Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Mr. Mercanto

Civil War Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Mr. Mercanto

  1. Agreed, but in using the word "traitor" in this context, I am intentionally invoking the language of Radical Republicans in their struggle against "Southern Redemption." So in this case my employment of the word is directed to my broader point..
  2. But we cannot discount the five years of Conrgressional Reconstruction under Radical Republicans, nor their existence as a political force until the end of the Grant admin. Nor can we ignore the presence of more radically minded abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass and Wendell Philips. That having been said, I suppose we both no that counter-factuals are as fun as they are impossible to resolve. So I think we will have to agree to disagree on this.
  3. I also liked his focus on Chattanooga, it always seemed to me that for such a central railroad depot, it receives very little attention. Can you elaborate on Northrop? I'm not very familiar with that and you've sparked my curiosity.
  4. We will have to agree to disagree on that. I happen to agree with Downes, Blight, and Foner that a "Golden Opportunity" did exist during Reconstruction, and that, no matter how you sice it, traitors were allowed to be citizens, and loyal men cast into apartheid; and it was done to appease the traitors, all due to race. These ideas are not exclusive to these historians, such contemporary views in the 1860s and 1870s are very well documented. Indeed, the Civil War was not about racial egalitarianism, but I think Reconstruction in many respects was. Obviously Reconstruction had several agendas
  5. What did you think of it? I loved it, personally, though I'll warrant I've read far less on the subject then yourself.
  6. I suppose I fall into the position that it must be interpreted with both. On the one hand, history needs to be contextualized to be understood. Indeed, much of the confusion about the causes of the war, Emancipation, et cetera, exist because our views are anachrnoistically imposed on historical contexts. However, the Civil War is a seminal event in American history, and the questions over which it was fought are not yet entirely resolved, and resonate today. The public memory of the war is as much a crucial area of Civil War historioraphy as any other, perhaps more crucial, if like myself
  7. Have you read Donald Stroker's new book. He definitely seems to suggest Clausewitz is more crucial then Jomini on understanding the war. I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.
  8. I've mentioned Chandra Manning several times on this forum, though I've posted a great deal, so I can hardly expect anyone to have read every post. I must admit that I am unfamiliar with Ed Sebesta. I spoke about DiLorenzo because a) while no historian is free from influence, personal, political or historiographical, what makes DiLorenzo's history poor is that his politics come first. He has a poor tendency to manufacture evidence or ignore contrary evidence. While Blight and McPherson have their political views, their scholarship is extreemly sound, employs reliable sources, and can be def
  9. The short answer is, the Civil War would have happened in 1856. The Civil War is caused by Southern secession, and secession by the election of an anti-slavery President, and the loss of power and security in the slave-holding class that such an election indicated. Frémont was no less a determined and passionate fellow then Lincoln, and would have pursued war as necessary solution to maintaining the government. Perhaps the Confederacy might have stood a better chance, as Lincoln was a far superior political and military leader to Frémont (who demonstrated his naive political sensibilities and
  10. You can read Brookes D. Simpson's scholarship for more on this. Sorry to be so blunt, but its one of the myths I've grown weary of hearing about. Its a lazy calumny on Grant's character. Grant wasn't perfect (he was painfully and cripplingly nepotistic, for example), however his pre-war struggle with alcoholism was shamelessly and disgustingly exploited by his detractors during the war, and political opponents and rivals afterward. The historiography of the mythology is very easily traced to these unsubstianted claims made by interested parties. Not only is it unfair to Grant, its also jus
  11. Hey everybody! I brought my Sharps Carbine to the range yesterday, and recorded some shooting! I thought perhaps some of the folks on this forum might enjoy taking a look at the ubiquitous UG:CW cavalry/skirmishing rifle. Enjoy! PS: I'm not a great shot... Part 1: The Sharps, and engaging our friends, the enemy (Confederate plastic bottles) Part 2: Close up shot of the barrel firing Part 3: More about the Sharps, and shooting generally. Trouble shooting new ammunition loads. Part 4: Counterattacking Bottle's Brigade, ANV
  12. 1. While McClellan did not outright adopt a peace plank, he did run on a platform of mediation "on the basis of Union." Such an idea was a pipe dream. The CSA had no interest in embracing reunion, even if it maintained slavery. Once suspended, it would be very difficult for the United States to resume its war effort if/when McClellan's peace talks failed. Furthermore, McClellan was empowered by the Peace Democrat "Copperheads," who would give him little leeway in threatening a resumption of fighting if the Confederates refused to reunify. Lincoln recognized that armistice was, in effect, Confe
  13. "Its those damn Blackhats again. They ain't no militia." - Unnamed soldier, Archer's Brigade, July 1, 1863
  14. Some historians have actually argued this exact point! John Keegan most notably in, "A Military History of the American Civil War." I more or less concur, Col_Kelly :). Grant's campaign against Vicksburg violated several laws of contemporary warfare, all of which Grant had little interest in. The result was one of the most extraordinary campaigns in US military history. Grant made his own rules as he went. He just had a nose for war. Theory was of little interest to him, as its practical application was natural to his sensibilities. Sun Tzu wrote a treatise on the "Art of War." Grant was c
  15. The War of 1812 was the first war after the Revolution where America experimented with Volunteer soldiers. Volunteers were drawn from the militia. Volunteers were militia that agreed to serve on foreign soil and consistently for the duration of at least one year, as opposed to on an emergency basis. Militia would act in concert with the volunteers when defending their state, and otherwise would be encouraged to volunteer. It was a shaky and problematic system, which the United States did not being to really wield effectively until 1814. This method was the foundation of the US system through 1
  16. There is a significant dip between the two, which greatly aided he 20th
  17. Not Grant ;P. In fact he once admitted to knowing next to nothing about Napoleon. Grant made his theory of war on two principles, what worked, and old Zach Taylor.
  18. Now THIS is a Rebellion I can get behind!
  19. *tips hat* You are a gentleman and a scholar.
  20. Well @Andre Bolkonsky, I think we've managed to satisfactorily derail another perfectly good forum thread...ummm sorry about that, @Major Grigg
  21. I'm experiencing an odd mix of offense and satisfaction at this... You bastard(?) Actually, my Great Grandfather was a medic at Dieppe. He spent the rest of the war in a German POW camp.
  22. Count yourself lucky, I was going to give you a Dutchman next. Enjoy your Englishmen, Sharpie. Now take that hill, I think its called "Hamburger"
  • Create New...