dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jul 23, 2015 14:16:42 GMT
QC Good catch, I had not thought of how the North and South had different ways to send additional men into the conflict. Your point regarding the Continental Congress was well made. The War made us a into a nation of the United States instead of loosely connected groups of individual nation states such as in ancient Greece with Athens and Sparta for example. Chuck, I wish you would sit down and write a couple of books. You could start with any era of the US or the Army but would suggest you begin with the operations of 1861-62 in Northern Virginia. You have an excellent style of relating facts in an interesting manner and you have done quite a bit of research already. Plus you could Chris to take photos for you, the man is a genius with a camera. Just a thought. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 23, 2015 15:11:19 GMT
I am no writer Dave. I am a collector.
If there is a problem with the Confederate system, a system largely followed today, it is if the new people are not fully integrated and allowed time to train with the older guys before battle. This was a great fault, as we have discussed before with the entire Army circa 1876. Training builds confidence with the newly joined in leaders and unit ability, and the result is that confidence transfers to the new members as they are worked into the team. It does the old guys good too in that it allows them to in some cases shed bad habits. A win-win all the way around.
|
|
|
Post by miker on Jul 30, 2023 21:11:59 GMT
Well, coming to this late as frequently occurs, Sheridan could have. * Assumed command of the "Task Force" composed of the Department of the Dakota's and the Department of the Platte. Since the Centennial Campaign was arguable the main effort of both the Army and the Division, I tend to think that he should have commanded in the field. That said, he had a total of five departments to command: Dakota, Platte, Missouri, Texas, and for a time the Gulf. However, moving with one column or the other, he would not have been able to control Crooke, Gibbon, and Terry effectively until and unless they united and he would essentially have been unable to command the other departments. He also was wanted by Sherman/Grant to be available for Reconstruction, Worlds's Fair, and Election Issues so Chicago may have been the best of a lot of bad choices. * Appointed Crook, who had extensive experience with the Southern Plaines Indians of the three combined columns, ordering Terry to stay in FAL and otherwise command his department and having Crook appointing an acting commander while he was on campaign. *Appointed Terry, who was a lawyer by training and trade, to command the column and leave Crooke in command of the Department. Since Terry had no real experience in the region, this does not appear to me as the best course of action. *Could have issued better orders to both Crook and Terry for communications procedures (though I suspect it would be damn difficult) to do so, told them to cooperate better (cooperation is not a principle of war however, but unity of command is). He could, as I said in a different thread, moved to FAL. This would have enabled him to receive information send by boat or dispatch rider faster, but still would not have been able to control the column in real time. That would not be possible until the 1930's and 1940's over such a vast distance, as seen in this map. The region is much vaster than the WWI western front. *Found an officer senior to Custer to command the FAL column who wasn't so easily manipulated by Custer (though Custer could probably manipulate Sheridan or anyone else he wanted to.) Interestingly enough, apparently Crooke and Sheridan were fast friends since West Point, but Sheridan's rapid advancement and other issues caused them to drift apart. Terry (Promoted in 1866) was senior to Crooke (promoted to MG in 1873) and that he wanted Custer to Command the Dakota Column, but in light of the issues with Custer's testimony, that wasn't possible and Terry nominated three other officers to command the column which were not approved, and thus he was ordered to command the column.
|
|
|
Post by miker on Jul 30, 2023 21:20:54 GMT
This quote:
Is not directly pointed at anybody, but I want to raise the fact the senstance more properly states should be "United States" volunteers or "United States Army" or "United States of America) should be used and not the term "Union". The war was between the "United States of America" (and one could say perhaps it was the "rump" of the country, and the "Confederate States of America" rebelled against and succeeded from the United States of America.
That said, the Constitution states how new states can be added to the country, but not dissassociate from it. Thus, one could advocate that since it is not mentioned, it is a state's right to leave the USA. On the other hand, since the Congress must approve a new state, one can infer that the Congress would have to ratify their departure.
At any rate the Confederate States Army fought the United States Army.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 31, 2023 2:52:00 GMT
States Rights including the fictitious right to succeed is just another fraudulent excuse for treason brought on by the economic and moral bankruptcy of the southern riff raff who kept human beings in bondage, because they were to goddamned stupid to build a viable economy that had no need for said bondage. A lazy good for nothing pig, is nothing more than a lazy good for nothing pig, no matter how much you try to dress it up and apply lipstick.
|
|