2,000 soldiers. (Obviously, Lee would have been in deep, deep trouble, long before that.)
Lee’s intention with this particular offensive was to inflict enough pain on the Union, and invade deep enough into the North to make fear of such invasion effective enough, that Lincoln would lose political support to the point the Union would not pursue the war. Lee failed.
Yes, I know what the Confederate propaganda of the time said.
PITY that you don’t evidently KNOW (or are IGNORING) that it takes 400-500 “front line troops” to effectively deal with ONE talented, armed guerrilla fighter.
Had GEN Lee NOT been so gentlemanly, he could have DESTROYED the Union army in PA & MD & decimated the civilian areas with numerous fires & explosions.
The Unionists of 1860-65 should be GLAD that there were FEW trained “counter-guerrilla” armed forces members OR experienced “Indian fighters”, who wore the GRAY & who were quite willing to destroy MD & PA by “fire & sword”, using “hit & run” tactics, as Francis Marion did in the AWI & COL Quantrill & other Partisan Rangers did in the Trans-Mississippi Theater..
(IF you know how to fight guerrillas, you can effectively fight AS a guerrilla.)
Yours, TMN78247
Irrelevant (as well as somewhat of an overstatement in most situations, once a real army has decided they’ve had enough of the irregulars, and takes appropriate action. See below.) You yourself point out that overall, the South did not have large numbers of trained guerrillas in the East. Further, Lee was an honorable man and could have no more directed his army to become guerrillas, so long as his opponents stayed largely “within the rules”, than he could have held his breath to off himself. It was not in his nature, and, besides, he surely had thought out the below:
For one thing, guerrillas need time to attrite their foe, and are usually not too effective for long if they lack support from a considerable portion of the local citizenry. Such support was largely lacking in Union territory (States) in the East.
There were of course considerable numbers of bushwhackers and partisan rangers who primarily operated in the Southern states and also contested areas mainly in the West (Missouri, Kansas, etc.) In contested areas, often the Jayhawks kept them busy much of the time (and vice versa). In the East, Col. Mosby’s “Cavalry” (partisan “rangers”) and others were quite effective at harassing and demoralizing Union forces for a couple years. Quantrill was effective, and brutal, too. However, note they and others did NOT destroy the Union armies or stop them for long, even though these irregulars were largely fighting on their own turf & with civilian support - significant advantages.
What DID happen, as Lee surely foresaw, was that all the Confederates’ efforts could not keep Union forces off of Southern lands, and eventually the Union got fed up and went scorched Earth. That incapacitated Southern civilians’ ability to effectively support, well, anybody. Sherman’s letter to the mayor of Atlanta addresses this very point. (Atlanta was lucky: Sherman was relatively honorable too. Many in the Union armies came to hate ALL Southerners because of the guerrillas. Without the discipline of Sherman and his command staff, the March Through Georgia could have been 10x as bloody for Southern civilians.)
IF you know your history objectively (seems doubtful), you also know that toward the end of the Civil War, the guerrilla movement lost much of its civilian support and largely died out.
PITY that you know so little about what the actual beliefs of the leaders of the CSA, other than GEN Lee were. = Jackson, for just one of many, was willing & EAGER to fight under the Black Flag.
Once the word got out in the South about the MASSIVE war crimes being committed in the Union DEATH CAMPS like Point Lookout & Camp Douglas, the “gentlemanly attitude” of the CSA’s leadership was OVER.
By the way, our family lost 4 members, who were murdered in cold-blood at Point lookout & another one slaughtered at Camp Douglas.
IF you bothered to read anything but Unionist drivel, you would sound more educated.
Yours, TN78247
Point is, Lee WAS in charge of the Confederate Army, including Jackson. Most followed his orders (some more competently or diligently than others, of course), and did not go “Black Flag”, excepting a relatively small number of renegades and semi-renegades. Actions, ultimately, speak louder than words.
Maybe someone should have knocked Lee off and we’d still be fighting the bloody “hot” war today. /s
Good God, it was bad enough, from and for BOTH sides, as it was...
You are obviously too close to the horror (family members murdered) to have a dispassionate view. That’s understandable, but it colors your arguments. All my life, I’ve lived in areas where the locals were nearly evenly divided, back then, with plenty of murders both ways. So, I am used to it, from both sides. Luckily, most can “step back”.
Additionally, I read both sides. I ended up more or less “in the middle.” There is plenty of “drivel”, and there were even more horrors to be repulsed by, all around.
FWIW, I lean toward thinking the war was unnecessary. But, that’s a whole ‘nother discussion. On the rest, we’ll just have to agree to disagree, as I’ve spent well over 3x the time I should have on FR, the last week. (Elderly parent obligations are calling, for one.)
Have a good day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.