- 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
Today is the 158th anniversary of the Battle of Shiloh
Posted on 4/6/20 at 6:26 am
Posted on 4/6/20 at 6:26 am
In Hebrew, the word "Shiloh" means "peace" or "place of peace." In the Tennessee wilderness, nestled not too far from the Tennessee River, was a small log church named Shiloh. On April 6, 1862, however, the area around it was the antithesis of peaceful. On that spot 158 years ago today raged a desperate battle between the Confederate Army of Mississippi and the Union Army of the Tennessee.
In two days of hard fighting, the armies would combine for close to 24,000 men killed, wounded, or missing/captured - more casualties than all previous American wars...combined. While Shiloh was a Union victory, the high casualties brought consternation to the Union army commander - Ulysses S. Grant - earning him the nickname "butcher." Little did Americans on both sides of the conflict know, battles like Shiloh were to become common place in the War of the Rebellion.
The battlefield today looks almost identical to how it looked back in 1862. It was the first battlefield from the Civil War to begin preservation efforts and remains in pristine condition to this very day.
In two days of hard fighting, the armies would combine for close to 24,000 men killed, wounded, or missing/captured - more casualties than all previous American wars...combined. While Shiloh was a Union victory, the high casualties brought consternation to the Union army commander - Ulysses S. Grant - earning him the nickname "butcher." Little did Americans on both sides of the conflict know, battles like Shiloh were to become common place in the War of the Rebellion.
The battlefield today looks almost identical to how it looked back in 1862. It was the first battlefield from the Civil War to begin preservation efforts and remains in pristine condition to this very day.
This post was edited on 4/6/20 at 6:27 am
11
Posted on 4/6/20 at 6:30 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Shiloh
Lived there in the 80s. Good times.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 6:35 am to RollTide1987
Could and should have been a Union drubbing, what could have been
Posted on 4/6/20 at 6:37 am to RollTide1987
We visited the Battlefield and surrounding area a few years ago on one of our X-country trips. Chilling. I heard "ghosts" the entire time I was there. I don't know how else to describe it.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 7:14 am to Strannix
quote:
Could and should have been a Union drubbing, what could have been
It was a terrible battle plan from an overrated Confederate commander. While taken by surprise, Grant's army was situated in terrain suitable for defense and the ground only became more defensible as the Confederate army pushed them closer to the river. Not only that, an entire army was on the march toward Grant's location to reinforce him. Even if that army had never reached him, the Union army had gunboats on the river that would have been able to hold back any Confederate attack against the Federal position. At the very best, the Confederates could only hope to achieve stalemate at Shiloh.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 7:18 am to Lonnie Utah
Day one of Shiloh led to Sherman almost retiring due to a mental collapse. His command was overwhelmed and he was personally responsible for their being unprepared despite reports of heavy rebel presence on this front. His decision to try again after talking to his congressman relative is a huge turning point for the Union.
Another major story is what happens if A S Johnston hadn’t died on the first day of Shiloh.
It’s reasonable to suggest the war in the west would’ve been completely different. South still loses at Shiloh because they couldn’t push Grant into the river before Buell arrived either way, but what happens post Shiloh would’ve been quite different.
Resources and lack of quality rail lines still would’ve led to a Union victory over time, but without the the terrible mistakes and inept leadership of Bragg, Beauregard, Pemberton and Hood it would’ve made for a very different situation for Grant and Sherman.
I’d argue that Grant might’ve been starved or smashed to bits at Chattanooga if he’s dealing with A S Johnson rather than Bragg.
Even Vicksburg probably looks different because Pemberton likely isn’t given overall command. If the south doesn’t lose all those men when the town surrendered the Atlanta campaign is quite different.
I mean Bragg wasn’t Ben Butler, Franz Sigel or John Bell Hood (as army commander not division commander) bad, but he was so hated by his subordinates that his army was unable to function effectively in most of his engagements.
Another major story is what happens if A S Johnston hadn’t died on the first day of Shiloh.
It’s reasonable to suggest the war in the west would’ve been completely different. South still loses at Shiloh because they couldn’t push Grant into the river before Buell arrived either way, but what happens post Shiloh would’ve been quite different.
Resources and lack of quality rail lines still would’ve led to a Union victory over time, but without the the terrible mistakes and inept leadership of Bragg, Beauregard, Pemberton and Hood it would’ve made for a very different situation for Grant and Sherman.
I’d argue that Grant might’ve been starved or smashed to bits at Chattanooga if he’s dealing with A S Johnson rather than Bragg.
Even Vicksburg probably looks different because Pemberton likely isn’t given overall command. If the south doesn’t lose all those men when the town surrendered the Atlanta campaign is quite different.
I mean Bragg wasn’t Ben Butler, Franz Sigel or John Bell Hood (as army commander not division commander) bad, but he was so hated by his subordinates that his army was unable to function effectively in most of his engagements.
This post was edited on 4/6/20 at 7:49 am
Posted on 4/6/20 at 7:27 am to RollTide1987
quote:
It was a terrible battle plan from an overrated Confederate commander.
I don’t agree at all that it was a terrible plan, but I agree the south was never going to win a complete victory at Shiloh after Grant kept his composure on day one.
I agree unequivocally with Johnston actually that trying to smash Grant before he could link up with Buell was the right play. Once they combined forces the south had basically no chance to oppose them.
Most Union commanders would’ve retreated after day one. Johnston had the misfortune of being killed which left command to a poor replacement (Beauregard) and facing the most relentless commander of the war in US Grant who refused to quit despite being pushed to the absolute brink of disaster.
I agree that once Grant consolidated his lines at the end of day one and linked up with Buell the south should’ve withdrawn.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 7:31 am to RollTide1987
The Battle of Shiloh is just yet another example of the indiscipline of the Confederate commanders in the western theater. Taking time to loot and eat with the enemy in full retreat is inexcusable. P.G.T. Beauregard and Braxton Bragg are two of the worst commanders ever to serve.
This was the gateway to Vicksburg.
This was the gateway to Vicksburg.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:08 am to RollTide1987
Union gets its advantage due to a night of thunder and lightning wherein Grant uses his naval guns on barges to deliver hell to the confederates. But, strategically, Southern forces should have been concerned that the enemy could so easily land that man men and material into the heart of its territory. Not controlling Kentucky was a killer for the confederacy
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:21 am to KiwiHead
The South just couldn’t protect Richmond, New Orleans and their upper Miss River. It was amazing what they did in Virginia, but elsewhere they didn’t have the leadership, the menthe navy, or the guns to stop the Union juggernaut for very long.
The South lost strategic forts in Ky and Tenn and New Orleans early in 1862. After that it was just a matter of time that Union superior numbers and their gunboats put the squeeze on the South.
The South lost strategic forts in Ky and Tenn and New Orleans early in 1862. After that it was just a matter of time that Union superior numbers and their gunboats put the squeeze on the South.
This post was edited on 4/6/20 at 8:43 am
Posted on 4/6/20 at 8:24 am to KiwiHead
quote:
But, strategically, Southern forces should have been concerned that the enemy could so easily land that man men and material into the heart of its territory. Not controlling Kentucky was a killer for the confederacy
Rivers, resources, railroads and naval support were all against the south in the western theater. It was never going to end well. Best they could hope for out there was a stalling action and a win in the east.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 9:28 am to RollTide1987
I lost a blue bucket hat in their little cinema in 1973.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:03 am to tide06
quote:
I agree unequivocally with Johnston actually that trying to smash Grant before he could link up with Buell was the right play.
Oh, I do too. 100%. The problem was the execution and the way Johnston deployed his army for battle. He attacked with his divisions stacked one on top of the other instead of deploying them the usual way prior to assaulting. While Sherman's division was taken almost completely by surprise, the other Union divisions encamped in the area were ready for battle by the time the Confederate onslaught came.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:04 am to RollTide1987
In the grand scheme of things, 158 years is not that long ago. Crazy we’re just 3 generations removed from the people that fought that war.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:16 am to Prominentwon
quote:
Crazy we’re just 3 generations removed from the people that fought that war.
A generation is roughly 30 years. The last Civil war vet died in 1959. You could say two generations and be right. Hard to believe, but true.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:25 am to Prominentwon
quote:
we’re just 3 generations removed from the people that fought that wa
My great uncle died at 100 about 10 years ago. I hunted and fished with him all through my 20s and 30s.
He grew up in the house with his grandfather who was in the Confederate Army at 16 and was captured and paroled. He had to walk home. He lived into his 80s and died when my great uncle was 12.
So, I knew a man for 20 years, who grew up eating breakfast every morning with a Confederate soldier. And I'm not even 50 years old.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:32 am to doubleb
Here's something that'll blow your mind even more...
The last Civil War veterans began dying en masse in the 30s and 40s. Many of those veterans had known veterans of the Revolutionary War when they were little. Which means there are people still alive who had talked to men and women who, in their youth, had known personally men who served under George Washington.
The last Civil War veterans began dying en masse in the 30s and 40s. Many of those veterans had known veterans of the Revolutionary War when they were little. Which means there are people still alive who had talked to men and women who, in their youth, had known personally men who served under George Washington.
This post was edited on 4/6/20 at 10:36 am
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:37 am to RollTide1987
One of my ancestors was there as a 15 year old drummer boy.
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:40 am to RollTide1987
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/2/21 at 6:45 am
Posted on 4/6/20 at 10:43 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
Two armed mobs that had no idea what they were doing.
Everyone is an expert.
This post was edited on 4/6/20 at 10:43 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News