Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Franklin Charge - The Battle of Franklin - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Nov 12th, 2011 12:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

According to The Civil War Trust website Hood's assault at Franklin was more intense than Pickett's charge.  At Franklin 20,000 Confederates charged over 1.75 miles of ground.  They would suffer 7,000 casualties in the process.  Pickett's charge was by 12,500 men over 1 mile of ground and suffered 6,500 casualties.  I realize Pickett's charge was the highwater mark of the Confederacy and all but why is Hood's assault barely mentioned?  Was it because the media was all out east and  the Western Theater was given less attention? 



 Posted: Sat Nov 12th, 2011 03:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Short answer: yes. The ANV and RE Lee became the focal point of Southern attention and really embodied the Confederate cause in a way that the Army of Tennessee never did.

Mark



 Posted: Sat Nov 12th, 2011 10:38 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 869
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I'm one of those who think Vicksburg was more important than Gettysburg, but the attention is to Gettysburg. But the press was more focused on Gettysburg so it gets more attention today. Why? Washington was a possible target, if Lee turned south he could have marched on the capitol. Then you have Philly, NYC, Boston, the major cities of the North were all going to be seen as being at risk even if it was more likely the Army of Northern Virginia could not march on them due to the distance it would put between the army and Richmond. Gettysburg isn't exactly near to Richmond so Lee was taking a big risk that even a corps wasn't sent against the capitol. But the focus was on him so the risk may not have been as much to worry about.

There always seems an "On to Richmond" and "Destroy Lee" mentality when you look at things now. And that seems to be how it was then. Destroy the Army of Northern Virginia and Richmond would be at the Army of the Potomac's mercy. It's as if it had to be a major blunder or something really big for the press to pay any attention to the Western theater.



 Posted: Sat Nov 12th, 2011 11:54 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
pamc153PA
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Boyertown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 407
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark wrote:
Short answer: yes. The ANV and RE Lee became the focal point of Southern attention and really embodied the Confederate cause in a way that the Army of Tennessee never did.

Mark


This is true. However, when I think of grit and tenacity against the odds, I think of the Army of Tennessee. It's such a shame the Western Theater doesn't get the attention it deserves.



 Posted: Sun Nov 13th, 2011 03:00 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

i think gettysburg got the more attention because of the union's situation in the east. The union forces fighting in the western theater had won many times, the eastern theater was a comeback story for the north. I think of it as a movie with a football team that is defeated in every game and is thought to be the underdogs until the time was necessary for them to win, then became nearly undefeated. Of course i think ya'll are correct too. How long did Hood's attack at franklin last? I know Pickett's charge lasted approx. 50 mins and the two sides sustained about 10,000 casualties.



 Posted: Sun Nov 13th, 2011 06:25 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 869
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I don't think it's cause of the situation that caused Gettysburg to get more attention. Battles the North lost in the east seem to have recieved more attention than those won in the west. And look at how the war is taught in elementary and high school today. When I was in school it was Fort Sumter, First Bull Run (First Manassas), a little on the Peninsula Campaign, the Monitor and the Virginia, Forts Henry and Donelson, Shiloh (Pittsburg Landing), Second Bull Run (Second Manassas), Antietam (Sharpsburg), Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Petersburg, a little on Mobile Bay, Sherman's March to the Sea, the fall of Richmond, and Appomatox Courthouse. You look at most of that, it's mostly stuff from the Eastern Theater. If I just went by the textbooks that were used at the schools I attended then I'd have had no idea that Sherman had to first fight to take Atlanta before he began the March to the Sea, I'd have never known about the names of any of the battles of the Peninsula campaign, or that Grant didn't come east immediately after Vicksburg. Nothing about the fall of New Orleans, or Nashville, or Chatanooga, or Corinth, or Franklin. All that happened at Mobile Bay was that the Confederates placed mines, aka torpedoes, in the water and Faragut said "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" according to how things were taught. Nothing about what the torpedoes were or about the actual battle that took place. The focus was on the battles between the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac. And even that's ironic considering what the armies that fought at both Bull Run (Manassas) battles were. I learned more about the war at home than I did in school, and learned it wasn't all about the Eastern Theater there.

But looking at what I can find on media I see more on the Eastern Theater being reported at the time. It really seems that even then the focus was more on what was going on in the east and less on the west. You'd think with more victories taking place out west that the newspapers would have wanted to hype them to the people, give them something to celebrate about.



 Posted: Sun Nov 13th, 2011 12:56 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Gary Gallagher wrote a pretty good book on the ANV vs. AoT phenomenon called "Lee and his Army in Confederate History." He argues that by the end of the war, Southern civilians had wrapped the entire Confederate cause in the fate of Army of Northern Virginia. That is why we consider the end of the war Appomattox even though there were Confederate troops in the field for another couple of months afterwards. Another very innovative book that tries to explain why the Army of Northern Virginia was so much more successful than the Army of Tennessee is "Two Great Rebel Armies" by Richard McMurray.

Mark



 Posted: Sun Nov 13th, 2011 08:59 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

There were few reporters in the west, and fewer photographers.

Would you ride a train for a week to get to Nashville when there was something to report a carriage ride away?



 Posted: Mon Nov 14th, 2011 11:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
9Bama
Member
 

Joined: Mon May 10th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 106
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ole wrote: There were few reporters in the west, and fewer photographers.

Would you ride a train for a week to get to Nashville when there was something to report a carriage ride away?


One of the major reasons Gettysburg gets all the attention and now the money is that Lincoln appeared on this battlefield and talked to some folks for a few minutes.

 

In addition, you had Sickles making it "His park" and lobbying for money from the gitgo. Gettysburg has become from a government perspective, the face of the war.

To get a really good idea of the differences go to Pea Ridge or Wilson's Creek. Nice, well preserved battlefields ... very close to ZERO money



 Posted: Tue Nov 15th, 2011 12:19 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It seems like the better Yank generals were out west. Or it could have been they were less interfered with than their Eastern brethern by the Administration. Just think someone from the media establishment would have gone west to see why the war was going fairly well compared to the Eastern Theater. I mean hell the Western Theater is where the war was won.



 Posted: Tue Nov 15th, 2011 03:25 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 869
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I don't think that Lincoln caused as much problems for the generals in the east as you suggest. Yes, they had to more put up with him, but at the same time he had to more put up with them. When Grant came east it seems that if the interference of Lincoln and his administration were a major cause of the generals in the east then Grant should have been removed after a few months for his failures and for getting little done.



 Posted: Tue Nov 15th, 2011 08:12 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think Lincoln felt his generals in the east needed to be pushed into taking action. I'm sure they felt like he was interfering and they weren't ready etc. Out west out of the limelight of the media the Union forces had more leeway to an extent. By the time Grant comes east he has a proven track record of winning battles. Lincoln stood by Grant because despite not winning until Petersburg he was inflicting major damage on the Army of Northern Virginia. Which meant victory was only a matter of time.



 Posted: Tue Nov 15th, 2011 08:13 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think Lincoln felt his generals in the east needed to be pushed into taking action. I'm sure they felt like he was interfering and they weren't ready etc. Out west out of the limelight of the media the Union forces had more leeway to an extent. By the time Grant comes east he has a proven track record of winning battles. Lincoln stood by Grant because despite not winning until Petersburg he was inflicting major damage on the Army of Northern Virginia. Which meant victory was only a matter of time.



 Posted: Wed Nov 16th, 2011 01:28 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 549
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

In my opinion, the Eastern theater got more attention, in part, because that is where both capitals were.....The thought at the time was, should the capital fall, the war was over....



 Posted: Wed Nov 16th, 2011 09:34 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 869
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

How long would it have taken McClellan to get ready? I understand that after First Bull Run (First Manassas) that he had an army to build. But he had what, the rest of the summer and the fall and winter to build up the Army of the Potomac into a fighting force. How often did he have to be prodded once he finally got the army into the field? And how often did he over estimate the strength of the forces he was facing? His own caution was more often a bigger problem for him as it did cause him to move too slowly and either allow Confederate forces to escape from him or to get reinforced in order to face him. Yes he won battles, but did his actions maybe help to lengthen the war? Might it have been over two years sooner had he moved faster?

Burnside's actions at Fredericksburg were just plain stupid. I wouldn't blame that on interfereance, he could have made certain his army had the pontoons at any point on the march instead of having to wait once he got to where he wanted to cross. And even then once he discovered he didn't have them he could have looked for another way to cross the Rhappahannock. It would have taken time but had he used the same fords Hooker would use he could have been across the river much sooner. He might have been able to engage Lee before Jackson's corps could arrive.

Pope was just as easily interfered with by McClellan, who wrote his wife and told her he planned to use Lee to destory Pope, as he was Lincoln.



 Posted: Wed Nov 16th, 2011 08:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat I agree with you. I should probably call it a personality clash instead of meddling.

McClellan for instance. He went to West Point. Served with distinction in the Mexican War. Went to observe several battles of the Crimean War in the 1850's. Comes back and wrote army manuals and I think even designed uniforms and saddles that the army adopted. The guy had what seemed incredible military talent.

He gets appointed General. Then he sees Lincoln prodding him to move. His view is, what the hell does this country bumpkin know about military strategy. He resented it. Created a lot of clashes. I wonder if McClellan had been out west out of direct contact with Lincoln, and the DC political circles, if it would have mattered or not.



 Posted: Thu Nov 17th, 2011 05:37 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 869
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Now that I could agree with.



 Posted: Thu Nov 17th, 2011 06:58 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
sgtredleg
Life NRA, CW Trust, VFW member


Joined: Mon Jul 4th, 2011
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 51
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I pretty much agree with most points already mentioned. But I do think the war in the east, indeed, determined the wars outcome.
The Union was pretty much destroying the Confederacy in the Western theater. That theater did gut the Southern ability to produce and supply it's armies.
However, the Army of Northern Virginia was a WINNING and viable force that NEEDED to be destroyed before the North could claim ultimate victory. (even if it were more symbolic than not)
On it's own the ANV certainly could not stand. Thus, the war in the west ultimately would have provided victory for the North on it's own.
But as long as the ANV fielded a fighting force the North would have to spend lives and treasury hunting General Lee and the ANV down.
Just my opinion.



 Posted: Thu Nov 17th, 2011 09:06 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
19th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 869
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

If the western theater were to get locked down completely, no more Confederate troops in the west and none of the Confederate troops who were in the west could come east, how would it have been before all the Federal troops who wouldn't be needed to hold Confederate territory were brought east?  The Army of Northern Virginia wouldn't survive very long against those odds. But, but you have to expect there would have been Confederate troops brought east if the west had been completely locked down. With that many troops, both Federal and Confederate, in the east then how long would it have taken for all the food to vanish?

There were plenty of supplies the Army of Northern Virginia needed that even without the west being completely locked down on it was slowly running out of. Nobody destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia, it was the lack of supplies, especially food, that did what no Federal army could. And the war in the west, combined with the blockade, propably did more to help cause that than any of the generals in the east.



 Posted: Thu Nov 17th, 2011 09:06 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
20th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 869
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Double post. Sorry.

Last edited on Thu Nov 17th, 2011 09:06 am by Hellcat



 Current time is 03:57 pmPage:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.3727 seconds (10% database + 90% PHP). 28 queries executed.