timschochet
Footballguy
Just great stuff, BL.
The most oft quoted statistic I have seen is the bayonet was responsible for less than one percent of battlefield casualties.*That said, I have never seen an estimate of the percentages of retreats or routs caused by soldiers charging with fixed bayonets. My guess it would be fairly high.Something not mentioned is bayonets. From my understanding fixing bayonets was more of a scare tactic. The blade of a bayonet was triangular and medical technology of the time could not stitch up a triangular wound.
1. As a practical matter, a battery was grouped in to sections of two, commanded by a Lieutenant. The roar of the battlefield made passing of commands on the front line difficult. With infantry, you could control troops by the movement of the color guard (e.g., the soldiers in the center moved wherever the colors went, and each man dressed or conformed to the movements of the man next to him). It was impossible for a Captain to direct the fire of 4-6 cannons, so he had to rely upon subordinates.2. All of the preceding posts refer to how the various armies operated in 1862-65. In the first year of the war, merely controlling one regiment on the battlefield proved difficult. The early battles were scarcely more than armed mobs. From an organization standpoint, a brigade was not infantry only (as in subsequent years), but would include artillery and cavalry.Artillery
Second in importance to infantry on most Civil War battlefields, was the artillery. Artillery played an important role, particularly on the defense. Cannon fire could break up an infantry attack or dissuade enemy infantry from attacking in the first place. Its mere presence could also reassure friendly infantry and so exert a moral effect that might be as important as its physical effect on the enemy.
The basic artillery unit was the battery, a group of between 4 and 6 fieldpieces commanded by a captain.(1) Early in the war, batteries tended to be attached to infantry brigades.(2) But over time it was found that they worked best when massed together, and both the Union and Confederate armies presently reorganized their artillery to facilitate this. Eventually both sides maintained extensive concentrations of artillery at corps-level or higher. Coordinating the fire of twenty or thirty guns on a single target was not unusual, and occasionally (as in the bombardment that preceded Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg) concentrations of well over hundred guns might be achieved.(3)
Practically all Civil War fieldpieces were muzzle-loaded and superficially appeared little changed from their counterparts in the 17th and 18th centuries. In fact, however, Civil War artillery was quite modern in two respects:
First, advances in metallurgy had resulted in cannon barrels that were much lighter than their predecessors but strong enough to contain more powerful charges. Thus, whereas the typical fieldpiece of the Napoleonic era fired a 6-pound round, the typical Civil War era fieldpiece fired a round double that size, with no loss in ease of handling.
Second, recent improvements had resulted in the development of practical rifled fieldpieces that had significantly greater range and accuracy than their smoothbore counterparts.
Civil War fieldpieces could fire a variety of shell types, each with its own preferred usage.
Solid shot was considered best for battering down structures and for use against massed troops (a single round could sometimes knock down several men like ten pins).
Shell - rounds that contained an explosive charge and burst into fragments when touched off by a time fuse - were used to set buildings afire or to attack troops behind earthworks or under cover.
Spherical case was similar to shell except that each round contained musket balls (78 in the case of a 12-pound shot, 38 for a 6-pound shot); it was used against bodies of troops moving in the open at ranges of from 500 to 1,500 yards.
At ranges of below 500 yards, the round of choice was canister, essentially a metal can containing about 27 cast-iron balls, each 1.5 inches in diameter. As soon as a canister round was fired, the sides of the can would rip away and the cast-iron balls would fly directly into the attacking infantry.(4) In desperate situations double and sometimes even triple charges of canister were used.
As recently as the Mexican War, artillery had been used effectively on the offensive, with fieldpieces rolling forward to advanced positions from which they could blast a hole in the enemy line. The advent of the rifled musket, however, made this tactic dangerous - defending infantry could now pick off artillerists who dared to come so close - and so the artillery had to remain farther back.(5)
In theory the greater range and accuracy of rifled cannon might have offset this a bit, but rifled cannon fired comparatively small shells of limited effectiveness against infantry at a distance. The preferred use of artillery on the offensive was therefore not against infantry but against other artillery - what was termed "counterbattery work." The idea was to mass one's own cannon against a few of the enemy's cannon and systematically fire so as to kill the enemy's artillerist and dismount his fieldpieces.
Cavalry
"Whoever saw a dead cavalryman?" was a byword among Civil War soldiers, a pointed allusion to the fact that the battlefield role played by the mounted arm was often negligible. For example, at the Battle of Antietam - the single bloodiest day of the entire war - the Union cavalry suffered exactly 5 men killed and 23 wounded.(6) This was in sharp contrast to the role played by cavalry during the Napoleonic era, when a well-timed cavalry charge could exploit an infantry breakthrough, overrun the enemy's retreating foot soldiers, and convert a temporary advantage into a complete battlefield triumph.
Why the failure to use cavalry to better tactical advantage? The best single explanation might be the fact that for much of the war there was simply not enough of it to achieve significant results. Whereas cavalry had comprised 20 to 25 percent of Napoleonic armies, in Civil War armies it generally averaged 8 to 10 percent or even less.(7)
The paucity of cavalry may be explained, in turn, by its much greater expense compared with infantry. A single horse might easily cost ten times the monthly pay of a Civil War private and necessitated the purchase of saddles, bridles, stirrups, and other gear as well as specialized clothing and equipment for the rider. Moreover, horses required about 26 pounds of feed and forage per day, many times the requirement of an infantryman. One might add to this the continual need for remounts to replace worn-out horses and the fact that it took far more training to make an effective cavalryman than an effective infantryman, as well as the widespread belief that the heavily-wooded terrain of America would limit opportunities to use cavalry on the battlefield.(8)
All in all, it is perhaps no wonder that Civil War armies were late in creating really powerful mounted arms.(9) Instead, cavalry tended to be used mainly for scouting and raiding, duties that took place away from the battlefields. During major engagements their mission was principally to screen the flanks or to control the rear areas. By 1863, however, the North was beginning to create cavalry forces sufficiently numerous and well-armed to play a significant role on the battlefield. At Gettysburg, for example, Union cavalrymen armed with rapid-fire, breach-loading carbines were able to hold a Confederate infantry division at bay for several hours.(10) At Cedar Creek in 1864 a massed cavalry charge late in the day completed the ruin of the Confederate army, and during the Appomattox Campaign in 1865 Federal cavalry played a decisive role in bringing Lee's retreating army to bay and forcing its surrender.
I plan on paying special attention, when the time comes, to this guy. One of the most fascinating characters in a war that is chock full of them.In the west, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest (a non-professional, self-taught commander) utilized his troopers as shock troops.
Stuart was a flamboyant cavalier, but whenever I hear people question his abilities as a cavalryman (some view his chivalrous nature and combat tactics as from another age), I always remember what R.E.L. said:He NEVER brought me a bad piece of information.Despite the reality, there is a certain romanticism to the calvary that lingers to this day. It's one reason why people remember JEB Stuart. It was said of him, for instance, that he was one with his horse, the greatest rider of his day, etc. We'll get to him a little later. An extremely ugly man who nonetheless managed to score with whatever hot chick he wanted.
Do you collect any of these weapons, Mrs. BSR?
I wish but no unfortunately. I just thought I'd give an image to the guns BL was describing. The oldest rifle I've ever shot was from WWI.Do you collect any of these weapons, Mrs. BSR?
Apparently not.If you remember nothing else, fix this fact in your mind: the rifled musket changed everything. In the first year of the war, almost all soldiers carried smoothbore weapons, which had an effective range of 125 yards. The rifle that became common in 1862 and ubiquitous by 1863 was far more accurate and had a range of 600 yards.
This is a common refrain. Even though technology advances, the older soldiers (unfortunately, the decision-makers) are still fighting the last war.Unfortunately, the technological advancement outpaced the tactics; generals continued to order frontal assaults, which against the rifle would prove over time to be near suicidal.
South Carolina used to offer Lee's birthday as a State Holiday for its employees. Several other states still celebrate Lee's birthday.I have a painting of Lee hanging in my dinning room (this one) and two sets of plates by Mort Küntsler in my den. my MIL gave me these plates over several years for birthdays and Christmases. Between these I have 16 images of Lee and 15 of Stonewall hanging in my house. I also have another painting of Lee that was given to me that I have not found a place for.timschochet said:Robert E. Lee Part One
Do you celebrate Lincoln's birthday in South Carolina?South Carolina used to offer Lee's birthday as a State Holiday for its employees. Several other states still celebrate Lee's birthday.I have a painting of Lee hanging in my dinning room (this one) and two sets of plates by Mort Küntsler in my den. my MIL gave me these plates over several years for birthdays and Christmases. Between these I have 16 images of Lee and 15 of Stonewall hanging in my house. I also have another painting of Lee that was given to me that I have not found a place for.timschochet said:Robert E. Lee Part One
It's called Presidents' Day. Although the 12th was my brother-in-law's birthday.Do you celebrate Lincoln's birthday in South Carolina?South Carolina used to offer Lee's birthday as a State Holiday for its employees. Several other states still celebrate Lee's birthday.I have a painting of Lee hanging in my dinning room (this one) and two sets of plates by Mort Küntsler in my den. my MIL gave me these plates over several years for birthdays and Christmases. Between these I have 16 images of Lee and 15 of Stonewall hanging in my house. I also have another painting of Lee that was given to me that I have not found a place for.timschochet said:Robert E. Lee Part One
Nice work!I took a detour to the Battery after work yesterday and took some pictures for this thread.
Fort Sumter pictures from the Battery
Commercial real estate agent. And most of this stuff I prepare in the evening, and post it when I can.Tim/BL- great stuff. Tim- what is it that you do for a living again?? And are you there whilst putting this together?
Okay. I missed that. Please do carry on.Commercial real estate agent. And most of this stuff I prepare in the evening, and post it when I can.Tim/BL- great stuff. Tim- what is it that you do for a living again?? And are you there whilst putting this together?
1. Taney2. NA3. Sure. Andrew Jackson did exactly that to John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia. Probably wouldn't happen today, but we're not talking about today.Congress could probably have voted for impeachment, but that Congress wasn't going to.OK, so here are my three questions for anyone who's willing to venture an opinion:1. Based on the Constitution, who's right here, Lincoln or Taney?2. If Lincoln is right, are there no limits on the President's right to order an arrest in a time of rebellion or threat? Who determines when this threat is present?3. Whether or not Taney is right, does the President have the right simply to ignore him? Looking forward to some commentary.
1. Lincoln2. Yes, there are limits.3. Yes, the President can and has many times in our history ignored the Supreme Court and the federal courts. Lincoln didn't commit a crime in ignoring Taney's decision and there was no basis to impeach him.OK, so here are my three questions for anyone who's willing to venture an opinion:1. Based on the Constitution, who's right here, Lincoln or Taney?2. If Lincoln is right, are there no limits on the President's right to order an arrest in a time of rebellion or threat? Who determines when this threat is present?3. Whether or not Taney is right, does the President have the right simply to ignore him? If you were a member of Congress, would you have voted to impeach Lincoln based on the fact that he disobeyed a federal judge? Is that, in time of war an impeachable offense?Looking forward to some commentary.
I realize that, practically speaking, presidents have ignored the courts (Jackson and Marshall probably the most famous example, as Texan points out.) But according to the Constitution, that's not supposed to happen, right?3. Yes, the President can and has many times in our history ignored the Supreme Court and the federal courts. Lincoln didn't commit a crime in ignoring Taney's decision and there was no basis to impeach him.
Playing devil's advocate here a little: you say there are limits. But you also say it's OK for the president to ignore the courts. Therefore, there really are no limits, right? In a crisis the president can pretty much do away with the Bill of Rights, and who's going to stop him?1. Lincoln2. Yes, there are limits.OK, so here are my three questions for anyone who's willing to venture an opinion:
1. Based on the Constitution, who's right here, Lincoln or Taney?
2. If Lincoln is right, are there no limits on the President's right to order an arrest in a time of rebellion or threat? Who determines when this threat is present?
3. Whether or not Taney is right, does the President have the right simply to ignore him? If you were a member of Congress, would you have voted to impeach Lincoln based on the fact that he disobeyed a federal judge? Is that, in time of war an impeachable offense?
Looking forward to some commentary.
3. Yes, the President can and has many times in our history ignored the Supreme Court and the federal courts. Lincoln didn't commit a crime in ignoring Taney's decision and there was no basis to impeach him.
Lincoln absolutely had the authority to suspend the writ protection. Missing in the Merryman dialogue that occurrs is the fact that Taney didn't have the authority to order the military to bring someone before them in contradiction to an order of the President of the United States. Without an actual accused before him or case properly laid with the court, Taney basically announced to anyone that would listen that he was going to hold a ex parte hearing and issue his grand ruling. I'm almost positive he alerted the local press as well so that they would cover the great Roger Taney giving Presdient Lincoln a lesson on Constitutional law.The backdrop of the "case" is important as well. With Virginia loyal to the rebellion and Maryland close to getting there at the time, or at least feared to be, the main supply line and transport hub into the nation's capital was in the hands of the rebellion. The nation's central power hub would be blockaded from land and sea by the rebellion and cut off from the rest of the country. With that as backdrop the military had to seize control of the railroad into the capital as not only an important doemstic enterprise to ensure the stability of the nation, but as a military requirement to protect the chain of command.Any argument that the President of the United States does not have the authority to protect the nation's capital in times of rebellion by using military force in this manner is simply unconvincing. As it was, Taney had to twist all forms of logic and law to get to his great holding. Knowing he didn't actually have a case in front of him when he wrote his ruling he turned the entire thing into a battle between congressional and presidential war powers. He didn't take into account the manner in which the arrest was made and the reasons for it. And given the method of execution of the war powers, the actual reason for the act - the reasonableness of it - is very much an important matter to consider.By 1863 Congress passed the Habeas Corpus ACt and retroactively approved of Lincoln's actions. This retroactive appplication of congressional approval or a war power method is just about standard operating procedure given the varying levels of war powers by the executive and Congress. The better argument against habeas suspensions actually occurrs after this first round, when Secretary Stanton issued his proclamations with PResidential approval in 1862.I will narrate the facts, but I'm hoping that some lawyers and constitutional experts will weigh in here: Yankee? Christo? Anyone? All are welcome, of course.
History has your answer and you will get there in this very thread. incoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus several times during the war. To my knowledge the Supreme Court has never officially held that these acts were unconstitutional in any way. Congress retroactively endorsed the round of suspensions with a new law. After the fallout of Stanton's proclamation the actual number of arrests outside of known emergency hot zones diminished. In 1866, the Supreme Court heard an anciilary case of Ex Parte Milligan which held that the trial of citizens in military tribunals when the civil system in opertaing and functioning properly is unconstitutional. This is was a stepping back in practical terms of the habeas decisions made during the war. Further in that case the Court actually held that the suspension of habeas is a lawful act but, unlike Taney, also went further to basically say that the facts and circumstances matter.Milligan's arrest occurred after the HCA of 1862 and therefore was lawful under federal law. The problem was the writ doesn't apply to an actual trial, just to the holding. So the Court found a way to protect the civil liberty and the war power at the same time.Playing devil's advocate here a little: you say there are limits. But you also say it's OK for the president to ignore the courts. Therefore, there really are no limits, right? In a crisis the president can pretty much do away with the Bill of Rights, and who's going to stop him?1. Lincoln2. Yes, there are limits.OK, so here are my three questions for anyone who's willing to venture an opinion:
1. Based on the Constitution, who's right here, Lincoln or Taney?
2. If Lincoln is right, are there no limits on the President's right to order an arrest in a time of rebellion or threat? Who determines when this threat is present?
3. Whether or not Taney is right, does the President have the right simply to ignore him? If you were a member of Congress, would you have voted to impeach Lincoln based on the fact that he disobeyed a federal judge? Is that, in time of war an impeachable offense?
Looking forward to some commentary.
3. Yes, the President can and has many times in our history ignored the Supreme Court and the federal courts. Lincoln didn't commit a crime in ignoring Taney's decision and there was no basis to impeach him.
I've got to be honest, I did not read much of this post. It's too early for that much reading.Although this pre-dates this discussion by about 40 years, there was a ground breaking here in Charleston that has some relevance to this thread's early parts:Ex Parte Merryman
In an event sure to rekindle the racially polarized debate over Denmark Vesey's place in history, a site in Hampton Park was dedicated Monday for a monument to the man hanged for plotting a slave rebellion in Charleston.
To the local politicians, religious leaders and historians at the event, Vesey was a civil rights leader acting on a universal desire for justice that unites all people. Monument designer Ed Dwight favorably compared Vesey to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
But this is Charleston, where the hanging of a portrait of Vesey in the municipal auditorium in 1976 -- more than 150 years after Vesey was himself publicly hanged -- prompted much criticism, and the theft of the painting.
"It was very controversial," College of Charleston history professor Bernard Powers Jr. said. "People were writing to The News and Courier expressing outrage that the portrait of a criminal could be hung in a public place."
The painting was returned, and more securely mounted, after Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said the city would commission a replacement if the painting remained missing.
Powers, a member of the committee planning the Vesey monument, said he smiles every time he sees the painting.
In Hampton Park on Monday, in a clearing not far behind the large gazebo on Mary Murray Boulevard, the Rev. Joseph Darby acknowledged both the strong feelings about Vesey and the day's chilly weather in his opening comments.
"God ordered this weather for everyone who said it would be a cold day before there was a statue for Denmark Vesey in Charleston," Darby said.
Riley described Vesey as an important civil rights figure, part of the "substantially untold story of African-American history and life in this community and this country, and their role in building America."
"We tell these untold stories so the truth will set us free," the mayor said.
Vesey and 34 other alleged conspirators were hanged in the summer of 1822. Vesey was convicted of plotting a bloody uprising in Charleston, in which enslaved blacks and freed men like himself would take up arms and slaughter the white residents, and then flee to Haiti.
Vesey had purchased his freedom after winning a lottery.
Whether Vesey actually plotted an uprising remains a question debated by historians, with little to go upon but spotty records of the trial. Much of the evidence was testimony from slaves who were rewarded financially, freed, or spared death sentences for their cooperation.
Powers said some questions are unanswered, but he believes the case has been made that Vesey did plan the uprising.
Certainly, South Carolinians had no doubt the insurrection was real.
The foiled uprising prompted the city to establish an armory and militia training ground that became The Citadel and what is now Marion Square, and restrictive laws put harsh new limits on blacks in Charleston, whether enslaved or free.
The planned Vesey monument has been in the works since 1996, with Charleston County Councilman Henry Darby leading the effort.
In 2000, the city of Charleston donated $25,000 and the land, and in 2007, County Council agreed to give $40,000.
While Monday's event was billed as a groundbreaking, Darby said there's still about $300,000 to be raised.
The "Denmark Vesey: Spirit of Freedom Monument" has been designed to feature a bronze statue of Vesey and the other ringleaders in the plotted uprising, Peter Poyas and Jack "Gullah Jack" Purcell, standing atop a 5-foot granite pedestal on a plaza.
Both. Taney's view that the power to suspend belongs solely to Congress because it's found in Article I is too simplistic because it ignores that the timeliness element involved in the case of rebellions and invasion. But it should be addressed by Congress as soon as possible. However, it took Congress almost two years to pass the Habeas Corpus Act. My problem with Lincoln was the breadth of its application in combination with subjecting civilians to military trials. Essentially, he imposed marshal law throughout the country rather than just areas directly affected by hostilities. Over 10,000 people were arrested. Most of whom posed no threat to the country.OK, so here are my three questions for anyone who's willing to venture an opinion:1. Based on the Constitution, who's right here, Lincoln or Taney?2. If Lincoln is right, are there no limits on the President's right to order an arrest in a time of rebellion or threat? Who determines when this threat is present?3. Whether or not Taney is right, does the President have the right simply to ignore him? If you were a member of Congress, would you have voted to impeach Lincoln based on the fact that he disobeyed a federal judge? Is that, in time of war an impeachable offense?Looking forward to some commentary.
These are fair points. I would counter the time it took Congress to act with the simple fact that unlike a foreign war where you theoretically have a fully functioning federal government, or even our current war against a countryless enemy, the civil war actually took place throughout every aspect of America, right down to the floor of the Congress for some time in the beginning. Add to that the nature of life in 19th century America with such things as travel time and the time it took to get information from point A to point B and in the end I don't think 2 years for the HCA is that long of a delay.But, as I said previously, the better argument - as you made - against Lincoln was what ended up being an almost blanket suspension where it didn't need to be done. In that regard, the court rightfully bounced it back eventually starting with Ex Parte Milligan. I think I can make a pretty good argument that given the nature of the times and the war it wasn't that unreasonable of an act in the grand scheme, but in the end it's a far better point to debate then the initial suspension along the Baltimore transit route at the start of the war.Both. Taney's view that the power to suspend belongs solely to Congress because it's found in Article I is too simplistic because it ignores that the timeliness element involved in the case of rebellions and invasion. But it should be addressed by Congress as soon as possible. However, it took Congress almost two years to pass the Habeas Corpus Act. My problem with Lincoln was the breadth of its application in combination with subjecting civilians to military trials. Essentially, he imposed marshal law throughout the country rather than just areas directly affected by hostilities. Over 10,000 people were arrested. Most of whom posed no threat to the country.OK, so here are my three questions for anyone who's willing to venture an opinion:
1. Based on the Constitution, who's right here, Lincoln or Taney?
2. If Lincoln is right, are there no limits on the President's right to order an arrest in a time of rebellion or threat? Who determines when this threat is present?
3. Whether or not Taney is right, does the President have the right simply to ignore him? If you were a member of Congress, would you have voted to impeach Lincoln based on the fact that he disobeyed a federal judge? Is that, in time of war an impeachable offense?
Looking forward to some commentary.