Warhammer-Empire.com
Galactic Conflict & Historical Games ... => Historical Games => Topic started by: Union General on November 18, 2011, 01:26:14 PM
-
OK, this is a bit late (The war began 150 years and 7 months ago), but I figured I'd start up a thread better late than never. Discuss! :icon_cool:
The first shots were fired in April, 1861. Let's pick up from there, shall we?
-The General
-
I would like to reiterate how the better looking side won.
-
I wanted to go to the events at Manassas on the Anniversary but it was just too hot (and too crowded). I ended up going to Chancellorsville and the Wilderness instead. Meant to be a driving tour, but ended up getting out and walking around a fair bit anyway. Not nearly as many people.
-
I was initially planning to attend the reenactment with my unit at Manassas, but the weather turned me away from it. Wool+100-degree weather=very unhappy reenactors.
Interesting fact: The Battle of Fredericksburg is always depicted as being icy-cold. However, the actual temperature was somewhere around the upper 30's in the morning, and warmed up to the high 40's and low 50's later in the day.
I would like to reiterate how the better looking side won.
Indeed. The Union Army could actually manufacture uniforms. Confederate soldiers, more often than not, went into battle in what were essentially street clothes at the time.
-The General
-
I heard a lot of reenactors shied away from the event which is unfortunate. I had a buddy in town and he and his girl wanted to do something so I probably would've ended up sucking it up and going if not for the heat.
Also, there's been a bit of a stink going on at Brandy Station. A fellow who lives on Fleetwood Hill started digging out his pond to expand it for jet skiing purposes and it ended up flooding out after a heavy rain. It was halted becuase the Army Corps of Engineers were made aware of it and weren't happy he damned up a creek and didn't get the proper authorization. Huge pissing contest between the current president of the Brandy Station Foundation (who was ok with all the actions) and former board members (most of whom resigned after they realized they didn't like the way the guy operated).
-
It proves that being better was not match for having more. Or rather if you are going to fight a war with somebody that has more soldiers than you get it over quickly :)
-
The Confederacy = The Alliance of Cotton and Ignorance
-
I think that is making the case a lot simplier than it is. The confederacy boasted some of the best minds in the world, a further vice president of the US fought for the confederacy. I think people are underestimating how important State loyalty was to people in the south :)
-
Well we all though the South would beat you Yanks.
-
I find Lee and Jackson a lot more likable than Grant and Sherman. I mean, it seems silly to "cheer" for one side when you're reading about a historical war and know the outcome. But still. :happy:
-
How are you defining likeability?
-
It proves that being better was not match for having more.
Except that they were not, you know, better. Union training, equipment, and transportation was better in every way than that of the south. I will give you the south had better generals for the first half of the war though.
-
How are you defining likeability?
Grant's drunkenness and attrition tactics really rub me the wrong way. He and Sherman targeted civilians to make the South tired of war - also not cool in my book.
-
Many horrible things have been done in the course of history. Those tactics won the war.
Not saying that they're good in any sort of sense, but bad things happen on all sides.
-
Grant and Sherman recognized that the Confederate armies had to be eliminated as a force that could fight. They couldn't be left in the field nor supplied and supported by anyone. And it is my understanding that Grant's drunkness tended towards being observed when he wasn't on campaign, if I recall correctly, yet a bummer that anyone has such battles in life with things like alcohol.
-
It proves that being better was not match for having more.
Except that they were not, you know, better. Union training, equipment, and transportation was better in every way than that of the south. I will give you the south had better generals for the first half of the war though.
The general leadership and training of the Confed army, at least in the first half of the war was far better than that of the union. This can be seen mostly, but not only, in the cavalry units. It is only when the union's more (the fact they could withstand early losses etc) kicked in that the confed started loosing. Also it is worth noting, the command was far better in the east then in the west for the confed and better in the west than in the east for the union.
The equipment of the confed was not worse than that of the union, just the union had more of it, a lot more of it.
-
Well we all though the South would beat you Yanks.
Up until 1862. :biggriin:
If I recall correctly, your Lord Palmerston announced after the Battle of Antietam that Great Britain would not recognize the Confederacy.
How are you defining likeability?
Grant's drunkenness and attrition tactics really rub me the wrong way. He and Sherman targeted civilians to make the South tired of war - also not cool in my book.
The thing is, the tactics worked. Were their ethics questionable? Sure. However, it was a surefire way to end the war quickly.
Grant and Sherman recognized that the Confederate armies had to be eliminated as a force that could fight. They couldn't be left in the field nor supplied and supported by anyone. And it is my understanding that Grant's drunkness tended towards being observed when he wasn't on campaign, if I recall correctly, yet a bummer that anyone has such battles in life with things like alcohol.
The reason for his drunkenness was actually his rampant depression. While he was away from his wife and son, he went into several different depressive episodes, and performed much better when they were actually, you know, around.
It proves that being better was not match for having more.
Except that they were not, you know, better. Union training, equipment, and transportation was better in every way than that of the south. I will give you the south had better generals for the first half of the war though.
The Union had a sizable manufacturing base, whereas the Confederacy had to import or improvise a good amount of its weaponry. Its first ironclad, the CSS Virginia, was actually made of melted-down railroad iron cast over a ship frame. The Union Army was also able to draw from an (essentially) infinite pool of money, equipment, resources, and, most of all, manpower. Although Chancellorsville was a slaughter, it cost the Army of Northern Virginia a sizable chunk of its fighting force. Moral and tactical victory? Very much so. Strategic victory? Debatable.
I'm also always willing to argue that the railroads won the war for the Union Army. When the war broke out, the government basically nationalized the entire railroad network and turned it into a giant war machine. Yes, the Confederacy had a railroad network. However, the system was in a horrible state of disrepair and had a whole variety of gauges (track widths), ranging from standard (about 1.4 meters, or 4 feet, 8.5 inches) to broad gauges of approximately 1.52 meters or 5 feet. Interchanges between the two interfered horribly with efficiency and productivity. Locomotive technology also lagged slightly behind the North, and the railroads were one of Sherman's primary targets when he marched through Georgia.
It proves that being better was not match for having more.
Except that they were not, you know, better. Union training, equipment, and transportation was better in every way than that of the south. I will give you the south had better generals for the first half of the war though.
The general leadership and training of the Confed army, at least in the first half of the war was far better than that of the union. This can be seen mostly, but not only, in the cavalry units. It is only when the union's more (the fact they could withstand early losses etc) kicked in that the confed started loosing. Also it is worth noting, the command was far better in the east then in the west for the confed and better in the west than in the east for the union.
The equipment of the confed was not worse than that of the union, just the union had more of it, a lot more of it.
Their artillery was also a good deal behind, and by the end of 1863, the Confederate economy was fairly dead. Inflation was rampant, and cotton diplomacy had failed miserably.
Just my two cents (In Union currency, of course. I won't accept Confederate money.)
-The General
-
Grant's tactics were not dispicable. The union was fighing an offensive war, on the enemy's territory. An enemy that had the full support of it's citizens. That is always a very difficult proposition.
If Grant's tactics had been used from day one, the war would have been much shorter and the over all pain much less. I say that and it might be incorrect. You cannot minimize the importance of the Union taking the Mississippi. When that was accomplished, the Union was capable of assaulting a wide swath of the Confederacy by water at will. If the East had used Grant's tactics from day one, the fight (and better generals might have moved west and the western campaign would have been quite different.
-
Grant's drunkenness and attrition tactics really rub me the wrong way. He and Sherman targeted civilians to make the South tired of war - also not cool in my book.
1.The drunkness is a myth.
2. So they should have gone on only fighting the CSA armies and let the war drag on another 4 years and another 400.000 dead?
(offcause that is only if Lincoln still won the elections)
Yes, it was brutal, but it ended the war far quicker and with fewer dead than doing it the "old" way.
-
Those interested in the Pennisula Campaign in the Spring of 1862, I've continued to be fascinated by this lesser known and visited fighting, Wargames Illustrated, in Issue 287, Sept 2011, has articles on the Seven Days fighting, including reviewing Pender's activities, Mechanicsville(with a scenario), Gaines Mill (with a scenario), the Battle of Glendale (with a scenario), and a brief round up regarding Malvern Hill.
I haven't painted any Civil War soldiers since my youth, but this has gotten me thinking that I might do some soon.
-
Those interested in the Pennisula Campaign in the Spring of 1862, I've continued to be fascinated by this lesser known and visited fighting, Wargames Illustrated, in Issue 287, Sept 2011, has articles on the Seven Days fighting, including reviewing Pender's activities, Mechanicsville(with a scenario), Gaines Mill (with a scenario), the Battle of Glendale (with a scenario), and a brief round up regarding Malvern Hill.
I haven't painted any Civil War soldiers since my youth, but this has gotten me thinking that I might do some soon.
I have it, it is very interesting. I am thinking of getting into ACW or Historical in general if there are people to play in Brussels?
-
So the end justifies the means.....interesting and I disagree.
-
Grant and Sherman's issues are generally overblown but I wouldn't call them straight out myths.
Grant's drinking issues are summed up here, I believe: http://hnn.us/articles/42366.html I've never really gone into great detail of how much of a drunk he was or wasn't, but as is generally the case I think it lies somewhere in the middle.
My issue with Sherman is that he sets himself a set of rules and then says similar tactics are under handed by the enemy. I don't believe he actually specifically targeted civilian property for destruction, though not much was really done to stop extra damages. Seem to recall they were a bit rougher in South Carolina, too, since that was the birthplace of the rebellion. Orders were given to not harm anyone but his whole campaign was designed specifically to live off the land. The route he took was designed to reap the biggest reward. Reason I think this is a generally overblown issue is that both armies lived off the land. Sometimes they'd pay, but in case of the CSA that money was near worthless towards the end. I guess it's the intent and the fact Sherman proclaimed it the campaign to break the back of the south that digs people the wrong way. Pope gets a similar bad rep when he takes over in Virginia and then the issues late in the war in the Shenandoah and in the parts of Virginia where Mosby operated.
-
2. So they should have gone on only fighting the CSA armies and let the war drag on another 4 years and another 400.000 dead?
(offcause that is only if Lincoln still won the elections)
Yes, it was brutal, but it ended the war far quicker and with fewer dead than doing it the "old" way.
Or just let them go. I think that if I was a Northerner during the civil war, I'd have been a Copperhead. :engel:
-
Or just let them go. I think that if I was a Northerner during the civil war, I'd have been a Copperhead. :engel:
Why do you see that as preferable to keeping the Union together and freeing the slaves?
-
The Confederacy = The Alliance of Cotton and Ignorance
I am surprised no one mentioned the acronym in this post! :::cheers::: cheers S.O.F.
-
Grant's tactics were not dispicable. The union was fighing an offensive war, on the enemy's territory. An enemy that had the full support of it's citizens. That is always a very difficult proposition.
If Grant's tactics had been used from day one, the war would have been much shorter and the over all pain much less. I say that and it might be incorrect. You cannot minimize the importance of the Union taking the Mississippi. When that was accomplished, the Union was capable of assaulting a wide swath of the Confederacy by water at will. If the East had used Grant's tactics from day one, the fight (and better generals might have moved west and the western campaign would have been quite different.
Agreed. Grant's sledgehammer tactics, though bloody, worked wonders. Until he ran into Cold Harbor.
For those who may not know, Cold Harbor was an entrenched position which Grant attempted to charge head-on with multiple waves of troops. Soldiers would write their names on their knapsacks so they could be identified when they were killed. Yes, it was that much of a mess. It looked more like World War I than anything.
Grant's drunkenness and attrition tactics really rub me the wrong way. He and Sherman targeted civilians to make the South tired of war - also not cool in my book.
1.The drunkness is a myth.
2. So they should have gone on only fighting the CSA armies and let the war drag on another 4 years and another 400.000 dead?
(offcause that is only if Lincoln still won the elections)
Yes, it was brutal, but it ended the war far quicker and with fewer dead than doing it the "old" way.
1. No, just overplayed. Yes, he was an alcoholic, but it was because he suffered from depression, just as President Lincoln did.
2. They didn't just target civilians. They targeted infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture, anything to shut down the Confederate economy. Sherman pretty much single-handedly wrecked the Confederate railroad network.
Or just let them go. I think that if I was a Northerner during the civil war, I'd have been a Copperhead. :engel:
::heretic::
I argue that secession is implicitly unconstitutional. The Civil War, before the Emancipation Proclamation, was simply an attempt to put down a rebellion. Even Robert E. Lee himself was against both secession (He saw it to be rebellion) AND slavery (He thought it was wrong and inhuman). The only reason he didn't side with the North was the simple fact that Virginia also joined said rebellion.
-The General
-
If you follow the line of thought that the secession was legal... Congress (now of the North) still has the power to declare war. Then the fight becomes a fairly typical war for a land grab. Hardly unique to the world in the day.
-
Id also suggest that the war waged by Sherman was pretty much identical to any war ever waged...
However, there is an argument that had the South won the war then slavery still would have been abolished and the loose confederacy of independant states would have been far less militarily powerful than it became, but far more economically stable.
-
I donno about all the states but texas certainly had the right to leave the union.
-
And join Mexico.
-
It appeared to have the right to leave mexico as well :)
I always liked the way the confeds were in talks with mexico considering about half of it should have belonged to mexico anyway
-
Texas had no more rights than any other state considering they also voluntarily joined the Union. The argument can be made whether secession was legal to begin with. There was no secession clause in the Texas constitution.
-
I'm contemplating picking up some Perry ACW plastics for Christmas.
Why?
Doubtful I'll be receiving any as a gift. :icon_lol:
-
Are you going to do some ACW gaming, GP, or just paint/modeling?
-
I am sure texas still has a clause that would allow it to leave the union. Read it somewhere, must find out where though.
Whether or not the states could leave the union is an interest question. I would say that as the United states was that before the ACW, a union of states that they could. By that argument calling it the American Civil War is misleading. It should rather be called the War between the American States. Interesting times, some reading to do I think.
-
Are you going to do some ACW gaming, GP, or just paint/modeling?
Initially just painting, but eventually gaming.
If you want, I'll focus on doing a union army at first, you focus on a southern army, and then we can meet up for a game when I go south some time next year. We'll need to pick a set of rules, and I've recently played using Blackpowder. It seemed quick and easy, but not sure it'll be my final choice.
-
Always possible I'm wrong, but I don't remember there being such a clause. I've been doing some searching for it myself just to double check since I always self doubt this stuff and the only thing I could really find was from the current Texas succession stuff where it states:
Q: Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede? [BACK TO TOP]
A: This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1] (adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2]
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm#1
Granted, that quotes the Texas constitution of 1876.
Though, I did find something else from the Texas State Library that says there was no such clause: "In fact, Texas received no special terms in its admission to the Union."
https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/annexation/part5/question11.html
The legality issue generally comes down to interpretation since it's never explicitly spelled out that you can't. However you interpret that little nugget is how you'll fall.
As far as names go, there are some doozeys. My favorite, for humor purposes, is War of Northern Agression.
If you want, I'll focus on doing a union army at first, you focus on a southern army, and then we can meet up for a game when I go south some time next year. We'll need to pick a set of rules, and I've recently played using Blackpowder. It seemed quick and easy, but not sure it'll be my final choice.
Tempting, but now's not the time for me to be getting into that. Maybe one day.
-
As far as names go, there are some doozeys. My favorite, for humor purposes, is War of Northern Agression.
Perhaps it could be called the War of the United States Aggression. :icon_lol:
- - - - - -
Seriously, its been called the American Civil War for so long that I doubt a name change is going to take place anytime soon.
If you want, I'll focus on doing a union army at first, you focus on a southern army, and then we can meet up for a game when I go south some time next year. We'll need to pick a set of rules, and I've recently played using Blackpowder. It seemed quick and easy, but not sure it'll be my final choice.
Tempting, but now's not the time for me to be getting into that. Maybe one day.
Yep, figured as much, but it is the 150th anniversary. Would you play if I had both a Union and Confederate army?
-
I wouldn't turn down a game.
-
Well now I got a goal to work towards, if I really pick up some of the Perry plastics, plus finalizing a rules set.
-
Seriously, its been called the American Civil War for so long that I doubt a name change is going to take place anytime soon.
This is true, that does not make it right though. There are other examples of this.
For example the First World War should not have been thus called as it was not a world war (Only really in Africa and Europe) where as the seven year war has a much better claim to being called the First World War than WWI.
The hundred years war lasted 113 years and therefore should be renamed. The English Civil war was not one war but 4. There are many examples in history of things being wrongly named. Oddly enough some of these wrong names are because of other wrong names.
If you assume that the seven years war = WWI then WWI = WWII and so WWII must = WWIII and so on.
Must get this back on topic though so I'll stop my rant here
-
The problem is its like ... the Confederates going against Grant and Sherman. How's that for steering it back? :icon_wink:
-
The problem is its like ... the Confederates going against Grant and Sherman. How's that for steering it back? :icon_wink:
Once Grant started steamrollering his way through Virginia, there wasn't much that could be done to stop him. He'd already done an excellent job in the Western Theater. Yes, again, his tactics were more like a sledgehammer than anything, but it was effective enough to bring the Confederacy to its knees.
-The General
-
And combined with Sherman's march to the sea, the war was over for the Confederates. Without an army, and the supplies needed for the army, there wasn't much more the Confederates could do, and the Union was preserved.
-
And combined with Sherman's march to the sea, the war was over for the Confederates. Without an army, and the supplies needed for the army, there wasn't much more the Confederates could do, and the Union was preserved.
That, and also, the South's economy was in tatters. Money had become so worthless that it was being printed off on wallpaper. That, and the Union blockade, though it took a while, did do its job.
-The General
-
Its already 2013! The 150th Anniversary is half over!
Never got around to picking up some Perry plastic ACW figures. However, been working on some Sash & Saber Iron Brigade, Dismounted Union Cav, and Artillery. Purchased some Essex figures I found on sale at 50% off as well. Put together a Gettysburg 1st Day scenario for a convention that's now gone past. Planning to buy and paint some more figures from different companies like 1st Corp and Peter Barber. Oh, and Sash & Saber is releasing a line of 10 14th Brooklyn/84th NY figures plus 4 command in time for Historicon this year.
Currently reading a book on the Iron Brigade, an also started one called, "Retreat From Gettysburg". Only read the prologue so far, but it covers the immediate effects of Pickett's Charge on the Army of Northern Virginia and Lee's actions after it had failed. Quite horrific, and the various quotes of Lee to his soldiers, the story of the encounter with Kemper coming back mortally wounded, and the challenge facing what remaind of the ANV, wow.
Was hoping to get out to Gettysburg for one of the re-enactments. They got one set up for late June and another in early July, but whe I checked into room rates further back, most hotels were booked up for miles and miles around during those dates. Probably better to go in an off year celebration.
Hopefully will attend Historicon in Fredericksburg in mid to late July. This year's 4 day convention has a theme of ACW 1863: Year of Decision.
There's an older thread out there somewhere, need to search for it, that if I recall had quiet a bit of ACW discussion on it. Might go find it, read, and see what's up with that.
-
Threadomancy of the most foul variety!
-
Its still the 150th Anniversary in this country, PhillyT, where you been, you whiley Unionist sympathizer you? :icon_wink:
-
Threadomancy of the most foul variety!
(http://www.zombiephiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/uncivil.bmp)
-
While it's good to see the popularity of the 150 anniversary events there're too many people for my tastes. For the 150th of 1st Manassas I went to Chancellorsville instead and drove around. Not many there. It was unbearably hot those days if I recall. Actually hampered some of the reenactments at Manassas.
-
Apparently for Gettysburg the one in late June is suppose to be less commercially oriented, and I was originally considering that. Yet in looking for hotels months back, I ended up ruling it out. Not interested in what I've read regarding the one in early July, apparently quite the carnival atmosphere, and even last year's event bottles of water were being sold for $4 each.
Think I'll wait till this the season is past, when I can catch it again with less people around, like I usually do. Been there many times, and it never gets old for me. Its quite the speical place. About the only thing comparable to me is visiting Independence Hall or maybe a National Park. If you go to Independence Hall, know that its best to get there early before it opens so you can be part of the first tour or two. Otherwise the lines tend to be way too long, and I get quite grumpy about lines. But I digress. In all my trips to Gettysburg, I continue to find new things to see, and enjoy going back to some of those I've already seen.
-
There's definitely a lot to see at Gettysburg. It's definitely the most commercial of all the parks I've been to. I'd wager it probably is the most commercial of all of them anyhow. So not really surprised to hear of a carnival type atmosphere.
-
The re-enactments won't be occuring at the park. My understanding is one of them is south of the park, the one in late June, and the other is north of the park, the one in July. This seems appropriate so as to not mess up the park itself.
-
Most don't take part on the battlefields themselves. The only one that I know of that they reenact on the field is Cedar Creek.
-
Good point. I'm surprised to hear any of them do.
Regarding Cedar Creek, have you been, and if so, whats that re-enacment like?
If I recall correctly, wasn't that part of the Valley Campaign of 1864?
-
I've never been. It happens in October and I never seem to remember.
That was part of the 1864 campaign. Jubal Early hit Sheridan pretty hard and Union forces were in full retreat. Then Sheridan's famous ride to rally his troops took place and the Union rallied to win the day.
-
Yep vaguelly recall that now.
Sounds like it makes for a good re-enactment event, Confederates get to do battle a bit, but then Sheridan rides in to save the day. Not tough for the typcial audience to enjoy a bit.
-
Hotels:
one option, is simply to take a chance.
Back in 1998 I traveled to the US (from Denmark) with my grandfather. And we quickly found a motel room in Gettysburg. (two days before the event started)
Offcause we might just have bin very very lucky since back then the event had 20.000+ reenactors and something like 80.000 spectators on day 3...
the fact that the use of online booking was not common back then properly also helped a lot since that made it a lot harder to actually book rooms and many of the smaller motels.
-
My visit to the battlefield earlier this past July was quite the experience and enjoyed with a nephew that I took along for the ride.
But today is the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's Gettysburg Addresss ... and I quote it in its entirety here ...
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Quite the speech. :::cheers:::
-
My visit to the battlefield earlier this past July was quite the experience and enjoyed with a nephew that I took along for the ride.
Do they still have the giant lighted map room that shows all the troop movements as the Battle unfolded?
-
Good question. I'd seen that on more than one occassion as a youngster, many years ago, but not sure that its available to the public currently, although I've heard it still exists, yet thats just a rumor. I'll check into it and see what I can come up with for you.
-
I guess I was hoping that in the 30+ years since I toured Gettysburg that they upgraded the technology, rather than just colored lights on a scaled map.
-
Ah, well the light map seemed to be a good educational way of sharing what happened to those who might be unfamiliar with the general history of the fighting that took place there. Already having studied the battle and making many visits to the site, I was able to give the nephew a decent enough of tour of the battlefield without needing much technology beyond the use of an automobile.
-
Manassas has something like that, I actually really like it. I don't remember seeing one at Gettysburg, but it's been a while since I've been there.
-
I remember a small theater in the round, the topographical map was centered below the seats. They darkened the theatre and used colored lights to show the troop movements as the Battle was initiated and progressed. It was a very cool tactical overview.
-
Interesting that Manassas has one. The one at Gettysburg was rather large and was laid out on the floor. People were seated around it and back in those days, if I recall correctly, there were 3 to 5 levels of seating where folks could sit and look down on the map with its lights.
Gettysburg also has the cyclorama, where there is a large painting of Pickett's Charge done in a circle on the wall all the way around those viewing it. There's a presentation provided and at the time I last viewed it, again many years ago, certain sections of the painting would be lit upon in telling the story of the fighting. I vaguely recall this, and probably would like to see it again someday. I'm told its in a newer building nowadays.
-
It's only for 1st Manassas. The coverage for the first battle is a lot better, overall, than the second, IMO.
-
Its been awhile since I've been to Manassas, yet I'm now vaguely recalling their light map. It seemed a bit more modern than the one at Gettysburg.
And yes, the Manassas battlefield park does to seem to focus more on the 1st of the two battles which is ok to an extent, but one needs to be more familiar with the other battle before arriving if that's what one is interested in when visiting. At some point I plan to visit that location with such in mind.
-
There's a small 'visitor's center' on the edge of the park grounds dedicated to the 2nd battle, but it's not up to what the other one is. But you're right, you have to know more on your own for the 2nd to do the trail. Or, you can do a tour with a guide, which is fine, but it's not set up as public friendly. The visitor center is on Henry Hill and the stone house and bridge are pretty close. You can stay in the same general vicinity and get the meat of the first battle. I think that makes it easier to present. But also it being the first major battle. Second Manassas was 'just' the battle between Seven Days and Antietam.
-
I was reading some interviews with a few historians the other day on the CWPT which was really interesting. The two I noted were James McPherson and Paul Gallagher. The other two escape me at this time. All four stated that they thought the 150th coverage had been poor for the most part, for a variety of reasons. The only two states that got any sort of praise were Virginia and Tennessee.
-
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/524da3bb69bedd434402bf5c-1200-1200/custer-1.jpg)
Something hits home more when you see these people in color:
http://www.businessinsider.com/amazing-american-civil-war-photos-turned-into-glorious-color-2013-10
-
There's a small 'visitor's center' on the edge of the park grounds dedicated to the 2nd battle, but it's not up to what the other one is. But you're right, you have to know more on your own for the 2nd to do the trail. Or, you can do a tour with a guide, which is fine, but it's not set up as public friendly. The visitor center is on Henry Hill and the stone house and bridge are pretty close. You can stay in the same general vicinity and get the meat of the first battle. I think that makes it easier to present. But also it being the first major battle. Second Manassas was 'just' the battle between Seven Days and Antietam.
Good to see the word just in quotes ... lol. I'm most interested in seeing the Brawner Farm battlefield to the west of Manassas, and where the Iron Brigade met in battle the Stonewall Brigade, although the 2nd Battle of Manassas is also of interest to me.
-
I was reading some interviews with a few historians the other day on the CWPT which was really interesting. The two I noted were James McPherson and Paul Gallagher. The other two escape me at this time. All four stated that they thought the 150th coverage had been poor for the most part, for a variety of reasons. The only two states that got any sort of praise were Virginia and Tennessee.
Yep, not much coverage on this. Most of what I've seen has been on PBS, although saw some coverage of Gettysburg on world news in early July. Saw a show the other night on PBS about Lincoln and the Gettysburg address that was quite good.
-
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/524da3bb69bedd434402bf5c-1200-1200/custer-1.jpg)
Something hits home more when you see these people in color:
http://www.businessinsider.com/amazing-american-civil-war-photos-turned-into-glorious-color-2013-10
Yep, amazingly well done for what they are. Thanks for the link! :::cheers:::
-
Good to see the word just in quotes ... lol. I'm most interested in seeing the Brawner Farm battlefield to the west of Manassas, and where the Iron Brigade met in battle the Stonewall Brigade, although the 2nd Battle of Manassas is also of interest to me.
Ha. Yeah, I don't believe that, but I think that's part of why it's over shadowed. Brawner Farm is sort of off the beaten track. In all of my visits to Manassas, I'm not sure if I've been there. I'll have to look at the map for the 2nd battle trail to see if it swings by there. Sad I don't remember, or that I haven't been there.
-
The current Brawner Farm building, first stop on the 2nd Manassas tour, is believed to not be the original building, and it's composed of two different parts, one moved there after the war and the 2nd added in the early 1900s, if I recall. There is a foundation of the original building that has been located archaelogically that at least partially under the current construction. The current structure was refurbished about 5 or 6 years ago, and prior to that it had been condemed, but I believe visitors can now go inside. I'm looking forward to makinga trip to see the area of this fighting, and walk around the terrain.
-
I saw a US politician (or maybe it was a diplomat, can't remember) on the BBC (I think it was on Newsnight) a couple of years ago.
He was explaining how the US mentality to war is different to that in Europe. He said (roughly): "Because we have never had a war on American soil."
Yup. I remember the reporter's (as it Paxman?) face...
-
Maybe he was from the school of thought that didn't think it was a war. I had a professor reprimand me for listing any war that was not a declared war. I don't like that though process. And that's probably giving that representative far too much credit of thought.
-
The current Brawner Farm building, first stop on the 2nd Manassas tour, is believed to not be the original building, and it's composed of two different parts, one moved there after the war and the 2nd added in the early 1900s, if I recall. There is a foundation of the original building that has been located archaelogically that at least partially under the current construction. The current structure was refurbished about 5 or 6 years ago, and prior to that it had been condemed, but I believe visitors can now go inside. I'm looking forward to makinga trip to see the area of this fighting, and walk around the terrain.
What are you looking at that says it's the first stop on the tour? It's not on the driving tour and it's not on the main 2nd battle trail. It seems that it would be a stop that would require a more specialized tour.
There is a trail that goes to it, and you can go there, but since it wasn't on the main trail I know I haven't been there now.
-
Good question. Might have seen this on the Manassas website, but can't recall for sure. I could be wrong and that wouldn't surprise me, because the older I get, the more I have been having memory issues. :icon_lol:
-
Rats! I was hoping you had found a guide that integrated that stop into the rest. :icon_lol:
-
Well, you got me googleing all over the place trying to find where I had seen that reference, but still no luck. I'm beginning to think its a figament of my imagination. :icon_lol:
Anyway, here's a log that has some pictures of Brawner Farm area and its exhibts, and the author makes reference to it being a spot used as an interpretive center for 2nd Manassas ... I particularly like the archaeological map and it back up alittle of what I'd read previously somewhere ...
http://markerhunter.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/brawner-farm-interpretive-center/
-
And here's a picture of the Brawner Farm building in 2003 before the refurbishments in 2007 ... at the bottom of this internet page ...
http://www.usa-civil-war.com/Manassas/manassas_2.html
Also ... here's wikipedia's 2nd Manassas piece ... providing more for the maps than anything else ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Bull_Run
-
I finally gave up looking around on the internet regarding that reference to Brawner Farm being the first stop on the driving tour and called the Brawner Farm Interpretive Center to ask them.
The guy who answered the phone did say that the farm was the first stop on the current tour for the 2nd Battle of Manassas, and that location is currently being used for the telling of that particular battle's story, while the Henry House Hill Visitor's Center is being used for the 1st Battle of Manasass. The latter location is where most things at the park have traditionally been done, yet back then there was limited attention being focused upon the 2nd battle.
It seems like there has been an increase in the amount of attention now being paid to the 2nd battle, as measured from what I recall previously. My enthusiasm has now increased evenfurther for going to the Brawner Farm location, and maybe even next year when I plan to do another ACW battlefield vacation.
-
Re: The Official 150th Anniversary of the American Civil War Discussion Thread
Wow, this must be the oldest forum ever.
-
Oook. :icon_lol: