Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-05-2017, 02:02 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,379,955 times
Reputation: 7217

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
As the war was nearing an end, no doubt the Union soldiers could smell victory at hand and the end of the war was near.. certainly that inspired them to fight harder and were more determined that ever but when things like this are thrown into the mix; Maybe because of this (end of slavery), certainly because of a sense that war was nearing an end, the elan of the Union armies increased significantly in the spring of 1865. The final destruction of the Confederate armies was prosecuted with a determined vigor. That's just fluff... that is a writer sharing his or her own views into an article.. i don't mind it but you have to see it for what it is.. fluff.. there is no way to prove it and in my opinion, its just wasn't true! The union soldier no doubt fought harder as the war was ending, simply because the war was ending, not because slavery was too...
Actually, I've studied many of the battles of the Civil War. The forced marches of the Union Army during the Appomattox campaign were exceptional.

Read James McPherson's comments in the Pulitzer Prize-winning "Battle of Cry of Freedom" about the Union's campaigning in the spring of 1865. Describing the April 2 all-out assault that broke the Confederate line at Petersburg, McPherson wrote: "it came, with more elan and power than the Army of the Potomac had shown for a long time." (Chapter 28 "We Are All Americans;" Part III)

If you actually had read anything about the spring 1865 campaigns you likely would draw a similar conclusion rather than dismiss my informed statement as "fluff."

<<The lead units of the infantry columns reached Appomattox Station about 2:00 a.m. on April 9, although most of the infantry came up later in the morning while the cavalry were holding back the Confederate escape attempt.[113]

The marches and movements of the Union cavalry and the XXIV Corps, V Corps and African-American men of the XXV Corps on April 8 to get ahead of the Army of Northern Virginia on their route west, as well as the efforts of the II Corps and VI Corps to press the Confederates from behind, led to the Confederate army being effectively surrounded on April 9.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...Tremain233-138

These forced marches of entire Union Corps of infantry were more than worthy of Stonewall Jackson's famed Confederate "foot cavalry."

<<The Union infantry was close, but the only unit near enough to support Sheridan's cavalry was Maj. Gen. John Gibbon's XXIV Corps of the Army of the James. This corps traveled 30 miles (48 km) in 21 hours to reach the cavalry. [Emphasis added.] Maj. Gen. Edward O. C. Ord, commander of the Army of the James, arrived with the XXIV Corps around 4:00 a.m. while the V Corps of the Army of the Potomac was close behind. Sheridan deployed his three divisions of cavalry along a low ridge to the southwest of Appomattox Court House....

Gordon's troops charged through the Union lines and took the ridge, but as they reached the crest they saw the entire Union XXIV Corps in line of battle with the Union V Corps to their right.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...ox_Court_House

It's a good idea for posters to know what they're talking about before writing dismissive comments about other posters' statements.

What motivated the Union soldiers during the spring of 1865? Surely, the chance to finally end the war was an overriding motivation. Yet it would be wrong to dismiss the numbers of abolitionists and "practical abolitionists" in the Union army, let alone African Americans, who, with the Thirteenth Amendment in the pocket, knew that their final victory also would mean the end of slavery in the United States.

There is a theme in these C-D Civil War threads to dismiss the general abhorrence of slavery in the North, despite the reality that many, including Lincoln, saw slavery as a great evil but were willing to let slavery die a natural death if such restraint avoided a war to preserve a Perpetual Union. However, once the great sacrifices of four years of costly war to quash the rebellion were added to the equation, the Thirteenth Amendment would put an end to the "Slave Power" which had instigated the bloody cataclysm which had so wounded the nation. To say that Thirteenth Amendment wasn't added motivation for the Union armies, that the issue of slavery would be dead for forever with final victory, is just wrong-headed IMO.

Last edited by WRnative; 10-05-2017 at 02:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-05-2017, 02:51 PM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,914,779 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Actually, I've studied many of the battles of the Civil War. The forced marches of the Union Army during the Appomattox campaign were exceptional.

Read James McPherson's comments in the Pulitzer Prize-winning "Battle of Cry of Freedom" about the Union's campaigning in the spring of 1865. Describing the April 2 all-out assault that broke the Confederate line at Petersburg, McPherson wrote: "it came, with more elan and power than the Army of the Potomac had shown for a long time." (Chapter 28 "We Are All Americans;" Part III)

If you actually had read anything about the spring 1865 campaigns you likely would draw a similar conclusion rather than dismiss my informed statement as "fluff."

<<The lead units of the infantry columns reached Appomattox Station about 2:00 a.m. on April 9, although most of the infantry came up later in the morning while the cavalry were holding back the Confederate escape attempt.[113]

The marches and movements of the Union cavalry and the XXIV Corps, V Corps and African-American men of the XXV Corps on April 8 to get ahead of the Army of Northern Virginia on their route west, as well as the efforts of the II Corps and VI Corps to press the Confederates from behind, led to the Confederate army being effectively surrounded on April 9.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...Tremain233-138

These forced marches of entire Union Corps of infantry were more than worthy of Stonewall Jackson's famed Confederate "foot cavalry."

<<The Union infantry was close, but the only unit near enough to support Sheridan's cavalry was Maj. Gen. John Gibbon's XXIV Corps of the Army of the James. This corps traveled 30 miles (48 km) in 21 hours to reach the cavalry. [Emphasis added.] Maj. Gen. Edward O. C. Ord, commander of the Army of the James, arrived with the XXIV Corps around 4:00 a.m. while the V Corps of the Army of the Potomac was close behind. Sheridan deployed his three divisions of cavalry along a low ridge to the southwest of Appomattox Court House....

Gordon's troops charged through the Union lines and took the ridge, but as they reached the crest they saw the entire Union XXIV Corps in line of battle with the Union V Corps to their right.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...ox_Court_House

It's a good idea for posters to know what they're talking about before writing dismissive comments about other posters' statements.

What motivated the Union soldiers during the spring of 1865? Surely, the chance to finally end the war was an overriding motivation. Yet it would be wrong to dismiss the numbers of abolitionists and "practical abolitionists" in the Union army, let alone African Americans, who, with the Thirteenth Amendment in the pocket, knew that their final victory also would mean the end of slavery in the United States.

There is a theme in these C-D Civil War threads to dismiss the general abhorrence of slavery in the North, despite the reality that many, including Lincoln, saw slavery as a great evil but were willing to let slavery die a natural death if such restraint avoided a war to preserve a Perpetual Union. However, once the great sacrifices of four years of costly war to quash the rebellion were added to the equation, the Thirteenth Amendment would put an end to the "Slave Power" which had instigated the bloody cataclysm which had so wounded the nation. To say that Thirteenth Amendment wasn't added motivation for the Union armies, that the issue of slavery would be dead for forever with final victory, is just wrong-headed IMO.
In the military, that extra boost of energy you get when you're winning and in the home stretch is typically just called "high morale".
In general, it doesn't necessarily mean you're stoked about ending slavery, communism, liberating France, etc. as much as the idea that the days of sleeping with a bunch of guys, living in a tent, eating hard tack, and literally walking all over the country is about over.
These are the same people after all, who were totally ok with massacring Indians after the war, so its doubtful they drew the moral line at slavery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 03:02 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,379,955 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
These are the same people after all, who were totally ok with massacring Indians after the war, so its doubtful they drew the moral line at slavery.
More hogwash. Many northerners were not OK with massacring Indians, including U.S. Grant.

As always, you refuse to acknowledge the considerable desire in the North, and more certainly among Union soldiers in 1865, to end slavery in the U.S. once and for all. Do you actually deny that many in the North, clearly a majority by 1865, saw slavery as evil that must be ended?

Please explain why, if Northerners didn't really care about ending slavery, the Thirteenth Amendment was passed. Why were Radical Republicans voted into control of Congress???

Efforts of neo-Confederate and like-minded posters to rewrite history disgust me.

And if you don't think that American soldiers fought World War II to rid the world of Hitler and the Nazis, you've never read any of George Patton's speeches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 03:28 PM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,914,779 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
More hogwash. Many northerners were not OK with massacring Indians, including U.S. Grant.

As always, you refuse to acknowledge the considerable desire in the North, and more certainly among Union soldiers in 1865, to end slavery in the U.S. once and for all. Do you actually deny that many in the North, clearly a majority by 1865, saw slavery as evil that must be ended?

Please explain why, if Northerners didn't really care about ending slavery, the Thirteenth Amendment was passed. Why were Radical Republicans voted into control of Congress???

Efforts of neo-Confederate and like-minded posters to rewrite history disgust me.

And if you don't think that American soldiers fought World War II to rid the world of Hitler and the Nazis, you've never read any of George Patton's speeches.
And there we go again. This really touches a nerve doesn't it? There's no rewriting here.

Twenty Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded to US soldiers during the Wounded Knee massacre, does that sound like a bunch of humanitarians to you?
Then of course there's the Sand Creek Massacre during the war, in which mutilated body parts of women and children were taken as trophies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre. But in the end it was slavery that they were willing to die for? Somebody's been watching too many movies. Propaganda alert!

Americans fought in WWII because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan. Hitler and the Nazis were rampaging through Europe for almost 3 years before the US suddenly wanted to "rid the world of them". My uncle was captured by the Germans during the Battle of the Bulge and spent the rest of the war in POW camps. He fought the Germans because he was drafted.

The Thirteenth Amendment was passed by politicians not foot soldiers. By that rationale do you think the 18th Amendment (prohibition) was by popular vote?

Last edited by Ziggy100; 10-05-2017 at 03:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 03:55 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,379,955 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
And there we go again. This really touches a nerve doesn't it? There's no rewriting here.

Americans fought in WWII because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan. Hitler and the Nazis were rampaging through Europe for almost 3 years before the US suddenly wanted to "rid the world of them". My uncle was captured by the Germans during the Battle of the Bulge and spent the rest of the war in POW camps. He fought the Germans because he was drafted.

The Thirteenth Amendment was passed by politicians not foot soldiers. By that rationale do you think the 18th Amendment (prohibition) was by popular vote?


So now you are arguing that American soldiers in WWII weren't motivated by Pearl Harbor or the desire to rid the world of Hitler and the Nazis? The over 6 million volunteers enlisted for the fun of it all?

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/st...litary-numbers

George S. Patton: "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-***** Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!>>

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_S._Patton

Compare WWII with Vietnam, where there were instances of American soldiers fragging officers who aggressively led them into battle. Motivation in war is not meaningless, as evidenced by the performance of Italian troops during WWII.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...df&sh=ca557128

And now you're arguing that American politicians, especially those of the mid-19th century when Americans still closely followed political issues, just voted willy-nilly for whatever struck their fancy without concern for the political reaction among the electorate? Yeah, right.

Obviously, I never said or inferred that amendments to the U.S. Constitution are passed by popular vote, but they certainly do reflect the will of the people. And, yes, this was true also of Prohibition when passed and when repealed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 04:09 PM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,914,779 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post


So now you are arguing that American soldiers in WWII weren't motivated by Pearl Harbor or the desire to rid the world of Hitler and the Nazis? The over 6 million volunteers enlisted for the fun of it all?

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/st...litary-numbers

George S. Patton: "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-***** Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!>>

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_S._Patton

And now you're arguing that American politicians, especially those of the mid-19th century when Americans still closely followed political issues, just voted willy-nilly for whatever struck their fancy without concern for the political reaction among the electorate? Yeah, right.

Compare WWII with Vietnam, where there were instances of American soldiers fragging officers who aggressively led them into battle. Motivation in war is not meaningless, as evidenced by the performance of Italian troops during WWII.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...df&sh=ca557128
Good lord. I’m assuming you never served in the military. Is it that hard of a concept to understand that most people don’t necessarily join the army for a cause? If you’re being attacked, then yes. If you’re being sent to squash unrest on some other continent, chances are high you were either drafted or just wanted a job. Do you think recruiters lead with the line “you’ll be fighting for justice” or do you think they’ll lead with benefits, retirement, and “adventure”. Usually you just find yourself on the front line by circumstance not because taking a bullet for somebody else was your life’s calling.
Sorry, but this is getting way too cheeseball to take seriously.

By your rationale, popular vote ended radical republicans just as quickly as it voted them in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 04:20 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,379,955 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
Twenty Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded to US soldiers during the Wounded Knee massacre, does that sound like a bunch of humanitarians to you?
Then of course there's the Sand Creek Massacre during the war, in which mutilated body parts of women and children were taken as trophies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre.
So you're arguing that there were no abolitionists in the Union and none in the Union armies. Pathetic.

The awarding of the Congressional Medal of Honor medals at Wounded Knee was a tragedy. However, read General Miles' telegram here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

Of course, you ignore that the media praised the efforts of the U.S. military to attempt to avoid bloodshed while portraying the events at Wounded Knee as a Custer-like ambush:

<<Americans know that the killing at Wounded Knee was unavoidable and that the military operations against the Indians have been conducted with wonderful skill for the prevention of bloodshed." (New York Times, Jan. 22, 1891) >>

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...kf&sh=f49a912e

And, of course, good old Southern segregationists once again represented the South in Congress in 1890 after the end of Reconstruction.

Your emphasis on the Indian Wars and their too often slaughters of non-combatants represents your continuous effort to equivocate northern morality with that of Confederates who launched a bloody revolution to continue the inhumane institution of owning humans as property to profit economically from barbarous forced labor.

You've argued that Lincoln was a war criminal for his treatment of Indians, even though most would judge his efforts as restrained.

<< President Lincoln personally reviewed the trial records to distinguish between those who had engaged in warfare against the U.S., versus those who had committed crimes of rape and murder against civilians....

Governor Ramsey warned Lincoln that, unless all 303 Sioux were executed, "[P]rivate revenge would on all this border take the place of official judgment on these Indians."[23] In the end, Lincoln commuted the death sentences of 264 prisoners, but he allowed the execution of 38 men.>>

You should be ashamed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_War_of_1862

You've also ridiculously stated that slavery often was preferable to the wage labor system of free men.

The intent of your efforts is clear and overwhelmingly disgusting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 04:33 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,379,955 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
Good lord. I’m assuming you never served in the military. Is it that hard of a concept to understand that most people don’t necessarily join the army for a cause? If you’re being attacked, then yes. If you’re being sent to squash unrest on some other continent, chances are high you were either drafted or just wanted a job. Do you think recruiters lead with the line “you’ll be fighting for justice” or do you think they’ll lead with benefits, retirement, and “adventure”. Usually you just find yourself on the front line by circumstance not because taking a bullet for somebody else was your life’s calling.

Sorry, but this is getting way too cheeseball to take seriously.
I'm well aware that soldiers fight for their units and their buddies, but there have been tens of millions who have fought for the causes of liberty and peace.

Even draftees served in many cases because they thought it was their duty as an American.

And the motivations of American soldiers in the Civil War and World War II (as well as the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812) arguably were more tangible and very different than in other American wars, especially those wars, especially recently, that we've fought with a professional military rather than "citizen soldiers," in the words of historian Stephen Ambrose.

Your lumping together and subsequent debasement of all veterans IMO is more disgusting that even the kneeling of NFL players during the national anthem IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
By your rationale, popular vote ended radical republicans just as quickly as it voted them in.
??????

The Rational Republicans were not voted out quickly. They were a significant political force from 1854 until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. You truly are history challenged, aren't you?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican

BTW, as you didn't throw it in my face, you obviously weren't aware that U.S. Senators were not popularly elected until 1914 with the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment. Even though the electorate couldn't directly assert its will on U.S. Senators, it could hold state legislators directly accountable for the actions of each state's U.S. Senators, especially regarding Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which also had to be ratified by state legislatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevent...s_Constitution
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 05:19 PM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,914,779 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
I'm well aware that soldiers fight for their units and their buddies, but there have been tens of millions who have fought for the causes of liberty and peace.

Even draftees served in many cases because they thought it was their duty as an American.

And the motivations of American soldiers in the Civil War and World War II (as well as the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812) arguably were more tangible and very different than in other American wars, especially those wars, especially recently, that we've fought with a professional military rather than "citizen soldiers," in the words of historian Stephen Ambrose.

Your lumping together and subsequent debasement of all veterans IMO is more disgusting that even the kneeling of NFL players during the national anthem IMO.



??????

The Rational Republicans were not voted out quickly. They were a significant political force from 1854 until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. You truly are history challenged, aren't you?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican

BTW, as you didn't throw it in my face, you obviously weren't aware that U.S. Senators were not popularly elected until 1914 with the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment. Even though the electorate couldn't directly assert its will on U.S. Senators, it could hold state legislators directly accountable for the actions of each state's U.S. Senators, especially regarding Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which also had to be ratified by state legislatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevent...s_Constitution
Of course you would interpret that as a “debasement of all veterans”. I’m a veteran and probably related to more veterans than you’ve even met. Draftees had more “tangible” motivations? Are your freaking kidding me?

So you’ve already proven you’re completely incapable of viewing anything from a perspective you’re not familiar with, yet suddenly you know more about veterans than the actual veteran you’re speaking to, and somehow can surmise what all conscripts from 70-150 years ago would be thinking and feeling.
I think it’s time to put the books down and get out of your bubble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 12:55 AM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,379,955 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
Of course you would interpret that as a “debasement of all veterans”. I’m a veteran and probably related to more veterans than you’ve even met. Draftees had more “tangible” motivations? Are your freaking kidding me?

So you’ve already proven you’re completely incapable of viewing anything from a perspective you’re not familiar with, yet suddenly you know more about veterans than the actual veteran you’re speaking to, and somehow can surmise what all conscripts from 70-150 years ago would be thinking and feeling.
I think it’s time to put the books down and get out of your bubble.
Regarding the Civil War, I rely on historians and not on the opinions of ignorant, know-it-all posters on C-D threads.

<<In What They Fought For, McPherson argued persuasively, on the basis of an extensive study of Civil War diaries and letters, that a large number of soldiers on both sides “were intensely aware of the issues at stake and passionately concerned about them.” He noted that the theme of ideological motivation had “emerged to greater importance than I expected when I began the project....”

McPherson answers the question in the course of his book. He explains that Civil War soldiers had “ideological attachments ...to something beyond their comrades in squad or company: to nationalism, liberty, democracy, self-government, and so on. ... [A] strong case can be made that the most patriotic and ideologically committed volunteers were the best combat soldiers, because they believed in what they were fighting for.”


For Cause and Comrades makes it abundantly clear that Northern troops, and here one must set aside for a separate discussion the motives of Confederate soldiers, fought with great tenacity because at least their most advanced elements were imbued with an understanding of the historical significance of their cause. They were engaged, of course with varying degrees of consciousness, in a task—the eradication of chattel slavery—that expressed the most general interests of human progress, and this gave them strong incentive to persevere personally and also provide leadership to their more backward comrades.>>


Why They Fought


https://www.c-span.org/video/?55946-1/fought-186165
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top