Most critical year of the War

[Albany Rifles]

Shek...got it.

Excellent points.

Hope all is well with you and your family. And I understand about busy...we just started fielding a new system which has taken 18 years to get up an running. After 3 failures we finally got it to work.

So in the coming years I'll be coming to a post, camp or station near you!

[Minskaya]

Grant's victories at Forts Henry/Donelson in February 1862 saved him from being cashiered from the military on formal charges of scandalous drunkenness filed by the politically connected river tycoon William J. Kountz.

Taking advantage of this reprieve, Grant's western campaigns from spring of 1862 to autumn of 1863 sealed the fate of the Confederacy. Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga were critical engagements. The Confederacy was split at the Mississippi River. This in turn spawned Sherman's violent and fiery march to the sea which effectively quartered the Stars and Bars. No one knew it yet, but Grant had already defeated Lee by the time he went east to grapple with the Virginian.

One of the most interesting aspects of the ACW to me is the demographics of Union/Confederate military leadership and how it came to be. Far more prevalent on the southern side, military commissions were obtained primarily due to familial wealth, power, and political connections. It is highly doubtful to me that a sod-of-the-earth whiskey-lover such as Ulysses S. Grant either could have or would have ascended to a high-command position in the CSA. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but of the 25 men who would become Confederate LG or higher, only three were non-West Point aristocrat's (Nathan Forrest, Richard Taylor, Wade Hampton) .

[Chogy]

Minskaya, the American Civil War is almost an obsession in the USA. The battles have been analyzed down to where individual foot soldiers were located at a given time. But I find it fascinating that it is studied at all outside the USA.

What makes it interesting is its location in the military/industrial time line. It took place at a critical juncture in human history.

- Industry was moving into a mass production model rather than a one-at-a-time handcrafting of individual components.
- Napoleonic war was giving way to trenches, heavy siege weapons, presaging later wars like WW1, where the defender ruled the field and offensive casualties were horrendous.
- Breech-loading and repeating weapons were becoming more common towards the end, like the Spencer and Henry rifles. Breech-loading Sharps rifles were superb weapons
- Naval battle saw the diminishment of sail and wood, and the introduction of steam and ironclads

These factors and many others presaged the extreme casualty counts that the world would see in the upcoming century.

[Albany Rifles]

One of the most interesting aspects of the ACW to me is the demographics of Union/Confederate military leadership and how it came to be. Far more prevalent on the southern side, military commissions were obtained primarily due to familial wealth, power, and political connections. It is highly doubtful to me that a sod-of-the-earth whiskey-lover such as Ulysses S. Grant either could have or would have ascended to a high-command position in the CSA. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but of the 25 men who would become Confederate LG or higher, only three were non-West Point aristocrat's (Nathan Forrest, Richard Taylor, Wade Hampton).

Errrr, not so much. Political patronage was alive and well in the Union as well as the Confederate armies. Quite a number of generals on both sides graduated from either USMA or from state military academies, especially West Point. Jefferson Davis valued either a West Point education or service in the Mexican War as a requirement to hold a generals commission....because of the large number of southern states which provided volunteers for the war the new Confederacy had a large pool of veterans who were West Pointers as well as quite a number who were not. So why was a West Point education seemingly more important in the Old South than in the North? Well, mostly because a) the education was free, b) the number of slots allotted was the same whether you had a huge population or small because you had 2 senators and finally c) there were many more opportunities to get a college education in the northern states than in the southern during the ante bellum period.

As a rule, the Southern states also took the militia requirements much more seriously. Why? In a word, slaves. Slave revolt was always a fear in a region where slave populations often outnumbered the white population. As a result the southern militias tended to be better organized and practiced regularly. In the North the seriousness of how you took militia duty often depended on how close you were to hostile Native Americans. By the 1850s the Massachusetts Militia was a glorified drinking society.

As for a West Point education…how many senior Union commanders were non-West Pointers? Ben Butler, Black Jack Logan (though he served in the Mexican War as a 1st Lieutenant in the 1st Illinois), John McClernand (though he got sacked), James Blunt in Kansas, Nathaniel Banks and John Fremont come to mind. Of the group Logan held a key corps position in the Atlanta Campaign, Butler had to be kept in place because of his strong political ties, Banks operated in secondary areas, McClernand was discarded like used tissue paper and Blunt and Fremont operated in a tertiary combat zone.

If you look at the field army and corps commanders, and many of the division commanders of the AOP, the AOC & AOT you will see a LOT of West Pointers. They may not have been careerists but you had to pass that requirement for senior leadership. Now there were quite a number of political generals in both armies but they tended to be brigadier generals or be in non-key divisions. And let’s not forget it was Senator John Sherman (William T. Sherman’s step-brother) who got an obscure colonel of volunteers commanding the 21st Illinois Infantry Regiment his brigadier general’s strap….that colonel was named U.S. “Sam” Grant.

[Minskaya]

Albany Rifles ~ Thank you kindly for the detailed explanation. With more potential for violence in the south, it makes perfect sense that southerners would be better prepared for any impending violence.

If I am not mistaken sir, there are still private military academies in the southern states today no?

[Albany Rifles]

If I am not mistaken sir, there are still private military academies in the southern states today no?

Minskaya,

There are still several junior military academies spread throughout the US....those are mostly meant as college prep schools within the construct of a military program. They are not formally affialited with any branch of the service other than the standard affilaition within a services' JROTC

Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the college level the most notable military schools in the US are The Citadel in SC and Vriginia Military Institute. Both are public universities where the corps of cadets live in a total military setting, 24/7. In addition there are four state schools, Virginia Tech, Texas A&M, North Georgia University and Norwich University in Vermont which have a large corps of cadets who exist within a larger student body. The casts wear uniforms, etc, but attend classes with regular students. They do tend to segregate into certain dormitories and dining halls. All are Coed and offer ROTC programs from all 4 services.

Within the larger education system is ROTC sponsored at a lot of private and state universities and colleges. There cadets are regular students most of the time and a few hours a week are in unifrom performing military functions....that's what I did.

At the height of the Cold War the majority of the officers for the US military came from the ROTC program. Today its about 35%.

[Minskaya]

At the college level the most notable military schools in the US are The Citadel in SC and Vriginia Military Institute. Both are public universities where the corps of cadets live in a total military setting, 24/7.

Yes. Those are the two I was thinking of. Very good schools.

At the height of the Cold War the majority of the officers for the US military came from the ROTC program. Today its about 35%.

In Israel there is the Talpiot program. The IDF looks at the test scores of graduating high school seniors. To the best and brightest, it offers to pay for a college education in which their military service will commence upon graduation. They are then commissioned as Talpiot officers and are charged with going anywhere within the IDF where they can suggest/develop/implement advancements in military methodology and/or materials.

[S2]

Minskaya Reply

"...To the best and brightest, it offers to pay for a college education in which their military service will commence upon graduation..."

What term of service obligation is initially incurred for this education? Do these young men/women partake in military training while attending college?

"...They are then commissioned as Talpiot officers and are charged with going anywhere within the IDF where they can suggest/develop/implement advancements in military methodology and/or materials."

Virtually all newly-commissioned officers in the U.S. armed forces are considered novitiates whom require considerable augmented training before making meaningful service-wide contributions. Even our best and brightest. Not to say that the military doesn't begin seeing a return on their investment nearly immediately but responsibility corresponds closely to experience and formalized training.

The cultural transition from college to the military, alone, is too often a daunting hurdle even with exposure which might come from ROTC Advanced Camp, Airborne School or Ranger School.

My apology for digressing. Once again, another excellent civil war discussion.

[Albany Rifles]

Virtually all newly-commissioned officers in the U.S. armed forces are considered novitiates whom require considerable augmented training before making meaningful service-wide contributions. Even our best and brightest.

What The Dude is saying is that he and I along with all of the second lieutenants in our proud history were not worth a warm bucket of spit until our NCOs got hold of us and poured/pounded soem reality into us. At that point we were considered able to be seen in public without embarassing ourselves!

Let's keep the ACW rolling.

I have a few thoughts I will post later and I really have some ideas on War of 1812 I went to get out there.

[Minskaya]

Do these young men/women partake in military training while attending college?

Yes.

What The Dude is saying is that he and I along with all of the second lieutenants in our proud history were not worth a warm bucket of spit until our NCOs got hold of us and poured/pounded soem reality into us. At that point we were considered able to be seen in public without embarassing ourselves!

My apologies for not being more clear. These are not military officers in the traditional sense. They are intended and directed to be... innovators. Their primary task is to invent, or improve, or refine the warfare machinery of the IDF. This is accomplished not in a lab, but out in the field with the military people who operate these systems. Depending on the field of expertise, they could be exploring innovations in platforms as diverse as a Merkava tank or a Dolphin submarine. I hope this brief explanation helps.

[Albany Rifles]

Yes.


My apologies for not being more clear. These are not military officers in the traditional sense. They are intended and directed to be... innovators. Their primary task is to invent, or improve, or refine the warfare machinery of the IDF. This is accomplished not in a lab, but out in the field with the military people who operate these systems. Depending on the field of expertise, they could be exploring innovations in platforms as diverse as a Merkava tank or a Dolphin submarine. I hope this brief explanation helps.

Intriguing. Sounds like a good approach for a smaller force. For us we bring users I from the field to get input and then give to a unit to do operational testing of the product. Most of our stuff has to work worldwide. Plus out college we tend to want generalists. What you describe is our civil service intern program.

[Minskaya]

May I ask a question? I know this is applicable in the Western campaigns, not sure about in the East. Oftentimes, rather than send POW's to an internment camp, they were "paroled". As I understand it, the prisoners would promise to return home and not take up arms again. Do I understand this correctly and if so, how did paroling the prisoners pan out in reality? Did they usually honor the conditions?

[Albany Rifles]

Minskaya,

You have the general idea correctly.

I can do a greather explanation later...dont have time now....but it is more complex which you have already figured out.

[Albany Rifles]

Surprisingly, Wikipedia has a pretty decent explanation and overview

Dix

That said here are a few additional thoughts on parole and exchange.

As the article states, the treatment of the US Colored Troops by the Confederates was to cause a major obstacle for paroles.

The greatest Union general of the war, U.S. Grant, recieved his nickname "Unconditional Surrender Grant", because he refused to negotiate terms for the surrender of the Confederate forces at FT Donelson. His response to a request for parlay from the Confederate commander was

"No terms, except unconditional and immediate surrender, can be accepted. I propose to move immediately on your works. I am very respectfully, your obedient servant, U. S. GRANT," Grant's Response to Rebel General Buckner's request for an armistice, at the Battle of Fort Donelson, February 16, 1862.

In this case Grant demanded and got an unconditional surrender, something almost unheard of in western warfare to this time. It catapulted him to national prominence.

18 months later he gladly paroled the Confederate Army of Mississippi which surrendered to th Army of the Tennessee at Vicksburg.

What had changed?

Grant knew that handing the Confederate forces back to the them posed several problems for the Confederacy....

1. The Confederates would have to feed a force it could not employ in battle causign a drain on resources away from combat units
2. The discouraged troops, many from Mississippi and the gulf coast, would be tempted to desert....which they did in large numbers, further drainign manpower from the Confederates.
3. If the Confederate government did not honor the paroles then the Union would be justified in releasing from parole soem Union soldiers it was holding.

All three things ended up happening.

[Minskaya]

In one of his western-campaign commander decrees, Grant forbade Jews from being in his area of operations. It seems that he intended this decree to ban war profiteers who were buying southern cotton on the cheap. Grant's own father was working with these profiteers and he knew it. Grant never commented on this, but it seems reasonable that he wanted his father gone so there could be no impression of scandalous impropriety attached to him.