Topic: American Civil War

[Union General]

And Meade was the winning general at Gettysburg.

Indeed! While a bit cautious, it served him well. If he had followed up with a counterattack after Pickett's Charge, who knows what could have happened? The Army of Northern Virginia had virtually exhausted their supply of long-range ammunition, but they had plenty of canister fire left.

-The General

[GamesPoet]

And Meade was the winning general at Gettysburg.

Indeed! While a bit cautious, it served him well. If he had followed up with a counterattack after Pickett's Charge, who knows what could have happened? The Army of Northern Virginia had virtually exhausted their supply of long-range ammunition, but they had plenty of canister fire left.

-The General

If you mean cautious in terms of not following up after Pickett's charge, his entire army had been involved in the largest battle by the Army of the Potomac up to that point and a very large number of casualties across its scope.  Yep, caution was very much in order, and wise.

[wissenlander]

Meade was the first Union General (see what I did there ) to lead the Army of the Potomac that I actually have any sort of liking for.  My knowledge base on each of them isn't as great as it could be, though, so perhaps I should reserve my judgement until I do further readings.

"Any understanding of this nation has to be based, and I mean really based, on a an understanding of the Civil War.  I believe that firmly.  It defined us.  The Revolution did what it did.  Our involvement in European wars, beginning with the First World War, did what it did.  But the Civil War defined us as what we are and it opened us to being what we became, good and bad things.  And it is very necessary, if you're going to understand the American character in the twentieth century, to learn about this enormous catastrophe of the mid-nineteenth century.  It was the crossroads of our being, and it was a hell of a crossroads."


- Shelby Foote

[jlutin]

If the South had a long term strategy of prolonging the fight and keeping their army in the war, they might have won, but I question whether or not they would have with both the industrial and manpower might of the North.  And Lincoln's resolve to maintain the Union.

This was the strategy, but the Souths utter and complete failure to execute in the West ruined the chances for this plan.

[Union General]

Meade was the first Union General (see what I did there ) to lead the Army of the Potomac that I actually have any sort of liking for.  My knowledge base on each of them isn't as great as it could be, though, so perhaps I should reserve my judgement until I do further readings.

Very clever, Wissenlander. I approve. Have one on the Union Army! 
Hooker was good, and was only defeated at Chancellorsville because Robert E. Lee was, well, Robert E. Lee. And because Stonewall Jackson was a very scary general.

-The General

[wissenlander]

I don't doubt his plan was sound.  Just as McDowell's plan was sound at 1st Manassas.  Goes to show the adage of making contact with the enemy throws the best laid plans out the window.

I don't know if any of you guys are metal fans at all, but Iced Earth has this epic 3 part song series on Gettysburg that I find to be pretty awesome.

The Devil to Pay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dud6UYOfkO4

Hold at All Costs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsW3i9rY58k&feature=related

The High Water Mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh6M4jBd1O8&feature=related

[Gustavus Magnus]

"Hooker was good, and was only defeated at Chancellorsville because Robert E. Lee was, well, Robert E. Lee. And because Stonewall Jackson was a very scary general."

The terrible terrain didn't help him any nor did a relatively green corps handled badly by a new corps commander.  I have never quite understood why Hooker was so timid on April 30 and May 1.  If he had pressed on, especially late on the 1st and early on the 2nd of May, Lee's gamble would have been a disaster.  Sickles also didn't press on when he should have and Howard didn't follow orders and watch his flank. 

I think Hooker was a decent commander and that if he hadn't been wounded in the foot at Antietam, he might have been able to keep pressure on the rebel left flank, which would have caused problems later in the day for Lee.  It is hard to say if the outcome of Gettysburg would have been any different had Hooker remained in command.

[Union General]

I think Hooker was a decent commander and that if he hadn't been wounded in the foot at Antietam, he might have been able to keep pressure on the rebel left flank, which would have caused problems later in the day for Lee.  It is hard to say if the outcome of Gettysburg would have been any different had Hooker remained in command.

Then again, Meade knew the ground fairly well, as he himself was a Pennsylvania man. 

-The General

[wissenlander]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37133861/ns/us_news-life/

10 most endangered Civil War sites

1. Picacho Peak, Az., site closing due to budget cuts.

2.  Pickett's Mill, Ga., which is amid cuts in public funding and, last fall, saw foot bridges and portions of a mill damaged by flood waters.

3.  Fort Stevens, Washington, D.C., threatened by a proposed church community center that will tower over the fort where President Lincoln was the target of sharpshooters.

4.  Cedar Creek, Va., a mine expansion that would chew up nearly 400 acres of battlefield.

5.  Richmond, Ky., a new highway interchange that will likely attract commercial growth.

6.  South Mountain, Md., the feared development of an energy plant.

7.  Thoroughfare Gap, Va., the possible construction of a 150-foot communications tower.

8.  Camp Allegheny, W.Va., where wind turbines on a high ridge across the border in Virginia threaten to blot the view from the battlefield.

9.  Gettysburg, Pa., threat from a casino being planned

10.  The Wilderness, Va.,  Walmart...


There's a good video of a historian talking about Thoroughfare Gap.  I really liked this because it gives you the perfect visualization without actually being there.  And growing up right next door it still helps me out, I guess I'm more of a visual learner than I thought?

http://www.civilwar.org/video/at-thoroughfare-gap-with-bud.html

[GamesPoet]

So the question is ... what can be done to save these sites?

[t12161991]

I believe Gettysburg is being saved rather... actively by a bunch of groups already. Not sure about the others.

[jlutin]

Some of them deserve saving, some of them will be just fine with modern devices surrounding them.

You can't save everything nor should you try.

[GamesPoet]

Which ones?

[wissenlander]

I think it all depends.  Thoroughfare Gap doesn't have to have a cell phone tower right there, there are other spots that could accomodate such a tower along that mountain range.  It's probably the easiest and cheapest for the company, I'm sure. 

[jlutin]

Which ones?

I don't think you have ruined a site by having a 150 communications tower nearby.  I also don't think an off site on ramp for a highway is cause for concern.

Some of these battlefields are miles wide.  Focus on the key points, have reasonable deed restrictions on the rest and let development happen around them.  If no group is willing to buy the area and preserve it, then let the landowners do what they deem best for the land they own.

[wissenlander]

Except for the tower being right in the middle of the battlefield...

If it's an actual battlefield then I'm generally all for preserving it.  If it's a hill where a certain partisan ranger group slept one night, then that's different.

[jlutin]

Is the site preserved from development or has it already been developed?

[wissenlander]

So the question is ... what can be done to save these sites?

To answer your question, this site does a lot of work trying to preserve Civil War grounds:

http://www.civilwar.org/

Is the site preserved from development or has it already been developed?

It's a gap in the mountains with nothing much around, there's really no development for miles around beyond a post office.  There's one dead spot around there where there's no cell phone reception, for maybe about a mile or two which is probably why they want to put in a tower.  Call me silly, but I'd be fine with that mile or two area of dead space.

[Union General]

It's truly a pity about Cedar Creek. I was there for a reenactment, and it was easily one of the prettiest battlefields I've ever seen. And, of course, the mining off in the distance completely ruined it. A railroad track runs through the battlefield, though it's only the occasional CSX freight train, and that track has been there for ages.
Fredericksburg... Don't get me started on a rant...

-The General

[GamesPoet]

Which ones?

I don't think you have ruined a site by having a 150 communications tower nearby.

My understanding is its not nearby, but right on top.

I also don't think an off site on ramp for a highway is cause for concern.

Do you know why the new ramp is being put in?  Besides the obvious answer, cars coming off the highway.

Some of these battlefields are miles wide.  Focus on the key points, have reasonable deed restrictions on the rest and let development happen around them.  If no group is willing to buy the area and preserve it, then let the landowners do what they deem best for the land they own.

Yep, miles wide, and preservation is important to our culture and its understanding of what happened there.  In a way, the land is owned by the country as is the responsibility to preserve such sites for the future of the country.

[jlutin]

No the land is owned by the landowner.

[wissenlander]

Which is why there are groups that try to buy the land.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

On the one hand, it is a shame that sites of historic importance should be developed.
On the other hand: the US has the luxury that it has so few battlefields. At least since medieval times, Belgium has been the battleground of Europe. If we would preserve all battlefields, there would not be much left for human activity of any kind (except reenactments  ).

[Union General]

On the one hand, it is a shame that sites of historic importance should be developed.
On the other hand: the US has the luxury that it has so few battlefields. At least since medieval times, Belgium has been the battleground of Europe. If we would preserve all battlefields, there would not be much left for human activity of any kind (except reenactments  ).

True, but most of our battlefields are located on the East Coast, where the population density can be a bit... extreme at times. This also includes battlefields from the Revolution and the War of 1812, many of those in the New England region. Fortunately, those out in the middle of nowhere are relatively safe, as the middle of nowhere exists for a reason.

-The General

[Big Time]

On the one hand, it is a shame that sites of historic importance should be developed.
On the other hand: the US has the luxury that it has so few battlefields. At least since medieval times, Belgium has been the battleground of Europe. If we would preserve all battlefields, there would not be much left for human activity of any kind (except reenactments  ).

True, but most of our battlefields are located on the East Coast, where the population density can be a bit... extreme at times. This also includes battlefields from the Revolution and the War of 1812, many of those in the New England region. Fortunately, those out in the middle of nowhere are relatively safe, as the middle of nowhere exists for a reason.

They could move some of the battlefields out here, we've got plenty of room. walmart is not nearly as popular here as it is back East either. Better yet, we could send some battlefields to Australia. Almost the size of the continental U.S. but the population of Southern California. They'd never be in danger there.