DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 18 and 19

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 18 and 19 Chapters 18 & 19 – The Civil War -The end of the Mexican War and the acquisition of the Southwest reopened the debate over slavery in the West. The main question was whether or not the status of slavery in the The Compromise of 1850 territories should be decided by the federal government (supported by those who wished to limit slavery and the precedent for which had been provided through the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which banned slavery in the Northwest Territory), or through popular sovereignty, or the idea that the question of slavery should be left up to the people of that territory (supported by those who wished to see slavery expand). -With such massive population growth in California due to the Gold Rush of 1849, California was able to skip the territorial stage of development and apply directly for statehood. Pro- slavery politicians worried that if admitted as a free state, it would upset the balance of power between free and slave state, giving the North and anti-slavery advocates an unfair advantage in Congress. -In order to prevent a stalemate over California in Congress, Senator Henry Clay, known for his reputation as a negotiator, was able to find a compromise between the two sides of the issue with the Compromise of 1850, which had five main provisions, or features. 1) California would be admitted as a free state, 2) the status of slavery in the federal territories of New Mexico and Utah would be determined through popular sovereignty, 3) Texas would give up part of its territory to New Mexico in exchange for the federal government assuming some of its debts, 4) the slave trade, but not slavery itself, would be banned in Washington, DC, and 5) a new, stronger fugitive slave law would be passed. -The plan had many critics. Anti-slavery advocates demanded that California be admitted with no additional conditions. Pro-slavery advocates argued that the plan was inherently unfair to them, and that if their demands were not met, secession by Southern states may be the result. Moderates, or those in the middle, believed it was the best compromise possible and the most important thing was preserving the Union above all else. -Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Compromise of 1850 was the new Fugitive Slave Act, which was highly controversial for a number of reasons. Anyone caught actively helping escaped slaves, even in free states, could be prosecuted. Anyone with knowledge of an escaped slave and did not alert the authorities could be charged with a crime as well. It required states to use state, not federal, funds and resources to assist in the capture of escaped slaves, even in free states. In addition, captured slaves would be brought in front of special courts, the judges of which would be paid more for declaring a suspected fugitive a slave rather than a free man, which made the process inherently biased and unfair. -Also at this time, anti-slavery literature began to appear, such as the novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin by author Harriet Beecher Stowe. Through her characters and setting, Stowe describes the cruelties of slavery in a way that few had done before. The novel was shocking to the millions of people who had read the book, shattering illusions of Southern life. It outraged many in the South, because of its potential to harm the institution of slavery, and millions in the North because the cruelties of slavery were being exposed as never before. -Despite having purchased the land in 1803 from the French, there The Kansas-Nebraska Act were parts of the Louisiana Purchase that were still unorganized territory, and thus not legally open to settlement of any kind. Senator Stephen Douglas, of Illinois, also known as the Little Giant, wished to see the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, and have it travel through his home state in which the city of Chicago would be a major hub, or stop. He thought this would make his state wealthy, powerful, and a key stop for settlers and travelers headed west. But until the area known as Kansas and Nebraska was organized into federal territories, which must be accomplished by an act of Congress, no such railroad could be built. Douglas also hoped to one day be elected President, and being the driving force behind the railroad could help him achieve this. -Douglas knew he would need support from Southern and pro-slavery politicians to get any potential bill passed. He also knew that many Southerners wished to see the railroad go through the South. So, in order to gain their support, Douglas authored the Kansas-Nebraska Act, containing provisions attractive to Southern lawmakers. In this bill: 1) The remaining unorganized territories in the LA Purchase would be divided into Kansas and Nebraska, 2) popular sovereignty would decide the status of slavery in those territories, essentially removing the ban on slavery north of the Missouri Compromise line of 36*30’N. In exchange for this, Southern politicians agreed to support Douglas’ bill and drop demands that the railroad be built in the South. -Northerners were outraged, and many felt betrayed. Here was Douglas, a northern politician, willing to “sell out” to Southern pro- slavery lawmakers simply because he wanted to build a railroad. For many, this solidified their belief that there was a conspiracy afoot to spread slavery not just throughout the South and West, but also North and perhaps one day, slavery would be legal everywhere. -The Kansas-Nebraska Act passed Congress and was signed into law in 1854. Ironically, Douglas’ dream of having the railroad built through his home state would never be realized, and his political ambitions, including one day being elected President of the United States, were ruined. -Now that Kansas and Nebraska were open to settlement, both anti and pro slavery supporters would now “race” to the area in an effort to populate it first in efforts to create either free or slave states once the population reached high enough numbers. The effort to settle these areas would bring anti and pro slavery settlers into conflict with one another. -The Kansas-Nebraska act left the status of slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territories open to popular sovereignty. Territorial legislative elections were Bleeding Kansas scheduled to be held in March of 1855, and so both anti and pro slavery groups “raced” to settle Kansas to form a majority and achieve victory in the upcoming election. Whoever won the election would likely decide the status of slavery in Kansas for good. -This led to a number of pro-slavery “settlers” reportedly entering Kansas from Missouri to vote in territorial elections, and then return to Missouri. These people were labelled as “border ruffians” by those in the anti-slavery group, as they were committing voter fraud, and also used threats and scare tactics to intimidate the anti-slavery settlers and prevent them from voting. Thanks to these illegitimate votes provided by these “settlers”, Kansas elected a pro-slavery legislature to be based at Lecompton, Kansas. This legislature would then pass a series of laws favorable to the practice of slavery to help ensure Kansas would be the next slave state admitted to the Union. -However, the anti-slavery settlers refused to recognize the results of the territorial elections due to voter fraud on the part of the pro-slavery groups like the Missouri border ruffians. The anti-slavery settlers formed their own territorial legislature at Topeka, Kansas. Both the Lecompton and Topeka legislatures claimed to be the rightful and legitimate government of Kansas. Many of the pro-slavery settlers came to Kansas heavily armed, and those sympathetic to the anti-slavery groups bought and sent them weapons. With both sides armed to teeth, violence soon erupted. For instance, a pro-slavery posse of 700 men raided, looted, and burned Lawrence, Kansas while looking for anti-slavery settlers. -After the “sack” or destruction of Lawrence, settler and abolitionist John Brown claimed that God ordered him to take revenge on the pro-slavery settlers. Brown was from New England and believed slavery to be a sin. Brown, his sons, and several other men killed five pro-slavery settlers in what became known as the Pottawattamie Creek Massacre. Brown then fled Kansas, but it would not be the last time Brown would figure into the debate over slavery. After the massacre, Kansas fell into a state of civil war, in which over 200 settlers were killed. The press dubbed it “Bleeding Kansas”. Many felt it was a preview of things to come, and a new breed of militant abolitionist was born. -The violence wasn’t contained to Kansas. Fights even broke out in Congress as well, between anti and pro-slavery politicians. In one such incident, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was attacked while giving a speech called “The Crime of Kansas” in which he outlined the crimes of the pro-slavery groups in that territory, and managed to insult a fellow Senator named Andrew Butler from South Carolina. In revenge, Preston Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives and cousin to Butler, entered the Senate chamber and beat Sumner with his cane, breaking it. Dozens of Southern supporters throughout the South sent replacement canes to Brooks as gifts. -After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the events in Kansas, a Dred Scott v. Sanford new political party was formed. Created by members of already existing or failed parties like the Whig Party, Free-Soil Party, and even Democratic Party, the Republican Party wanted to stop the spread of slavery, but not necessarily to abolish slavery altogether.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Knight in Shining Armor Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the American Civil War
    The Knight in Shining Armor Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the American Civil War Kalon Tsang The lion of Little Round Top ducked as another shell screamed by overhead, fired by one of the Confederate batteries nestled atop an advanced artillery position. At a distance, he saw his Corps Commander, General Warren riding up towards him. Euphemistically stating that the artillery fire was “very annoying,” Warren instructed Colonel Chamberlain to move forward and carry the position, so that the Union advance could proceed peacefully. Directing some of the men in his 1st Brigade to provide ample distraction, Chamberlain led the bulk of his force across a railroad and flanked the position, forcing the Rebels to retreat to the safety of their fortifications atop Rives Salient. No sooner had Chamberlain and his men seized the forward artillery post than a hailstorm of shells came raining down on their new position, this time from the big guns behind the enemy’s main entrenchments. Ushering his men behind the cover of the crest, Chamberlain calmly prepared his men for a possible Confederate counterattack, hoping the rest of the V. Corps would march up in support of his brigade. The Day was June 18th, 1864.1 Out of the Virginia dust galloped a lone horse bearing a messenger with an order from General of the Army of the Potomac, George Meade, to press the attack and take Rives Salient with the 1st Brigade, alone. Chamberlain heard the orders with disbelieving ears – how could the 1st Brigade take on the strongly fortified Confederate position across the ravine by itself? Kneeling down, he scribbled frantically, “I have here a veteran brigade of six regiments, and my responsibility for the welfare of these men seem to warrant me in wishing assurance that no mistake in communicating orders compels me to sacrifice them.” Sure that an assault on the 1 Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, "Bayonet! Forward" My Civil War Reminiscences, (Gettysburg, Pa: Stan Clark Military Books, 1994), 47.
    [Show full text]
  • Lee's Mistake: Learning from the Decision to Order Pickett's Charge
    Defense Number 54 A publication of the Center for Technology and National Security Policy A U G U S T 2 0 0 6 National Defense University Horizons Lee’s Mistake: Learning from the Decision to Order Pickett’s Charge by David C. Gompert and Richard L. Kugler I think that this is the strongest position on which Robert E. Lee is widely and rightly regarded as one of the fin- to fight a battle that I ever saw. est generals in history. Yet on July 3, 1863, the third day of the Battle — Winfield Scott Hancock, surveying his position of Gettysburg, he ordered a frontal assault across a mile of open field on Cemetery Ridge against the strong center of the Union line. The stunning Confederate It is my opinion that no 15,000 men ever arrayed defeat that ensued produced heavier casualties than Lee’s army could for battle can take that position. afford and abruptly ended its invasion of the North. That the Army of Northern Virginia could fight on for 2 more years after Gettysburg was — James Longstreet to Robert E. Lee, surveying a tribute to Lee’s abilities.1 While Lee’s disciples defended his decision Hancock’s position vigorously—they blamed James Longstreet, the corps commander in This is a desperate thing to attempt. charge of the attack, for desultory execution—historians and military — Richard Garnett to Lewis Armistead, analysts agree that it was a mistake. For whatever reason, Lee was reti- prior to Pickett’s Charge cent about his reasoning at the time and later.2 The fault is entirely my own.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Sailor's Creek
    THE BATTLE OF SAILOR’S CREEK: A STUDY IN LEADERSHIP A Thesis by CLOYD ALLEN SMITH JR. Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS December 2005 Major Subject: History THE BATTLE OF SAILOR’S CREEK: A STUDY IN LEADERSHIP A Thesis by CLOYD ALLEN SMITH JR. Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Approved by: Chair of Committee, Joseph Dawson Committee Members, James Bradford Joseph Cerami Head of Department, Walter L. Buenger December 2005 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT The Battle of Sailor’s Creek: A Study in Leadership. (December 2005) Cloyd Allen Smith Jr., B.A., Slippery Rock University Chair: Dr. Joseph Dawson The Battle of Sailor’s Creek, 6 April 1865, has been overshadowed by Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House several days later, yet it is an example of the Union military war machine reaching its apex of war making ability during the Civil War. Through Ulysses S. Grant’s leadership and that of his subordinates, the Union armies, specifically that of the Army of the Potomac, had been transformed into a highly motivated, organized and responsive tool of war, led by confident leaders who understood their commander’s intent and were able to execute on that intent with audacious initiative in the absence of further orders. After Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia escaped from Petersburg and Richmond on 2 April 1865, Grant’s forces chased after Lee’s forces with the intent of destroying the mighty and once feared iv protector of the Confederate States in the hopes of bringing a swift end to the long war.
    [Show full text]
  • George Pickett
    George Pickett This article is about the American Confederate general. 2 Early military career For the British physicist, see George Pickett (physicist). Pickett was commissioned a brevet second lieutenant in George Edward Pickett (January 16,[1] 1825 – July 30, the U.S. 8th Infantry Regiment. He soon gained na- 1875) was a career United States Army officer who be- tional recognition in the Mexican-American War when came a major general in the Confederate States Army he carried the American colors over the parapet during during the American Civil War. He is best remembered the Battle of Chapultepec. Wounded at the base of the for his participation in the futile and bloody assault at wall, Pickett’s friend and colleague Lt. James Longstreet the Battle of Gettysburg that bears his name, Pickett’s handed him the colors. Pickett carried the flag over the Charge. wall and fought his way to the roof of the palace, unfurl- ing it over the fortress and announcing its surrender. He received a brevet promotion to captain following this ac- 1 Early life tion. In 1849, while serving on the Texas frontier after the war, he was promoted to first lieutenant and then to captain in Pickett was born in Richmond, Virginia, the first of the [3] eight children of Robert and Mary Pickett,[2] a promi- the 9th U.S. Infantry in 1855. In 1853, Pickett chal- nent family of Old Virginia of English origins, and one lenged a fellow junior officer, future Union general and of the “first families” of Virginia. He was the cousin opposing Civil War commander Winfield Scott Hancock, of future Confederate general Henry Heth.[3] He went to a duel; (they had met only briefly when Hancock was to Springfield, Illinois, to study law, but at the age of 17 passing through Texas).
    [Show full text]
  • PICKETT's CHARGE Gettysburg National Military Park STUDENT
    PICKETT’S CHARGE I Gettysburg National Military Park STUDENT PROGRAM U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Pickett's Charge A Student Education Program at Gettysburg National Military Park TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 How To Use This Booklet ••••..••.••...• 3 Section 2 Program Overview . • . • . • . • . 4 Section 3 Field Trip Day Procedures • • • . • • • . 5 Section 4 Essential Background and Activities . 6 A Causes ofthe American Civil War ••..•...... 7 ft The Battle ofGettysburg . • • • . • . 10 A Pi.ckett's Charge Vocabulary •............... 14 A Name Tags ••.. ... ...........• . •......... 15 A Election ofOfficers and Insignia ......•..•.. 15 A Assignm~t ofSoldier Identity •..••......... 17 A Flag-Making ............................. 22 ft Drill of the Company (Your Class) ........... 23 Section 5 Additional Background and Activities .••.. 24 Structure ofthe Confederate Army .......... 25 Confederate Leaders at Gettysburg ••.•••.••• 27 History of the 28th Virginia Regiment ....... 30 History of the 57th Virginia Regiment . .. .... 32 Infantry Soldier Equipment ................ 34 Civil War Weaponry . · · · · · · 35 Pre-Vtsit Discussion Questions . • . 37 11:me Line . 38 ... Section 6 B us A ct1vities ........................• 39 Soldier Pastimes . 39 Pickett's Charge Matching . ••.......•....... 43 Pickett's Charge Matching - Answer Key . 44 •• A .•. Section 7 P ost-V 1s1t ctivities .................... 45 Post-Visit Activity Ideas . • . • . • . • . 45 After Pickett's Charge . • • • • . • . 46 Key: ft = Essential Preparation for Trip 2 Section 1 How to Use This Booklet Your students will gain the most benefit from this program if they are prepared for their visit. The preparatory information and activities in this booklet are necessary because .. • students retain the most information when they are pre­ pared for the field trip, knowing what to expect, what is expected of them, and with some base of knowledge upon which the program ranger can build.
    [Show full text]
  • Disregarded Hero of the Battle of Gettysburg
    Southern New Hampshire University Dan Sickles: Disregarded Hero of The Battle of Gettysburg A Capstone Project Submitted to the College of Online and Continuing Education in Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Arts in History By James Robert Gray Sr. Athens, Georgia July, 2018 Copyright © 2018 by James Robert Gray Sr. All Rights Reserved ii Student: James Robert Gray Sr. I certify that this student has met the requirements for formatting the capstone project and that this project is suitable for preservation in the University Archive. July 16, 2018 __________________________________________ _______________ Southern New Hampshire University Date College of Online and Continuing Education iii Abstract Dan Sickles has been regarded by many historians as a political general who was a buffoon and led his troops into harm’s way at Gettysburg for personal glory. This paper examines Sickles’ early personal history, why that history has led historians to examine Sickles in a critical fashion with a historical lens, and why Sickles has been disregarded as the true hero of Gettysburg. Sickles was a lover of women causing him to perhaps have an affair with his mother-in- law, visit prostitutes, introduce one prostitute to the Queen of England, and ultimate to murder his wife’s lover in a rage that allowed him to be acquitted on an insanity defense. Sickles entered the Civil War looking to redeem his reputation and develop a military hero role for himself. Gettysburg would allow him the opportunity for that role, but events and his own future behaviors would prevent historians to view him in the role of hero.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Leadership and Mexican War Experience
    Civil War Book Review Winter 2008 Article 10 Civil War Leadership and Mexican War Experience Richard Bruce Winders Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr Recommended Citation Winders, Richard Bruce (2008) "Civil War Leadership and Mexican War Experience," Civil War Book Review: Vol. 10 : Iss. 1 . Available at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr/vol10/iss1/10 Winders: Civil War Leadership and Mexican War Experience Review Winders, Richard Bruce Winter 2008 Dougherty, Kevin Civil War Leadership and Mexican War Experience. University Press of Mississippi, $50.00 hardcover ISBN 9781578069682 The Proving Ground for Civil War Leaders Historians have wondered what effect the Mexican War may have had on participants who later went on to lead the great armies of the Civil War. Kevin Doughertyù1983 West Point graduate, former army officer, and history instructor at the University of Southern Mississippiùis the first author to explore the connection in a book length treatment. He has produced a volume that some will find superficial and others will find groundbreaking. In a sense, Civil War Leadership and Mexican War Experience is both. The superficial characterization stems from the fact that the bulk of Dougherty's research comes from his mining secondary sources for accounts of Civil War generals' service in Mexico. These accounts were paired with events from the Civil War to demonstrate the existence of a connection with their respective past experiences in Mexico. These vignettes, presented as brief, concise nuggets of data that read like military briefing documents, comprise the body of the book. Readers new to Civil War literature will find the information new and exciting.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Gdg Muster Schedule
    2014 GDG MUSTER SCHEDULE FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2014 12:00 P.M. Jack Kelly “Take That Position and Hold it Any Cost' - The 16th Maine on July 1st" The regiment chosen to hold off two Confederate divisions, the 16th Maine was the “Forlorn Hope of the First Corps”. The tour will start on Oak Ridge and end at the railroad cut desecrated by Gettysburg College in 1990. LOCATION: Meet at the observation tower on Oak/Seminary Ridge on Doubleday Avenue 3:00 P.M. John Rudy "Gettysburg in 1864 - Remembering a Battle" With the focus on 1864 John will explain how the aftermath of battle effected Gettysburg’s civilian’s, long-term. LOCATION: Meet at Pennsylvania Hall 5:30 P.M. Cocktail Hour & Registration LOCATION: 1863 Inn of Gettysburg 516 Baltimore Street 6:00 P.M. State of the Park Address 6:30 P.M. George Franks “The Battle of Falling Waters” Many historians agree that the Gettysburg campaign ended with the Battle of Falling Waters. Although not the climactic battle that Lincoln had hoped for, it remains a story of miscalculation, bravery, larger than life personalities, tragedy and cover up. George Franks, through extensive use of first-hand accounts, detailed maps and period drawings, breathes life into the little remembered, yet crucial, end to the Gettysburg Campaign. 8:15 P.M. Italian Dinner - Optional Hosted by Sal Prezioso LOCATION: Mama Venturas - 13 Chambersburg Street Contact Sal for Reservations: [email protected] SATURDAY, JUNE 7, 2014 8:30 A.M. Chuck Teague The Gap on Cemetery Ridge: “How What Was a Strong Union Position Was Penetrated" Since the demolishment of the Cyclorama Center, this part of the action is now more understandable, but rarely interpreted.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle of Gettysburg Day 2 Reading Comprehension Name: ______
    Battle of Gettysburg Day 2 Reading Comprehension Name: _________________________ Read the passage and answer the questions. The Fishhook During the night of July 1st, most of the remaining Union and Confederate forces arrived in Gettysburg. The Union army was able to establish a strong line in the shape of a fishhook running over two miles from Cemetery Hill, along Cemetery Ridge and terminating at Culp's Hill. Confederate lines ran the length of Seminary Ridge, through the town of Gettysburg and terminated at a location opposite of Culp's Hill. In all, Confederate lines stretched for more than five miles. The stage was set for a massive battle. Missing Intelligence Without intelligence from J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry, however, Lee could not be certain of the exact positioning of Union forces, thus, his battle strategy for the second day of Gettysburg was somewhat flawed. Lee planned to launch a series of successive attacks with Longstreet's Corps on the Union left flank. The series of attacks and the diagonal formation of the attackers, would, theoretically, prevent the shifting of Union troops to reinforce the left flank. Meanwhile, other divisions would attack Union positions at Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill. Lee did not know, however, that Union Major General Daniel Sickels and his troops were positioned in between Confederate forces and the Union left flank. Attacks on Devil's Den and Little Round Top On the sweltering afternoon of July 2nd, General Longstreet's soldiers engaged Sickels' III Union Corps, driving them back and forcing Union Commander Meade to send 20,000 reinforcements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Transmutation of Lee's Plan at Gettysburg
    FROM DISASTER TO BRILLIANCE: THE TRANSMUTATION OF LEE’S PLAN AT GETTYSBURG John D. Wedo and Terrence L. Salada It is fitting to start by describing a battle in the American Civil War (ACW) in which the defender stayed behind defenses on elevated ground and waited for the opposing army to attack. When the attack began, it was repelled repeatedly at great loss. The defender maintained a defensive stance throughout the battle even when the attacking army was defeated before him. The defeated general collected his army and departed with no interference or attempted interference from the defender. The victorious general is lauded for his good sense in maintaining his position, whereas the defeated general is derided for attacking such a formidable position. The best example of such a tactical disaster was Fredericksburg, Virginia, fought on December 17, 1862, a Confederate victory. Except for the last sentence, it could also describe Gettysburg. But why are the historical opinions of the generals different for Gettysburg? Professor Warren W. Hassler, Jr., expressed the same thought: “There is probably no other battle," writes General Francis A. Walker, "of which men are so prone to think and speak without a conscious reference to the commanding general of the victorious party, as they are regarding Gettysburg.” Why, it might be asked, does this curious phenomenon exist regarding the commander of the triumphant Union Army of the Potomac, Major General George Gordon Meade?1 The measure of the battle is statistical, and the numbers should speak for themselves, but often do not register. On July 1, 2, and 3, 1863, the Army of Northern Virginia of General Robert E.
    [Show full text]
  • Album Portrays Leading Confederate Generals in Image and Anecdote
    Civil War Book Review Winter 2001 Article 26 The Picture Of Confederate Gray: Album Portrays Leading Confederate Generals In Image And Anecdote Wilbur E. Meneray Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr Recommended Citation Meneray, Wilbur E. (2001) "The Picture Of Confederate Gray: Album Portrays Leading Confederate Generals In Image And Anecdote," Civil War Book Review: Vol. 3 : Iss. 1 . Available at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr/vol3/iss1/26 Meneray: The Picture Of Confederate Gray: Album Portrays Leading Confedera Review THE PICTURE OF CONFEDERATE GRAY Album portrays leading Confederate generals in image and anecdote Meneray, Wilbur E. Winter 2001 Cantor, George Confederate Generals: Life Portraits. Taylor Publishing Co. (TX), 2000-09-01. ISBN 878331794 George Cantor twice refers to Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg: once as "one of the great feats of valor in all of American warfare," and later as "a display of courage rarely equaled in the history of warfare." The author himself displays courage in selecting only 16 Confederate generals to highlight in his new work, Confederate Generals: Life Portraits. Civil War historians and buffs will surely have favorites among the 425 men listed in Ezra T. Warner's Generals in Gray that Cantor has omitted. He divides the chosen 16 into five groups: "The Legends" are Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Joseph Johnston, and James Longstreet; "The Cavalrymen" comprise Jeb Stuart, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and John Hunt Mor-gan; "The Western Commanders" are Albert Sidney Johnston, John Bell Hood, and Patrick Cleburne; and "The Difficult Men" are Jubal Early, Braxton Bragg, and Robert Toombs.
    [Show full text]