Mr. Mercanto

Thanks, Nick.

Oh, and thanks for shutting one of his posts down. I don't really indulge him anymore, but it was refreshing to see another voice telling him how silly his arguments are.

Basically 1st Vermont barged into the forum last year to spread a bunch of Neo-Confederate nonsense using methods that were focused tested to be as pedantic as possible. I put him down...a lot; and he became a bit obssessed with me. It was weird, it was hilarious, and all of us except 1st Vermont learned a lot . Eventually @Koro just banned him, closing out the epic saga. One of the results was this thread. I wanted to create a thread where people could ask (mostly) serious questions about the war, and those of us who with the knowledge could share our answers, or ask one another follow up questions. For the most part, it was awesome :). I'm glad to see its still getting some traction, though I didn't particularly enjoy that 1st Vermont interlude.

It's basically the YouTube comment section of universities.

This is a solid question, though if you dig into this forum I've answered it a few times. I don't mind answering again, but it'll be the abridged version ;). Basically the question that caused secession was the extension of slavery to new Western States. The slave states feared that restriction of this extension would lead to the economic collapse of slavery (and it was indeed meant to). Pro-slavery partisans argued that the Federal government must protect the property rights of each State citizen based upon the state laws of their origins. Erego, if a slave owner brought their slaves into a new territory, not yet made a State, then the US government must protect their right to that slave (the Federal government was the government of territories until they organized into Stares). Furthermore, all new territories must be open to slavery, and by protecting slave property in them, effectively become slave states. With respect to slave property in Free States like Massachusetts; the Federal government must strictly enforce the Fugitive Slave Act over the interests of Free States harbouring run away slaves, because it was the "State Right" of slave states to demand protection of the property of their state citizens, even if it violated the laws of Free States. So in essence, slavery and "States Rights" were indissoluble; mutually inclusive and in the Confederate cause not distinguished from one another. Today's use of "State's Rights" is often vague and anti-intellectual. It is usually an attempt to obfuscate the role of slavery in the Confederate cause, and fails to stand up to scrutiny. Fortunately, the founders of the Confederacy made no secret of the cause, so researchers interested in learning about the subject can ascertain the role of slavery quite easily.

While I suppose that plagiarism is the norm at the University of Secession Bias (or USB for short), we usually tend to give a warning, then a suspension or a failing grade. I think 1st Vermon-err "Hannibalbarca" deserves both.

Hi Corporal Bridge. I'm sorry to be responding so late, I kind of took a break from this forum. Some excellent scholars on the Civil War, focusing on individual experiences... Drew Giplin Faust, Ried Mitchell, Chandra Manning, and Victoria Bynum are great scholars to start with. Manning and Mitchell have wonderful work on soldering and motivation of service "What this Cruel War was Over" (Manning, 2007); "Civil War Soldiers" (Mitchell, 1988). Bynum and Faust have done great work on the homefront. Bynum specializes in work that focuses on the Antebellum and Southern resistance to the Confederacy and white supremacy; "Unruly Women: The Sexual and Racial Politics of the Antebellum South" (1993) and "The Free State of Jones" (2011?). Faust has specialized in the cultural impact of the war, most notably in "This Republic of Suffering" (2008). If you want to get into the nitty gritty, Stephen Berry's edited collection of essays "Weirding the War: Stories from the Fringes of the American Civil War" (2011) is thought provoking and challenges many of our perceptions of the conflict. Sorry it took me two months to respond lol. I hope it was worth the wait .

Mark Grimsly's "Hard Hand of War" would take some pretty serious issues with this interpretation. Using census records, Grimsly actually proves that Sherman directed the severity of his campaign against wealthy slave owners and public property, with non-slave owning poor let alone or attacked very little. I also need a citation for this rape statistic, since last I checked there were actually relatively low.At least, rape cases officially recorded. Rape in the Civil War has been heavily re-examined in recent historioraphy, so it is quite possible that this is incorrect, however I must ask for some evidence.

Just to elaborate, that pivotal moment was when the Alabamian brigade of Joseph Wilcox was about to break through the Federal line on Cemetery Ridge. This was the attack essayed by Major General Anderson, following the near success of McClaw's division and the charge of Barksdale. eight companies of the 1st Minnesota, numbering approximately 268 men, were protecting an artillery battery (Biglow's?) and they were the last reserves available to Hancock until reinforcement arrived. As this attack commenced, Ambrose "Rans" Wright's brigade was cresting the Cemetery Hill, and if supported by Mahone and Posey, could have taken it. Wilcox was in turn supported by Lang's Floridian brigade. Lang's brigade began the day with 1600, though having been lightly engaged by artillery and the detached Company F, 1st Minnesota, his condition at this critical moment is hard to confirm. Wilcox and Lang would ahve shattered that last of the II Corps, and with the II Corps unable to support the XI on Cemetery Hill, the III already disintegrated and the V exhausted defending South Cemetery Hill, the charge would likely have snapped the neck and spine of the Federal line. It is my personal opinion that this was the moment in which Robert E. Lee could have won a crippling, perhaps even fatal, victory over the United States at Gettysburg. There are two different accounts of what happened next. In essence, decalring "By God! Is this all we have!" it is agreed upon that Hancock rode to Colonel Colville, commanding the 1st Minnesota, and ordered him to charge the enemy colours. Of the ten companies of the regiment, F Company had been detached as skirmishers, and G Company was assigned to rearguard duty. The Veteran 1st had fought at Mannassas, Ball's Bluff's (D Company), Savage Station, Malvern Hill, and Antietam (and were present, though not heavily engaged at Fredricksburg, Second Fredricksburg, and Chancellorsville). They were one of the finest volunteer regiments of the Army of the Potomac, and were immediately aware of the desperation of such a charge. Colville ordered a charge of bayonets, and without hesitation the men moved forward. In their descriptions of the event, the survivors of spoke the chaos of throwing themselves at the Alabamians, one veteran, Alfred Carpenter, spoke of comrades falling left and right, and of the sheer inability to even register their wounding and death, so intense and surreal was the charge itself. Carpenter wrote that men fell, and the rest kept moving, until he himself was struck in the foot. Colville too was hit, and soon after the Lt. Colonel of the regiment was severely struck as well, with command passing to Captain Messick. Charging through the thick smoke and losses, the Veteran 1st fell upon the Alabamians with gallant elacrity. So feroscious and courageous was the charge, that Wilcox became convinced he was fighting not a regiment, but a division, and ordered his men to withdraw. Seeing this retreat, Lang followed suit. The II Corps was saved, and with Wrigth driven back with support from Hancock's reinforcements before the arrival of Posey and Mahone, the I and III Corps assault Cemetery Ridge at last faded. "Its alright now," Meade was heard to say, "Its alright now." The 1st Minnesota, having driven back the enemy at great loss, were now trapped beyond Federal lines. Crawling into a ravine for cover, they held their position until the coming darkness afforded them opportunity to withdraw. It was here that Colville was wounded. In his after action report, Hancock wrote of the painful but necessary sacrifice of the regiment, and he praised both the regiment and its commander in the highest terms. Closing his remarks on the regiment he wrote that in all the history of battle there was, "no more gallant a deed" as the charge of the Veteran 1st that day. Their losses were, as has been mentioned previously, 82% of the eight companies engaged. Factoring in the two companies assigned to other duties, the 1st Minnesota lost 68% of its total regimental force. With 82% losses were unmatched by any Federal regiment, and unsurpassed by an Confederate regiment. They were matched, but not exceeded, by the 1st Texas, who suffered 82% losses at Antietam. These constitute the largest single action regimental loses of the American Civil War. Sergeant Wright of Company F, recalled painfully in his memoir learning of the rumours, "The entire regiment destoryed." "It could not have quite been as bad as that," he recalled his comrades saying with anxiety, "they always over blow these things." It could not be as bad as that... Sergeant Patrick Henry Taylor of Company E wrote in astonishment of the charge, and in its aftermath found to his amazement that he was in command of the company. His brother, Isaac Taylor, was a 2nd Lieutenant, and above all, Patrick wondered in closing his diary entry for the day "Where is Issac?" The next day Sergeant Wright wrote in his memoir of the joy and sorrow of the men in reuniting, greeting and embracing one another, "as if oceans had been between us," and the horror of learning that it was indeed 'as bad as that.' Patrick Taylor found his brother, torn in half by an artillery shell, "A shell struck him on the top of his head and passed out through his back, cutting his belt in two. The poor fellow did not know what happened." He and a friend buried Taylor, and placed a small board over the makeshift grave. Taylor inscribed to the marker: No useless coffin enclosed his breast, Nor in sheet nor in shroud we bound him, But he lay like a warrior taking his rest, With his shelter tent around him. Also, yeah hopefully everyone can keep their videos up.

Its a portrait of the 1st Minnesota at Gettysburg. It is therefore the best portrait. This is why everyone picks it. Veteran 1st ftw.

I'm really excited about this update. I think everyone is going to love it!

I now get the joke. I'll be adding it to the USB for future reference. I tip my Union Kepi to you, sir.

I did. Still can't figure out what was wrong with my response, do I just deleted it, since I really can't be bothered to figure out what the problem was.

This thread is really lighting up again! I must say I'm rather proud to have created a thread that simply refuses to die

Perhaps they are, though I personally do not feel they have committed this error. At least not Blight, I am not as familiar with Goodwin since I generally don't read biographical history. Some might say that the great movers and shakers of history always expect to much of their fellows. Not to be too philosophical, but I think human kind only strives forward when it expects to much, or at least a good deal, of itself. So you might say I'm a believer in high expectations.

This is one of the many reasons I decided not to pursue history as a profession.

We are sorry for any inconvenience caused by the improved AI With Love, The Beta Testers.

Can I add Donald Stroker's The Grand Design, to this list? Awesome list, by the way!

Again, I agree with that assessment. However, we must also remember that Grant began to have a falling out with many of these generals (most notably Sherman) over such political issues during his Presidency. Furthermore, we must separate General Grant from president Grant. Elizabeth R. Varron has gone to pains to explore Grant's political transformation into a Radical in her new book Appomattox: Victory, Defeat, and Freedom at the End of the Civil War.

I meant counterfactuals with respect to the possibilit of Reconstruction being a "Golden Opportunity." I should have been clearer on that. There is nothing here I disagree with, which is why I think we are at cross purposes. We are both saying essentially saying the same the points, but drawing slightly different conclusions. My point is that such voices for equality did exist, but were clearly in the minority by the end of the Grant administration. I think we can agree on that, yes?

I have read The Union War as I believe I mentioned. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I have not read The Confederate War yet, but its on my list.

I think that somewhat ignores the 5 years of relative racial equality enforced between 1868 and 1873. I also think we are debatin counterfactuals, and at cross purposes. I would caution against concluding that political defeat means political non-existence. Many Americans did want race reform. The existence of leading intellectuals like Frederick Douglass and Wendell Philips make this rather impossible to ignore, unless we decide that men such as them and their followers ceased to exist in 1865. Obviously, this side lost, and the Liberal Republicans and their Conservative Republican allies were victorious. This goes without saying. However, to conclude that there is no evidence that American society wanted racial reform is, with all due respect, a bit of a problematic conclusion in my opinion; given the power of the Radicals from 1868-1873 and the vocal though diminishing Radical coalition thereafter. These voices are well documented, did exist, and did have a serious impact on the history of Reconstruction. They were also very much a substantial, though not majority, portion of American society. It is also problematic, in my opinion, to consign all such reform to vengeance, and non to genuine interest, is an abstraction that contradicts significant documentation of Congressmen and of President Grant urging for the support of black rights on the basis of black support for the war effort, and basic human equality.

Again, I would agree that many were motivated by vengenance, but not all. That also does not erase the possibility for radical reform, only the motivation to maintain it. Anyway, while I could talk about this all day (and for all my life for that matter), I will be late for work. Can we resume this discussion this evening

I agree with that, though as I said, I use the word "traitor" because in the 19th Century, Rebels were viewed contemporaryily and legally as traitors. It underscores my point that at the close of Reconstruction, America valued men that were openly acknowledged in Congress as traitors over black men who struggled for the Union.