DOCSLIB.ORG

V Corps (Union Army) from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

V Corps (Union Army) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The V Corps (Fifth Corps) was a unit of the Union Army of the Potomac during the American Civil War. V Corps Contents 1 1862 2 1863 3 1864 V Corps badge 4 1865 Active 1862–1865 5 Command history Country United States 6 References 7 Further reading Branch United States Army Part of Army of the Potomac Engagements Peninsula Campaign 1862 Second Battle of Bull Run The first unit designated as the V corps was organized briefly under Nathaniel P. Banks (Banks's original Battle of Antietam command opposed Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign and ultimately became XII Corps.) Battle of The unit better known as V Corps was formed within the Army of the Potomac on May 18, 1862 as V Corps Fredericksburg Provisional, which was engaged in the Peninsula Campaign to seize Richmond. It was created by merging Maj. Battle of Gettysburg Gen. Fitz John Porter's 3rd Division of the III Corps with Maj. Gen. George Sykes' division of U.S. Regular Battle of Bristoe troops, formerly in the Reserve. Station Battle of the Porter became corps commander and his 1st Division was assigned to Brig. Gen. George W. Morell. On July 22, Wilderness 1862, "provisional" was dropped from the name as the U.S. War Department confirmed it as the V Corps, Army Battle of Spotsylvania of the Potomac. Courthouse The V Corps fought in several battles throughout the Peninsula Campaign, including Hanover Court House, Battle of Cold Harbor Mechanicsville, Gaines's Mill, Glendale, and Malvern Hill. The corps' losses in the Seven Days Battles were 995 Siege of Petersburg killed, 3,805 wounded, and 2,801 captured or missing, totaling 7,601, or half the entire loss of the army. Of these Battle of Five Forks casualties, 6,837 occurred at Gaines's Mill; the remainder at Mechanicsville, Glendale, and Malvern Hill. The Commanders corps was temporarily enlarged on June 14 by George A. McCall's division of Pennsylvania Reserves, which Notable Fitz John Porter included future stars John F. Reynolds and George G. Meade. The corps fought stoutly at Gaines's Mill in commanders George G. Meade particular, where Porter commanded the Union forces that included only the V Corps and Henry W. Slocum's 1st George Sykes Division of the VI Corps against nearly the entire Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Gouverneur K. Warren Following the failure of the Peninsula Campaign, the Pennsylvania Reserves were reassigned to Irvin McDowell's I Corps (III Corps at the Second Battle of Bull Run). The V Corps was reassigned to Maj. Gen. John Charles Griffin Pope's Army of Virginia, along with the III and IX Corps of George B. McClellan's Army of the Potomac. Insignia 1st Division George McClellan held a special admiration for the V Corps, especially as Fitz-John Porter was a close personal friend of his, and he often touted it as a model outfit the rest of the army should imitate. The general officers in the corps were all West Pointers and contained no political appointees or nonprofessionals. The presence of 2nd Division regular army troops added a more professional air to the V Corps than the others, and discipline and drills were typically stricter. In addition, the army artillery reserve was attached to the corps. 3rd Division The V Corps saw action at the Second Battle of Bull Run, fighting on the left wing of the Union army. Losses of the small corps were 331 killed, 1,364 wounded, and 456 missing; a total of 2,151, out of about 6,500 engaged. Two brigades, of six, were not engaged. One brigade, composed of two regiments under Gouverneur K. Warren, made a futile stand against the Confederate attack on the Union left flank. The corps saw minimal action at the Battle of Antietam. The 1st Division was held in reserve in the relative center of the Union line, but Sykes's 2nd Division was drawn out during the battle. Elements of Sykes's division engaged in skirmishing at the Upper Ford, but the corps was not committed to the main battle. It was after Antietam that a new 3rd Division was added under Andrew A. Humphreys, composed mostly of nine-month recruits from Pennsylvania. After Antietam, Fitz-John Porter was court martialed for disobeying orders at Second Bull Run. Although Porter himself was not to blame, John Pope chose him as a scapegoat for that loss and his career was summarily ruined. 1st Division commander George Morell also lost his post because he testified on Porter's behalf at the court martial hearings (the War Department for a long time after the Porter trial was reluctant to promote officers in the V Corps) In the Army of the Potomac's restructuring under newly appointed Maj. Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside, the V Corps was placed with the III Corps in the Center "Grand Division" under the command of Joseph Hooker. Maj. Gen. Daniel Butterfield replaced Porter to command the V Corps at the Battle of Fredericksburg, and Generals Charles Griffin, Sykes, and Humphreys the three divisions. Losses were 206 killed, 1,669 wounded, and 300 missing; total, 2,175. 1863 When Hooker took command of the Army of the Potomac in the spring, he did away with the "grand divisions" and made Butterfield his chief of staff. Maj. Gen. George G. Meade, formerly commanding the 3rd Division of the I Corps, took charge of the V Corps. It was at this time that each corps was designated a symbol; the V Corps used a cross pattée, the straight-edged variant of the Maltese Cross. The V Corps was not significantly engaged at Chancellorsville, but soon after the entire 3rd Division had their enlistments expire and went home. Another division under Brig. Gen. Samuel W. Crawford, made up of two Pennsylvania Reserve brigades, promptly joined while Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia invaded the North. George Sykes took command of the V Corps on June 28, 1863, as George Meade was promoted to command of the Army of the Potomac. The corps arrived at the eastern end of the Gettysburg battlefield on July 2. They earned distinction from fighting in the Wheatfield, but were most famous for the actions of Colonel Strong Vincent's 3rd Brigade, 1st Division. The brigade quickly marched to cover Little Round Top, a nearly bare hill at the left end of the Union line. Against ferocious attacks from the Confederate First Corps of James Longstreet, Union Army 1st Division Badge, V Vincent's brigade held the hill and saved the Union army from being flanked. The scene is depicted in the novel Corps The Killer Angels (1974) by Michael Shaara and the movie Gettysburg (1993), based on the novel, focusing on the 20th Maine regiment at the extreme left, under the command of Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. The 1st Division under James Barnes and the Regular Division (mainly US Army infantry) under Romeyn Ayres both suffered severe losses in the battle (casualties among the regulars numbered nearly 50%).Charles Griffin was ill during the campaign and returned to command his division after the campaign. By contrast, the Pennsylvania Reserves under Crawford were relatively lightly engaged. The V Corps saw the deaths of two of their generals at Gettysburg: Brig. Gens. Stephen H. Weed and Strong Vincent (who was quickly promoted not long before his death for his heroic efforts on Little Round Top). The Corps saw little action in the autumn campaigns of 1863. At the Battle of Bristoe Station (October 14, 1863) V Corps was fired on by troops of A. P. Hill. This distracted Hill from the arrival of II Corps. This allowed Gouverneur K. Warren, commanding II Corps, to seize a favorable position and inflict a defeat on Hill's corps. 1864 In March, 1864, with Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant now in command of all Union armies, the V Corps was restructured, along with the entire army. The 1st and 2nd Divisions were consolidated into one 1st Division, under General Griffin. Crawford's 3rd Division of Pennsylvanians remained unchanged, although it was due to be mustered out of the service in a few weeks. The I Corps was merged into the V as the 2nd and 4th Divisions, under Generals John C. Robinson and James S. Wadsworth respectively. The new commander of the V Corps was Maj. Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren. By the time of the Battle of the Wilderness, the corps included over 25,000 men; following the end of the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House in May, 1864, over 10,000 had become casualties. General Wadsworth was killed at the Wilderness, and Robinson was severely wounded (losing a leg) at Spotsylvania. His division was broken down and dispersed temporarily among the others of the V Corps. Wadsworth's Division went under General Lysander Cutler, commander of the Iron Brigade. The V Corps saw hard fighting at Cold Harbor and the Siege of Petersburg in June. Many of its men were captured in the Second Battle of Weldon Railroad on August 19, 1864. Cutler's division was broken up after these battles. At that point the three remaining divisions were commanded by generals Griffin, Ayres, and Crawford; they would remain until the end of the war. Griffin's division eventually contained most of the remaining regiments of the old V Corps, plus newly organized units. Ayres had new regiments and a few veteran units, including a brigade of Maryland troops. The Regular Division he'd commanded no longer existed as it had been disbanded due to its severe casualties.
Recommended publications
  • 38Th Infantry Regiment - Command Report - May - September 1953

    38Th Infantry Regiment - Command Report - May - September 1953

    Korean War 38th Infantry Regiment - Command Report - May - September 1953 2nd Infantry Division Korean War Project Record: USA-159 Folder: 060011 Box: 06 File: 11 National Archives and Records Administration College Park, Maryland Records: United States Army Unit Name: Second Infantry Division Record Group: RG407 Editor: Hal Barker Korean War Project P.O. Box 180190 Dallas, TX 75218-0190 http://www.koreanwar.org Korean War Project 2ID-00401194 ~/~\\""'~~-_--'.-!""'. -•-•t..., . ..., .. ..., ... _,r·~·~i -~ \ DEQLASSIFIED I J \ ~·~·· ·. :L'Y·- SECRET ..__... ' ~~~URITJ INFQRMA TION~ ~--~.! .,._/ : HEADQUARTERS 38th Intantry Reg:lment APO 248 15 J~e 1953 SUBJl!XlT: CCIIIID.a.Di Report .for May 1953 THRUa Chief of .Army Field Forces Fort Monroe, Virginia TO: The Adjutant Genera]. Department of the Army' Washington 25, D. c. In compliance with paragraph 4 Special .Regulations 525-45-l Department of · the Amy, Washington 25, D. c., dated 24 March 1953 the following comani report is submitted: a. Section It Unit Activities. A.s the period opened, the 38th Intantey Regiment was continuing the develop.. ment ar.d improvement of defensive positions on LilE KAl6.AS. On 3 May 1953 tbe Regiment moved to a new reserve position at Yami-ri (CT48.312'7), Korea, where preparations were made to conduct a vigorous ani aggressive training progr8)11. The 2rrl Infantry Division comucted a commalrl post exercise on 21 May 1953 for all headquarters down to aiX1 including battalion. One (1) rifie platoon was attached to IX Corps for a security mission at IX Corps rear. During the period necessary reconnaissame ani planning were accaaplished for the formulation or IX Corps counterattack plans "Iboker I, II, fii and IV".
  • Catherine Mary White Foster's Eyewitness Account of the Battle of Gettysburg, with Background on the Foster Family Union Soldiers David A

    Catherine Mary White Foster's Eyewitness Account of the Battle of Gettysburg, with Background on the Foster Family Union Soldiers David A

    Volume 1 Article 5 1995 Catherine Mary White Foster's Eyewitness Account of the Battle of Gettysburg, with Background on the Foster Family Union Soldiers David A. Murdoch Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/ach Part of the Military History Commons, United States History Commons, and the Women's History Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Murdoch, David A. (1995) "Catherine Mary White Foster's Eyewitness Account of the Battle of Gettysburg, with Background on the Foster Family Union Soldiers," Adams County History: Vol. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/ach/vol1/iss1/5 This open access article is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Catherine Mary White Foster's Eyewitness Account of the Battle of Gettysburg, with Background on the Foster Family Union Soldiers Abstract Catherine Mary White Foster lived with her elderly parents in the red brick house on the northwest corner of Washington and High Streets in Gettysburg at the time of the battle, 1-3 July 1863. She was the only child of James White Foster and Catherine (nee Swope) Foster (a former resident of Lancaster county), who married on 11 May 1817 and settled in Gettysburg, Adams county, Pennsylvania. Her father, James White Foster, had served his country as a first lieutenant in the War of 1812. Her grandparents, James Foster and Catherine (nee White) Foster, had emigrated with her father and five older children from county Donegal, Ireland, in 1790, and settled near New Alexandria, Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania.
  • AFTERMATH PRESERVATION Thomas J

    AFTERMATH PRESERVATION Thomas J

    “ This advance was made in the face of the most tremendous fire of artillery I ever saw, and too much praise cannot be given my regiments for their steady, unwavering step. It was as if each man felt that the fate of the army was centered in himself...This was a wholesome lesson to the enemy, and taught them to know that it may be dangerous sometimes to press a retreating army.” —Maj. Gen. A.P. Hill in his report to Lt. Col. C.J. Faulkner MISSING OR KILLED WOUNDED CAPTURED FEDERAL Shepherdstown during the Civil War, seen from Ferry Hill in MD. Union soldiers in the dried bed of the C&O Canal on the Maryland Fitz John The bridge across the Potomac was burned in 1861. side of the Potomac River, Harpers Weekly, October 11, 1862. Porter 73 162 132 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. CONFEDERATE AFTERMATH PRESERVATION Thomas J. Jackson 49 257 4 Artillery boomed across the Potomac for two days, and though it The Battle of Shepherdstown has been recognized by the Civil was said several shells missed their mark and hit Shepherdstown, no War Sites Advisory Commission as one of the 384 principal battles civilians were injured. The town overflowed with the wounded from of the Civil War, one of five sites in Jefferson County, WV. A study South Mountain and Antietam. During the Maryland Campaign, conducted by the National Park Service determined that the core 114 Confederate soldiers lost their lives, many unknown. They are 510 acres of the battlefield could be included in Antietam National buried in Shepherdstown at Elmwood Cemetery.
  • 1 Buell, Augustus. “The Cannoneer.” Recollections of Service in the Army

    1 Buell, Augustus. “The Cannoneer.” Recollections of Service in the Army

    Buell, Augustus. “The Cannoneer.” Recollections of Service in the Army of the Potomac. Washington: National Tribune, 1890. 4th United States Artillery Regular artillery, history, Battery B, 11-16 Weapons, officers, organization, cannon, 17-23 Officers, 23-27 Camp layout, 27-28 Second Bull Run, 29-31 Antietam campaign, casualties, 31-43 McClellan, 41-42 Fredericksburg, artillery in the battle, casualties, 44-47 Characters in the battery, 48 Hooker, soldiers and generals, 49 Artillery organization, 51 Chancellorsville, 51-53 Amateur opera, 53-54 Artillery organization, 56-59 Demoralization, criticism of McClellan and Hooker, 60-61 March to Gettysburg, 61-64 Gettysburg, railroad cut, 64-100 Review of Gettysburg, numbers and losses, 101-118 Defends Meade on pursuit of Lee, 118, 122-23 Gettysburg after the battle, 120-21 Badly wounded horse, 121 Going over an old battlefield, Groveton, 124 Alcohol, 126 Young men in the battery, 126-28, 132 Foraging, fight, 128 Sutler wagon tips over, 128 Losses in the battery, 129 Raids on sutlers and rambunctious behavior, 131 Bristoe Station, 133 Scout, information about Confederate supplies, 134-35 Changes in artillery organization, 135-36 Winter quarters, On to Richmond editors, 137 Deserters, executions, 138-141 Hazing, 142 Army of the Potomac, veterans, 143 Fifth Corps, artillery, 143-52 West Point men, 148 Better discipline, Grant, 152-55 Crossing the Rapidan, veterans, spring campaign, 155-57 Overland campaign, 158ff Wilderness, 158-75 Spotsylvania Courthouse, 177-199 1 Sedgwick death, 184 Discipline,
  • VOL. XLIII, NO. 8 Michigan Regimental Round Table Newsletter—Page 1 August 2003

    VOL. XLIII, NO. 8 Michigan Regimental Round Table Newsletter—Page 1 August 2003

    VOL. XLIII, NO. 8 Michigan Regimental Round Table Newsletter—Page 1 August 2003 "It wasn't like a battle at all…it was more like Indian warfare," remembered John McClure, a young private in the 14th Indiana Infantry. "I hid behind a tree and looked out. Across the way…was a rebel aiming at me. I put my hat on a stick…and stuck it out from behind the tree-as bait. Then I saw him peep out of the thicket and I shot him. It was the first time I'd ever seen the man I'd killed, and it was an awful feeling." This deadly incident, on May 5, 1864, was only one of such commonplace bloody episodes that occurred in the bitter struggle known as the Wilderness. Beginning in 1864 North and South stood in weary stalemate. All of the Federal victories from the previous year, including Gettysburg and Vicksburg, had seriously weakened the Confederacy, but, it remained bowed, not broken. For the North to win the war, now starting its fourth year, the Confederate armies must be crushed. The South, conversely, had one final hope: stymie the North's plans and count upon a war-weary Northern home front to force the conflict to the peace table. Now in early May of 1864, the two most notable titans of the Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, were about to come face-to-face in a final showdown to determine the war's outcome. Grant, whose roller coaster career had nearly ended on several occasions, was given the revitalized rank of Lieutenant General by President Lincoln, and the amazingly difficult task of besting the Army of Northern Virginia, something his predecessors had found nigh impossible.
  • 89.1963.1 Iron Brigade Commander Wayne County Marker Text Review Report 2/16/2015

    89.1963.1 Iron Brigade Commander Wayne County Marker Text Review Report 2/16/2015

    89.1963.1 Iron Brigade Commander Wayne County Marker Text Review Report 2/16/2015 Marker Text One-quarter mile south of this marker is the home of General Solomon A. Meredith, Iron Brigade Commander at Gettysburg. Born in North Carolina, Meredith was an Indiana political leader and post-war Surveyor-General of Montana Territory. Report The Bureau placed this marker under review because its file lacked both primary and secondary documentation. IHB researchers were able to locate primary sources to support the claims made by the marker. The following report expands upon the marker points and addresses various omissions, including specifics about Meredith’s political service before and after the war. Solomon Meredith was born in Guilford County, North Carolina on May 29, 1810.1 By 1830, his family had relocated to Center Township, Wayne County, Indiana.2 Meredith soon turned to farming and raising stock; in the 1850s, he purchased property near Cambridge City, which became known as Oakland Farm, where he grew crops and raised award-winning cattle.3 Meredith also embarked on a varied political career. He served as a member of the Wayne County Whig convention in 1839.4 During this period, Meredith became concerned with state internal improvements: in the early 1840s, he supported the development of the Whitewater Canal, which terminated in Cambridge City.5 Voters next chose Meredith as their representative to the Indiana House of Representatives in 1846 and they reelected him to that position in 1847 and 1848.6 From 1849-1853, Meredith served
  • James Longstreet and the Retreat from Gettysburg

    James Longstreet and the Retreat from Gettysburg

    “Such a night is seldom experienced…” James Longstreet and the Retreat from Gettysburg Karlton Smith, Gettysburg NMP After the repulse of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet’s Assault on July 3, 1863, Gen. Robert E. Lee, commanding the Army of Northern Virginia, knew that the only option left for him at Gettysburg was to try to disengage from his lines and return with his army to Virginia. Longstreet, commander of the army’s First Corps and Lee’s chief lieutenant, would play a significant role in this retrograde movement. As a preliminary to the general withdrawal, Longstreet decided to pull his troops back from the forward positions gained during the fighting on July 2. Lt. Col. G. Moxley Sorrel, Longstreet’s adjutant general, delivered the necessary orders to Maj. Gen. Lafayette McLaws, commanding one of Longstreet’s divisions. Sorrel offered to carry the order to Brig. Gen. Evander M. Law, commanding John B. Hood’s division, on McLaws’s right. McLaws raised objections to this order. He felt that his advanced position was important and “had been won after a deadly struggle; that the order was given no doubt because of [George] Pickett’s repulse, but as there was no pursuit there was no necessity of it.” Sorrel interrupted saying: “General, there is no discretion allowed, the order is for you to retire at once.” Gen. James Longstreet, C.S.A. (LOC) As McLaws’s forward line was withdrawing to Warfield and Seminary ridges, the Federal batteries on Little Round Top opened fire, “but by quickening the pace the aim was so disturbed that no damage was done.” McLaws’s line was followed by “clouds of skirmishers” from the Federal Army of the Potomac; however, after reinforcing his own skirmish line they were driven back from the Peach Orchard area.
  • R-456 Page 1 of 1 2016 No. R-456. Joint Resolution Supporting The

    R-456 Page 1 of 1 2016 No. R-456. Joint Resolution Supporting The

    R-456 Page 1 of 1 2016 No. R-456. Joint resolution supporting the posthumous awarding of the Congressional Medal of Honor to Civil War Brigadier General George Jerrison Stannard. (J.R.H.28) Offered by: Representatives Turner of Milton, Hubert of Milton, Johnson of South Hero, Krebs of South Hero, Devereux of Mount Holly, Branagan of Georgia, Jerman of Essex, and Troiano of Stannard Whereas, Civil War Brigadier General George Jerrison Stannard, a native of Georgia, Vermont, commanded the Second Vermont Brigade, and Whereas, the Second Vermont Brigade (Stannard’s Brigade), untested in battle, reached Gettysburg on July 1, 1863 at the end of the first day’s fighting, and Whereas, Stannard’s Brigade fought ably late on the battle’s second day, helping to stabilize the threatened Union line, and earning it a place at the front of the Union line on Cemetery Ridge, and Whereas, on the battle’s final day, in perhaps the most memorable Confederate maneuver of the Civil War that became known as Pickett’s Charge, the Confederate troops approached the Union line, but they suddenly shifted their direction northward, leaving no enemy troops in front of the Vermonters, and Whereas, General Stannard recognized this unexpected opportunity and ordered the Brigade’s 13th and 16th regiments to “change front forward on first company,” sending 900 Vermonters in a great wheeling motion to the front of the Union lines, and Whereas, Stannard’s men hit the exposed right flank of Pickett’s Charge in an attack the Confederates did not expect, inflicting hundreds of casualties, and Whereas, Major Abner Doubleday, commanding the Army of the Potomac’s I Corps, in which the Vermonters served, commented that General Stannard’s strategy helped to ensure, if not guarantee, the Union’s victory at Gettysburg, and Whereas, Confederate General Robert E.
  • Using the 5Ps Leadership Analysis to Examine the Battle of Antietam: an Explanation and Case Study

    Using the 5Ps Leadership Analysis to Examine the Battle of Antietam: an Explanation and Case Study

    Journal of Leadership Education Volume 11, Issue 1 – Winter 2012 Using the 5Ps Leadership Analysis to Examine the Battle of Antietam: An Explanation and Case Study Bradley Z. Hull, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Logistics Department of Management, Marketing, and Logistics John Carroll University University Heights, OH [email protected] Scott J. Allen, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Management Department of Management, Marketing, and Logistics John Carroll University University Heights, OH [email protected] Abstract The authors describe an exploratory analytical tool called The 5Ps Leadership Analysis (Personal Attributes, Position, Purpose, Practices/Processes, and Product) as a heuristic for better understanding the complexities of leadership. Using The 5Ps Leadership Analysis , the authors explore the leadership of General Robert E. Lee of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and General George B. McClellan of the Union Army of the Potomac—more specifically, the leadership of the two generals on September 17, 1862 during the Battle of Antietam. The paper concludes with suggestions for application in the classroom. Introduction This case study examines how two organizations compete and how two leaders can influence change and success given their resources. One organization is small and underfinanced with antiquated equipment. The other is large, well financed, and organized along traditional lines where each part of the organization operates autonomously and is coordinated by top levels of management. This type of confrontation between a small organization and a large competitor occurs often in American business. Two relevant examples might be Dell (in its early days) versus Compaq and Amazon.com (in its early days) versus Barnes and Noble or the now bankrupt Borders.
  • The Last Wilderness Pdf, Epub, Ebook

    The Last Wilderness Pdf, Epub, Ebook

    THE LAST WILDERNESS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Erin Hunter | 265 pages | 31 May 2012 | HarperCollins Publishers Inc | 9780060871338 | English | New York, NY, United States The Last Wilderness PDF Book He is a knowledgeable and generous guide to the unique flora and fauna of this beautiful corner of Scotland' - James Macdonald Lockhart, author of Raptor'. Top Stories. Though guide and porter services are often associated with epic international destinations, many domestic outfitters also offer these options. By using ThoughtCo, you accept our. Through his keen eyes we look again at the familiar with a sense of wondrous revelation' - Madeleine Bunting. Men on both sides stumbled into enemy camps and were made prisoners, and fires ignited by rifle bursts and exploding shells trapped and killed many of the wounded. My Life in Red and White. He has two daughters and lives in Brighton. Meade's Army of the Potomac. Muriel McComber is a year-old girl and the love of Richard's life. Burnside's corps was ordered to enter the gap between the turnpike and plank road to threaten the enemy rear. Ask Approved: 21 of the Best Reads of As Union troops rested, they were forced to spend the night in the Wilderness of Spotsylvania, a vast area of thick, second-growth forest that negated the Union advantage in manpower and artillery. Your local Waterstones may have stock of this item. The script identifies her as being around 50 years old. You can watch a rehearsal of this scene here. Neil Ansell Neil Ansell was an award-winning television journalist with the BBC and a long standing newspaper journalist.
  • Lincoln's Role in the Gettysburg Campaign

    Lincoln's Role in the Gettysburg Campaign

    LINCOLN'S ROLE IN THE GETTYSBURG CAMPAIGN By EDWIN B. CODDINGTON* MOST of you need not be reminded that the battle of Gettys- burg was fought on the first three days of July, 1863, just when Grant's siege of Vicksburg was coming to a successful con- clusion. On July 4. even as Lee's and Meade's men lay panting from their exertions on the slopes of Seminary and Cemetery Ridges, the defenders of the mighty fortress on the Mississippi were laying down their arms. Independence Day, 1863, was, for the Union, truly a Glorious Fourth. But the occurrence of these two great victories at almost the same time raised a question then which has persisted up to the present: If the triumph at Vicksburg was decisive, why was not the one at Gettysburg equally so? Lincoln maintained that it should have been, and this paper is concerned with the soundness of his supposition. The Gettysburg Campaign was the direct outcome of the battle of Chancellorsville, which took place the first week in May. There General Robert E. Lee won a victory which, according to the bookmaker's odds, should have belonged to Major General "Fight- ing Joe" Hooker, if only because Hooker's army outnumbered the Confederates two to one and was better equipped. The story of the Chancel'orsville Campaign is too long and complicated to be told here. It is enough to say that Hooker's initial moves sur- prised his opponent, General Lee, but when Lee refused to react to his strategy in the way he anticipated, Hooker lost his nerve and from then on did everything wrong.
  • The First Republican Army: the Army of Virginia and the Radicalization of the Civil War

    The First Republican Army: the Army of Virginia and the Radicalization of the Civil War

    Civil War Book Review Fall 2017 Article 14 The First Republican Army: The Army Of Virginia And The Radicalization Of The Civil War Zachery Fry Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr Recommended Citation Fry, Zachery (2017) "The First Republican Army: The Army Of Virginia And The Radicalization Of The Civil War," Civil War Book Review: Vol. 19 : Iss. 4 . DOI: 10.31390/cwbr.19.4.19 Available at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr/vol19/iss4/14 Fry: The First Republican Army: The Army Of Virginia And The Radicaliz Review Fry, Zachery Fall 2017 Matsui, John H. The First Republican Army: The Army of Virginia and the Radicalization of the Civil War. University of Virginia Press, $39.50 ISBN 9780813939278 John Pope, the Army of Virginia, and the Road to Hard War Civil War historians find the political motives behind Union squabbles in the Eastern Theater fascinating. Scholars and lay readers alike can count on a constant barrage of books on the high command of the Army of the Potomac, for instance, replete with well-worn accounts of backstabbing by George McClellan, Fitz John Porter, and Joseph Hooker. Over the past several years, however, a critical mass of innovative literature by young scholars such as Timothy Orr and Jonathan White has emerged to investigate the rich intersections of soldier ideology and command politics, adding to earlier pioneering work by historians such as John Hennessy. Instead of debating how many Union soldiers embraced emancipation, as scholars of the 1990s and early 2000s did, historians now want to know what that undeniable ideological divide meant for command and control.