|
 are acknowledged, affirmed and commemorated.
|
Posted on 02/18/2003 5:34:30 AM PST by SAMWolf
|
are acknowledged, affirmed and commemorated.
|
| Our Mission: The FReeper Foxhole is dedicated to Veterans of our Nation's military forces and to others who are affected in their relationships with Veterans. We hope to provide an ongoing source of information about issues and problems that are specific to Veterans and resources that are available to Veterans and their families. In the FReeper Foxhole, Veterans or their family members should feel free to address their specific circumstances or whatever issues concern them in an atmosphere of peace, understanding, brotherhood and support.  To list previous Foxhole Threads or to add The Foxhole to your sidebar Click on the Logo
|
|
|
|
"Forty Days and Nights in the Wilderness of Death" We eat all the meat and bread in the fort...eat all the beef--all the mules--all the Dogs--and all the Rats around us.  From the time the Civil War started in April 1861, both the North and South made controlling the Mississippi River a major part of their strategy. The Confederacy wanted to keep using the river to transport needed supplies; the Union wanted to stop this supply route and drive a wedge that would divide Confederate states and territories. Particularly important to the South was the stretch of the Mississippi that included the mouth of the Red River. The Red was the Confederacy's primary route for moving vital supplies between east and west: salt, cattle, and horses traveled downstream from the Trans-Mississippi West; in the opposite direction flowed men and munitions from the east. In the spring of 1862, the Union took control of New Orleans and Memphis. To make sure it could continue to use the middle section of the river, the South fortified positions at Vicksburg, Mississippi and Port Hudson, Louisiana. In May 1863, Union land and naval forces began a campaign they hoped would give them control of the full length of the Mississippi River. One army under Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant commenced operations against the Confederacy's fortified position at Vicksburg, Mississippi, at the northern end of the stretch of the river still in Southern hands. At about the same time, another army under Maj. Gen. Nathaniel P. Banks moved against Port Hudson, which stood at the southern end. By May 23, Banks's forces, which numbered between 30,000 and 40,000 men at their strongest, had surrounded the Port Hudson defenses. Banks hoped to overrun the entrenchments quickly, then take his army northward to assist Grant at Vicksburg.  Major-General Franklin Gardner, C.S.A. Within the Confederate fortifications at Port Hudson were approximately 6,800 men. Their commander was Maj. Gen. Franklin Gardner, a New Yorker by birth. His goals were to have his men defend their positions as long as possible in order to prevent Banks' troops from joining Grant, and to keep Confederate control of this part of the Mississippi. On the morning of May 27, 1863, under Maj. Gen. Banks, the Union army launched ferocious assaults against the lengthy Confederate fortifications. Among the attackers were two regiments of African-American soldiers, the 1st and 3rd Louisiana Native Guards. They were the first black soldiers committed to combat in the Civil War. The attacks were uncoordinated, and the defenders easily turned them back causing heavy Northern casualties. Banks' troops made a second, similarly haphazard assault on June 14. Again they were repulsed, suffering even more dead and wounded soldiers. These actions constituted some of the bloodiest fighting of the Civil War. The Confederates began building their defenses in 1862, and by now had an elaborate series of earthworks. One of their officers provided the following description of the line of these barriers, which, as their name suggested, were made mainly from hard-packed dirt:  Major General Nathaniel P. Banks, USA For about three-quarters of a mile from the river the line crossed a broken series of ridges, plateaus and ravines, taking advantage of high ground in some places and in others extending down a steep declivity; for the next mile and a quarter it traversed Gibbon's and Slaughter's fields where a wide level plain seemed formed on purpose for a battlefield; another quarter of a mile carried it through deep and irregular gullies, and for three-quarters of a mile more it led through fields and over hills to a deep gorge, in the bosom of which lay Sandy creek. The elaborate defenses they built and difficult terrain in the area assisted the Confederates in keeping this part of the Mississippi under their control. The Federals had no choice but to besiege Port Hudson to obtain win access to the full length of the Mississippi.  Confederate fortifications at Port Hudson. Union line is right behind, in the foreground. For more than 2,000 years, armies unable to storm strongly defended positions--cities, for example, or forts or castles--had instead surrounded their enemies. A siege, as one of these blockades was called, might end in a number of ways. The defenders would lose if their opponents found a way to break through their defenses or if, because they were cut off from the rest of the world, they ran out of supplies. On the other hand, if the defenders could hold out long enough, their allies might appear and drive off the enemy, or the attacking army might eventually give up due to heavy casualties or lack of supplies. This type of warfare changed significantly with the introduction of gunpowder during the Middle Ages. Both sides involved in a siege had always shot objects at the other: stones and spears and even pots of fire. These weapons quickly became obsolete, however, when gunpowder allowed armies to use powerful artillery like cannons. The new shells they fired were could knock down previously impenetrable fortifications, and so besieging armies now relied on artillery as their main weapon. Defenders also had artillery, which they used to destroy their attackers' large guns and the attackers themselves. The fighting at Port Hudson illustrated how artillery affected the conduct of a siege. The Union Army combined artillery fire with sharpshooting riflemen as it attempted to keep the defenders from getting supplies of food or other necessities; the Union Navy added their big guns to the bombardment. The Confederates responded by firing their rifles and artillery at the Union forces. Recognizing how dangerous this type of fighting could be, each side also built elaborate earthworks to protect themselves.  Confederate "rat holes" (dug-out caves) within the defensive lines. There was a Federal artillery position along the tree line in the distance. The siege created hardships and deprivations for both the North and South, but by early July the Confederates were in much worse shape. They had exhausted practically all of their food supplies and ammunition, and fighting and disease had greatly reduced the number of men able to defend the trenches. When Maj. Gen. Gardner learned that Vicksburg had surrendered, he realized that his situation was hopeless and that nothing could be gained by continuing. The terms of surrender were negotiated, and on July 9, 1863, the Confederates lay down their weapons, ending 48 days of continuous fighting. The siege of Port Hudson affected the Civil War and the men who fought there in a number of ways. The surrender gave the Union control of the Mississippi River, cutting off important states such as Arkansas and Texas. Both sides suffered heavy casualties: about 5,000 Union men were killed or wounded, and an additional 4,000 fell prey to disease or sunstroke; Gardner's forces suffered around 700 casualties, several hundred of whom died of disease. And on both sides, even many of those who survived found their view of war permanently changed. New York native Howard C. Wright was a newspaperman in New Orleans, Louisiana, when the Civil War began. He joined the 30th Louisiana Infantry Regiment when it was formed in 1862 and became a lieutenant. Captured at the surrender of Port Hudson, he was imprisoned with other officers in New Orleans. He wrote an account of the siege which was originally serialized as Port Hudson: Its History from an Interior Point of View in the Daily True Delta less than a month after the surrender. Wright's account was printed in book form for the first time in 1937 by the editor of the St. Francisville Democrat and republished in 1978 by The Eagle Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The following excerpt is taken from that printing (p. 51). The last quarter ration of beef had been given out to the troops on the 29th of June. On the 1st of July, at the request of many officers, a wounded mule was killed and cut up for experimental eating. All those who partook of it spoke highly of the dish. The flesh of mules is of a darker color than beef, of a finer grain, quite tender and juicy, and has a flavor something between that of beef and venison. There was an immediate demand for this kind of food, and the number of mules killed by the commissariat daily increased. Some horses were also slaughtered, and their flesh was found to be very good eating, but not equal to mule. Rats, of which there were plenty about the deserted camps, were also caught by many officers and men, and were found to be quite a luxury--superior, in the opinion of those who eat them, to spring chicken; and if a philosopher of the Celestial Empire could have visited Port Hudson at the time, he would have marvelled at the progress of the barbarians there toward the refinements of his own people.  A Union artillery battery at Port Hudson. The white material in the foreground is cotton, bales of which were used to protect the cannoneers from Confederate fire. Mule meat was regularly served out in rations to the troops from and after the 4th of July, and there were very few among the garrison whose natural prejudices were so strong as to prevent them from cooking and eating their share. The stock of corn was getting very low, and besides that nothing was left but peas, sugar and molasses. These peas were the most indigestible and unwholesome articles that were ever given to soldiers to eat, and the reason that such a large quantity was left on hand was probably accounted for by the fact that most of the troops would not have them on any consideration. To save corn they were issued out to horses and mules, and killed a great many of these animals. All of the horses and mules which were not needed for hauling or other imperative duties, had been turned out to graze, where numbers of them were killed or disabled by the enemy's cannonade and rain of Minie balls, and the rest nearly starved to death. The sugar and molasses was put to good use by the troops in making a weak description of beer, which was constantly kept at the lines by the barrel-full, and drank by the soldiers in preference to the miserable water with which they were generally supplied. This was a very pleasant and healthful beverage, and went far to recompense the men for the lack of almost every other comfort or luxury. In the same way, after the stock of tobacco had given out, they substituted sumac leaves, which grew wild in the woods. It had always been smoked by the Indians under the name of killickenick, and, when properly prepared for the pipe, is a tolerably good substitute for tobacco.
|
I know it's been a while since i've posted. I have been lurking though. I am usaully working right now but the snow closed up Virginia. I am leaving right now to try and get some work done. Most of my work is outside so it's not much fun.
Have a great day.
Held off the d#mn yankees for 48 days did they? God bless them bump
0800 - Spongebob Squareturban
LOL!!!
Today's graphic
Just FYI, we've heard back from Ross... any thoughts after reading his reply?
See previous post: 18 posted on 02/18/2003 0:27 AM PST by comwatch
From: <Rosslyons1@---.com>
To: ""Dave Jenest"" <dave@patriotwatch.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Documentary
Dave,
I apologize for my lack of explanation in the use of pro-war. I simply
want all views, from all walks of life. When I say 'pro-war', what I mean
is the belief that we shouldn't just sit around waiting during what seems to
be a hide and seek game with arms. That our military presence in Iraq is
what we need for the goal of peace. A lot of people believe that the only
way to achieve peace is to take out what threatens its existance. The media
has made the division of pro-war and anti-war. I'm looking for the extremes
and everything in between. I was just keywording with the use of 'pro-war'.
Not meaning it quite so literally. This will be a film with everyone's
views. And I'm looking for exactly what you said in your reply. Because I
feel that you speak the same as the majority of Americans. And that is one
of the messages I want to send out. This weekend I'm filming an Anti-war
domonstation, and will be getting their views. But to achieve the goal of
this project, I need people with the same voice as yours. I would greatly
appreciate anything that you can help me with. Once again, I apologize for
not explaining my term better.
Sincerely,
Ross Lyons
Thank you Ross...
I am sharing our communications with a very special group of people. The
attached photo, reprinted with permission, is a sample of ordinary people,
exercising extraordinary effort, to offer a differing viewpoint on the
crisis in Iraq.
|
|
|
Brad Cloven protests outside the Peace Prize Forum, saying it's time to "take Saddam out" and free the Iraqi people from his rule. (MPR Photo/Bob Reha) |
"I want people to understand that peace is good but freedom is better,"
Cloven says. "The Iraqis deserve freedom, and cowering in fear of their
impending nuclear weapons isn't freedom for us either. It's time to take
Saddam out."
This weekend, another of our colleague left the comfort of his warm car
because of a poor cell-phone connection. He stood outside in blowing snow to
share his New York City "Support our Troops" experience in the midst of the
Ant-War protests with a west coast talk radio host on KFSO San Francisco.
His friend joined us last night for a follow-up report on KFBK's Mark
Williams show here in Sacramento.
I realize you probably have some time constraints to work around. Our folks
would probably like some examples of your previous works or help you if you
are an emerging filmmaker. Fair enough? Feel free to call me anytime: (916)
448-1636 We'll circulate your email address after you next reply, if that's
alright. Thank you for your clarifications today.
Dave Jenest
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.
