After reading the article "Why The North Won and The South Lost", I kind of disagree with the way that the Union generals were ranked in order of contribution to the war effort. I think that William T. Sherman should have been ranked number 5 and Phillip Sheridan ranked number 4. The article even said that during the first three years of the war, Sherman's contribution to the Union was very minor and negative and he didn't even achieve success until the Atlanta Campaign in 1864, where he only directed because he was tight with Grant. Also, he had never won an offensive battle during his career.
Unlike Sherman, Phillip Sheridan's contributions to the Union victory in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley when he demolished Lieutenant General Jubal Early's army and at Five Forks, Virginia where he seized a vital road junction that compelled Lee to evacuate Richmond and begin what ended with his surrender at Appomattox.
So, what do you think? Is Sheridan better than Sherman? Is Sherman all hype?
-Brittany
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Monday, May 15, 2006
Do you have any bat guano left? I just shot my last load.
Hello everyone,
I found an interesting article about the importance of bats in the civil war. There feces would be used to make gunpowder.
"Most folks don’t know it, but this Greenbrier Countyhole in the ground had something absolutely vital for the Confederate prosecution of the Civil War. Bat poop. Locals knew as far back as the American Revolution that Organ Cave had a lot of bats. And lots of bats mean lots of nitrates in the soil. And nitrates in the soil mean saltpeter, and saltpeter means gunpowder."
I thought this followed our class's obsession with the digestive system.
Happy reading,
http://sundaygazettemail.com/section/News/Wild%20&%20Wonderful/2006051314?pt=0
Alex
Why the North Won and the South Lost by Albert Castel
You've been given the article by Mr. Castel. I'd like you to answer the following questions:
1. Summarize some of the earliest reasons that historians stated why the North won and the Confederacy lost;
2. Summarize the three points that James McPherson says where the CSA came very close to winning despite the North's superiority;
3. List with a summary of each of the five Union generals who made the biggest contributions to the war effort. Do you agree with the rankings? Why or why not?
Please complete this as a comment for this blog. If you can't finish it in class, finish it before class on Wed. If you get done early, work on making comments on past blogs that you have missed. Thanks.
Mr. W.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Mike on Gone with the Wind
When I start watching Gone with the Wind, and believe me it’s hard to watch, I find myself watching a biased, historically inaccurate film portraying the Civil War from a Southern perspective. When I see black soldiers from the south telling the main character Scarlett that she doesn’t have to worry because they’re going to fight the Yankees, I can’t help but smile from the irony and historical inaccuracies. The film portrays slaves and southern whites living in a symbiotic relationship and it’s the damn Yankees that have come and spoiled it. It’s the Yankees' fault that the Civil War has come to fruition and the Yankees should have just left the Confederacy alone because they didn’t do anything wrong. The movie fails to portray the true horrifying aspects of being a slave and that if you were an abled bodied slave, you would have run away long before Sherman’s army had gotten to Atlanta. I’m amazed by the ignorance that existed at the time the film and book were made, and I hope people look at the film as being fiction and historically false.
MIKE
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Is it Stonewall's fault that the Confederacy lost the war?
Is Jackson's death responsible for the C-Feds to lose the war?
For some reason whenever we are reading or watching a movie I always find myself rooting for the C-feds. When Jackson was shot I knew it was all over for them and it broke my heart.
Jackson’s unorthodox attacks was always keeping the union on their feet and always guessing what they were going to do next. Come Gettysburg’s, incompetent generals were now in Jackson’s position and didn’t know what to do. Gettysburg was disastrous for the C-fed’s and was a major set back for them.
Personally I do not think that Jackson’s death had, in any way, contributed to the loss at Gettysburg. Although Jackson is considered one of the greatest generals in the history of the United States, he did have many blunders. In the 7 days battle, it was noted that he was shaking and unorganized during the battle. Jackson’s replacement were not up to par to where he was and was also Lee’s right hand man. Lee had to work with generals other than Jackson’s and that also threw him off. Although Jackson was good and won a couple battles for the south, the Union was on such a rampage and had so much steam that it wasn’t much longer until the south could not go any farther.
Amy
For some reason whenever we are reading or watching a movie I always find myself rooting for the C-feds. When Jackson was shot I knew it was all over for them and it broke my heart.
Jackson’s unorthodox attacks was always keeping the union on their feet and always guessing what they were going to do next. Come Gettysburg’s, incompetent generals were now in Jackson’s position and didn’t know what to do. Gettysburg was disastrous for the C-fed’s and was a major set back for them.
Personally I do not think that Jackson’s death had, in any way, contributed to the loss at Gettysburg. Although Jackson is considered one of the greatest generals in the history of the United States, he did have many blunders. In the 7 days battle, it was noted that he was shaking and unorganized during the battle. Jackson’s replacement were not up to par to where he was and was also Lee’s right hand man. Lee had to work with generals other than Jackson’s and that also threw him off. Although Jackson was good and won a couple battles for the south, the Union was on such a rampage and had so much steam that it wasn’t much longer until the south could not go any farther.
Amy
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Kate on Women in the CW
Women in the Civil War played pivotal roles. Women who wanted to be soldiers found it very easy to join the military. They would reinvent themselves as men. The women who passed as men prior to the war were largely motivated to adopt male identies because of their legal, social, and economic status. The women who were living as men before the war were seeking economic opportunities and social privileges that were untainable. They were able to take male power, and male independence.
I think that this shows the devotion the women had for their country. They were willing to do whatever it took to defend their nation. For some women, she would do nothing less than being a soldier. Some of the more daring women served as local scouts and spies. Thousands of women aided the soldier by contributing clothing and supplies. Some women actually asked permission to join in the conflict. Some women soldiers had a hard time enlisting. Every single women in the army was a willing volunteer. Women joined the army for the same reasons the males did: to be with loved ones, to get away from home, for the bounties and the pay, and because they were patriotic. Some women disguised themselves as a man and enlisted for a way to escape social restrictions placed on women.
I think many women took advantage of this. Not only would they be defending their nation, they would be able to stay with their husbands, brothers, sweethearts, whomever. A small number of woman used the war to escape from prostitution. For poor, working-class, and farm women, pay was important to sign up. Regardless of background, many women enjoyed the adventure and freedom of being away from home. Regardless of women's initial motivation, once they became members, they had to remain there. I think that puts women into a difficult role, but it was a position that they put themselves into.
Kate
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Minus Stonewall after Chancellorsville
I am writing my blog about Stonewall's death. We recently read the article "Minus Stonewall" and this article really got me thinking. For the paragraph we had to write on the back, I really thought about the role Stonewall played and how his death impacted the war. I believe that Stonewall wouldn't have defeated the Union and won the war for the rebels, but he has a great general and definitely a symbol of the rebellion. His loss is more of a moral victory rather than a millitaristic loss. His death spurred hope into the Union and set fear and loss of hope into the South. The team of Lee and Stonewall wouldn't be the same either. With Stonewall around I think the war would have dragged out longer, but would have had the same outcome.
Jeff
Jeff
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Bashar on Jubilee
Margaret Walker wrote Jubilee and I think it’s a pretty good book. The segment from the last quiz we took was interesting. When Marster Dutton first showed signs of gangrene I was a little disappointed. Up until that point, I thought Marster Dutton was a pretty nice guy, for a southern plantation owner in the antebellum period. But they way he died exposed him as an evil coward. He hated Abe Lincoln and died with too much pride. He yelled at Vyry for no reason saying “I ain’t dead yet, so you cant be free.” He was a liar and a coward just like any other plantation owner. The book took a strange turn of events from chapters 24-29. It was strange because Vyry had hardly been mentioned in those chapters. It mainly focused on the events during 1862 when the Confederacy was actually winning in the east mainly thanks to the South’s General superiority. It was also nice to see the way Jim, brother Zeke, and Randall Ware met up in the North. I was glad to see brother Zeke die knowing that their Moses had finally arrived. It was also nice to see things work out for Randall Ware when he got the opportunity to do what he loved best, being a blacksmith and helping the Union army.
Bashar
Editor's note: Here are a few websites for Margaret Walker and Jubilee.
http://www.shs.starkville.k12.ms.us/mswm/MSWritersAndMusicians/writers/Walker.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)