- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 154 Years Ago Today: The Night They Drove Ole Dixie Down
Posted on 4/10/19 at 8:54 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Posted on 4/10/19 at 8:54 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
ancestor of mine fought and was captured at Vicksburg.
You’d like The Beleaguered City by Shelby Foote, I just finished reading it. All about Vicksburg from both north and south perspectives
2
Posted on 4/10/19 at 8:58 am to windshieldman
Thanks, I’ll be sure to put it on my list.
I got a book for Christmas a couple of years ago called The Defense of Vicksburg.
Haven’t gotten around to it yet for whatever reason, just had a bunch of books I wanted to get into before it I guess.
I got a book for Christmas a couple of years ago called The Defense of Vicksburg.
Haven’t gotten around to it yet for whatever reason, just had a bunch of books I wanted to get into before it I guess.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 9:14 am to windshieldman
quote:
To say it was all for slavery or nothing to do with slavery would be wrong. There were multiple reasons for secession, slavery wasn’t the only one.
The declaration of causes are pretty explicit in that the primary motivator is slavery. State's rights are mentioned, but mainly in reference to the right of states to regulate slavery. Other issues are minor and incidental - real, but not worth fighting a war over.
Here's one excerpt, from the opening paragraph of Mississippi's declaration of causes:
"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
Without the dispute over slavery, there is no war. After the war started, the south realized it would never defeat the north without assistance from other nations, and for a lot of reasons, France was the best shot. However, France had completely abolished slavery throughout their empire in 1848 (first attempted in 1794), so the chances of them supporting the south in a war supporting slavery was next to zero. What followed was an intentional, concerted effort to re-frame the conflict as something that would appeal to France's liberal sensibilities. Bam, the war is now about "state's rights" and an oppressive central government.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 9:33 am to Buryl
Buryl
In many ways you are correct which is why I stated slavery was apart of the war. In the grand scheme of things like always, rich start wars and poors fight them. It was no different then. Slavery being one issue for the wealthy in the south, which was a big reason for the war. Others being very little protection from the U.S military in the south like there was up north in a time where there were still threats from Indians, Mexico, and you never knew if England was gonna try and come back.
Very little Federal money came to the south and the north was also threatening to raise taxes on cotton exports which meant the buyers were threatening to shop elsewhere. The north was even going to raise taxes on goods going from the north to the south. Even with southern politicians lobbying the north to bring factories and such to the south they wouldn't do it. Basically the south was the red headed step child.
Your average township of say 2,000 people might have had 10-15 slave holders in the rural areas surrounding. The rest were poor who back then definitely had no voice. Most of your regular farmers in the rural areas despised the slave owners, for different reasons of course than the north. The wealthy had all the political pull of the areas. Most of your average rebel soldiers were in fact not slave owners, they were just to poor but they despised the Federal gov't and still took up arms. But yes, like I said, the rich start wars and the poors fight them.
It's just the poors took up arms for different reasons as I've listed than the rich. Many good diaries were written by northern and southern soldiers during, before, and after the war giving your average Joe his thoughts on the climate of the day. Much like you get the feel of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan with a "what the frick are we doing here" type vibe, that was even common among many Union soldiers of the day.
My point was, a soldier still has to take up arms to go into battle. It's just among the average soldier and average politician, there were other reasons for secession.
Now slavery in the bigger cities, as far as percentages of slave owners was higher. Due to city folks many times had a slave lady as a maid for their home, but in rural areas, the percentages were much less, just a bunch of dirt farmers.
In many ways you are correct which is why I stated slavery was apart of the war. In the grand scheme of things like always, rich start wars and poors fight them. It was no different then. Slavery being one issue for the wealthy in the south, which was a big reason for the war. Others being very little protection from the U.S military in the south like there was up north in a time where there were still threats from Indians, Mexico, and you never knew if England was gonna try and come back.
Very little Federal money came to the south and the north was also threatening to raise taxes on cotton exports which meant the buyers were threatening to shop elsewhere. The north was even going to raise taxes on goods going from the north to the south. Even with southern politicians lobbying the north to bring factories and such to the south they wouldn't do it. Basically the south was the red headed step child.
Your average township of say 2,000 people might have had 10-15 slave holders in the rural areas surrounding. The rest were poor who back then definitely had no voice. Most of your regular farmers in the rural areas despised the slave owners, for different reasons of course than the north. The wealthy had all the political pull of the areas. Most of your average rebel soldiers were in fact not slave owners, they were just to poor but they despised the Federal gov't and still took up arms. But yes, like I said, the rich start wars and the poors fight them.
It's just the poors took up arms for different reasons as I've listed than the rich. Many good diaries were written by northern and southern soldiers during, before, and after the war giving your average Joe his thoughts on the climate of the day. Much like you get the feel of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan with a "what the frick are we doing here" type vibe, that was even common among many Union soldiers of the day.
My point was, a soldier still has to take up arms to go into battle. It's just among the average soldier and average politician, there were other reasons for secession.
Now slavery in the bigger cities, as far as percentages of slave owners was higher. Due to city folks many times had a slave lady as a maid for their home, but in rural areas, the percentages were much less, just a bunch of dirt farmers.
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 9:36 am
Posted on 4/10/19 at 9:40 am to windshieldman
quote:
Grant was a drunk and struggled to take Vicksburg being held by starving confederates.
l.o.l.
Grant had just finished burning the state of Mississippi to the ground before he arrived at Vicksburg and laid siege to the town, which is why it took awhile to capture.
Grant was the greatest general in the war. He destroyed the western Confederacy and defeated Lee in the eastern theater.
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 9:41 am
Posted on 4/10/19 at 9:46 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Grant had just finished burning the state of Mississippi to the ground before he arrived at Vicksburg and laid siege to the town, which is why it took awhile to capture.
I never said none of that happened. Others on his side felt he had plenty of enough forces to capture Vicksburg due to the small Confederate force holding it. He had a much bigger force and then stated it wasn't enough and had much more brought including more navy. Most of the battles he led with less men he lost. The confederate generals pretty much fought the entire war with less was my point. Dumb comparison but it would be like you coaching the New England Patriots and me coaching ULM Warhawks, you win, therefore you're a better coach
quote:
Grant was the greatest general in the war.
Many people argue, including many folks on his side.
quote:
He destroyed the western Confederacy and defeated Lee in the eastern theater.
I never argued otherwise.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 9:50 am to windshieldman
quote:
Others on his side felt he had plenty of enough forces to capture Vicksburg due to the small Confederate force holding it.
Grant recognized that it would result in stupid casualties on his side after attempting to assault the city in May. He wasn't enthusiastic about a siege, but the siege was much more practical. Union casualties after the initial failed assaults were generally low.
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 9:51 am
Posted on 4/10/19 at 9:54 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Grant was the greatest general in the war.
Wrong, that distinction lies with one...possibly two people. And neither were named Grand nor were they Union generals.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 9:58 am to windshieldman
quote:
You’d like The Beleaguered City by Shelby Foote, I just finished reading it. All about Vicksburg from both north and south perspectives
I’m currently listening to “The Civil War: A Narrative,” by Shelby Foote. I love Shelby Foote. The first Volume takes over 42 hours to listen to. Very thorough.
I have a GG Grandfather who fought at Vicksburg with the 26th Louisiana regiment. I didn’t look to see because it isn’t recorded, but I know a lot of those guys who were on parole after that battle (which my ancestor was) went and fought at Mansfield as volunteers when Mouton was killed on a Cav charge.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 9:58 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Grant recognized that it would result in stupid casualties on his side after attempting to assault the city in May. He wasn't enthusiastic about a siege, but the siege was much more practical. Union casualties after the initial failed assaults were generally low.
That is true. He also admittedly feared Johnston coming over to break the siege for Pemberton. Johnston decided Vicksburg wasn't worth it to lose anymore of his limited forces and never came, even though Pemberton assumed he would.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 10:01 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Wrong, that distinction lies with one...possibly two people. And neither were named Grant nor were they Union generals.
Shelby Foote believed that Forrest was greatest military genius in the war. He got a lot of shite for that.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 10:02 am to RaginSaint43
quote:
I have a GG Grandfather who fought at Vicksburg with the 26th Louisiana regiment. I didn’t look to see because it isn’t recorded, but I know a lot of those guys who were on parole after that battle (which my ancestor was) went and fought at Mansfield as volunteers when Mouton was killed on a Cav charge.
LINK
This was my however many greats uncle. My grandmother remembers him well at all the family functions and he lived with my grandmother's grandparents for a little bit.
It's some discrepancies on his actions in the war though
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 10:05 am
Posted on 4/10/19 at 10:06 am to RaginSaint43
quote:
Shelby Foote believed that Forrest was greatest military genius in the war. He got a lot of shite for that.
Forrest was one of the men that immediately popped into my mind.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 10:09 am to windshieldman
My GG Grandfather who fought lived to like 91. Died in 1921. I never met my Grandfather who lived with him while growing up (my Grandfather would be like 112 if he were living today. I have an Aunt that’s almost 90 and my mom is only 60). Ancestor was Neville (Neuville) LeBlanc. Crazy thing I found out was that 3 of my close friends had direct ancestors that fought in the same regiment and company as my GG Grandfather
ETA: Wait your Great uncle lives to be 107?! Holy Hell!
ETA: Wait your Great uncle lives to be 107?! Holy Hell!
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 10:18 am
Posted on 4/10/19 at 10:11 am to RaginSaint43
quote:
I have a GG Grandfather who fought at Vicksburg with the 26th Louisiana regiment. I didn’t look to see because it isn’t recorded, but I know a lot of those guys who were on parole after that battle (which my ancestor was) went and fought at Mansfield as volunteers when Mouton was killed on a Cav charge.
My gg grandfather was with the 27th Louisiana Infantry Regiment at Vicksburg. Got captured and patrolled. My grandfather has his parole papers at his house.
Think he was paroled as a Lieutenant, it’s been a while since I’ve looked at the papers though.
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 10:14 am
Posted on 4/10/19 at 10:12 am to windshieldman
quote:
Most of the battles he led with less men he lost.
Can you name a single battle where he had fewer men and he lost? Because I can count on one finger the number of battles Grant actually lost in the Civil War.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 10:16 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
My gg grandfather was with the 27th Louisiana Infantry Regiment at Vicksburg. Got captured and patrolled. My grandfather has his parole papers at his house.
I also have a ggg grandfather who was paroled at Vicksburg.
That whole campaign was such a disaster for the south.
Posted on 4/10/19 at 10:18 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Can you name a single battle where he had fewer men and he lost? Because I can count on one finger the number of battles Grant actually lost in the Civil War.
I believe Battle of Belmont was one
Pretty much most of his battles he had much more manpower though.
This post was edited on 4/10/19 at 10:20 am
Posted on 4/10/19 at 10:23 am to magildachunks
quote:
So is Stalin's life story.
You win the "Worst Analogy Ever Award"
Posted on 4/10/19 at 10:23 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
My gg grandfather was with the 27th Louisiana Infantry Regiment at Vicksburg. Got captured and patrolled. My grandfather has his parole papers at his house.
Bad arse! I’ve been considering joining the Sons of Confederate Veterans after I found that out. I know you don’t have to be a descendant to join, but after I found that out I’ve been considering.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News