I am a bit surprised that , when Union forces managed to capture New Orleans, the Confederates, even with a large land force in the area, did not mount a large attack in order to retake their important harbour.

It is assumed, of course, more than one century after the events, that the conquest of New Orleans and, later, of Vicksburg made possible the actual implementation of "Anaconda Plan" and, thus, the lenghty weakening of the South, but , if it is true, it is conceivable that even Lee or other officers could have figured out such an importance. Instead of sending men and precious war materiel in Virginia, why not assembling a huge army in Mississippi and retaking that harbour? I think that Union garrison in NO was not as large and equipped as the army that, by calling militias from the near States, the Confederates could have assembled in one year or more.

If New Orleans was the key to the victory, she should have been attacked at all costs...but the confederates chose to deploy their armies in other theaters.

I can think about two hypotheses: or the Confederates did not recognize New Orleans importance - quite strange, actually- or there were a profound divergence of strategy wthin Confederate High Command with the most infuencial generals acting as warlords

OG Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/CivilWarCollecting/s/tmRTFy38P7

I have read that in 1862 or 1863 the confederate congress passed a "law" in which it was stated that "any negro (sic) taken in union uniform shall be summarily put to death" and the same was considered for white officers leading coloured units.

I have not read if this decree was actually applied and if there were some sorts of trials after the war

Trying to write an essay about her but couldn't find any other primary sources besides her memoir. Any primary sources from the time relating to her would help thanks!

Henry Clay Slyoff enlisted for Civil War service in the 81st Pennsylvania Infantry at 15 years old (lied and said he was 18). At 16 he was wounded at the battle of White Oak Swamp, then later fought at the infamous Sunken Road during Antietam (still the bloodiest day in American history). Henry turned 17 and participated in the ill-fated charge at Marye’s Heights (Fredericksburg), then shortly after earned promotion to Sergeant. He fought ferociously at Chancellorsville, and then braved the horrors of the Wheatfield at Gettysburg, still just 17 years old. Henry volunteered his time with the Ambulance Corps in early 1864 after turning 18, but fatefully rejoined his regiment in time for the Wilderness and Spotsylvania (May of 1864). At the latter, Henry charged the salient with the 81st and was captured shortly after. Sent to Andersonville Prison in Georgia, he suffered from Scurvy and malnutrition, dying on the exact day of his 19th birthday, October 22nd, 1864.

Henry saw the worst of life in just 4 short teenage years, and paid the price for it. I’m honored to share this hero’s story, and be the custodian of two of Henry’s wartime letters - one written just a couple days after Gettysburg. While Henry’s story needs to be told, there is one final task to be completed: his last name was misspelled on the gravestone at Andersonville. I’ve started this campaign to get that fixed, and am currently in talks with the VA/National Cemetery to see it through. Please click the link below to read more of his story/view artifacts and documents, and thank you for supporting this last chapter of cementing his legacy.

www.henryclayslyoff.com

FB “Fix Headstone” Page: https://www.facebook.com/share/19X4rH8dve/?mibextid=LQQJ4d

Lincoln once commented on GEN. Grants drinking, that if only he knew what brand of whiskey Grant preferred, he’d send a barrel full to all his generals. Is there any information on what brand Grant drank, and wether it’s still around today?

The Battle of Kernstown: Stonewall Jackson's Decisions and the Outcome

The Battle of Kernstown, fought on March 23, 1862, in the Shenandoah Valley, was a significant engagement during the American Civil War. This battle saw the forces of the Confederate Army, led by General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, clash with Union troops under the command of Colonel Nathan Kimball. The battle's outcome was shaped by Jackson's tactical decisions, the tenacity of the Union forces, and the broader strategic implications for both sides.

Context and Background

The Shenandoah Valley was a critical region for both the Union and Confederate forces. For the Confederates, it was a vital agricultural area and a corridor for troop movements. For the Union, controlling the valley would protect Washington, D.C., and disrupt Confederate supply lines. In early 1862, General Jackson was tasked with diverting Union forces from advancing further into Virginia, thereby relieving pressure on Confederate forces elsewhere.
Jackson's Decisions

Engagement Decision

General Jackson's decision to engage the Union forces at Kernstown was based on flawed intelligence. He believed that he was facing a smaller, more manageable Union force. This intelligence was inaccurate, and Jackson's force of approximately 3,000 men was actually up against a significantly larger Union force of around 8,500. Despite this miscalculation, Jackson decided to attack, driven by his aggressive and bold tactics.
Flank Attack

One of Jackson's key tactical decisions was to launch a flank attack on the Union right. Jackson hoped to exploit a perceived weakness in the Union lines, aiming to create confusion and break their defensive positions. However, this attack was met with stiff resistance. The Union forces, under Colonel Kimball, quickly redeployed to counter the flanking maneuver, nullifying Jackson's efforts.

Stubborn Defense

Jackson's decisions during the battle highlighted his stubbornness and determination. Even when faced with overwhelming odds, he maintained his position and continued to press the attack. This relentless pressure, while showcasing his tenacity, also led to significant Confederate casualties and exhaustion among his troops.

Outcome and Union Victory

Despite Jackson's aggressive tactics, the Battle of Kernstown ended in a Union victory. The Union forces, under the effective leadership of Colonel Kimball, managed to hold their ground and repel the Confederate assaults. The Union's numerical superiority and strategic positioning played crucial roles in their success.
Union Counterattacks

Throughout the day, Union forces launched effective counterattacks, exploiting the gaps in the Confederate lines. These counterattacks, coupled with the artillery support, inflicted heavy casualties on Jackson's men and eventually forced them to retreat.
Strategic Implications
While the Battle of Kernstown was a tactical defeat for the Confederates, it had significant strategic implications. Jackson's aggressive actions convinced the Union leadership that the Shenandoah Valley was a vital area that required more attention. As a result, Union forces were diverted to the valley, relieving pressure on other Confederate positions. This diversion played into the broader Confederate strategy of stretching Union resources and creating opportunities for counteroffensives elsewhere.
Conclusion

The Battle of Kernstown highlighted the impact of General Stonewall Jackson's aggressive tactics and the resilience of Union forces. Jackson's decisions to engage despite flawed intelligence and to persist in his attacks, even in the face of superior numbers, demonstrated his boldness but also his miscalculations. The Union victory, marked by effective leadership and strategic deployment, underscored the importance of numerical superiority and tactical positioning. While the battle was a tactical defeat for the Confederates, it served their broader strategic objectives by drawing Union attention to the Shenandoah Valley and alleviating pressure on other fronts.

https://youtu.be/kGvu5UZxS-A

I have read about a book, that now seems to be not to widespread, in which the author - who I believe is a professional historian, after having consulted new documents from General Lee reached the conclusion that the Confederates, worried about the numerical superiority of the Union, planned to march through Pennsylvanya in order to neutralize the large anthracite mines, whose coal was vital for Union steam ships and, above all, for railways ans steel works.

According to the author , the forst try was stopped by an increasingly desperate Union high command at the battle of Antietam, whose result was considered a bitter surprise for Lee, who thought that his army could have won easily, and, after a well received period of rest and refit, at the famous "all in" battle of Gettysburgh, in which a worried General Meade managed to stop a decisive push towards such anthracite mines.

According to the book, the original plan conceived a large "pincer manoeuvre" against the coal of Pennsylvanya, whose the eatern arm was the large Army of Northern Virginia" and the western one the smaller armies and raiders that were marching upwards the Mississippi and Tennessee valleys, but they encountered unforeseen difficulties, not last the stubborn Union defence, and at last this grand strategy came to nothing.

Interestingly, after the war there would have been some sort of cover up in order to let people think that the Confederates were good boys without aggressive intentions and to settle down some bitter resentments between Lee and his officers, because after all this had been a failure

Took a sunset picture at Little Round Top in Gettysburg while I was passing through.

The Battle of Belmont: Grant's Leadership and Union Success

The Battle of Belmont, fought on November 7, 1861, in Mississippi County, Missouri, was a crucial early engagement in the American Civil War. This battle marked the first major combat test for Union Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant, whose leadership would soon become legendary. Although the battle itself ended inconclusively, it demonstrated Grant's decisive and aggressive style, setting the stage for his future successes.

In the fall of 1861, the Union sought to assert control over key strategic points along the Mississippi River, aiming to cut off Confederate supply lines and divide the Confederacy. The Confederates, under General Leonidas Polk, had fortified Columbus, Kentucky, and established a smaller outpost at Belmont, Missouri, directly across the river. Grant, commanding Union forces in southeastern Missouri, decided to strike at Belmont to disrupt Confederate operations and bolster Union presence in the region.

Grant's leadership during the Battle of Belmont was characterized by several key attributes that would define his military career:

Grant demonstrated his decisiveness by quickly organizing and launching an attack on the Confederate camp at Belmont. He led approximately 3,000 Union troops down the Mississippi River to the vicinity of Belmont. Despite limited intelligence and the risks involved, Grant made a bold decision to engage the enemy, reflecting his willingness to take calculated risks to achieve strategic objectives.

Grant's aggressive approach was evident in the initial assault on the Confederate camp. His troops launched a surprise attack, overwhelming the Confederate forces and capturing their camp. This aggressive tactic not only disrupted Confederate plans but also showcased Grant's ability to seize the initiative and maintain momentum on the battlefield.

As the battle unfolded, Confederate reinforcements from Columbus, Kentucky, crossed the river and launched a counterattack. Grant's adaptability was crucial in this situation. Recognizing the risk of being outflanked and encircled, he ordered a strategic withdrawal. Despite the chaos, Grant managed to lead his men back to their transports, ensuring a relatively orderly retreat under fire.

Grant's resilience and calm under pressure were critical in maintaining the morale and discipline of his troops. Even as the Union forces faced intense Confederate counterattacks, Grant's steady leadership helped prevent panic and disarray. His ability to inspire confidence in his men was a key factor in their ability to hold their ground and execute a successful withdrawal.

While the Battle of Belmont did not result in a decisive victory for either side, it was a strategic success for the Union in several ways:

The Union attack on Belmont forced the Confederates to divert resources and attention to defend the outpost. This disruption hindered Confederate operations in the area and provided the Union with a valuable opportunity to assert control over key positions along the Mississippi River.

The engagement provided a significant morale boost for the Union troops. Despite the eventual withdrawal, the initial success and the effective leadership demonstrated by Grant inspired confidence and determination among his men. The battle served as a proving ground for the Union forces, validating their training and readiness for future engagements.

The Battle of Belmont offered valuable lessons for both Grant and his troops. The experience gained in this engagement helped refine their tactics and strategies, contributing to their effectiveness in subsequent battles. For Grant, the battle reinforced the importance of decisiveness, aggressiveness, and adaptability in command.

The Battle of Belmont was a significant early test for Ulysses S. Grant, highlighting his leadership qualities and setting the stage for his future successes. Grant's decisiveness, aggressiveness, adaptability, and resilience were instrumental in the Union's strategic success during the engagement. Although the battle ended inconclusively, it demonstrated the potential of Union forces under Grant's command and provided valuable lessons that would shape their conduct in the Civil War.

https://youtu.be/XArviKnzHOw

The Battle of Brandy Station: Leadership Failures and Cavalry Success

The Battle of Brandy Station, fought on June 9, 1863, in Culpeper County, Virginia, stands as the largest cavalry engagement of the American Civil War and a pivotal moment in the evolution of Union cavalry. The battle witnessed significant leadership failures by Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart and a marked success by the Union cavalry, reshaping the dynamics of cavalry warfare in the Eastern Theater.

General James Ewell Brown "J.E.B." Stuart, renowned for his audacious and flamboyant style, faced considerable criticism for his leadership during the Battle of Brandy Station. Stuart's oversight in several key areas contributed to the Confederate cavalry's struggles during the engagement.

Stuart's command was caught off guard by a dawn attack from Union forces led by Major General Alfred Pleasonton. Stuart's failure to anticipate such an assault, combined with the complacency of his troops, allowed Union forces to achieve complete surprise. The lack of preparedness and vigilance among Stuart's cavalry not only facilitated the Union attack but also exposed vulnerabilities in Confederate defenses.

One of Stuart's critical failures was the inability to gather and provide timely intelligence. His forces were supposed to act as the eyes and ears of General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, yet Stuart's absence and the subsequent lack of crucial information impaired Confederate strategy. This absence of intelligence during the Gettysburg Campaign further highlighted Stuart's lapses in leadership.

In stark contrast to the Confederate's shortcomings, the Union cavalry demonstrated remarkable growth and effectiveness during the Battle of Brandy Station. The engagement marked a significant shift in the capabilities and confidence of Union forces.

The Union cavalry, under the command of Alfred Pleasonton, launched a well-coordinated and bold surprise attack at dawn. This maneuver showcased the Union's improved strategic planning and ability to execute complex operations. The Union forces' ability to penetrate the Confederate cavalry's defenses set the tone for the day's engagements.

Throughout the battle, Union cavalrymen displayed strong resistance and tenacity. Their ability to hold their ground and counter Confederate attacks highlighted the improved training and discipline within the Union ranks. The Battle of Brandy Station provided a significant morale boost for the Union cavalry, affirming their growing prowess and effectiveness in the field.

The Battle of Brandy Station was a turning point in the Civil War's cavalry operations. General J.E.B. Stuart's leadership failures, particularly in terms of preparation and intelligence, contrasted sharply with the successes of the Union cavalry under Alfred Pleasonton. This engagement not only marked the end of Confederate cavalry dominance in the East but also underscored the increasing competence and confidence of Union forces. The lessons learned from Brandy Station would continue to shape the conduct of cavalry operations throughout the remainder of the war.

https://youtu.be/K-uMFtUAWoo