Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Keepbro said:

 

Question: Whatever happened to Harper's Ferry? I'm guessing Harper lost his boat to crazed rebs during their Maryland campaign but did he ever get it back?

Harper moved west to get away from the war, but Josey Wales taught him and a Carpet Bagger the meanin' of a Missouri Boat Ride. 

Very similar to Wilmer McClain; who literally had the war start in his front yard and end in his front parlor. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No need to start with an easy question, right?   Ok so I'm going to keep this short because its 3 am where I live lol . The short answer to your question is, they tried exactly what you are saying

Lee marched onto Gettysburg and met the Yankees on their own turf.  We all know how that story ends.  And so, 1stVermont slinks back to the USB as Lee did over the Rappahannock River. Though, des

"Hannibalbarca" was banned as spammer (There were multiple reports leading to case that he is our old spammer "1st Vermont").

Posted Images

31 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Harper moved west to get away from the war, but Josey Wales taught him and a Carpet Bagger the meanin' of a Missouri Boat Ride. 

Very similar to Wilmer McClain; who literally had the war start in his front yard and end in his front parlor. 

That's hilarious. Guy must have felt do unlucky lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Koro said:

That's hilarious. Guy must have felt do unlucky lol. 

It had to suck at the time, but what a hell of a story to tell around the dinner table when it was all said and done!

I loved the part where the damn Yankees were just blatantly stealing his furniture and handing him cash. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

I loved the part where the damn Yankees were just blatantly stealing his furniture and handing him cash. 

Reminds me of that rather funny episode in april 1865 when the ANV was trying to escape Virginia. US cavalry managed to capture a wagon train along with 400 rebels. Inside the wagons they found confederate notes and couldn't resist the temptation to gather all the prisonners to hand them over their 'pay'. Needless to say those bills were entirely worthless at this point.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-10 at 5:14 AM, Col_Kelly said:

Maybe he parked it in some Cold Harbor for the duration of the conflict. With all these anacondas running around it would have been a wise decision.



My  little thread has finally devolved into a series of Civil War puns...


I'm...I'm so proud *tear in the eye*

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-10 at 4:20 PM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

It had to suck at the time, but what a hell of a story to tell around the dinner table when it was all said and done!

I loved the part where the damn Yankees were just blatantly stealing his furniture and handing him cash. 

Don't forget when the Rebs decided that Lee and Grant had met under the apple tree, and basically shredded it to sell the srap souvenirs to the Yanks ;P 

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 out of 35 for me. The only fail I could have gotten right was the battle involving the largest amount of soldiers in the whole war. Others were too specific for me :s. Lots of guesses as well.

PS : Although I got it right I'm not sure about the one asking which city capture blocked the Mississippi river. Gallagher argues that after the fall of New Orleans the Mississipi was already a blocked river for the Confederacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Kelly. :)

One of the two I missed was the one about Foote and the Mississippi ... I know there was a confederate fleet on the river, not a good one, but one just the same that could very well hamper Foote's ascension up the river to Vicksburg .... he would have had to neutralize it before running past Vicksburg.   BUT ... not according to the quiz makers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

35/35, but I used the 'hint' button a few times.

The third question, about how the battle of the ironclads 'made all other navies obsolete', isn't completely correct.  Both the French (Gloire (1859)) and the British (Warrior (1860)) had ironclads prior to the ACW.  Battle of Hampton Roads was just the first time they were used in combat (excluding the use of non-self-propelled ironclad floating batteries in the Crimean War).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fred Sanford said:

35/35, but I used the 'hint' button a few times.

The third question, about how the battle of the ironclads 'made all other navies obsolete', isn't completely correct.  Both the French (Gloire (1859)) and the British (Warrior (1860)) had ironclads prior to the ACW.  Battle of Hampton Roads was just the first time they were used in combat (excluding the use of non-self-propelled ironclad floating batteries in the Crimean War).

Exactly.

There were several questions designed to be as vague as possible, and some ridiculously precise. I doubt anyone takes that test without making an educated guess here and there. 

Which tells you I got at least one question wrong, and blame the test. 'nuff said. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No guesses on my effort, and absolutely no use of hints.  I've been studying the ACW for over 50 years. Every answer came from knowing the subject.  As you said, the questions were dsigned. If they weren't it wouldn't have been a true quiz.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2017 at 11:52 PM, Corporal Bridge said:

 What was the Army like prior to the Civil War what type of men join did and what type of men land commission or enlisted? And what were the conflicts prior to the Civil War but after the Mexican-American or you can count the Indian Wars as well if  anyone has a list. Oh yeah and I forgot Philipp busting what's going on time.

To break it down, much of the army was built up of men fresh off the boat or had no where else to turn for the enlisted ranks.  These men often knew little english to start out or were part of failed revolutions in Europe and all they knew was how to fight.  Much of the officer ranks were populated by West Point trained officers by the time the Civil War rolled around.  The upward mobility in the peacetime army moved about as fast as a glacier.  Robert E. Lee after his West Point Graduation in 1829 did not receive the full rank of Lt. Colonel until 1855 when two new cavalry regiments were created.  It was usually you had to wait until someone retired, resigned or died to advance in ranks.  Hence why Jackson was no more than a Major and Lil Mac was but a Captain despite each having over a decade in the service (Jackson rose 3 ranks in Mexico and then never promoted after).  Fortunately it was not like the English system where commissions were bought and sold by the landed gentry, see the charge of the light brigade and the general English cavalry debacles of the Crimean War to see how that goes.  Wellington even disliked using his cavalry at Waterloo as the commander bought his generalship rather than earned it.

The commissions were usually men of experience in military or pathfinding expeditions (or the rare political appointment) out west if they were not West Point graduates.  The army began to focus on West Point as a training ground when Winfield Scott began putting more and more emphasis on the institution.  It was the Mexican-American War where many a later Civil War general learned how to lead men under fire.  T.J. Jackson with his little artillery section, Grant his infantry company, Lee leading scouting parties etc.

Many other officers found themselves learning their trade in the numerous campaigns against the Natives throughout the western U.S.  Lee once remarked that John Bell Hood was one of the few men who seemed to enjoy chasing Comanches across Texas.  J.E.B. Stuart was wounded fighting on the plains.  David Gregg would face his first combat as a company commander in a fighting withdrawal in the Pacific Northwest and saving multiple companies of cavalry (and protecting Charles S. Winder's howitzers in the meantime).  I could go on and on but this makes for a general basis.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2017 at 9:53 PM, Buford Protege said:

To break it down, much of the army was built up of men fresh off the boat or had no where else to turn for the enlisted ranks.  These men often knew little english to start out or were part of failed revolutions in Europe and all they knew was how to fight.  Much of the officer ranks were populated by West Point trained officers by the time the Civil War rolled around.  The upward mobility in the peacetime army moved about as fast as a glacier.  Robert E. Lee after his West Point Graduation in 1829 did not receive the full rank of Lt. Colonel until 1855 when two new cavalry regiments were created.  It was usually you had to wait until someone retired, resigned or died to advance in ranks.  Hence why Jackson was no more than a Major and Lil Mac was but a Captain despite each having over a decade in the service (Jackson rose 3 ranks in Mexico and then never promoted after).  Fortunately it was not like the English system where commissions were bought and sold by the landed gentry, see the charge of the light brigade and the general English cavalry debacles of the Crimean War to see how that goes.  Wellington even disliked using his cavalry at Waterloo as the commander bought his generalship rather than earned it.

The commissions were usually men of experience in military or pathfinding expeditions (or the rare political appointment) out west if they were not West Point graduates.  The army began to focus on West Point as a training ground when Winfield Scott began putting more and more emphasis on the institution.  It was the Mexican-American War where many a later Civil War general learned how to lead men under fire.  T.J. Jackson with his little artillery section, Grant his infantry company, Lee leading scouting parties etc.

Many other officers found themselves learning their trade in the numerous campaigns against the Natives throughout the western U.S.  Lee once remarked that John Bell Hood was one of the few men who seemed to enjoy chasing Comanches across Texas.  J.E.B. Stuart was wounded fighting on the plains.  David Gregg would face his first combat as a company commander in a fighting withdrawal in the Pacific Northwest and saving multiple companies of cavalry (and protecting Charles S. Winder's howitzers in the meantime).  I could go on and on but this makes for a general basis.

 So my question is how did the militia play into all of this?  I know there a vital in the revolution even though that can still be argued and vital in the war of 1812.  But I know during the Mexican American war is when are nation started having his volunteer regiments.  Which is a weird fusion between the two officers are elected but It set number of years contracted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

During the ACW, while militia started, they were all eventuality converted into the Provisional volunteer militaries and released their militia organizations.

After the war they went back to militia organizations. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corporal Bridge said:

 So my question is how did the militia play into all of this?  I know there a vital in the revolution even though that can still be argued and vital in the war of 1812.  But I know during the Mexican American war is when are nation started having his volunteer regiments.  Which is a weird fusion between the two officers are elected but It set number of years contracted.

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 1861 in the Civil War as well, where many of the volunteers of both sides were drawn from existing militia regiments, usually enlisting en masse. 

As the war developed, the militia became a part of the draft and conscription laws. In the Union, militia men were worth about one third of a volunteer in the monthly recruitment quotas set out by the Federal government. These quotas were to be met to avoid the implementation of the draft. It was a complicated system. Militia was called upon during the Pennsylvania campaign in the form of the Army of the Susquehena, where it aided in slowing Lee's army, and was assigned by Meade to defend Harrisburg in the event of a catastrophic defeat at Gettysburg. Many of these militia men also enlisted in the 9 month volunteer Pennsylvania Reserves during the 1863 Summer campaign, and provided invaluable service in the great battle there.

In the Confederacy, the militia was also a substitute service for volunteer service. As I understand it, enlisted militia could be conscripted, or offered by the state governments for service. Militia officers were not available for conscription. Interestingly, in the state of Georgia, where Governor Joseph Brown opposed conscription, the number of Confederate militia officers lept considerably after the passage of the Conscription Act... ;) 

Obviously, since the lion's share of fighting occurred in the Confederacy, Confederate militia was more often called to active military service, acting as home guard in support of, or at times in lieu of, the volunteer armies. 

Like 1812, both relied upon militias for initial enlistment, and aimed to convert militia units and militia men into volunteers throughout the war. Both also relied on militia for regular home guard. Both governments generally viewed militia enlistment as a less desirable, but nevertheless available, form of enlistment. 

Does this help?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The big difference between the Volunteer units and militia units is federalization.

Many militia companies and regiments were federalized into volunteer regiments.  Lincoln, Cameron, Stanton, and Scott had learned a valuable lesson from the past.

The reasoning behind this is that it took away one of the major problems seen in the War of 1812 and in the South during the Civil War where militia troops would refuse to campaign anywhere but in their home state.  This can also be seen in the Gettysburg campaign and Antietam Campaign.  It was very often that in every invasion that the U.S. would try against Canada the majority of the army would refuse to cross the border and thus destroyed any offensive's real power.

To avoid this the federal government federalized militia regiments to make them part of the national army, not just a state's force.  Some militia units were allowed to be kept in states that could see a potential invasion.  In other situations heavy artillery units were the only regular troops left in many a northern state if it was not a border or frontier state.

In the South many governors were loathe to release militia commands to aid the major field armies which could have added tens of thousands of men to Lee, Johnston, Smith, Bragg, etc.  Many were afraid of a Northern invasion or cavalry raid that would slice through their little kingdoms and wreak havoc.  As the war went along it was found that militia commands or state commands were great places to stash politically appointed officers who proved inept under fire or caused drama with a commanding general.  Too bad they couldn't send Burnside on a sunny vacation to California after the Fredericksburg debacle :huh:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2017 at 7:03 AM, Keepbro said:

Question : How the holy hello kitty did this guy survive his wounds?

 

Notice also that he has a medal of honour!

He should have worn a patch over that.  Then when he saw people with eyepatches he could act all superior to them and whatnot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, being serious.... I'm going to ask some proper questions now

1. If George McClellan won the election in '64 and took charge from Lincoln what effect do you think he would have had on the war? (I know that this is a "what if" question but I'm interested in some actual academic answers)

2. What one action/order given/movement/stroke of luck etc do you think did the most damage during the war?

3. Finally, How drunk do you think Grant was at Shiloh on a scale of 1 (still safe to drive) to 10  (black-out drunk and will wake-up married to a tran-sexual man and with traffic cone in his bed)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only answer the last one for certain. I have my opinions on the others but lack solid knowledge.

Grant wasn't drunk at all at Shiloh. The press needed a scapegoat to explain the heavy casualties and Grant's reputation as a drunkard was just as good as anything else. Here is an interesting report from Col. J.S. Stewart, a first hand witness.

'I was with him all day. I lay down with him on a small parcel of hay which the quartermaster put down to keep us out of the mud, in the rear of the artillery line to the left. He was perfectly sober and self-possessed during the day and the entire battle. No one claimed he was drunk.'

Here is the article. If I remember correctly Grant was never drunk during a battle. He got wasted pretty hard after the Wilderness though.

P.S. : As far as I know he never got married to a tranny but Julia Grant does look like a man under certain angles. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our boy George was running against Lincoln as a Democrat ... Lincoln was still a Republican, (and the first ever Republican President since that party had just recently had a name change.)  Given what happened in the South after the war with certain Democrats ... it's hard to say, but I can assure you it's likely that his being elected could have set any progress made in 4 years plus of Lincoln's government would be in serious jeopardy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keepbro said:

Ok, being serious.... I'm going to ask some proper questions now

1. If George McClellan won the election in '64 and took charge from Lincoln what effect do you think he would have had on the war? (I know that this is a "what if" question but I'm interested in some actual academic answers)

2. What one action/order given/movement/stroke of luck etc do you think did the most damage during the war?

3. Finally, How drunk do you think Grant was at Shiloh on a scale of 1 (still safe to drive) to 10  (black-out drunk and will wake-up married to a tran-sexual man and with traffic cone in his bed)?

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, Confederate victory; hence his refusal to countenance any such proposal. All the Confederates had to do was agree to the armistice, and then insist on their independence. McClellan would give them an armistice and a government to weak to resume war. 

If, in the extremely unlikely event that war did resume, the armistice would have given the Confederates desperately needed time to replenish their coffers through European trade, rebuild and improve Confederate infrastructure, and recover their armed forces. McClellan would resume the war against a strengthened foe, with US morale at an all time low, and with an administration and head of government fundamentally unequipped to fight the Rebellion. 

Neither case seems to hold favourable outcomes for the Union. Both are a completion of Lee's ambitions for both the Maryland and Pennsylvanian campaigns. Perhaps there is a third alternative, but I cannot think of one. As Lincoln stated in his "Blind Memorandum," in the case of McClellan victory, Lincoln's administration must achieve victory before McClellan's inauguration, as McClellan would be unable to do so, on the foundation of his administration.

2. The Emancipation Proclamation. It undermined one of the key elements of the Confederate infrastructure empowering almost incalculable destruction to the Rebel war machine. It also raised 200 000 men, mostly Southern, for the defense of the Union. 

3. No evidence exists that Grant was ever drunk during the Civil War. Some post-war legends emerged from his political opponents, but nothing substantial has ever been presented. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...