The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Battle Cry of Freedom
AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
>
1. Military Series: BATTLE CRY... Feb. 13th ~ Feb. 19th ~~ Editor's Introduction, Prologue, and Chapter ONE (xvii-46); No Spoilers Please
Craig wrote: "I'm re-reading this book now so I can participate in this discussion and have a personal pledge to myself to make it through the book as I've started it twice in the past and didn't finish it eithe..."Welcome, Craig. I agree, I think all social studies teachers who teach American history should read this series. I hope this discussion motivates you to finish. And go at your own pace :-)
Patricrk wrote: "It is a military truism that all generals study how to fight the last war. That is ok except when you have such rapid changes as McPherson describes here."Well said Patricrk. I can see this chapter as explanation of vast changes that military leaders lived with, but never fully applied in a productive way.
I was curious about the telegraph and the Mexican War and the telegraph was around:The war between the United States and Mexico witnessed the first sizable use of technological innovations at the strategic level. Nowhere was this more evident than in communications. Mounted couriers still carried battle reports and dispatches tucked safely inside saddlebags, but in the period from 1821 to 1854, steamboats, railroads, and telegraphs advanced critical communications at speeds before unimagined.
Tactical communications for all armies in this era remained unchanged from communications in the earliest days of warfare. Generals conducted their battles from central locations in proximity to the frontlines, within eyesight and earshot of the actual fighting. Drums, bugles, and flags marked the progress of units in combat. Units at distant locations received written or verbal orders delivered by officers and couriers who, as often as not, held their position on the general staff not because of formal training or particular expertise but because of their connections to the commanding officer. The age of professional staff training was far in the future. Even so, these volunteer messengers provided the critical link between the commander and his command. For many armies of this period, including Mexico's, this hand-carried method of information exchange extended to strategic communications as well.
The United States increasingly gained a clear advantage over its adversaries in its application of technology to the issue of communications. In the United States, mechanical devices replaced reliance on bone, muscle, and sinew. When a dispatch arrived at a depot or supply base far to the rear of the army in the field, it often found its way to fast steamships or courier vessels that in turn moved the message to an inland port, rail terminal, or telegraph post. Steamboats had plied U.S. inland waters since 1807. This technological conquest of river currents allowed for relatively rapid transfer of materials and information both upstream and downstream, turning streams and waterways into natural highways. After 1826, railroads began to augment riverine communications.
In 1844, Samuel Morse sent the message "What hath God wrought" over the copper wires of a device he dubbed the telegraph. With the perfection of this invention, communications took a major leap forward, with corresponding implications for strategic and commercial applications. One military observer noted that, in the past, innovation had occurred slowly and at intervals, while in the first half of the nineteenth century, changes occurred at an alarming rate. Now, ten years time marked "an epoch in the onward progress of modern invention and improvement. Even five years may modify, materially, plans of defense now reputed wisest and most indispensable." One sound strategic plan could be compromised or undone by the rapid transfer of information. By 1850, writer Richard S. Fisher exclaimed, "We travel by steam and converse by lightning."
The implications these innovations held for the U.S.-Mexican War were profound. In the United States, news from the front arrived in just a few days, and politicians and generals alike could react rapidly to changing circumstances. The public kept abreast of news and supported the war to a greater or lesser degree based on the latest reports from the front. Ultimately, materials and manpower arrived from remote locations in the United States at a steady and reliable pace. All of these advantages allowed the nation to conduct a foreign war far removed from its centers of population.
(Source: http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/...)
Bryan wrote: "Patricrk wrote: "It is a military truism that all generals study how to fight the last war. That is ok except when you have such rapid changes as McPherson describes here."You make a great point ..."
the timing doesn't work out for the telegraph to have had much impact on the Mexican War. New Orleans was the logical point to send dispatches as it is the closes major port and logistical center. It did not get its first telegraph office until 1848. I'm sure steam powered ships were a major advantage though in getting supplies to the boys.
I sense a little Karl Marx's theory of alienation and the decline of skilled labor in this quote:"Technological innovation was not the main cause of worker unrest...Nor was declining income the principal cause of worker unrest in the United States...Instead, of working for themselves, they worked for someone else...More and more they were separated into 'employer' and 'employee.'" (pp. 22-24)
Marx's theory:
"alienation is a systemic result of capitalism. Marx's theory of alienation is founded upon his observation that, within the capitalist mode of production, workers invariably lose determination of their lives and destinies by being deprived of the right to conceive of themselves as the director of their actions, to determine the character of their actions, to define their relationship to other actors, and to use or own the value of what is produced by their actions. Workers become autonomous, self-realized human beings..."
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s...)
Why do you think the author talks about this? Do you see a role of alienation leading up to the Civil War?
Jaye wrote: "On the conversation Rick and Bryan were having about the shift in gender roles during the industrial revolution. Most of the information McPherson presents was new to me as I've always focused on t..."I suspect you are right, Jaye. I don't have stats on how many lower class children went to school, but you have to figure it is lower. I wonder if overall more kids were going to school than in the past. It would have been interesting to include some of those statistics.
Mod
"Technological innovation was not the main cause of worker unrest...Nor was declining income the p..."
Hmmm, a very good catch Bryan, I imagine that many immigrants would feel that way and maybe the factories spawned those kinds of feelings too. I would have thought that would be the case if it had happened in the South but in the South they had slave labor and probably not too much technological innovation. The slaves never had any determination of their lives (while they were slaves) and they themselves did not start the war but their owners did who were obviously very much in control of the situation. I guess my answer is that I am not sure; I could see it being the cause of labor unions and the revolts that took place about better working conditions, pay, etc. in the North; but I am not certain that there was a correlation to the Civil War. Good stimulating question though.
Mod
That is hysterical Craig, but we will try to get you through it this time. I have heard also great things about all of the books in the series and read a couple; but not this one.
Bentley wrote: "Hmmm, a very good catch Bryan, I imagine that many immigrants would feel that way and maybe the factories spawned..."We can even stretch this argument to the Southerns feeling "alienated" from the Federal Government about their interests.
I also wonder if he is using this first chapter as an overview of the times, not directly relating to the Civil War , like the Oxford series does...just giving us a larger context.
Mod
The South certainly felt that way and felt that they had been part of a "bait and switch" so there was a degree of alienation from the government and Lincoln; but not because of technological innovation in their case.
That could be; a grand opening chapter and he did a great job with it by the way.
Bentley wrote: "Bryan wrote: "I sense a little Karl Marx's theory of alienation and the decline of skilled labor in this quote:"Technological innovation was not the main cause of worker unrest...Nor was declinin..."
I was struck by how much the Jacksonian Democratic party (or at least the "antimonopoly crusade") sounded Marxist (p. 26). Laborers produce wealth and deserve its benefits. Bankers, lawyers and merchants don't because they're "bloodsuckers".
It sounds as though that view had quite a large constituency.
Mod
I think they were more for the common man so it sounded much worse; I have to say the politics of that era was as horrendous as what we are dealing with now with all of the superpacs and also because campaign finance laws were pretty much gutted by the supreme court.
And some of the working conditions were pretty dire (sweatshops). Probably the reason for the larger constituency.
I finished the chapter this afternoon and now I'm catching up on the messages. 1st - I'll 4th or 5th, or whatever it is now, the appreciation of footnotes at the actual foot of the page. I'd almost forgot how wonderfully that worked.
Next - about both sides of the military personnel having fought alongside each other in the Mexican War: yes, they knew each other's ways but more than that, virtually all their commanders were trained at West Point. The following site lists the Generals of the Civil War who were trained at West Point. They're in alphabetical order with which side they were on indicated by a blue dot or a gray one.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/wpcl...
I'm finding McPherson very readable and I'm thoroughly enjoying the detail. I mostly knew the material in the 1st chapter from a really generalized standpoint - I'd never read the statistics, the details or the scope so compressed. I'm more and more convinced that this was a war in which the Industrial Revolution was up against a deeply Agrarian culture - that's the feeling I get from McPherson, too, as I read this first chapter.
That said, there were a few surprises. I was surprised by the statement on page 37 (paperback) that after the slave trade was abolished, the US slave population continued to increase, while the slave population in the rest of the western hemisphere decreased. (I suppose it stands to reason now that I think about it, but when I first read it I just ... wow!)
And on page 39 McPherson tells us that 3/4 of the world's cotton supply came from the US South. This means that the entire world, not just the plantation owners or the South in general or the US as a whole, benefited from the enslavement of black persons in the US. (See what I mean about appreciating the detail and the statistics?)
I enjoyed the group messages about women and the changing technology and the politics. I think awareness of the latter two will be very helpful in the chapters ahead. Altogether a fascinating chapter.
Finally, I have a kind of personal connection to this (maybe we all do) in that my ancestors immigrated from Norway in 1849 and moved to Iowa to farm. They brought their 9 year-old son with them so he was 20 when the Civil War broke out. He enlisted with the Wisconsin 15th Volunteers under Col. Hans Christian Heg. These were the guys who were known as the Scandinavian Regiment because most of them didn't speak English. I've researched that little tiny aspect more than this but now is not the time. (He fought for a couple years but in very late 1863 was captured and died in the Libby (Richmond) prison - just to finish the story.)
Mod
The cotton supply was probably one of the main reasons some foreign entities were sticking their camel's nose under the Southern tent and trying to meddle. Sort of like today's oil!
And I would love to hear how the family line did not stop right there. When the group did Killer Angels (which I would recommend highly by the way), there was a lot of discussion about how many foreign born soldiers there were fighting the Civil War and hearing languages other than English.
by Michael ShaaraAnd welcome to the discussion Jim and Becky.
Jim wrote: "I was struck by how much the Jacksonian Democratic party (or at least the "antimonopoly crusade") sounded Marxist (p. 26)..."I think we see some seeds planted here that would later produce the Farmer's Alliance, Populist Party, etc. after the Civil War. With growing industrialism and poorer immigrants, I think the constituency does grow.
Welcome, Becky. Glad you could join us.That said, there were a few surprises. I was surprised by the statement on page 37 (paperback) that after the slave trade was abolished, the US slave population continued to increase, while the slave population in the rest of the western hemisphere decreased. (I suppose it stands to reason now that I think about it, but when I first read it I just ... wow!)
I think with the ban, slaveowners had to rely on increasing slaves through reproduction. So, they were very interested in slave families (not keeping them together as much, but making sure there was a future supply).
And on page 39 McPherson tells us that 3/4 of the world's cotton supply came from the US South. This means that the entire world, not just the plantation owners or the South in general or the US as a whole, benefited from the enslavement of black persons in the US. (See what I mean about appreciating the detail and the statistics?)
I think it is a great example of a specialized crop become a huge success and how the South dominated the market. I liked Bentley's analogy about oil. You make an interesting point that the world benefited from the U.S. slave system regarding cotton. Britain did not ban our cotton because it was made by slaves...the power of our position as global leader in cotton.
Bryan wrote: "Welcome, Becky. Glad you could join us.That said, there were a few surprises. I was surprised by the statement on page 37 (paperback) that after the slave trade was abolished, the US slave popul..."
After reading this I went looking for statistics on slave imports and population. I can't remember the site I found this on but it said that the areas now part of the USA received 6% of the slaves transported from Africa but eventually ended up with 2/3 of the slave population (Brazil had most of the rest) because a)the sugar plantations and mines usually bought just males b) life was so hard on west indies sugar plantations that even though female slaves averaged 4.6 births over the course of their life, that was not enough to overcome the death rate. (USA female slaves averaged 9.2 births)
Thanks Patricrk. I heard the same thing about the sugar plantations, really brutal. You had a haven for disease and that crop was really hard to harvest.
Bentley wrote: "Becky what a wonderful post and thank you for the link. Going to West Point together and being a college friend in training and then possibly serving in the Mexican War created bonds between these..."With so many of the commanders having gone to West Point both sides learned the same strategies and methods and were using that training, too. The military leadership aspect seems like it could not have been more even. Yes, this was indeed a war of brothers in many ways.
I read Killer Angels a few years ago and loved it. Blood Meridian is about the scalp-hunting aftermath of the Mexican War in the extreme southwest. It's based on the historical exploits of the infamous Glanton Gang. There is at least one book about McCarthy's historical research - Notes on Blood Meridian by John Sepich which was selling for several hundreds of dollars a copy (maybe more) but has recently been republished.
by Michael Shaara
by
Cormac McCarthy
by John Sepich
Thanks, Becky, don't forget to add the Killer Angels citation when you mentioned it the second time:
Michael ShaaraYou make a good point about everyone learning the same "trade" at West Point. It becomes much harder to fight your opponent. Later on, we will be seeing how technology becomes a "game changer" here, which West Point did not teach them about.
What surprised me was that the slave population in the rest of the western hemisphere decreased. I know about breeding farms and some of that in the US but why would the black population of the rest of the Western world go down? (outside the scope of this book for sure but ...) Also, within the last few weeks I finished Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid That Sparked the Civil War by Tony Horwitz and he did a much better job, a serious job, with this book than with his priors (imo). I expect we'll hear a bit about him and his high-placed abolitionist friends in the McPherson, too.
by
Tony Horwitz
Here is some information on the Mt. Meadows Massacre (1857):The Mountain Meadows massacre was a series of attacks on the Baker–Fancher emigrant wagon train, at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah. The attacks culminated on September 11, 1857 in the mass slaughter of the emigrant party by the Iron County district of the Utah Territorial Militia and some local Native Americans.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain...)
More information:
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
Bryan wrote: "Jim wrote: "I was struck by how much the Jacksonian Democratic party (or at least the "antimonopoly crusade") sounded Marxist (p. 26)..."I think we see some seeds planted here that would later pr..."
I believe Marx just finished his two important works in 1848 and 1867 so the Marxism would come in today as a way to study the Civil War. He did write some essays about it though - directly - and his thinking on this influenced many in England.
I think Marxist historiography just means "follow the money" which can be a very tangled web. (lol) I can certainly see an application of Marxist theory being important in studies of the Civil War. (I've not read any I can think of.)
This is one of Marx's essays/letters about the US Civil War - (Oct. 1861; London)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
*
and
by
Karl Marx
1846 Mormon Trek:When Brigham Young and 3,000 Mormons set out for Utah on February 4, 1846, expedition leaders expected to reach their goal by the coming winter. But unforeseen difficulties forced the Mormons to abandon their original schedule. The journey was split into two sections: Nauvoo to Omaha, Nebraska in 1846; and, Omaha to the Salt Lake Valley of Utah in 1847.
The first section - 265 miles - tested the Mormons most severely. Although plans had already been made for the first group to leave Nauvoo in the spring of 1846, rumors of federal persecution and revocation of the Nauvoo city charter persuaded Brigham Young to begin the move earlier than expected.
February that year in Iowa was marked by harsh weather and bitter cold. With 500 wagons, the Mormons grimly faced miles of axle-deep mud bogs and rough, obscure trails. Many of the emigrants were unskilled in trail life and leadership was disorganized. Because of the hurried departure, important provisions had been left behind by many families. All of these factors combined to cause difficulties on a day to day basis.
Yet as the Mormons forged ahead, they became more organized and began traveling in groups of 10s, 50s or 100s. To make things easier on Mormons who had delayed their departure from Nauvoo, improvements were made to the route along the way. Settlements such as Garden Grove and Mt. Pisgah were established to provide way stations for the coming immigration.
Finally, by June 13, 1846, the first group of Mormons reached the Missouri River at Council Bluffs, Iowa. It had taken 120 days to cross 265 miles for an average of 2.25 miles a day. Some of these Mormons stayed in Council Bluffs, which was renamed Kanesville, while others crossed the Missouri and established Winter Quarters in present-day Omaha.
Brigham Young decided that the original plan to reach the Rockies by fall was now impossible. The Mormons would be staying on the Missouri until the following spring. Winter Quarters would prove to be a harsh stopping place during the winter of 1846-1847.
(Source: http://www.nps.gov/mopi/historycultur...)
Mormon 1847 Trek:By the time the spring of 1847 approached in Winter Quarters, nearly 400 Mormon lives had been lost to various causes. Yet there was a vital bit of good news during their stay.
The news came when the famous Jesuit, Father Pierre Jean de Smet, passed through Winter Quarters on his way east. The Jesuit was one of the few white men who had ever seen the Great Salt Lake. His information on routes and conditions was extended freely to the Mormons, who eagerly anticipated their next move west.
On April 5, 1847, Brigham Young led the first Mormon wagon train out of Winter Quarters bound for Utah. Conditions, timing, experience and organization were on the Mormons' side this time and the trip went much easier than the previous year's trial. 148 people, three of whom were women, 72 wagons, and a large collection of livestock made up this first group.
For this first leg of the journey, the Mormons generally followed the Oregon Trail, also known as the Great Platte River Road. The well-beaten route took them along the Platte River through Nebraska, then along the North Platte River to Fort Caspar, then across Wyoming to Fort Bridger.
At Fort Bridger on July 9, the Mormons left the Oregon Trail with 116 miles left to go. The previous year, the Reed-Donner party had blazed a route across Utah on their way to California. The Mormons took advantage of this route and followed it through the Wasatch Range and into the Great Salt Lake region. Yet this last 116 miles were the most difficult of the entire journey.
The people were filthy and weary and both wagons and livestock were weakened from the previous 1,000 miles of trail. The Wasatch Range proved to be a formidable barrier with its brush-choked canyons and steep passes.
Finally, on July 24, 1847, the first group of Mormons arrived at their new home in the Great Salt Lake Valley. Immediately, the Mormons began establishing the makings of a town and planted crops in preparation for the coming Mormon emigrants. From 1847 to 1869, until the completion of the transcontinental railroad, nearly 70,000 Mormons would make the journey along the Mormon Trail.
(Source: http://www.nps.gov/mopi/historycultur...)
Becky wrote: "Bryan wrote: "Jim wrote: "I was struck by how much the Jacksonian Democratic party (or at least the "antimonopoly crusade") sounded Marxist (p. 26)..."I think we see some seeds planted here that ..."
Thanks, Becky, my mind wobbles in different directions sometimes, and Marx just happened to pop up. It is interesting he began his work during this time period. You get a sense that capitalism was having huge affects by now.
I think the author did a great job in Chapter 1 summarizing the massive changes that occurred in the US between 1800 and 1850, and showing how these changes directly and indirectly lead to the war. Until reading this, I hadn't thought about how much our nation changed during the first half of the 19th Century.
I do agree with liking the footnotes at the bottom of each page. I have very limited reading time, so I don't cross-reference anything, but when there is additional information in the footnotes, that can be helpful.I do not agree that the book is well written (so far). It was very painful for me to read and I am really hoping that was down to the amount of statistics involved. The only part that I felt flowed reasonably well was the part on the Mormon migrations. Hopefully this will improve as we get into the story more.
The most fascinating part for me, living in Ohio, was the section on the Butternuts (p.31). I do wonder if there is a historical correlation with politics in the region. Today, the political leanings in Cincinnati (on the Ohio River) correspond best with the South (conservative), while in Cleveland (on Lake Erie) they correspond best with New England (liberal). Of course, back then, "the Butternut districts were overwhelmingly Democratic [like the South] while the Yankee counties [accessible from the Northeast via the Erie Canal] voted Whig and after 1854 Republican." I do not know how this developed historically, but I wonder if there is a connection.
Kristjan wrote: "I do agree with liking the footnotes at the bottom of each page. I have very limited reading time, so I don't cross-reference anything, but when there is additional information in the footnotes, t..."The author does throw a lot at us for the first chapter. I hope you stick with it.
You are probably on to something about Ohio. Cincy is more southern than northern Ohio. We do see some Whigs and future Republicans coming from Ohio, though.
Chris wrote: "I think the author did a great job in Chapter 1 summarizing the massive changes that occurred in the US between 1800 and 1850, and showing how these changes directly and indirectly lead to the war...."I was surprised by the amount of change, as well. Thanks, Chris.
Kristjan wrote: "The most fascinating part for me, living in Ohio, was the section on the Butternuts (p.31). I do wonder if there is a historical correlation with politics in the region."I found this section quite interesting as well, for a personal reason. I grew up in Cleveland, and attended the Ohio State University. During my Freshman year, I had three roommates, all from a small town near Cincinnati. At the time, I was surprised to find that their speech, manners, culture, and politics seemed much more "Southern" to me than I would have expected for people who had grown up in a Northern state.
McPherson's discussion about the Butternuts is the first time that I have read anything that addresses the roots of the cultural differences between northern and southern Ohio.
Bryan wrote: "The author does throw a lot at us for the first chapter"The chapter is very dense with information and yet McPherson managed to keep it fairly clear - to me, anyway. It's all overview background for what's coming, McPherson's real subject, the Civil War itself, the specifics of what led to it and the war itself.
I'm kind of interested in getting to the California issue - it's mentioned in Chapter 1 but it gets a lot dirtier.
Bryan wrote: "Kristjan wrote: "I do agree with liking the footnotes at the bottom of each page. I have very limited reading time, so I don't cross-reference anything, but when there is additional information in..."I remember landing at the Cincinnati airport and the welcome message said "Gateway to Western Kentucky". I guess that shows you how they are oriented.
I'm from Cleveland as well, and KY and Cincy share many things together, although Cincinnati was a stop on the Underground Railroad, so like many places, it had a core group of antislavery supporters.
Bentley wrote: "Yes, considering these were either all or mostly American deaths and/on our own soil. Horrendous is more the word that comes to my mind. No wonder that for years the wounds ran deep."I think we have to remember this was the last war fought on US territory - the last war in which grandmothers and babies died.
So the soldier toll, which is pretty much the total toll in all wars since, was only part of the death toll and suffering toll.
Maybe if American civilians had been bombed in WWII we would have been less fast to bomb Vietnamese and Iraqi cities.
I've heard it said that the Civil War was to the US what WWI was to Europe. The wars were both way longer than originally estimated; the products of the industrial revolution were used in warfare; an incredibly high death toll was involved for all sides; Reparations and Reconstruction only continued the animosity which lingered for decades - if not longer. I think only the Wars of the Reformation were more devastating to western civilization and culture.
Kristjan wrote: "I do agree with liking the footnotes at the bottom of each page. I have very limited reading time, so I don't cross-reference anything, but when there is additional information in the footnotes, t..."Hi Kristjan
I want to disagree that this is not well written, but maybe I have a stronger foundation on this material than you (maybe weaker) but the author I think is setting the stage very well.
He points out the differences in the North and the South - the foundations for different values that still have the Norht & South in opposition at various stratas of each society.
As Bryan says in note 62 he gives an "overview of the times"
Just think about the difference in attitude about literacy and education.
Remarking on Bryan's note 57 about Marxism - I think that then in the 1840s when so many were arriving from Europe and coming, as the author explained, due to economic hardship such as the Irish potato famine, people who did not see themselves as self directed and newly facing industrialization that the emerging Marxism could have gained some traction.
Of course in the long haul even the misplaced craftsmen eventually got the benefit of the increased productivity.
I found this chapter to be really good and I am looking forward to the rest of the book.
I am reading this on Kindle (as I will be traveling for three weeks in May on a hiking trip and don't want the 3 lbs. of the paperback) and I am missing I think the footnotes every seems to like
Just digging in a bit late. Contents, the way the book is conceptually structured, are interesting. I fully expected to see a section on causation, then battle 1, battle 2, battle 3, ... march to the sea, aftermath. So, good, bad, or indifferent, the way the book is architected got my interest up a bit more than it was already.Aside from high school and college lower division history, this is the first book I have chosen to read on the American Civil War.
Bryan had asked if we agree with the idea that the junior officers won the war with Mexico. I probably need to re-read that section, because the assertion was plain, but the facts behind the assertion did not seem jump off the page.
Vince wrote: "Kristjan wrote: "I do agree with liking the footnotes at the bottom of each page. I have very limited reading time, so I don't cross-reference anything, but when there is additional information in..."Hi Vince,
I think you are definitely correct that my very weak background on the Civil War is part of the reason I am finding the book difficult to read. And as I mentioned, there are a lot of statistics in Ch. 1. So far in Ch. 2, I think it is improving and becoming easier for me to follow.
Vince wrote: "I think that then in the 1840s when so many were arriving from Europe and coming, as the author explained, due to economic hardship such as the Irish potato famine, people who did not see themselves as self directed and newly facing industrialization that the emerging Marxism could have gained some traction."Thanks, Vince. I think we do see some seeds of worker unrest or discontent here as industrialization matures. You wonder if some discontentment comes from the American "promise" of a new life and some workers get disappointed. It had to be a little better in America than in Europe, though.
Paul wrote: "Bryan had asked if we agree with the idea that the junior officers won the war with Mexico. I probably need to re-read that section, because the assertion was plain, but the facts behind the asser..."Welcome Paul. I hope your first foray into the Civil War will continue your interest in this very interesting war.
The author only mentions the junior officers winning the war, and you are right, he does not give us a lot of facts to back this up. We will see if he dives into it a little more as we go along.
Kristjan wrote: "Vince wrote: "Kristjan wrote: "I do agree with liking the footnotes at the bottom of each page. I have very limited reading time, so I don't cross-reference anything, but when there is additional ..."I hear what you are saying, Kristjan, he does provide stats and many themes that are hard to keep track of. I'm glad you are sticking with it, though.
Enjoying his brief history of industry in America quite a bit. On thing I did go check prior to digging into the book was to verify that there was no electrical service available for factories. If memory serves, it was not until 1882 that electricity became available as a service, in NYC, and that was what we would call a very limited pilot project. It was direct current by the way.
I think you are right, Paul. Most cities did not electrify until later in the century.I found the part of interchangeable parts very interesting. I did not know we were the leaders in the field. I remember the way the guns were made, but we did it in other areas as well. Brilliant.
Paul wrote: "Enjoying his brief history of industry in America quite a bit. On thing I did go check prior to digging into the book was to verify that there was no electrical service available for factories. ..."
Hi Paul
I think in this period the power was - water, steam, animal and man
Electricity will not become, I am pretty sure, a noteable source of energy in the 19th century and will only begin to be a source of light at the as Bryan notes.
People on the thread, man this is just the reason the internet is still so amazing, all these years later. Instead of reading this book squirreled away in a Starbucks alone, I have the great pleasure of such a group as this. Fun stuff!
There we go, Jaye, no excuses now, lol. Don't forget to cite the book with bookcover and author when you mention it as such:
Cormac McCarthy
Paul wrote: "People on the thread, man this is just the reason the internet is still so amazing, all these years later. Instead of reading this book squirreled away in a Starbucks alone, I have the great pleas..."Thanks, Paul, I'm glad you are having fun. This is exactly why Goodreads and the HBC are around. In our group, no one will get bored with us as we talk about history ;-)
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (other topics)Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (other topics)
Blood Meridian, or, the Evening Redness in the West (other topics)
The Killer Angels (other topics)
The Communist Manifesto (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
James M. McPherson (other topics)James M. McPherson (other topics)
Cormac McCarthy (other topics)
Michael Shaara (other topics)
Karl Marx (other topics)
More...
You make a great point Patricrk! This chapter could be seen as a description of the vast changes that affected military leaders, but not really learning them to a point of execution.
I was curious about the telegraph and the Mexican War. The telegraph was around as indicated by the following:
The war between the United States and Mexico witnessed the first sizable use of technological innovations at the strategic level. Nowhere was this more evident than in communications. Mounted couriers still carried battle reports and dispatches tucked safely inside saddlebags, but in the period from 1821 to 1854, steamboats, railroads, and telegraphs advanced critical communications at speeds before unimagined.
Tactical communications for all armies in this era remained unchanged from communications in the earliest days of warfare. Generals conducted their battles from central locations in proximity to the frontlines, within eyesight and earshot of the actual fighting. Drums, bugles, and flags marked the progress of units in combat. Units at distant locations received written or verbal orders delivered by officers and couriers who, as often as not, held their position on the general staff not because of formal training or particular expertise but because of their connections to the commanding officer. The age of professional staff training was far in the future. Even so, these volunteer messengers provided the critical link between the commander and his command. For many armies of this period, including Mexico's, this hand-carried method of information exchange extended to strategic communications as well.
The United States increasingly gained a clear advantage over its adversaries in its application of technology to the issue of communications. In the United States, mechanical devices replaced reliance on bone, muscle, and sinew. When a dispatch arrived at a depot or supply base far to the rear of the army in the field, it often found its way to fast steamships or courier vessels that in turn moved the message to an inland port, rail terminal, or telegraph post. Steamboats had plied U.S. inland waters since 1807. This technological conquest of river currents allowed for relatively rapid transfer of materials and information both upstream and downstream, turning streams and waterways into natural highways. After 1826, railroads began to augment riverine communications.
In 1844, Samuel Morse sent the message "What hath God wrought" over the copper wires of a device he dubbed the telegraph. With the perfection of this invention, communications took a major leap forward, with corresponding implications for strategic and commercial applications. One military observer noted that, in the past, innovation had occurred slowly and at intervals, while in the first half of the nineteenth century, changes occurred at an alarming rate. Now, ten years time marked "an epoch in the onward progress of modern invention and improvement. Even five years may modify, materially, plans of defense now reputed wisest and most indispensable." One sound strategic plan could be compromised or undone by the rapid transfer of information. By 1850, writer Richard S. Fisher exclaimed, "We travel by steam and converse by lightning."
The implications these innovations held for the U.S.-Mexican War were profound. In the United States, news from the front arrived in just a few days, and politicians and generals alike could react rapidly to changing circumstances. The public kept abreast of news and supported the war to a greater or lesser degree based on the latest reports from the front. Ultimately, materials and manpower arrived from remote locations in the United States at a steady and reliable pace. All of these advantages allowed the nation to conduct a foreign war far removed from its centers of population.
(Source: http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/...)