|
Post by quincannon on Apr 28, 2017 1:44:22 GMT
There are documented reports of men sewing their names in their uniforms, or barring that writing their names on pieces of paper and pinning it to their uniforms as early as First Bull Run. There are similar reports in the Spanish American War and World War I. Such practices eventually led to issuing dog tags to soldiers.
There are also such reports of identification practices as far back as the American Revolution.
Cold Harbor was horror among a multitude of horrors, nothing more
The conditions you mentioned in your last paragraph are called war. Anyone who thinks it is any different is deranged. All war is the same. Those mentioned conditions are what is to be expected. The only people who really need to know that are the old men that send young men into those conditions. Perhaps if they knew and had experienced these things they would not be so anxious to repeat the folly, except and only except, when the life of the nation they serve is at stake.
In the American Civil War the life of the nation was at stake, and every bit of suffering and death was worth it. Treason cannot be tolerated, and the American Civil War, no matter how it is sugar coated was an act of treason.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 28, 2017 3:13:18 GMT
QC As I had relations on both sides during the ACW, I have attempted to study and judge the participants impartially. Working in a university environment encouraged my study of people and their life choices. Students, like any group of young people, arrive on campus with most if not all of their moral values implanted from their parents and support groups. Religious values were usually the largest influence on their actions and generally tested very quickly. Political affiliations have grown much more influential since I retired 18 years ago and have become so divisive that it is almost overcoming racial issues as "third rail" in the Ivy Halls of America.
That being said, I am wondering if the Confederacy was not established as a seditionary endeavor as you stated? The Confederacy was a league or compact for mutual support or common action* as perceived by the founders and not a treasonist act. Notice I said I wonder not that I believed. The Southern states feared losing any and all political power if more non-slave states were admitted into the Union as you well know and the slavery issue was the main if not sole reason for secession. The wealthy planters, professionals and educated leaders were desperately seeking a way to preserve their lifestyles and fortunes and cared little about being called traitors. Personal allegiances were to the state not the Union in those days.
Perhaps Ulysses S. Grant made the most insightful comment on the Confederacy and her supporters:
"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." Regards Dave
* courtesy of Merriam-Webster
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 28, 2017 3:36:31 GMT
United States Constitution Article 3, Section 3
" Treason against the United States shall consist of levying war against them, adhering to their enemies, giving aid and comfort."
What is it Dave, about bearing true faith and allegiance that you do not understand?
You pledged to do so every day of your life while in school. You pledge it when you stand for the National Anthem, or place your hand over your heart as the flag passes by. Many of us in both military and civilian life have sworn an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution. We are the only nation on the face of the earth that owes our allegiance to an idea. When you break that oath in word or deed you have committed treason. For those who try to excuse those acts, they are in my view equally culpable. That includes today.
There is no excuse that the southern states that succeeded from the Union can offer, that mitigates the fact that they committed treason against the United States as outlined in the above cited Article 3, Section 3, and speaking for myself personally, I will no longer tolerate excuse making for treasonous acts here or any other goddamned place on the face of this earth as it regards the southern confederacy.
Grant, in that statement, said there was no excuse. Him showing some empathy for their plight in being defeated does not mean that he was in any way excusing their treasonous conduct. I suggest you do the same, and speak out at every opportunity against what they stood for, and condemn their conduct, for they were criminals in the eyes of the law. Remember those words you spoke long ago - "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice for all" For those words to have meaning they must be lived every day of your life
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 28, 2017 5:54:41 GMT
Frankly I must say I do not have any understanding of this pity party you seem to have for the Union Army in the Overland Campaign. The United States Government sent them there to fight, suffer, and if need be, become maimed or die, but in the suffering and strife, win.
The 1st Marine Division was on Guadalcanal four times as long, and not a man in that division came off that island whole in mind, body, or spirit.
The unit just down the road from me, the 4th Infantry Division, entered combat on D Day and concluded combat operations on VE Day nearly a year later, The fought their way across France, fought in the Hurtgen, and at the Bulge, then into Germany, always in the line. Hurtgen alone made Cold Harbor and the entire Overland Campaign seem like the Ladies Magnolia Society's Tea Dance and Fornication Frolic by comparison.
So if you want to make the case that war is hell, Sherman beat you to it, and I need no convincing he was correct, but there are a hell of a lot better examples of that dictum than Cold Harbor. It does though feed into the fiction and fantasy of the old south.
Lest you fail to understand my feeling on this issue, I consider the southern confederacy right up there with fascists , communists, and any other totalitarian regime that has existed since the beginning of time that dehumanizes people for profit, gain, or power. I despise them.
Just remember I am a Virginian, just as much a son of the south as you are. I hold no animosity for the soldiers who fought for the south, my relatives among them. I despise what they stood for, and the regime, along with the ideas and policies that propelled it, that they gave their loyalty to.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 28, 2017 11:22:29 GMT
With regard to "War Is Hell," the difference in time, values, and understanding of what war was supposed to be may be what Dave alludes to.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 28, 2017 14:07:35 GMT
Hell, I don't know what he means or eludes to Tom.
Those fresh faced, bible believing southern youth that went to war all died like donkeys, while those that sent them there sat back and made a profit off of the enslavement of human beings. Those that sent them to war are directly responsible for those deaths. The soldiers who followed orders have minor culpability in perpetuating human bondage. I see no moral difference between plantation and concentration camp. The whole south, its structure to 1865 is indefensible, and a study in collective hypocritical self delusion. And it continues to this day.
The most Christian of all hymns, Amazing Grace, the basis of the Evangelical movement, says all this the best - "I once was lost but now I'm found, was blind but now I see". It is a message of redemption for past transgressions, but with redemption, comes the responsibility to speak out and sin no more. That message equally applies to societies as it does to individuals. John Newton, the author, understood that and dedicated his remaining life to undoing the wrongs that had been done. If we are to be responsible citizens we must dedicate ourselves to doing as Newton did. Of us, no more can be asked, no less can be expected or accepted. You cannot pick and choose what to glorify and what to condemn, when what you glorify and what you condemn are inextricably intertwined.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 28, 2017 18:56:01 GMT
"Hell, I don't know what he means or eludes to Tom."
For some reason my comments are often taken as personal values/statements and posted to irritate you. I am merely speculating or questioning if the South thought they were committing treason or just leaving a Union they did not wish to remain in? All my posts were speculations and questions seeking other views and not an assault on your beliefs.
I can not nor did I defend the reasoning of the leaders of the Confederacy for succession I just desired to start a conversation. I see that this was not a good idea as nothing positive is resulting from this idea so I will close this down.
The Cold Harbor issue also needs to stop as well.
Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 28, 2017 19:28:45 GMT
Gentlemen perhaps we might walk this conversation back a bit-it seems to becoming a bit on the personal side and not in keeping with what I hoped was the shared values of this board. It has also wandered massively off topic from Isandlwana.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 28, 2017 21:49:18 GMT
Beth I assure you that I have not taken any of this as personal. Men say things in an honest open manner that might seem personal but is not. I have too much respect for the members of this board to bow up at any remark. I enjoy honest open discussions which advance the study of a subject which we have. The goodie is out of the tires on this thread and we will start a new one. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 30, 2017 10:40:34 GMT
Sorry David, I will keep this thread alive for the time being. Apparently the British fought both battles [Isandlwana & Rorke’s Drift] differently.
At Isandlwana they formed up as if they were facing a European army, and spread out their line to minimize casualties from incoming fire, which was the wrong thing to do in this case, because the Zulu’s had no artillery and very few rifles if any at all.
The field at Isandlwana is similar to the LBH, with drainages and folds all around, the Zulu’s would have used these to get close and another factor was that the whole area was covered by mealies, which is a type of corn and this grew to around six foot in some areas.
At Rorke’s Drift the British soldiers fought tightly packed, which suited the type of battle they were in, with Zulu’s using their weight of numbers to get in close and bring to spears to bare, were shot down in droves. So to give an idea of the fire power which the British brought to bare, the soldiers fired an average of 900 rounds per man at Rorke’s Drift, which was well stocked with ammo, those troops at Isandlwana, would never have that luxury.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 30, 2017 16:33:13 GMT
Disagree.
Isandlwana was a failure because the British failed to prepare their camp for defense.
Rorke's Drift was a success because Company B's position was compact, fortified, and utilized pre-cleared fields of fire in a 360 degree perimeter. The position was laid out by a combat engineer, who knew his business, and defended by a well positioned company of riflemen.
You cannot point to tactics, or dips and folds of terrain, or even cornfields, if the basic decision making process, in this case, failure to secure the base, was the fundamental error. It is perfectly permissible, and often the correct thing to do to operate outside your perimeter, if you first secure, and prepare that perimeter. Hell, even the French at Dien Bien Phu, were smart enough to do this before they went to Sop Nau, offensively patrolled up the Piste Pavie and Provincial Route 41, or launched Operation "Regate' the excursion into Northern Laos. As a result the French were able to hold the position for six months, and the British a few hours. The fundamental rule is contained in Caesar's Commentaries, and it is violated only by idiots.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 30, 2017 17:47:34 GMT
Are you saying then, that even if the had formed a tight square around their supply wagons that this would have made no difference?
Well if I cannot point to tactics then what makes you think that you can compare 1950s style warfare with machine guns, air support and artillery to Isandlwana. I know that I am not an ex-military man, and that seems to work against me on this board, but they were out flanked at Isandlwana and that stands out like a sore thumb even to us non-military types.
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Apr 30, 2017 18:27:43 GMT
You can only fire so fast within an effective range of 300 or so yards when outnumbered more than 10-1.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 30, 2017 18:49:32 GMT
David at The Battle of Abu Klea a British square of 1.400 men armed with the same rifles as the troops at Isandlwana, defeated a force of 13.000 Mahdists, killing over a thousand of them.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 30, 2017 18:50:42 GMT
What I am saying is
1) The purpose, objectives, and methodology of Isandlwana and Dien Bien Phu were identical. Each was intended to be a deep penetration into enemy territory to launch further offensive operations against the enemy on their own ground.
2) The first step in such an attempt is to find, fortify, and constantly improve a fixed base from which you can operate offensively. YOU DO NOTHING UNTIL THAT BASE IS SECURE - NOTHING.
3) The tactics chosen for outside the base operations during the battle were poor. The terrain including the dips, folds, and cornfields impaired tactical employment of friendly forces, and played into the hands of the Zulu force. All of that is completely immaterial to the root cause of the loss, WHICH WAS FAILURE TO SECURE THE BASE.
4) The point is that if you are operating outside the base and things go bad, as they did both at Isandlwana and Dien Bein Phu, you have your base to fall back into. If you do not prepare your base, FIRST, and IN ADVANCE, of any outside the perimeter adventure, you have no other option but dying. I do not give a rat's behind if the British force was commanded by the finest tactician since Alexander the Great outside the perimeter, the results will always be the same if you try to fight 20,000 with 1400. You will always lose, cornfields, dips and folds notwithstanding.
If on the other hand you base is well sited, fortified, and fields of fire properly cleared 1400 men operating from within that base, armed with state of the art weapons will always beat the snot out of 20,000 Zulus armed with short spears and cowhide shields. The only way the Zulus win under those conditions is to starve the base defenders to death.
You are looking again only at the superficial, and not at the root cause of defeat here. There are but two rules when you go deep for these purposes. Insure you fortify your base, and insure you can supply your base from afar.
At Isandlwana the British failed to fortify their base, and although they made efforts to establish supply depots like Rorke's Drift, their efforts would not have stood up to the stress of the campaign. At Na San and Dien Bien Phu the French fortified their camps before trying anything else which is the correct thing to do, but one of those two positions had to be abandoned (Na San) and the other one fell (Dien Bien Phu) because they could not be supplied adequately.
"IRON RULE" You cannot out flank a perimeter defense. You can surround it. You may assault it until hell freezes over. You cannot outflank it. Had the British forces been within the fortifications of an entrenched camp at Isandlwana, the Zulu nation would have been destroyed that day.
When you are talking things of this nature you must first talk fundamental decision making before you begin to talk tactics. That is what makes me think I can compare Isandlwana with the style of warfare in 1950 or 500 BC. The number of decisions available never change with the passage of time
|
|