Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

On 2/13/2017 at 3:42 AM, Mr. Mercanto said:

I don't think that's quite a fair representation of what I've said...especially since I actually just posted a rather long explanation of how Lee felt about slavery :P. I've actually spent a good deal of time studying the Southern view of slavery. In fact, that was originally the going to be the focus of my Master's Thesis (until I totally changed my topic lol). Have you read Chandra Manning's work on the subject? 

I also posted on Jefferson and his views on slavery :P. 

There are actual examples of slave owners freeing their slaves and risking their financial future because of their views on slavery. Or, in the Grimke sisters' case, destroying all of their ties to home, family, and wealth due to their conversion to Abolitionism. You might be surprised at the moral courage exhibited by the very rare individual. Some of the most ardent Abolitionists were the children of slave owners. Broadly speaking, I think its rather silly to say "what I would have done" et cetera, because its really impossible to say what kind of person someone might be in such a radically different context. I just happen to be a proud SJW, so I had to tease a little ;)

To your last point, yes I was referring to that meeting when I said he was "disabused of the notion" :P. That and the fact that the first Liberia experiment was a ghastly failure. Lincoln did not hold orgininality for the idea though, it had been floated long before he was even a candidate. Also, the fact that he invited the opinion of black civic leaders and intellectuals was nothing short of extraordinary for a president in 1862. It was an error on his part to consider Liberia, but it was a blip. People tend to act as if it was the sum total of his complex views on Abolition, which is the germ of my pet peeve. I don't wish to accuse you of that, of course, but it is why I always respond to that.

Lee is a character with alot of depth but also a pragmatist which is sometimes over-looked. Lee was willing to allow African-Americans join the confederate army and after the war if they the South had won grant them citizenship if they were honorably discharged. Lee felt this position was best to his personal beliefs and what was best for the cause. Long-term Lee thought over-time recruit/draft/volunteer basis any Negro that served honorable in the army should gain citizenship. Lee got the idea from the Romanization from the Romans pre-cerca the 4th century when citizenship was granted to all by Diocletian. Which was kinda Lee's longterm out-look on this process do that till the support was gain to grant citizenship. For those who wanted to be slaves, revert to indenture servitude.

But the above was rejected by Davis, and the Confederate Congress. But that is the short hand description that you should/may look into as a example of counter-view points or people with influence that wanted different or had a different idea for the slave population. VMI had a copy of the letter that Lee sent and also, Washington Congressional Library has a digital, and I think the Civil War Trust has attained the originals of some of these documents and going to archive them when they open there new Museum. But if you are going to or are working on your doctorate, I recommend looking at the primary sources concerning this issue (I mean actually read through them or even better get your hands on them). Jackson was another individual that prompted Lee for this aswell especially in 1863 in need of men, and Jackson view on Christianity makes him another person who had conflict with the establishment that was leaning anti-slavery views. 

Hope you find this encouraging after 10-years of research that another view can be researched. 

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

On 2/13/2017 at 5:29 PM, Mr. Mercanto said:

Of course, tough bear in mind that my scholarly sources are Mark Grimsly (Hard Hand of War) and James M. McPherson (Battle Cry of Freedom). While I'm not asking for page citations, I do ask that your reciprocate with scholarly sources. This may be difficult as few serious minded modern historians would argue that Sherman's March was as savage as the myths claim. No serious minded historian would deny the Southern domination of the historiography. 

I set this page up to be more of a question/answer thread, not a debate. So I don't want to get into one unless its quick, clean, and based on academic research. :P I mean no offence of course, I know you're a serious minded person, I'm just not sure what scholarly sources you could call upon to challenge me here. While my point may refer to sophisticated scholarship, its conclusions are widely accepted in the academic world of Civil War Studies. 

Ok, not entirely accurate. Start broad and then narrowing, we have histories fro both sides to call upon to give a more neutral history and collective works to show the view points, facts, and data. I.e., Life of Johnny Reb and The life of Billy Yank are two good works that show both sides in propper order, and the sources within those come from some of those you criticized. They may be biased but still have useful information that are not bias leaning.

Also school text books for public and books, resources, and things you do in the halls of academia are two different things. So that should always be made clearly distinct.

McPherson did a good job, but even in his book there are obvious Northern Leaning tendencies. Point being is this After the war and there has been histories one can find bias in works for both sides and they are plentiful on both sides at any point on the time line.

The most neutral history I've read is the For the Common Defence and Origions of Modern Warefare, and maybe the Impending Crisis. Pertaining to the Civil War. I would not be so dogmatic in you approach when it comes to historiographers and the art of history, because they are written with to some degree and some more than others, bias. It is human nature.

Dr. R

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2017 at 9:20 PM, Mr. Mercanto said:

Yeah :p. When people reference the popular support Lincoln enjoyed in 1860 it's usually meant to be a bit misleading :P. 39.8 seems pretty bad until you realize there were three other parties lol

More than that, Constitutional Party, Republician, Democrat, Whig, Southern Democratic Party, just to name a few that is already more than 3 lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Slaithium said:

Ok, not entirely accurate. Start broad and then narrowing, we have histories fro both sides to call upon to give a more neutral history and collective works to show the view points, facts, and data. I.e., Life of Johnny Reb and The life of Billy Yank are two good works that show both sides in propper order, and the sources within those come from some of those you criticized. They may be biased but still have useful information that are not bias leaning.

Also school text books for public and books, resources, and things you do in the halls of academia are two different things. So that should always be made clearly distinct.

McPherson did a good job, but even in his book there are obvious Northern Leaning tendencies. Point being is this After the war and there has been histories one can find bias in works for both sides and they are plentiful on both sides at any point on the time line.

The most neutral history I've read is the For the Common Defence and Origions of Modern Warefare, and maybe the Impending Crisis. Pertaining to the Civil War. I would not be so dogmatic in you approach when it comes to historiographers and the art of history, because they are written with to some degree and some more than others, bias. It is human nature.

Dr. R

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? :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Slaithium said:

More than that, Constitutional Party, Republician, Democrat, Whig, Southern Democratic Party, just to name a few that is already more than 3 lol.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Slaithium said:

Lee is a character with alot of depth but also a pragmatist which is sometimes over-looked. Lee was willing to allow African-Americans join the confederate army and after the war if they the South had won grant them citizenship if they were honorably discharged. Lee felt this position was best to his personal beliefs and what was best for the cause. Long-term Lee thought over-time recruit/draft/volunteer basis any Negro that served honorable in the army should gain citizenship. Lee got the idea from the Romanization from the Romans pre-cerca the 4th century when citizenship was granted to all by Diocletian. Which was kinda Lee's longterm out-look on this process do that till the support was gain to grant citizenship. For those who wanted to be slaves, revert to indenture servitude.

But the above was rejected by Davis, and the Confederate Congress. But that is the short hand description that you should/may look into as a example of counter-view points or people with influence that wanted different or had a different idea for the slave population. VMI had a copy of the letter that Lee sent and also, Washington Congressional Library has a digital, and I think the Civil War Trust has attained the originals of some of these documents and going to archive them when they open there new Museum. But if you are going to or are working on your doctorate, I recommend looking at the primary sources concerning this issue (I mean actually read through them or even better get your hands on them). Jackson was another individual that prompted Lee for this aswell especially in 1863 in need of men, and Jackson view on Christianity makes him another person who had conflict with the establishment that was leaning anti-slavery views. 

Hope you find this encouraging after 10-years of research that another view can be researched. 

I'm sorry to disappoint but I am actually aware of Lee's letter lol :P. 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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Slaithium said:

A Abstract to this that is even more interesting about Lincoln is that he can be made to be a saint or satan himself. Everything to his personal life to his factious policies. That is more interesting. He is the only president that is controversial by shroud of mystery. For example of what I am talking about and what has be displayed somewhat, take his reaches of executive power also know as "constitutional war powers" granted to him by the constitution has had numerous backlash effects and many historians debate the fruits of this. Prior to this most presidents were reserved and were not over active in government minus maybe arguably Andrew Jackson.  But back to the point, he set the stage for far reaching executive orders, first income tax, transition from gold based currency, detaining citizens without due process, suspending Habius Corpus, and countless others all are highly controversial today and even more so back then. Not to mention that he held several contradictory views, most importantly, he viewed the South as states in rebellion not another country and were still citizens which make the former even more profound. There is some thought provocation for you, Dr. R

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

I'm sorry to disappoint but I am actually aware of Lee's letter lol :P. 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. 

Not really a Social Order but more of aristocracy in South is more precise. You can still find this practice in many parts of Kentucky, East Tennessee, and Arkansas territories. Also was a series of attempts not once. Not a disappointment to me, it was based off what I have read.

Edited by Slaithium
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

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.

It is not within the presidential powers to detain people without due process, presidential powers are to enforce the law which was not a law at the time or even close that would allow the detainment of citizens without due process. This is very apparent in Maryland in 1860,61,62. What I mean is what I said, Lincoln can be litterally anything you want him to be, hence he is controversial and shrouded by mystery. Because a lot of his intentions are not very clear and a lot of it is Post-Hoc. I would not say he was transparent, but that that a discussion for another time. Militarily that can be argued it was necessarily but there are very reverently domestic arguments that it was very over reach, needs to look at both affects and the precedents that they set. Davis took and did what he could, and alot of historians say Jefferson under the circumstance did very very well for what he had to work with and assemble is such a short time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

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? :P 

It was not a point to disprove but for you to turn what is being said into more consideration remarks other than full on trying to win points. You taling in a way and writting in a way to be precieved as superior, i was stating it as purely advisor and the history of the war is not clear cut in so many ways. But yes I do have a doctorate in Military History, my specialty is Prussian Military History 1314 to 1945. The sign of is my initial. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Slaithium said:

Not really a Social Order but more of aristocracy in South is more precise. You can still find this practice in many parts of Kentucky, East Tennessee, and Arkansas territories. Also was a series of attempts not once. Not a disappointment to me, it was based off what I have read.

The "Social Order" are his words, not mine ;P 

I would call it something of an old world gentrification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You must realize that any post about the South that does not include the fact that all good Confederates wake every morning and leap out of bed to beat their slaves is a wasted post for Mercanto. He has debated the subject repeatedly, and decided he could never own a slave. Which is very admirable, considering slaves are incredibly hard to come by in this day and age in North America. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Slaithium said:

It was not a point to disprove but for you to turn what is being said into more consideration remarks other than full on trying to win points. You taling in a way and writting in a way to be precieved as superior, i was stating it as purely advisor and the history of the war is not clear cut in so many ways. But yes I do have a doctorate in Military History, my specialty is Prussian Military History 1314 to 1945. The sign of is my initial. 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Andre Bolkonsky said:

You must realize that any post about the South that does not include the fact that all good Confederates wake every morning and leap out of bed to beat their slaves is a wasted post for Mercanto. He has debated the subject repeatedly, and decided he could never own a slave. Which is very admirable, considering slaves are incredibly hard to come by in this day and age in North America. 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Slaithium said:

It is not within the presidential powers to detain people without due process, presidential powers are to enforce the law which was not a law at the time or even close that would allow the detainment of citizens without due process. 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

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. 

This is hardly your first post on the subject I have read, there have been many. And humor was the objective, not causing you offense; my apologies if you took it in a spirit which was not intended.   

And if you wish to discuss Robert E. Lee's beliefs on the human condition; I invite you to examine Sherman's positive thoughts on genocide and finding a Final Solution to racial problems. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Andre Bolkonsky said:

This is hardly your first post on the subject I have read, there have been many. And humor was the objective, not causing you offense; my apologies if you took it in a spirit which was not intended.   

 

Apologies accepted, I know you are not the type to be malicious. I do think that your summation of my views was a bit more unfair then amusing though. 

Perhaps I'm just being a bit testy lol. One of those days...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

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. 

Not constitutional rights it does not, that is why the view that Lincoln held is problematic he viewed the South as being still citizens of the United States just in rebellion. Also Article 1 section 8 deals with the powers of Congress not the executive. Since you keep bringing that up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slaithium said:

Not constitutional rights it does not, that is why the view that Lincoln held is problematic he viewed the South as being still citizens of the United States just in rebellion. Also Article 1 section 8 deals with the powers of Congress not the executive. Since you keep bringing that up.

Actually Article I makes no such specification. While most of the powers in said Article refer to Congress, Articles are not explicitly ordered as such in the Constitution. Whether or not Article I is actually only in reference to Congress is still hotly debated by Constitutional scholars to this day. Regardless, Congress, who unimpeachablely do have this power,  retroactively authorised all of the President's actions with respect to Article I Section 8 during their Special Session on July 4, 1861. Thus, making the question, in a phrase Lincoln would have used, "a pernicious abstraction."

As I said, I specialise in this field ;) 

Remember that the Constitution was written in the wake of the Shay's Rebellion, and was designed to avoid future such crisis. Both Adams and Washington would suspend the Writ before Lincoln, though on a much smaller scale. 

Anyway, I think this is getting tiresome for everyone. I set this forum up as a question/answer forum, not a debate forum. I'll warrant that one is easy to become the other, but since we have both outlined our cases, let us allow the readers to decide :). I want to open the forum up to more questions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

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. 

That why I was quick to say that the original post that was not entirely accurate, when I teach my classrooms I make a clear distinction between mythos, history, and facts. The reason for that facts tell you when and where and the basic essentials, the history of of people involved, notable things that happened (that are not biased), etc. Then the mythos which is not factual but gives flavor towards the passions on each side, the passions are what excite the imagination and gets people to dig into history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slaithium said:

That why I was quick to say that the original post that was not entirely accurate, when I teach my classrooms I make a clear distinction between mythos, history, and facts. The reason for that facts tell you when and where and the basic essentials, the history of of people involved, notable things that happened (that are not biased), etc. Then the mythos which is not factual but gives flavor towards the passions on each side, the passions are what excite the imagination and gets people to dig into history.

I'm not sure I am following you. Are you familiar with the Dunning and Randall schools of post-Civil War historiography? I ask because the Civil War has a rather unique and complex historiography which may differ a great deal from Prussian military historiography.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok the only clause in the entire part of that article that needs to be addressed that would give Lincoln that kind of power to over-rule constitutional rights. " [congress]To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. " But the power lays in congress which is the law making body of government, and the point of what makes all of this controversial is the Lincoln's view " I see the South in rebellion of its native country, and will never recognize them as a sovereign state". I paraphrased, but that is the point. Lincoln holding that view and policy would be reaching beyond his executive powers or at minimal a clear contradiction. Also the, " Special Session on July 4, 1861 " was a speech he made to congress, no formal law or legislation to recall gave him special powers. Hell, Lincoln himself debated with himself that we know of from his writings that he was most-likely over-reaching, but felt it necessary. There lays another issue what you feel is necessary and what is actually necessary are two totally separate things.

As far as Historiography is concerned, you have a minimum standard that must be achieved and then within that you can create further frame-works. Most do not and stick to the bare minimum, but as long as they are excepted and are explained why it was significant to be done this way it is general accepted.  But as said, there are several historical methods that could be applied to whatever era of study. But at the same time, does not take away good history.

Lastly, when doing Q&A different views and histories do not make them wrong if they are well organized and supported reasonably, moreover if it can persuade the audience that is listening or reading. So debate is built into Q&A, if you want to make it a thread where you give all the answers from your own studies and deductions then that fine and on you, but there are more than one supported answers to these questions. And in a public forum, it will invite opposing answers and ultimately view points on any subject in history. That why I wrote you should be-careful how you exert and write. I am simply pointing out things from other corners of the field of study, and if you do decide to go for you doctorate, you will be drilled repeatedly for this if you do not consider and fully understand all arguments surrounding a particular specialty of study in history. In my doctorate for example to what we are talking about, I had to argue for the position that North was going to win the war not matter what essentially, that is not my view but I had to argue that stance so I could understand why historians and people think that and I learned alot about many many many details that changed some of my thinking on doing that. Course, that was a side project that co-worked on to build up resume but still the point remains.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Mr. Mercanto, 

As a Minnesotan who did a good amount of research on all 11 Minnesota Infantry regiments.  I can add a bit to your estimation of "the old thunderbolt" the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry.  Governor Ramsey was in Washington D.C. when news reached the city that Fort Sumter had been fired upon.  He went to the White House and offered President Lincoln 1,000 men to help put down the rebellion.  Lincoln then told Cameron to muster them in first.  The youngest state thus became the first to tender Volunteer troops to serve.  They were mustered in with 3-year enlistments.

They served first at 1st Bull Run in William B. Franklin's 1st Brigade of Samuel Heintzelman's 3rd Division.  They the highest percentage of casualties of any Northern Regiment in the battle as they were placed in an exposed position to cover artillery.

In McClellan's reorganization of the army they became part of the 2nd Corps (eventually the "Damned Cloverleafs")

They served through McClellan's drive on Richmond under Edwin Sumner's command.  Missed 2nd Bull Run due to Sumner's corps being one of the last to leave the Peninsula, yet arrived in time to aid in covering the retreat.  Served with distinction at Antietam while the 2nd Corps assaulted the Sunken Lane.  They were on the right of the 2nd Corps and was, with the rest of the brigade caught in enfilade fire in a counterattack by Hood from the Dunker Church area.  They held long enough to allow the Sunken Road to be overwhelmed.  They suffered immensely to hold together that long.

At Fredericksburg their brigade commander was cashiered for not fully committing his brigade in the assault on Mayre's Heights which saved the command from the extreme casualties of Hancock and French's divisions.

At Chancellorsville they were among the rest of Couch's 2nd Corps in advancing rapidly up the Confederate rear only to be recalled and join in the defense around the mansion.  There they aided in holding back Anderson and McLaws' diversionary attacks and like the rest of the 2nd Corps did not break.

Mr. Mercanto gave a nice description of their work at Gettysburg. (There is a cool story of their captured battle flags from the fight here and at Deep Bottom).  The final tally from their suicidal attack was 82% casualties.  Most sources say that after the entire battle of Gettysburg they left with less than 100 effectives.

They then served until the end of the year. Taking part in the Bristoe Campaign (helped inflict devastation on Heth's division in a matter of minutes) and the aborted Mine Run maneuvers.  Then with their enlistments expiring enough of the regiment re-enlisted to form the 1st Battalion 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry.  As such the survivors served until the close of the war, in their old position in the 2nd Corps.  A much longer commitment than many regiments who served for the North.

Anything I miss Mr. Mercanto?

Also I recommend reading on the 2nd Minnesota Volunteer Infantry, they served George Thomas and William T. Sherman rather admirably for the entire conflict.

  • Like 1
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...