Edward left off the "War of Northern Aggression". Butternut was the color of the Confederate uniform early on.To add to what might be confusing in sorting out all the types of units, start with Squad. Squad: 4 to 8 men. Platoon: 4 Squads. Company: 4 to 6 platoons. Battalion: 4 to 6 Companies. Here is where it gets tricky. Some Armies, in their Table of Organization, have Brigades and some do not. Some have Regiments and some do not. Calvary also had cannon but usually light cannon that could move fast with the unit. Does the Army study Civil War tactics? You better believe they do both for the good, the bad and the ugly. Stonewall's quick marching and never give up attitude is one. Then there is the fighting you do not want like McClellan, Hooker, and Burnsides. Edward is right on the reading although Bruce Cannon's writing is also good. Someone wrote about men between 17 and 25. Late in the war the South was running out of bullets and men. They conscripted younger and older men. My g-g-grandfather was 41 with 3 or 4 children and was called up. He was killed in early 1845. All ages and sexes need honor this week-end. Nurses and WAC's did their part for this country. Lee said it was good that war was so terrible lest we grow too fond of it. Amen, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: <civil-war-request@rootsweb.com> To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 12:21 PM Subject: CIVIL-WAR Digest, Vol 3, Issue 71 > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Manaia Alofa) > 2. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Alice Gayley) > 3. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? (akeegan) > 4. Fw: Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Jim Gilmer) > 5. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Manaia Alofa) > 6. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Alice Gayley) > 7. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Dennis J. Francis) > 8. Re: (CIVIL-WAR) WILLIAM DICKENS CompanyE52 Regiment Infantry > (Edward Harding) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT) > From: Manaia Alofa <manaiaalofa@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: civil-war@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <575674.24559.qm@web32201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Edward: > > "The Southern states seceded from the Union and just > wanted to be left alone," > > The statement above bothers me. > > "Although most people call this the Civil War, > actually, the official name for it as written in the > Original Records is The War of the Rebellion." > > Then, which side was rebelling? That would mean the > Union side, more or less, were the "bullies" so to > speak. Do the generals of today study tactics/plans of > previous wars and act accordingly? Or do they try to > come up with new strategies? > > I know: research! I will read up on books you'd > suggested also. Be ready. > > --Manaia > > ++++ > > --- "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> wrote: > > > Although most people call this the Civil War, > actually, the official name for it as written in the > Original Records is The War of the Rebellion. > How it became known as the Civil War is anyone's guess > as a true civil war has one group trying to invade and > taking over the existing government of another group. > The Southern states seceded from the Union and just > wanted to be left alone, so therefore, "civil war" > really isn't a proper name for it. Many people call > the South "traitors" because of their secession, but > very few know or realize that secession was actually > taught at West Point before the war. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:22:59 -0400 > From: "Alice Gayley" <agayley@verizon.net> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <001d01c8bd02$080022b0$2f01a8c0@YOUR78DADCEFFE> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; > reply-type=original > > Manaia, >> >> Now, does it mean anything if I say "the South" or >> "Confederates" when talking to someone from the >> Southern States? Or from the Northern States? > > When you are talking about the Civil War/War of the Rebellion, most people > (both NOrth and South") understand that "the South" means the Confederates > or the Rebels and "the North" means the Union, the Federals, or the > Yankees. > The Union equivalent of "Butternut" was the "Blue." >> >> Now here in California we, of course, never hear of >> the "Western States" or "Eastern States" but we hear >> the "Mainland". And it's often heard when someone from >> the Islands is speaking of the USA (the Mainland) and >> these are people born before the 1970s. > > The Western Theater of operations and the Eastern Theater of operations > was > equivalent to those terms used in World War II. General Eisenhower's > command was the European Theater of Operations (ETO); General McArthur > was > in command on the Pacific Theater of Operations, etc. > > As Mike explained, the Confederates and the Federals military were also > organized by Departments. For the Federals, the Department of the > Cumberland, the Department of the Ohio, etc. The heads of these > departments > were in charged of all military operations within their area. Similarly > today's military operations in the U. S. is organized by Districts; for > example, the Military District of Washington, etc. > > If anyone has anything to add to the above (or correct me where I am > wrong), > please do so. > > Alice Gayley > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:35:59 -0400 > From: "akeegan" <akeegan@wowway.com> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <000701c8bd03$d8b17840$0ee10e45@YOUR780C524461> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > When I think of the Civil War I wonder if the mother of a wounded > Confederate solider felt more pain than a Northen Mother > Did a Confederate soldier feel more pain from hunger that a Northen > soldier > Did the Children of a Southern Soldier miss there father more than a Union > Soldier's children, No course not So were they not all brave and noble > Soldiers fighting for what the each believe to be right . > On this Memorial Day I will honor both and place no blame on either side > Ann > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Manaia Alofa" <manaiaalofa@yahoo.com> > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:20 PM > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > > >> Edward: >> >> "The Southern states seceded from the Union and just >> wanted to be left alone," >> >> The statement above bothers me. >> >> "Although most people call this the Civil War, >> actually, the official name for it as written in the >> Original Records is The War of the Rebellion." >> >> Then, which side was rebelling? That would mean the >> Union side, more or less, were the "bullies" so to >> speak. Do the generals of today study tactics/plans of >> previous wars and act accordingly? Or do they try to >> come up with new strategies? >> >> I know: research! I will read up on books you'd >> suggested also. Be ready. >> >> --Manaia >> >> ++++ >> >> --- "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> wrote: >> >> >> Although most people call this the Civil War, >> actually, the official name for it as written in the >> Original Records is The War of the Rebellion. >> How it became known as the Civil War is anyone's guess >> as a true civil war has one group trying to invade and >> taking over the existing government of another group. >> The Southern states seceded from the Union and just >> wanted to be left alone, so therefore, "civil war" >> really isn't a proper name for it. Many people call >> the South "traitors" because of their secession, but >> very few know or realize that secession was actually >> taught at West Point before the war. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:37:36 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) > From: "Jim Gilmer" <jimgilmer@charter.net> > Subject: [CIVIL-WAR] Fw: Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <48370EEF.000001.00232@JIM> > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Jim Gilmer > Date: 5/23/2008 1:32:44 PM > To: civil-war@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > >>From the Northern perspective, the South was rebelling. From the Southern > perspective, the North was the aggressor. > > Jim > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Manaia Alofa > Date: 05/23/08 13:21:17 > To: civil-war@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > > Edward: > > "The Southern states seceded from the Union and just > wanted to be left alone," > > The statement above bothers me. > > "Although most people call this the Civil War, > actually, the official name for it as written in the > Original Records is The War of the Rebellion." > > Then, which side was rebelling? That would mean the > Union side, more or less, were the "bullies" so to > speak. Do the generals of today study tactics/plans of > previous wars and act accordingly? Or do they try to > come up with new strategies? > > I know: research! I will read up on books you'd > suggested also. Be ready. > > --Manaia > > ++++ > > --- "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> wrote: > > > Although most people call this the Civil War, > actually, the official name for it as written in the > Original Records is The War of the Rebellion. > How it became known as the Civil War is anyone's guess > as a true civil war has one group trying to invade and > taking over the existing government of another group. > The Southern states seceded from the Union and just > wanted to be left alone, so therefore, "civil war" > really isn't a proper name for it. Many people call > the South "traitors" because of their secession, but > very few know or realize that secession was actually > taught at West Point before the war. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:32:14 -0700 (PDT) > From: Manaia Alofa <manaiaalofa@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: civil-war@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <476059.20581.qm@web32205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Alice: > > Artillery Corps: heavy weaponry? cannons? > > Cavalry Corps: soldiers who rode on horses? > > Infantry Corps: everyone else on foot? > > I'm trying to get the gist before I hit the books. Is > Corps short for Corporations? > > It's a wonder anyone could win a war let alone fight a > war with all this planning and designing going on just > to strategize. > > "I'm tired already." More musings later. > > --Manaia > > ++++ > > --- Alice Gayley <agayley@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Manaia, >> >> Generally, >> >> An Army was made up of one Artillery Corps, one >> Cavalry Corps and an >> Infantry Corps. >> >> The Infantry Corps was made up of divisions (two or >> three or more). >> Infantry Divisions were made up of Brigades (usually >> three or more) >> Brigades were made up of Regiments (no fixed number >> generally three or four >> or more) >> Regiments were made up of Companies (Infantry >> regiments usually had ten >> companies designed as: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, >> and K), although there >> were larger regiments. Cavalry regiments usually >> had more than ten >> companies. >> >> Battalions were larger than a regiment and smaller >> than regiment. Perhaps >> some one else can speak to the size of a battalion. >> >> Hope this helps, >> Alice Gayley > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:57:59 -0400 > From: "Alice Gayley" <agayley@verizon.net> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <000a01c8bd06$ecdcb5c0$2f01a8c0@YOUR78DADCEFFE> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; > reply-type=original > > Manaia, >> >> Artillery Corps: heavy weaponry? cannons? Exactly. There was also >> "Light" artillery, but we'll save that for a later time. >> >> Cavalry Corps: soldiers who rode on horses? Exactly. Although sometimes >> when they fought in battle they dismounted. >> >> Infantry Corps: everyone else on foot? Right. > >> I'm trying to get the gist before I hit the books. Is >> Corps short for Corporations? No, it's a French term as in "esprit de >> corps." > >> >> It's a wonder anyone could win a war let alone fight a >> war with all this planning and designing going on just >> to strategize. > > Well, think about our foreign relations in today's world. What else are > they except planned and designed strategies to prevent some other country > from attacking us, either at home or elsewhere in the world? Battle > strategies are almost as old as man himself. Think about the Romans and > the > Carthagens, or the British and the U. S. Army in the Revolutionary war. > War > is not simple; never has been. Yes, the individual soldier has to run > into > battle and shot at what he sees, but there are those above him who have > picked his target, decided the direction in which he will run, and the > time > he steps off. > > Having grown up during WWII, I'm always in awe of the men in the > Revolutionary and Civil Wars when linear warfare was used. How could you > just line up and start shooting at each other, e. g., Pickett's charge at > Gettysburg? It's easier to understand hiding behind rocks, buildings, > etc. > to protect yourself and not making yourself a target. I'm all for ambush! > > Alice > >> "I'm tired already." More musings later. >> >> --Manaia >> >> ++++ >> >> --- Alice Gayley <agayley@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> Manaia, >>> >>> Generally, >>> >>> An Army was made up of one Artillery Corps, one >>> Cavalry Corps and an >>> Infantry Corps. >>> >>> The Infantry Corps was made up of divisions (two or >>> three or more). >>> Infantry Divisions were made up of Brigades (usually >>> three or more) >>> Brigades were made up of Regiments (no fixed number >>> generally three or four >>> or more) >>> Regiments were made up of Companies (Infantry >>> regiments usually had ten >>> companies designed as: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, >>> and K), although there >>> were larger regiments. Cavalry regiments usually >>> had more than ten >>> companies. >>> >>> Battalions were larger than a regiment and smaller >>> than regiment. Perhaps >>> some one else can speak to the size of a battalion. >>> >>> Hope this helps, >>> Alice Gayley >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:06:46 -0400 > From: "Dennis J. Francis" <donncadhf@wowway.com> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <004b01c8bd08$265609e0$849f9543@YOUR2C968E82F1> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alice Gayley" <agayley@verizon.net> >> >> Was Troop equal to a regiment or a company?ever too old to learn! >> > -------------------------------- > Troop is equivalent to a company. > > Troop is more of a post-war term, though. > > Dennis > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:15:07 -0400 > From: "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] (CIVIL-WAR) WILLIAM DICKENS CompanyE52 > Regiment Infantry > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <000401c8bd09$50907960$6401a8c0@edwardo98sxo50> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Lorna, > > After reading your post on the list and the mentioning of colored > infantry, > I wanted to share something that many people don't realize, especially > people who know very little about the war. > > During the war, the Union had regiments known as United States Colored > Troops. In most cases, these units are shown by the abbreviation of USCT. > These units were actually segregated, usually with the only white men > being > their commanding officers, although there were many black non-commissioned > officers (sergeants & corporals) who served. The Confederates, on the > other > hand, did not segregate their troops and the men who served, no matter > what > race, creed, religion, color, or nationality, fought along side each > other. > Another point of interest is that the USCT were paid less than their white > counterparts of the same ranks versus those in the Confederate Army who > were > all paid the same according to their rank. Although most Black > Confederates > served as body servants, cooks, teamsters, etc., there are many documented > instances where Union soldiers wrote of being attacked by and fighting > against Black Confederate soldiers. > > One example of this was in a diary written by a Union doctor who was > captured behind enemy lines. In 1862 he observed the Army of Northern > Virginia moving toward Sharpsburg and noted the following: > > "Wednesday, September 10 > At 4 o'clock this morning the Rebel army began to move from our town, > Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until 8 > o'clock > P.M., occupying 16 hours. The most liberal calculation could not give > them > more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in the > number.... > They had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They > were > supplied, in many instances with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., > and > they were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy army. > They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on > caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of generals and promiscuously > mixed > up with all the Rebel horde." > > Another example is from a letter that a Union soldier wrote home to his > local newspaper in Indiana about his unit's exchange of fire with Black > Confederates in the Fall of 1861. This one story ended up being printed > in > newspapers all over the North. > > "..a body of seven hundred Negro infantry opened fire on our men, wounding > two lieutenants and two privates. The wounded men testify positively that > they were shot by Negroes, and that not less than seven hundred were > present, armed with muskets. This is, indeed, a new feature in the war. > We > have heard of a regiment of Negroes at Manassas, and another at Memphis, > and > still another at New Orleans, but did not believe it till it came so near > home and attacked our men.... One of the lieutenants was shot in the back > of > the neck and is not expected to live." > > One of the most famous units of USCT was the Massachusetts 54th of which > the > movie "Glory" was made about. Although they volunteered to be the first > to > assault Battery Wagner in South Carolina, the sad fact is so many times, > the > Union used the USCT as cannon fodder with a prime example being the Crater > at Petersburg. In my German GG Grandfather's memoirs, he noted the > following about this: "After a short while the Yankees made a heavy charge > against the break they had made. They charged with their Negroes in > front, > and the white Yankees behind them, with their bayonets fixed. It was > certain death for a Negro not to advance upon the charge. Our Regiment, > the > 61st under the command of Major Henry Harding (one of my ancestors) was > sent > to assist in repelling the charge. When the Yankees attacked and our men > found the attackers were Negroes, the cry of "No Quarter" was given. Men > clubbed their rifles, others drove their bayonets through them. It was a > fierce hand to hand fight. The poor Negroes would cry for quarter but no > quarter they received. The whole were killed. It was a heavy slaughter. > Some two thousand were killed or more." > > These are just a few facts about the war that many people are not aware > of. > If we're to study the history of this war, we must learn everything about > it > that we can, including, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." Actually, in > so > many of today's "modern" books on the war, the authors tend to give their > personal opinions on what happened, omitting many details of what actually > did happen. In my studies and research, I've found the best books to be > older ones (pre 1990) along with diaries, memoirs, and other first hand > accountings of what happened. To me, nothing can beat these first hand > accountings of things that happened by those who were actually there. > Lastly, as a local historian, I always try to abide by Cicero's statement > in > regard to history, which states, "The first law of the historian is that > he > shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress > nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality > in his writing, or of malice." Its kind of like old Sergeant Joe Friday's > line from the old Dragnet series...."Just state the facts, Maam." > > Edward > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the CIVIL-WAR list administrator, send an email to > CIVIL-WAR-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the CIVIL-WAR mailing list, send an email to > CIVIL-WAR@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of CIVIL-WAR Digest, Vol 3, Issue 71 > **************************************** >