Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Most critical year of the War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Minskaya
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    One of the hardest thing when looking at history is to abandon your own set of beliefs and adopt what was standard for the area and time. Not easily done ... even today.
    It can also be postulated that one cannot fully understand the present without understanding the past. This is a truism in many of the space sciences. You cannot understand Cosmology (the origin and evolution of the universe) unless you have an understanding of particle physics. Comparative Planetology requires an understanding of geophysics. Organic Chemistry is a requisite of Exobiology. And so it goes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Triple C
    replied
    One of the marks of a great leader is to realize when to abandon such prejudices. Grant seemed to have done so.
    Last edited by Triple C; 04 Oct 12,, 08:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    In grad school for History the first course you take is Historiography. In that course you not only review research methods you also have lengthy discussions on historicism. What gets drilled into you is when you look at historical events make sure you do not apply your societal mores and interpretations. You have to learn to look at events with the lens of how people thought at the time.

    This can lead to many "interesting" discussions!

    Applying that I can still greatly admire Grant in spite of GO 11.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    One of the hardest thing when looking at history is to abandon your own set of beliefs and adopt what was standard for the area and time. Not easily done ... even today.

    Leave a comment:


  • Minskaya
    replied
    Grant's General Order # 11 is one of the stains on his legacy, without a doubt.

    I fully realized this topic was indelicate, and I appreciate your candor and honest reply. I also do not consider Grant antisemitic. Familiar with Grant's core ethics and appreciative of his numerous heavy burdens, I can both understand and forgive General Order #11, which President Abraham Lincoln revoked within a fortnight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Grant's General Order # 11 is one of the stains on his legacy, without a doubt. It did cause a lot of problems short term for the White House. And while a not foaming at the mouth anti-Semite I believe it did reflect some of his attitudes about businessmen in general (look at his own bad experiences on that score) and conflating that with Jews. But that was hardly a unique position in the country at the time and definitely within the officer corps of the US Army, particulalry those from the Mid West.

    It did become an issue in his presidential campaign but he worked through that. And he was the first US president to ever visit a synagogue, which he and several member sof his administration did in 1874.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
    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.
    Sarna discusses 'When Grant Expelled the Jews' | BrandeisNOW

    Leave a comment:


  • Minskaya
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Minskaya
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Minskaya
    replied
    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    Do these young men/women partake in military training while attending college?
    Yes.

    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X