U.S. Civil War History bits

Hope it's successful.
"COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) -
149 years ago almost to the day, 1,200 Union Army officers held as prisoners of war were moved to the grounds of the South Carolina State Asylum on Bull Street.
Today the descendant of a Confederate soldier is searching the former prison site for any artifacts those prisoners left behind. University of South Carolina researcher Dr. Chester DePratter's great-grandfather was held as a prisoner of war in Elmira, New York.
"It marks an important period in our nation's history and in our state's history," said DePratter.
After getting approval from the City of Columbia, Greenville developer Bob Hughes who bought the Bull Street property in July, and the Department of Mental Health, DePratter began his archaeological study of the site Monday morning.
"There are some things we'll know we'll find," said DePratter. "We should find parts of uniforms, buttons, insignia, numbers of units that they wore on their hats. Maybe small personal items like pocket knives.""
http://www.wistv.com/story/24172732/secrets-the-ground-holds-civil-war-prison-camp-study-begins?

 

 

 

I saw a picture that someone posted on Facebook of a Confederate soldier from North Carolina. He was wearing a tartan jacket. Of course being a black and white photo you can only imagine the color scheme of the jacket. I think that a tartan jacket would look better that tartan trews, but that's just me.

 

Some nice finds coming up.
"Columbia, SC (WLTX) - Archaeologists at the site that once held a prisoner of war camp during the Civil War are making more discoveries as they dig.
The digs are happening at the Bull Street campus in Columbia, once home to the state's sole mental health facility.
During the Civil War,however, it was home to about 1,500 Union soldiers captured during battle.
Digs so far have turned up various artifacts, such a button believed to be from around 1854 belonging to the jacket of a Union soldier. There's also a buckle from a pair of suspenders, and a buckle from a nap sack, archaeologists said Friday.
That included possible remnants of warming pits for the soldiers, called "shebang's," that they used to stay warm during winter between Dec. 12, 1864 and Feb. 14, 1865."
http://www.wltx.com/news/national/article/261687/2/Discovery-Made-At-Columbias-Civil-War-POW-Camp?

 

"CHARLESTON — Researchers think they have found the wreck of the iconic Civil War vessel the Planter – the Confederate ammunition ship commandeered by the slave Robert Smalls, who steamed it out of Charleston and surrendered it to the Union Navy.
Archaeologists with the National Marne Sanctuary Program said Tuesday they have found what is thought to be the wreck of the side wheel steamer buried under about 15 feet of sand just offshore at Cape Romain, northeast of Charleston.
They released a report outlining their findings on the anniversary of the day in 1862 when Smalls took the vessel.
Smalls would return to Charleston a year later to pilot a Union ironclad in an attack on Fort Sumter. After the war, he served in the South Carolina General Assembly, the U.S. Congress and as a federal customs inspector."
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2014/05/13/4225832/noted-civil-war-ship-believed.html

Read more here: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2014/05/13/4225832/noted-civil-war-ship-believed.html#storylink=cpy

 

Would argue about them being the "Earliest known cases of PTSD", maybe in America. Took me a while, but here's an old link on PTSD in Mediaeval knights-
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/43623-mediaeval-knights-feared-ptsd/?p=487422

"In the summer of 1862, John Hildt lost a limb. Then he lost his mind.
The 25-year-old corporal from Michigan saw combat for the first time at the Seven Days Battle in Virginia, where he was shot in the right arm. Doctors amputated his shattered limb close to the shoulder, causing a severe hemorrhage. Hildt survived his physical wound but was transferred to the Government Hospital for the Insane in Washington D.C., suffering from “acute mania.”
Hildt, a laborer who’d risen quickly in the ranks, had no prior history of mental illness, and his siblings wrote to the asylum expressing surprise that “his mind could not be restored to its original state.” But months and then years passed, without improvement. Hildt remained withdrawn, apathetic, and at times so “excited and disturbed” that he hit other patients at the asylum. He finally died there in 1911—casualty of a war he’d volunteered to fight a half-century before.
The Civil War killed and injured over a million Americans, roughly a third of all those who served. This grim tally, however, doesn’t include the conflict’s psychic wounds. Military and medical officials in the 1860s had little grasp of how war can scar minds as well as bodies. Mental ills were also a source of shame, especially for soldiers bred on Victorian notions of manliness and courage. For the most part, the stories of veterans like Hildt have languished in archives and asylum files for over a century, neglected by both historians and descendants."
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ptsd-civil-wars-hidden-legacy-180953652/#DDPFdlw1f26jT0Zm.99

 

Unfortunately, it's in Scotland-

"A request for the release of a Confederate prisoner of war signed by US President Abraham Lincoln is among the highlights of a new exhibition about the American Civil War.

Rare letters, political pamphlets, newspapers and memoirs also feature in the display which commemorates the 150th anniversary of the end of the conflict.

The war, which ended in 1865, tore apart the nation and killed and maimed more than a million Americans.

The display at the National Library of Scotland (NLS) uses material from its American collections to give insights into the conflict that led to the abolition of slavery in the United States.

Other highlights include the deed of sale of slave Lettice and her child Whinny for 278 US dollars (£183) in North Carolina in 1829, and the pocket diary of a Union soldier fighting in Confederate Virginia in 1862."
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts/news/lincoln-signed-letter-in-us-civil-war-exhibit-1-3669210

 

I came across this on another web site. Though it might go over here pretty good. I thought it was interesting enough.

Military Facts and Legends: Civil War's Only Woman Doctor


Mary Edwards Walker, was an American feminist, abolitionist, prohibitionist, alleged spy, prisoner of war and surgeon. She is also the only woman ever to receive the Medal of Honor.

Prior to the American Civil War, she earned her medical degree, married and started a medical practice. The practice didn't do well and at the outbreak of the War Between the States, she volunteered with the Union Army as a surgeon. Despite her training, however, she initially had to work as a nurse. At the time Union Army Examining Board felt women and sectarian physicians were considered unfit as surgeons. Proving her skills as a physician, she eventually became the Army's first female surgeon while serving with the 52nd Ohio Infantry.

Known to cross enemy lines in order to treat civilians, she may have been serving as a spy when Confederate troops captured her in the summer of 1864 and sent to Castle Thunder, a converted tobacco warehouse for political prisoners near Richmond, Virginia. Four months later she was released as part of a prisoner exchange and returned to duty.

After the war, Walker was recommended for the Medal of Honor by Generals William Tecumseh Sherman and George Henry Thomas. On November 11, 1865, President Andrew Johnson signed a bill to present her the medal, making her the only woman to date to receive the decoration.

In 1917, the U.S. Congress created a pension act for Medal of Honor recipients and in doing so created separate Army and Navy Medal of Honor Rolls. Only the Army decided to review eligibility for inclusion on the Army Medal of Honor Roll, resulting in the revocation of the award of 911 non-combatants including those of Dr. Mary Edwards Walker and William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody. None of the 911 recipients were ordered to return their medals although on the question of whether the recipients could continue to wear their medals the Judge Advocate General advised the Medal of Honor Board that there was no obligation on the Army to police the matter. Dr. Walker continued to wear her medal until her death two years later in 1919.

Walker felt like she was awarded the Medal of Honor because she went into enemy territory to care for the suffering inhabitants when no man had the courage to respond in fear of being imprisoned.
She had no such fear, resulting in her doing what her calling was which was becoming a doctor.

An Army board restored Walker's Medal of Honor in 1977, praising her "distinguished gallantry, self-sacrifice, patriotism, dedication and unflinching loyalty to her country, despite the apparent discrimination because of her sex." She was one of six people to regain their awards that had been stripped from them in 1917.

Walker herself was a center of controversy throughout most of her life. Early on she was a strong advocate for women's rights and dress reform. She later resorted to dressing in men's clothing; a practice which got her arrested several times.

Dr. Walker was born, raised and died in Oswego, N.Y. at the age of 86 on February 21, 1919. A statue of her was unveiled in Oswego Town Hall in May 2012.

FACT: Contrary to popular belief, the official title of the highest U.S. military distinction is simply the Medal of Honor, not the Congressional Medal of Honor. The confusion may have arisen because the president presents the award "in the name of Congress." There is, however, a Congressional Medal of Honor Society, which represents recipients of the Medal of Honor, maintains their records and organizes reunion events, among other responsibilities.

 

Yes, they're being serious.
"It had all the trappings of a down-home country fair somewhere well below the Mason-Dixon line: Lynyrd Skynyrd medleys, mile-long lines for fried chicken, barbecue and draft beer, and a plethora of Confederate flags emblazoning everything from belt buckles to motorcycle vests to trucker caps.
But Sunday's party marking the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War took about 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers) south of the South, in a rural Brazilian town colonized by families fleeing Reconstruction.
For many of the residents of Santa Barbara d'Oeste and neighboring Americana in Brazil's southeastern Sao Paulo state, having Confederate ancestry is a point of pride that's celebrated in high style at the annual 'Festa dos Confederados,' or 'Confederates Party' in Portuguese.
Thousands turn out every year, including many who trace their ancestry back to the dozens of families who, enticed by the Brazilian government's offers of land grants, settled here from 1865 to around 1875. They're joined by country music enthusiasts, history buffs and locals with a hankering for buttermilk biscuits or a fondness for 'The Dukes of Hazzard.'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3057602/American-Civil-War-commemorated-way-south-Dixie.html#ixzz3YYrckJdy

 

I just read this story Gordon. Pretty darn interesting. I knew about Confederates moving to Mexico invited by Emperor Maximillian.

 

In a related vein... There's a town in Mexico called San Patricio Melaque that was founded by Irish/American deserters who joined the Mexican army in the Mexican/American war. They formed an artillery battalion and called themselves the San Patricio Battalion. They performed splendidly (unlike most of the Mexican army) and were given land grants. This town is one result of those grants.

I was in a nearby town about five years ago in March and heard about a Saint Patrick's Day party there, so I headed on down. It was absolutely nuts! The best Saint Paddies Day celebration I've ever seen!

Sorry, not Civil War related, but Latin America seems to attract a lot of disenfranchised soldiers. Didn't some of Napoleons men start a colony in Mexico after Waterloo?

 

Lots of ex-Confederates and their families left the Old South after the war for assorted reasons; destroyed homes and way of life, seized property, social upheaval, a collapsed economy, loss of family, and just plain ole everyday hatred for the yankee and everything yankee. A large group of Southerners moved west and settled in the southern Utah region called "Dixie". It was called Dixie because it was much warmer than the northern area and cotton was able to be grown there too. They mostly settled around the town called St. George, Utah.

In addition to the aforementioned Confederados in Brazil and colonies in Mexico, another large group settled in British Honduras, and many smaller groups in most Latin American countries as well.

 

An ACW round disposed of:
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/04/29/lewis-mcchord-cbrne-explosion-bomb-squad/26568389/
A good friend of my dad's (and two of his sons were good friends of mine) lived in Ilwaco. Used to visit there fairly often while I was growing up often as part of a salmon fishing or claming expedition. My dad's friend by the way was the third one over the crest on Suribachi.

 

I believe the Union position was too strong, after again revisiting some civil war battles. With the enemy sitting on hills mostly and not have a superior force in numbers maybe Lee should have not battled there. Also his cavalery was missing - means not only less intelligence but also less men. At least at day2 Lee should have realized his mistake and march off or take defensive position himself. Instead he ordered "Pickets charge" (which was much more than just Picket btw.). Again quite hopeless maybe ruthless. I wonder how he planned that thing, own attack on flanks defeated. Than strike the middle.... would only work again with more men and better terrain (crossing an open fields in the mouths of cannon not so good idea)...Maybe he thought that Unionists were severally weakened for some reason - sure they were hit hard but still sat firmly in their positions....what the "official" opinion here on that decission ? Looking at the map it makes not much sense for me. Maybe Lee was really blind and without any intel. Or he was desperate or he was stupid on this ocassion. He was so desperate to march on Washington ? But Union still had reserves and fortresses around W-DC with his army weakened even if he had won Gettysburg - he really thought to take Washington ? Seems a little far fetched... Also how bad would a loss o W-DC be ? Seems a simmilar question to loss of Moscow. I would guess lets say even if he would take W-DC. After this fight would not be much left of his army. Had he reeinforcements coming ? Or did he think the Union would make peace then ?


Btw. Another interesting battle (a good docu imho because you can actually follow the movements compared to toher docus which will not show manouverings).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZj9O-Ikm3M

There is a lot of good stuff at youtube for history.

 

My understanding was that delays were critical in respect to Picketts charge. When Lee ordered it there was at least a decent chance it would be successful but it actually took some hours before the charge was launched. Early in the war he might still have gotten away with it.

 

I believe the Union position was too strong, after again revisiting some civil war battles. With the enemy sitting on hills mostly and not have a superior force in numbers maybe Lee should have not battled there.

This has been a matter of endless debate. Pickett's Charge was to have been coordinated with Major General Edward Johnson's attack on Culp's Hill. While Longstreet was not able to get his troops ready in time for "Pickett's Charge", a Union charge, beginning with a preliminary bombardment began shortly after dawn, and when that failed Johnson launched his own counter-attacks, completely upsetting Lee's timetable for coordinating attacks. Johnson launched some three attacks against Union positions on Culp's Hill and all three were beaten back with heavy losses. As a result, there would be no "support" from Johnson, when Longstreet finally launched Pickett's Charge.



It was the loss of intelligence that may have been a major factor in the battle, the loss of Stuart's men had a negligible effect on the battle. Still, even with the loss of Stuart's cavalry, Lee pressed the battle, so I don't think that Lee considered this a "mistake." If anything, Lee was suffering from overconfidence, and, likely, the after effects of a heart attack, that may have effected his judgement.

Also his cavalery was missing - means not only less intelligence but also less men. At least at day2 Lee should have realized his mistake and march off or take defensive position himself.




Hopeless, might be an overstatement, since the overall plan was to be a coordinated two-pronged attack on the right - center of the Union line.

Instead he ordered "Pickets charge" (which was much more than just Picket btw.). Again quite hopeless maybe ruthless.


The attack as planned

See
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/3/7*.html
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/3/8*.html



Or was he simply overconfident.

Looking at the map it makes not much sense for me. Maybe Lee was really blind and without any intel. Or he was desperate or he was stupid on this ocassion.




Lee's target never was Washington D. C., and he had absolutely no plans in marching on it.

He was so desperate to march on Washington ?




It is very far fetched, and is nowhere near the truth.

But Union still had reserves and fortresses around W-DC with his army weakened even if he had won Gettysburg - he really thought to take Washington ? Seems a little far fetched...


Washington DCs defenses were well-known, and it would not be the first time the Union Army was sent running back to the safety of it's defenses.

The main reason Lee went north, was because Virginia, and to an extent, the entire South, was being bled dry providing consumables to feed the Confederate Armies. By going North, Lee was now relying on the North to furnish food & supplies for his Army. Also, by going North, it gave Virginia some time to recover from the many battles that had been fought on, and devastated, it's territory.

Further, a victory at Gettysburg, would have allowed Lee to threaten Baltimore, MD, Harrisburg, PA, Philadelphia, PA, or Pittsburgh, PA. These were all far less well-defended than Washington DC.

The loss of DC only would have been possible, but not probable, at the very beginning of the Civil War.

A Confederate victory in the East would take the heat of off their forces in the West, where the Union was making considerable inroads. The Union would have been forced to transfer their western troops east to buttress the forces, thus saving the Confederates in the West. Provided, that Lee could continue to threaten the North from a position in Pennsylvania, or threaten/plunder Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philly, Pittsburg, etc. or perhaps continue moving North through Pennsylvania to threaten New York or Ohio...Union peace overtures might not be out of the question.

There is also the outside possibility that Confederate victory at Gettysburg might have persuaded the European nations to recognize the Confederate nation.

 

Forgot to add, for those interested in General Robert E. Lee, his definitive biography can be found here, in it's entire four volumes.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/home.html


Regretfully, it is not in PDF format.

 

It was almost captured in the mid-summer of 1864 by Gen. Jubal Early. A battle by Gen. Lew Wallace (writer of "Ben Hur") at Monocacy Junction, delayed Early long enough for reinforcements to arrive in Washington and prevent it's capture.

A good synopsis, many (not you) fail to appreciate the political aspects and view the battles from a singular military aspect. The northern public was tired in mid-1863 of the huge casualty lists and the failure of general after general being unable to defeat Lee. A major victory on union soil at this time would likely have led to a collapse of support in the north for forcing the south back into the union by military means and a negotiated settlement was likely.
Another pivotal point was in 1864 when Sherman's capture of Atlanta on September 2d, secured Lincoln's re-election. There was a very strong peace movement in the mid-west, and Lincoln's opponent in the election George McClellan was a popular candidate. Atlanta's fall made it apparent to the public that a Union victory was now probable and took some of the focus off the huge casualties being reported from the fighting in northern Virginia.

 

A good read:
The Confederate Diaspora

 

An article on salvaging the CSS Georgia:
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/05/19/navy-divers-prep-for-historic-mission-to-raise-civil-war-ironclad/27420739/

 

From today's papers-
"NEW exhibition will open on the 150th anniversary of the assassination of US President Abraham Lincoln and mark Glasgow’s controversial role in the American Civil War.

Clyde-built ships played a vital part in running the naval blockade of the Confederacy, which was fighting for independence in opposition to Lincoln’s abolition of slavery. Huge fortunes were made supporting those fighting to keep slaves.

The Confederate coast of America, from Texas to Virginia, was under naval blockade from the Union forces who were attempting to strangle the economic and military capacity of the southern states.

More than 600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers died during the four-year war and much of the infrastructure in the south was destroyed. The Confederacy ended and slavery was abolished.

“Blockade Runners” at the Riverside Museum includes objects connect to trade and Glasgow’s involvement in the war, and the effects of the blockade on the city and the UK."
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/civil-war-comes-glasgow-new-5518320