Mr. Mercanto
-
Posts
684 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Mr. Mercanto
-
Actually, yes it is. Article I Section 8 allows the Executive government to suspend the Writ of Habeus Corpus in times of war or domestic insurrection. -
I'm a little offended by this Andre, I actually never claimed such a thing. However, Chandra Manning's work on the subject has demonstrated that slavery played a key role in the psyche of the Confederate servicemen, irrespective of their owning one or not. As for personally owning one, someone asked, I answered. I won't apologise for answering a question asked. I drew upon examples of several slave owners who manumitted their slaves and became Abolitionists (such as Edward Bates). I said that I could never really know, since cultural and historical context are to unfathomable to contemplate, however, given the person I am in the 21st Century, I would have had to have manumitted.
-
Cool! I specialise in the Civil War era myself, but only at the MA level lol. The trouble with Civil War historiography is that it has an inordinate level of mythology in it. All histories have mythological elements, but the permanence of the Civil War in the American Psyche, and the unusual agency the losers of the war enjoyed in the writing of its history, has given it a notable degree of myth. Honestly, much of Civil War historiography has been reclaiming the history from the Pro-Confederate mythology. Its so prelavent that even professionally trained historians can get caught up in it. For example, the late John Keegan's military history of the war, despite being very well written, bought into a few of the political "Lost Cause" myths. Sp I apologise if I come off as a bit arrogant when I encounter the vestiges of that myth, it just happens so frequently.
-
The "Social Order" are his words, not mine ;P I would call it something of an old world gentrification.
-
Well the income tax was in equal measure an act of the 13th Congress. As for Habeus Corpus, Lincoln was not the first president to suspend this, and this war power can be found in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. This clause, written to outline military powers in times of crisis, also allows the government to call upon the army immediately for the suppression of domestic insurrection. I'm not really sure what "controversial by shroud of mystery" means...many presidents have been controversial and mysterious, for better or for worse. Considering the context of Lincoln's government, he was comparatively transparent. The "Constitutional War Powers" remain controversial, but most historians concur that they were (mostly) vital to win the war, with the exception of some minor excess, and that Lincoln does not appear to have ever intended their abuse. Take for example, political prisoners. While far more men were imprisoned in the Union then were necessary, Lincoln freed them whenever he felt it possible. In 1862, when Lincoln was optimistic McClellan would take Richmond, he actually freed by Executive Order all of the Union's political prisoners. The same cannot quite be said for Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy. While I've no doubt he too would have surrendered his war powers at the close of the war, the Confederate government showed little restraint on their application, except where slavery was involved.
-
I'm sorry to disappoint but I am actually aware of Lee's letter lol . I do believe its in a much earlier post/ Yes Lee requested that some slaves be freed as a condition of service. However, Lee specified that it was essentially better to lose some slaves then to risk the destruction of the entire "social order" [ie slavery], so this was hardly abolitionist. Lee was doing what he always did, gamble. Also, Lee did not do this until 1865. Lee's own personal records, made known to us by the late Southern historian Elizabeth Browning Pryor, reveal a man who felt that slavery anointed by God, and a natural order of the races. In no way out of the ordinary to any other white man in his generation. Gary W. Gallagher speaks to this in great length in his lecture "The Five Loyalties of Robert E. Lee." Definitely worth a listen if you can find the time.
-
Were there any Whigs running as Presidential candidate in 1860? They had pretty much dissolved into the American and Free Soil Parties, which themselves had reunited as Republicans. Only Constitutional Union Party, Northern Democrats, Southern Democrats, and Republicans ran a Presidential candidate so far as I know.
-
Sorry I'm not quite sure how this disproves what I was talking about. Hard Hand of War and Bell Irwin Wiley's "The Life of Billy Yank" are two very different books on two very different subjects. Its been a long time since I wrote this comment so you'll have to forgive me. To the broad point about historiography, the presence of opinion is a) not bias and b ) does not mean we can simply abandon the effort to discriminate good and bad sources. I haven't read the "Impending Crisis" so I can't evaluate it. However, I hardly think the criteria I've laid out here is "dogmatic" as you put it. I simply ask that the source lay out its evidence, interrogate it effectively, and respond to contrary evidence. McPherson is just a handy example as it covers so many topics. In truth, my favourite monograph on the subject of the causation of the war is actually "Disunion! The Coming of the Civil War: 1787-1858" by Elizabeth R. Varron. McPherson's work is easier to use here because of its accessibility and broad coverage. Also, out of curiosity, you keep signing off as Dr. R. Is that a call name, or do you have a doctorate?
-
Chancellorsville Union - Too easy on Normal?
Mr. Mercanto replied to Wandering1's topic in General Discussions
Glad to know I'm not alone. I can whip the Rebels on Colonel, but on Brigadier its a real struggle after Shiloh -
The 20th is just an example, the fact is there is not enough of a disparity in regimental performance or in population distribution to prove anything. There are simply to few urban soldiers to tell. There is no marked failure to fight on the part of Urban soldiers though, and no historian has ever demonstrated that regiments formed in city sections were any less capable, then their rural counterparts. Let us look to a different war for a moment. How about the Great War? In World War I, Canadian soldiers enjoyed a reputation as exceptional fighters. The theory amongst the Imperial powers was that Canadians, being farm boys, were naturally hardier men, and thus made better soldiers. There was one tiny problem with that theory. Care to guess? Less then 10% of the Canadian Corps were yeomen. 9/10 were city boys. So much for yeomen soldiering. So, why were Canadian really so effective in combat? Early success may have been a part of this. More importantly, the Canadians were amongst the few armies to adopt shock tactics. The Europeans, stunned that a backwater colony like Canada could produce such successes, sought a simple, arrogant answer to the mystery, which would not in any way reflect failings on their own part. The result, the belief that Canada was mostly farm country, and that farm boys made better soldiers, despite the minor detail that Canada was overwhelming urban by this point. Its nice to know that Great Britain was so acquainted with us... The Civil War has a similar mythology. Why were Confederate soldiers better then Federal? Why because farmers make hardier soldiers! The problem is that this myth ignores a staggering amount of contrary evidence, not the least of which is the overwhelming number of Yankee soldiers that were farmers, and the marginal number that were not. Perhaps the most popular incarnation of this myth in the Civil War is the cavalry. Historians have haphazardly claimed that the Confederate cavalry was better because, as farm boys, the Southrons rode horses more frequently. First, the major problem here is the industrial-farmer disparity doesn't exist. More problematically, the real cause of the differential in success was organisation. Until 1863, Federal cavalry was spread thinly as separate brigades attached to divisions and corps, while Confederate cavalry was concentrated as one rapid moving Corps. In every engagement during the early was, the Confederate cavalry outnumbered the Federal cavalry by several fold. The Southerners weren't better horsemen because they were farmers, their cavalry were better organised. In 1863, when Fighting Joe Hooker reorganised the army, the Federal cavalry were formed into a Corps, and a immediately began to challenge the Confederate cavalry, often successfully. Historians who use the Yeomen theory ignore this. As for being better shots...well a few things. First, the popularity of men's shooting clubs had spread to America by this time, so many a city boy had indeed experience with a rifle. Second, there is a world of difference between hunting for game and firing on the field. Finally, as James Wright of the 1st Minnesota noted, government weapons were very different to the men when they were first issued, and took a good deal of getting used to. Its one thing to take careful aim at a buck on warm summer's day with your Pennsylvania rifle, its quite another to rapidly load and fire as men fall left an right, and you can barely see more of your enemy then an outline, a muzzle flash, or their feet. Personally, I have a fair share of experience shooting bottles with a musket, sure as heck no the same thing as battle lol. As for being hardier...well yes and no. Ultimately though, nothing prepares you for 30 mile marches. The only real physical difference is that farmers, unexposed to dense populations, were far more susceptible to disease...
-
Ok :P, my dog needs me to walk her, so I' going to make this painfully brief lol. I'm always happy to expand later. 2. They were a part of the 1st Brigade, 1st Division, II Corps, Army of the Potomac. The 1st Minnesota served in the East, though a small number of its compliment ended up fighting the Sioux instead, during the Dakota War (1862-1865) waged in Minnesota during the Civil War. The 1st Minnesota was the only Minnesota infantry regimetn to serve in the Army of the Potomac for the duration of 1861-1864. 1/3. They performed most notably at Bull Run, Savage Station, Antietam, Gettysburg, and Bristoe Station. At Bull Run, they were one of the few regiments to receive mention in the dispatch for the exceptional coolness under fire. At Gettysburg, the regiment was the last reserves available to Hancock as Cadmus Wilcox's Alabama Regiment charged the gaping hole in the II Corps at Cemetery Ride. Faced with the certain annihilation of his Corps, and the Federal Army, Hancock desperately put in the eight of the ten companies of the 1st Minnesota in a forlorn charge. 268 men charged over 1600, supported by an additional 1300 Floridians Under Brigadier General Lang. So impressive and ferocious was the charge of the Veteran 1st that, obscured by smoke and battle, Wilcox believed he faced not a regiment, but a division. Wilcox withdrew, as did Lang, and in so doing deprived the Army of Northern Virginia one of the greatest opportunities it ever enjoyed to conquer a peace. Hancock had the time he needed to plug the gap. The army, and perhaps the nation, was saved catastrophic defeat, and the eight companies who made the charge were reduced from 268 men, to barely over 40. Two companies, F and G, missed the charge, and could not believe the rumours of the attack until the next day, when they were horrified to learn that their comrades had been decimated saving the Union in its most desperate hour. Hancock would write of the charge that there was, "No more Gallant a deed can be found in history." As if their previous sacrifice had not been great enough, the next day, when Armistead's brigade broke the lines of the 71st Pennsylvania and captured the gallant battery of Alonzo Cushing, it would be the 1st Minnesota and the 69th Pennsylvania who would stop that final Confederate effort at Gettysburg. The 1st Minnesota was also historically recognised as the first volunteer regiment to enter Federal Service in the Civil War, as, at the time that Secretary of Defense Simon Cameron drafted the call for troops, Minnesota Governor Ramsey was in Washington, and immediately tendered their service personally. However, as Corporal Thomas Presnall wrote, whether or not they were truly the first (he believed they were not), it was honour enough to have his name "written in the ranks of the men of the 1st Minnesota." I'd best walk the dog now, Mr. Mercanto
-
Hi! Took me ages to get to this! Ok, so basically yes...but also no lol. The Confederacy introduced universal Conscription in April of 1862, in a desperate measure to maintain their field armies. This Conscription applied to all white citizens aged 18-35. It also extended the terms of service signed by enlisted men from one year to the duration of the conflict. The Conscription Act did allow for the purchasing of substitutes, but this was later abolished. Government officials, armament and metal workers, teachers, apothecaries, militia officers, and one for families owning ten or more slaves were exempt. As the war went on, the minimum age dropped to 16 and the maximum raised to 55. The Federals instituted a complex system which is hard to describe briefly. First and foremost, it was a Draft, not conscription. The difference between the two is that conscription calls for universal male compulsory service, while a draft limits this too a few. Basically, each state was given a quota of militia and volunteers to fulfil, with each militia man counting for a fraction of a volunteer. These were induced with Federal, State, and local bounties. If the state failed to meet these numbers, then the draft would be used to make good the difference. The draft was effectively a lottery you did not want to win. Men were selected at random by drawn lots. After selection, a chosen man could be exempt from service if he could demonstrate that he was the sole source of income for dependants or was medically unfit. Alternatively, he could hire a substitute to take his place, or pay $300 to avoid the draft this time, but not necessarily the next. This money would supplement Federal bounties. If the man was accepted into service and did not pay the fee, he would receive full Federal, State, and local bounties, and the mandatory pension (one of the most generous in military history, as it happens). Draftees were generally assigned to rearguard duty, and very few of them were placed into combat (I think the number is around 2000, but I may be remembering that wrong). Unlike the Confederates, the United States did not retroactively extend Federal enlistments. Once men's three years were up, they could leave, though they were offered much (and peer-pressured) to re-enlist. Essentially, both sides forced men to fight, but one might argue that the Federals did so as humanely as possible. If nothing else, the Federals strove to keep conscripts off of the front-line. For the Confederates, desperately short on men, it was universal. These laws contributed to riots on both sides, though the New York Draft Riots are certainly most infamous, I think the Richmond Bread Riots are most notable. However, in all riots, North and South, Conscription and the Draft were one of several contributing factors. I hope this answers your question! Mr. Mercanto
-
Great question! The answer, in brief, is basically no. The "Yeoman Soldier Theory" holds little water in truth. First, it is important to note that the overwhelming majority of troops on both sides were rural (I think about 90% of all Federals but I can't remember for sure, and nearly all Confederates). So I suppose without rural troops on the US side, the CSA would have won every battle, but only because they would have only faced a fraction of the United States forces. The fact is, urban regiments fought just as well as their country counterparts. The 20th Massachusetts, for example, was as Urbane as you could get. That didn't stop them from being one of the war's finest regiments. The 1st Louisiana Special Battalion was recruited largely from the dockyards of New Orleans (blue collar, but not rural), and they fought like hell. The truth is, there is little about country life that better prepared these men for combat. Men became good soldiers through drill and combat experience, something gained neither with a ploughshare or a pen. Oh, one last tidbit. You mentioned Minnesota. The 1st Minnesota was, in my biased opinion, the finest regiment fielded by either side of the conflict. Having studied them to a small degree (they remain teh subject of my unfinished Master's Thesis), I can tell you that many were not the yeoman you might think. Minnesota was a new state, and many of its citizens had emigrated from the North East. Some of the toughest soldiers of the Veteran 1st spent their youths amongst the urbanity of Boston and New York, rather then the fields of Red Wing.
-
I would be doubtful of greater artillery efficacy on the part of Jackson. Civil War artillery was painfully inaccurate, and even the most talented artillerists could only do so much. Perhaps Jackson would have attacked more aggressively, though Ewell's failing was also in part due to his attacking so late. Had Jackson attacked earlier, he would have faced steeper opposition, though this would have held troops on Culp's Hill, which would have aided in the completion of Lee's original goal, the capture of Cemetery Ridge.
-
Mod support right now really wouldn't be possible I'm afraid . The dev team is really focused entirely on bug fixing, balancing and finishing the campaign.
-
You play a bold game my Confederate foe.... We have Rum on the Union side! Whiskey too!
-
I think fox2run makes a great point here. It easy to overestimate the affect of the great chieftans of war. I think the question is kind of impossible to really answer because the variables are staggering. For example, the follow up to the question about Old Jack living is, if he had, he would have surely taken Cemetery Hill, and the Federals would have been defeated at Gettysburg. Even this assumption is fraught with contigency. Let's unpack it as a test case. Alan Guezlo argues very effectively in "Gettysburg: The Last Invasion" that Lee never really intended to take the hill that night, and while he would permit Ewell to do it, he cared little if the task was done. His plan was to finish the I and XI Corps in the morning before the rest of the AoP arrived, and he would do just that. Hence, he appears to have provided Ewell no direct order to take the hill, and there is no evidence of him being remotely concerned with Ewell's failure to do so. Te night time conference between Ewell and Lee has no contemporary evidence of having actually happened. Tales of it only emerge several years after the war. In "At the Gates of Richmond: The Peninsula Campaign" Stephen W. Sears argues that Jackson's lethargy at Gaines's Mills, Savage Station, and Glendale, was due to miscommunication between Lee's staff officers and Jackson. They did not adequately communicate that Lee wanted him to move and take the initiative, only that he wanted him at certain positions. While there are several explanations of Jackson's failure during the Seven Days, this one has merit. Let us then suppose that Jackson has demonstrated that he is a man who rigidly awaits specific orders before assuming independent control. On the night of July 1, Lee makes no real effort to clearly state that Cemetery Hill must be taken, and does not make it a priority. Jackson, dutifully awaiting further orders, might like Ewell decide that if Lee does not wish it, he should take no further action." As Jackson said to one of his officers, while the cannons boomed only a few miles away at Glendale, "If General Lee wanted me, he would have called for me." Thus, Jackson might have, based on these modern analyses, done the same as Ewell. And this is just one of the thousands of what-if scenarios presented to us. So I guess my answer is....I dunno...having Old Blue Light probably would have helped, though.
-
Thank you for proving my point about you for me. I invite any curious readers to view our last exchange. By the way 1stVermont, did you ever read the original documents I told you to read? Cornerstone speech, for example? Just curious. Your obsessed with winning, kid, and the facts themselves are hardly noteworthy in your quest. I don't care about winning, I care about learning. Goodbye now.
-
Lmao! Hmmm possibly...hold my rum and my nerd glasses...
-
Wait! Hold on! We have cake and ice cream for our side! Stick with the Union!!
-
Great example! They were brigade attacks (well technically it was portions of two brigades acting as a crack brigade, but I digress). Of course things always get a bit separated at a regimental level, but it was co-ordinated at a brigade level by Colonel Oates. There are plenty of other such examples, I'm just drawing a blank on specifics atm. Just take my word for it?
-
.... This is the best thread in the forum. I love it.
-
I never actually called myself "very smart." I think its rather fascinating that you continue to claim I have...Were I an armchair psychologist, I might venture to guess that this was a reflection of feelings of intellectual inferiority on your part. If our debate left you feeling that way, might I suggest that it had something to do with the fact that you boldly asserted poor arguments to a serious student of a subject you have not sufficiently researched. I'm not sure that your choice to do so is my fault. This is the last of several debate requests you have sent me, accompanied once again by your rather petty (and illuminating) insults concerning your perception of my egotism. As such, I am going to be more forthcoming in my response, as I want this to be clear. My answer remains the same as it was before. No. To be honest, the challenge seems strange to me. We already debated on this forum, wherein practically every reader who commented did so in favour of myself. Even individuals who were inclined to your perspective expressed dissatisfaction in your conduct and presentation. This did little to prevent you from declaring yourself the winner. I'm not sure how your proposed forums would be any different, and based on our previous experience, I have every reason to believe that you will ignore a judgement in my favour there as you did here. Not everyone that disagrees with me is anti-intellectual. Not everyone who disagrees with me uses poor sources. People who dismiss evidence because they claim the author "is a Marxist" or who dismiss evidence without explaining why at all, are anti-intellectual. People who ignore evidence that disagrees with them, and advance evidence without interrogating what that evidence is or whether it works use poor evidence. You had plenty of chances to debate with me, and to be as forthcoming as I can be, I was not impressed with your conduct or your depth of analysis. I do not enjoy watching my serious research and passion dismissed by individuals who have very little real evidence to argue. I do not enjoy having to explain the same basic elements of the Civil War over, and over, and over again. Its frustrating, and above all, its boring. Let me be clear. My passion is studying history and the war. Learning its complexities and details, intellectually challenging myself to strive for a greater mastery of the subject. I do not like petty debates, and I am not obsessed with validation by winning said petty debates. I also know that debates with ideologues who see the facts as secondary to their views are exhausting. My goal was to disprove the misleading and highly problematic arguments you advanced in your thread. I did that to my satisfaction. I did this not because I felt that your positions were strong or well researched (they were not remotely either). I did it because hitherto your post, my encounters with this forum had been relatively free of Lost Cause fiction and Neo-Confederate idiation. I wanted to keep it that way. To be honest, there was not a single point you raised that I had not heard elsewhere, with the exception of claiming that the Civil War didn't free a single slave, which I must admit was one of the more delusional things I have ever read (it was also the point where I realised that facts really didn't influence your arguments or opinions). You offer me no adequate incentive to go to the trouble of being so bored, and to the trouble of composing responses to your rants (I'm reluctant to call them arguments in the academic sense). While you cut and paste your responses, drawing upon sources you have a limited understanding of, I in turn put a substantial amount of effort in my answers. I have a deep love and respect of this subject, and when I discuss it, I insist on holding myself to a certain standard. As someone who respects the readers and participants of a discussion, one of these standards includes explaining why I dismiss any given piece of evidence. These dismissals require a great deal of elucidation and effort to explain, however I believe that without explanation, such dismissal is anti-intellectual. Coupled with the constant need to correct the staggering number of errors in your copy/paste text, you are essentially asking me for several hours of work, all of which you intend to completely dismiss without any effort to explain why. This anti-intellectual behaviour is insulting and extremely disrespectful. During our debate, I gave you several opportunities to change this behaviour, you chose not to. Col_Kelly recently challenged me on this thread. Take a look at what he did. He was respectful to a fault. His disagreement with me was intelligent and well evidenced. We briefly debated. During the debate, he was always eager to hear and consider what I had to say. Rather then dismissing my evidence, he acknowledged it and responded to it directly and thoughtfully. Col_Kelly made excellent and thought provoking points, and as such really challenged me to consider the merits of my position. It was a wonderful exchange. Above all, in this particular debate, by the end my argument appeared to have the preponderance of evidence, Col_Kelly was extremely gracious and stated that I had proved my point. We then moved on to another exciting topic. This is how an intellectual debate is conducted. For Col_Kelly, our discussion was not about proving his intelligence, or ideology, or how intelligent he is (he is considerably intelligent, for the record). For Col_Kelly, this was about challenging ideas about the Civil War, and reciprocating thoughts and interpretations on the subject. It was not about being right, it was about learning, and I look forward to further discussions (and debates) with him. Had you conducted yourself like this, I would be happy to discuss the Civil War with you further. You did not conduct yourself in that matter, and as such I do not feel inclined to give you any more of my time.
-
Well now I'm just curious . What did you wish to tell me lol
-
Yup that kind of thing happened, but not often if said brigade took extreme casualties on the first effort. I can't really think of many specific ones right now, though.
