Civil war mysteries

[UM-Bot]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/images/newsitems/lincoln.jpg

William B Stoecker: Today we are told that Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest of our presidents and that the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union and abolish the very real evil of slavery. While it was fought to preserve the Union, Lincoln showed little interest in the slavery issue until it became politically useful, and initially freed only the slaves in the South, while others continued to be enslaved in states that had not seceded. Lincoln suspended many Constitutional liberties during the war, and had some of his opponents arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned, and, although this is little known, there is nothing in the US Constitution that says or even implies that states may not secede...so the entire war was unconstitutional. A number of conspiracy authors believe that there is evidence that both the abolitionists and secessionists were stirred up by the Masons and other secret societies acting in concert with powerful European banking interests. The war led to an increase in the power of the central government and to an era of corruption when robber barons became fabulously wealthy by getting government loans and contracts and government-granted monopolies. This in turn led to the re-establishment of a national bank in the form of the Federal Reserve, which, in turn, led us down the path to where we are today.

In addition there is a pattern of evidence indicating that, for whatever reason, some Union generals may have deliberately lost certain battles or ignored certain military opportunities.

Major General George McClellan was a Democrat with some sympathy for the South, but he was a top notch military organizer, trainer, and inspirer of men, who restored Union morale and confidence...and then proceeded to fail on the battlefield over and over. After rebuilding the damaged Army of the Potomac, he led it in 3/62 to attack Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate capital. Rather than take the direct overland route, which offered the opportunity to bring the Southern armies to battle close to his supply bases, he transported his men by sea to land at Fort Monroe, Virginia, on the peninsula between the James and York rivers. It can be argued that this gave him a secure supply base and some flank protection, and avoided the more difficult river crossings of the overland route. But then he dawdled for an entire month at Yorktown while the Confederates prepared their defenses; by accident or design he ignored the obvious need for speed. Reportedly, McClellan believed the exaggerated reports of Confederate strength given to him by the Pinkerton Agency...despite the well-known Northern superiority in man power and industry.

On 5/31/62 the Confederates attacked him at Fair Oaks (Seven Pines), beginning the Battles of Seven Days. His forces drove them back, but failed to counter attack. Robert E. Lee took over the Southern armies and, ever agressive, attacked part of McClellan's forces under General Porter north of the Chicahominy River at Mechanicsville. Porter withdrew and Lee attacked him again on 6/27 near Gaines Mill, and Porter crossed the Chickahominy to join McClellan's main force. On 6/29 and 6/30 Lee attacked McClellan at Savage Station and Glendale, and McClellan's forces drove them off...and then retreated. He drove Lee off again at Malvern Hill, having over 100,000 troops to Lee's 85,000, but retreated again. Then he withdrew by sea from the peninsula. This beggars belief. With superior forces and secure supply, he won the battles and ran away. This seems to go far beyond mere incompetence.

Emboldened, Lee invaded Maryland with 55,000 men to McClellan's 90,000. He split his army into four main columns, but, via a strange accident, McClellan got a copy of Lee's battle orders. He now had an opportunity to attack part of the Confederate forces with most of his, crushing them by sheer firepower and practically ending the war. The need for immediate action would be obvious to a first year cadet at West Point...but not to McClellan. He got the copy of the orders on 9/13/62 but waited until late the next morning to begin a liesurely march to intercept the enemy; an overnight march would have succeeded. By the time McClellan attacked at Antietam Creek near Sharpsburg on 9/17, Lee had more of his forces ready and waiting, but McClellan still had a huge advantage.

He performed such acts of military genius as having Burnside try to cross a heavily defended bridge instead of wading the shallow creek, and attacking piecemeal with only parts of his 70,000 to 90,000 men. Using the well known "two up and one back" principle, he could have attacked with 50-60,000 men against Lee's 40,000. But that was not McClellan's way. Despite everything McClellan could do to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, his men still virtually crushed the Confederates, though at a terrible cost, and he still had reserves. But he failed to finish Lee off, which would have saved lives in the long run, or even encircle and entrap him, and he let Lee withdraw on 9/18.

This was too much even for the long-suffering (or worse) Lincoln, and he replaced McClellan with Major General Ambrose Burnside, with General Halleck in charge of overall army headquarters in Washington. In 12/62 Burnside prepared to cross the Rapahannock River and attack Lee's forces at Fredericksburg, Virginia. He planned to cross on pontoon bridges, but Halleck managed to delay their arrival, and Burnside was afraid to send part of his forces across to establish a bridgehead, even though they would have been covered by his artillery. As a result, his engineers came under harassing fire when the pontoons arrived. Nevertheless, he got his troops over the river, some 120,000 of them to Lee's 78,000, who waited out of artillery range, dug in at the base and on the crest of Marye's Heights. Burnside's excellent plan was to hold the center and guard his bridges with a reserve and send his main force around to his left to attack Lee's right flank...but then, unaccountably, he abandoned the plan, sending only a small and inadequate flanking force and launching his main force against Lee's center, with predictable and tragic results. His men payed the price with their lives, and, defeated, he retreated back across the river.

His successor was General "Fighting Joe" Hooker, who had some 134,000 men to Lee's 60,000, and who also started out with a good plan (you can probably see where this is going). He crossed the Rapahannock with his main force upstream from Fredericksburg, near Chancellorsville in an area mostly covered by scrubby second-growth woodlands known as the Wilderness, sending a smaller force to cross downstream, largely as a diversion. He had reserves north of the river keeping pace with him to guard his supply crossings. Now he could cut off Lee's supply and escape routes, but, as ignorant of speed as McClellan, he halted for the night near Chancellorsville, and Lee moved to block him. "Fighting Joe" failed to fight, ignoring an opportunity to attack, while Lee sent part of his forces under Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson past Hooker's right flank, which Hooker obligingly left open, even though he was advised of Jackson's movements. Jackson attacked, defeating only part of Hooker's forces, but Hooker withdrew to his bridgehead. Even then he could have held off any Confederate attack, and bled Lee white if that agressive general attacked it. But he retreated north of the Rapahannock.

Finally Lincoln put General Ulysses Grant, who had won victories in the West, in charge of the Army of the Potomac, and at least Grant went all out to end the war...there would be no more retreats. On 5/5 and 5/6/64 he fought his way across the Rapahannock and through the Wilderness, but at Spotsylvania, Virginia he made no effort to save lives and entrap Lee by outflanking him, but attacked head on. At the North Ana River he at least tried a flanking move; it is important to remember that even if such a movement failed, it would force Lee into a withdrawal the South could ill afford. Grant attacked head on again at Cold Harbor on 6/3/64, losing perhaps 2,000 killed and 4,000 wounded just in one hour.

At Petersburg, Virginia, Grant's men missed opportunities to take the city and cut the supplies to Richmond, and Lee fortified it. On 7/30/64 Grant's engineers exploded a huge mine under the Confederates, knocking a literal hole in their line, but then, while the drunk and cowardly officer in charge of the attackers stayed behind, his men entered the crater and milled about until the Confederates moved back above them and slaughtered them.

The entire war was like that, and the result was perhaps 750,000 Americans dead, countless others maimed for life, lasting economic damage, and lasting bitterness. And, in view of the strange and horrible events of our most recent century, it may well be that none of this was accidental.

William B Stoecker

[Oen Anderson]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/images/newsitems/lincoln.jpg

William B Stoecker: Today we are told that Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest of our presidents and that the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union and abolish the very real evil of slavery. While it was fought to preserve the Union, Lincoln showed little interest in the slavery issue until it became politically useful, and initially freed only the slaves in the South, while others continued to be enslaved in states that had not seceded. Lincoln suspended many Constitutional liberties during the war, and had some of his opponents arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned, and, although this is little known, there is nothing in the US Constitution that says or even implies that states may not secede...so the entire war was unconstitutional. A number of conspiracy authors believe that there is evidence that both the abolitionists and secessionists were stirred up by the Masons and other secret societies acting in concert with powerful European banking interests. The war led to an increase in the power of the central government and to an era of corruption when robber barons became fabulously wealthy by getting government loans and contracts and government-granted monopolies. This in turn led to the re-establishment of a national bank in the form of the Federal Reserve, which, in turn, led us down the path to where we are today.

In addition there is a pattern of evidence indicating that, for whatever reason, some Union generals may have deliberately lost certain battles or ignored certain military opportunities.

Major General George McClellan was a Democrat with some sympathy for the South, but he was a top notch military organizer, trainer, and inspirer of men, who restored Union morale and confidence...and then proceeded to fail on the battlefield over and over. After rebuilding the damaged Army of the Potomac, he led it in 3/62 to attack Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate capital. Rather than take the direct overland route, which offered the opportunity to bring the Southern armies to battle close to his supply bases, he transported his men by sea to land at Fort Monroe, Virginia, on the peninsula between the James and York rivers. It can be argued that this gave him a secure supply base and some flank protection, and avoided the more difficult river crossings of the overland route. But then he dawdled for an entire month at Yorktown while the Confederates prepared their defenses; by accident or design he ignored the obvious need for speed. Reportedly, McClellan believed the exaggerated reports of Confederate strength given to him by the Pinkerton Agency...despite the well-known Northern superiority in man power and industry.

On 5/31/62 the Confederates attacked him at Fair Oaks (Seven Pines), beginning the Battles of Seven Days. His forces drove them back, but failed to counter attack. Robert E. Lee took over the Southern armies and, ever agressive, attacked part of McClellan's forces under General Porter north of the Chicahominy River at Mechanicsville. Porter withdrew and Lee attacked him again on 6/27 near Gaines Mill, and Porter crossed the Chickahominy to join McClellan's main force. On 6/29 and 6/30 Lee attacked McClellan at Savage Station and Glendale, and McClellan's forces drove them off...and then retreated. He drove Lee off again at Malvern Hill, having over 100,000 troops to Lee's 85,000, but retreated again. Then he withdrew by sea from the peninsula. This beggars belief. With superior forces and secure supply, he won the battles and ran away. This seems to go far beyond mere incompetence.

Emboldened, Lee invaded Maryland with 55,000 men to McClellan's 90,000. He split his army into four main columns, but, via a strange accident, McClellan got a copy of Lee's battle orders. He now had an opportunity to attack part of the Confederate forces with most of his, crushing them by sheer firepower and practically ending the war. The need for immediate action would be obvious to a first year cadet at West Point...but not to McClellan. He got the copy of the orders on 9/13/62 but waited until late the next morning to begin a liesurely march to intercept the enemy; an overnight march would have succeeded. By the time McClellan attacked at Antietam Creek near Sharpsburg on 9/17, Lee had more of his forces ready and waiting, but McClellan still had a huge advantage.

He performed such acts of military genius as having Burnside try to cross a heavily defended bridge instead of wading the shallow creek, and attacking piecemeal with only parts of his 70,000 to 90,000 men. Using the well known "two up and one back" principle, he could have attacked with 50-60,000 men against Lee's 40,000. But that was not McClellan's way. Despite everything McClellan could do to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, his men still virtually crushed the Confederates, though at a terrible cost, and he still had reserves. But he failed to finish Lee off, which would have saved lives in the long run, or even encircle and entrap him, and he let Lee withdraw on 9/18.

This was too much even for the long-suffering (or worse) Lincoln, and he replaced McClellan with Major General Ambrose Burnside, with General Halleck in charge of overall army headquarters in Washington. In 12/62 Burnside prepared to cross the Rapahannock River and attack Lee's forces at Fredericksburg, Virginia. He planned to cross on pontoon bridges, but Halleck managed to delay their arrival, and Burnside was afraid to send part of his forces across to establish a bridgehead, even though they would have been covered by his artillery. As a result, his engineers came under harassing fire when the pontoons arrived. Nevertheless, he got his troops over the river, some 120,000 of them to Lee's 78,000, who waited out of artillery range, dug in at the base and on the crest of Marye's Heights. Burnside's excellent plan was to hold the center and guard his bridges with a reserve and send his main force around to his left to attack Lee's right flank...but then, unaccountably, he abandoned the plan, sending only a small and inadequate flanking force and launching his main force against Lee's center, with predictable and tragic results. His men payed the price with their lives, and, defeated, he retreated back across the river.

His successor was General "Fighting Joe" Hooker, who had some 134,000 men to Lee's 60,000, and who also started out with a good plan (you can probably see where this is going). He crossed the Rapahannock with his main force upstream from Fredericksburg, near Chancellorsville in an area mostly covered by scrubby second-growth woodlands known as the Wilderness, sending a smaller force to cross downstream, largely as a diversion. He had reserves north of the river keeping pace with him to guard his supply crossings. Now he could cut off Lee's supply and escape routes, but, as ignorant of speed as McClellan, he halted for the night near Chancellorsville, and Lee moved to block him. "Fighting Joe" failed to fight, ignoring an opportunity to attack, while Lee sent part of his forces under Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson past Hooker's right flank, which Hooker obligingly left open, even though he was advised of Jackson's movements. Jackson attacked, defeating only part of Hooker's forces, but Hooker withdrew to his bridgehead. Even then he could have held off any Confederate attack, and bled Lee white if that agressive general attacked it. But he retreated north of the Rapahannock.

Finally Lincoln put General Ulysses Grant, who had won victories in the West, in charge of the Army of the Potomac, and at least Grant went all out to end the war...there would be no more retreats. On 5/5 and 5/6/64 he fought his way across the Rapahannock and through the Wilderness, but at Spotsylvania, Virginia he made no effort to save lives and entrap Lee by outflanking him, but attacked head on. At the North Ana River he at least tried a flanking move; it is important to remember that even if such a movement failed, it would force Lee into a withdrawal the South could ill afford. Grant attacked head on again at Cold Harbor on 6/3/64, losing perhaps 2,000 killed and 4,000 wounded just in one hour.

At Petersburg, Virginia, Grant's men missed opportunities to take the city and cut the supplies to Richmond, and Lee fortified it. On 7/30/64 Grant's engineers exploded a huge mine under the Confederates, knocking a literal hole in their line, but then, while the drunk and cowardly officer in charge of the attackers stayed behind, his men entered the crater and milled about until the Confederates moved back above them and slaughtered them.

The entire war was like that, and the result was perhaps 750,000 Americans dead, countless others maimed for life, lasting economic damage, and lasting bitterness. And, in view of the strange and horrible events of our most recent century, it may well be that none of this was accidental.

William B Stoecker

In Tilleys book The Money Matrix of the New World Order, he shows in great detail in chapter 17 the conspiracy to destroy the United States by the monied elite from the beginning of our nation through today. On pages 181-182 he covers the Civil war and how the Europeans plan to attack from Canada and Mexico after we had worn ourselves down was thwarted. It is interesting Tilleys book came out just before the current economic crisis.

Good article Bill.

[IronGhost]

I would say it's all to0 easy to project conspiracy theories upon history and historical figures, but it actually takes a lot of arduous thinking and the pounding of round pegs into square holes to come up with views this complex.

The fact is, McClellon, in the final analysis, didn't have enough guts for true war. For that, they needed someone as crazy and brutal and Gen. Grant, whose tactics resemble a lot of those of Napoleon. Grant had few qualms about sending as many bodies into the meat grinder as he thought was needed. If it bothered Grant, he soothed his tortured soul with alcohol. Perhaps McClellon was just to humane to fight a war as it was "meant" to be fought in those times. Whatever.

I just feel that the basic randomness and uncontrollability and unpredictablity of the events of humankind are to great to support the overarching conspiracy theories presented here.

Edited August 24, 2009 by IronGhost

[ninjadude]

so the revisionist history is that the civil war, fought almost 150 YEARS ago, was contrived and unnecessary. Rigggghtt. We should have let the south seceed. Riighhtt. The OP's real point is that he wants to reignite the civil war and have the south go again because, well we have a black president. OMFG!! Will the racists ever give up?!:angry2:

Edited August 25, 2009 by ninjadude

[Teej]

I don't generally buy the Freemason conspiracies, and this one seems like a bit of a stretch as well.

Then he withdrew by sea from the peninsula. This beggars belief. With superior forces and secure supply, he won the battles and ran away. This seems to go far beyond mere incompetence.

McClellan, among many other Union and Confederate generals, was incredibly cautious. In the case of the Peninsula Campaign, I feel what caused him to lose his nerve was Lee seemingly lacking concern over casualties, putting doubt into McClellan (and other generals') mind as to the accuracy of the estimates of Lee's strength. If you put yourself in his shoes you can see the confusion: Lee was supposed to be out-manned, so how could he afford to keep losing so many men and still manage to keep attacking? This, along with some other blundering, is what made McClellan hesitate. If McClellan had other motives, he could have fulfilled them a lot easier as a victorious general than a man who had been bettered by 'Granny' Lee.

He performed such acts of military genius as having Burnside try to cross a heavily defended bridge instead of wading the shallow creek, and attacking piecemeal with only parts of his 70,000 to 90,000 men. Using the well known "two up and one back" principle, he could have attacked with 50-60,000 men against Lee's 40,000.

From what I recall of Antietam, the river had been swollen somewhat by rains the week before. Ultimately this was Burnside's decision, and he could have tried to cross but then he'd have men bogged down and being picked off in a creek instead of attempting a sprint across the bridge. In hindsight Burnside probably should have swarmed the bridge and tried to cross the creek at the same time to overwhelm the Confederates, but Burnside wasn't a brilliant commander and he couldn't have known just how many times his men would be repulsed. And as vague as McClellan was in his orders, again the lack of coordination between the 3-wave attack he planned wasn't 100% his fault: Hooker was the only one who attacked early in the morning, while Sumner and Burnside took their sweet time. Again, McClellan should have been clear in his orders and adapted to the situation, but I don't know if this counts as a conspiracy to lose the war.

but then, unaccountably, he abandoned the plan, sending only a small and inadequate flanking force and launching his main force against Lee's center, with predictable and tragic results. His men payed the price with their lives, and, defeated, he retreated back across the river.

Burnside was definitely a pretty terrible commander, however he didn't really 'abandon' the plan: General Franklin didn't attack as ordered and simply failed to send anyone else to attack but Meade and Gibbon's divisions, which almost broke through but were far too small to capitalize on any success. Burnside certainly made a lot of mistakes though, and to blame the battle's failure on Franklin would be way too apologetic to Burnside.

"Fighting Joe" failed to fight, ignoring an opportunity to attack, while Lee sent part of his forces under Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson past Hooker's right flank, which Hooker obligingly left open, even though he was advised of Jackson's movements. Jackson attacked, defeating only part of Hooker's forces, but Hooker withdrew to his bridgehead. Even then he could have held off any Confederate attack, and bled Lee white if that agressive general attacked it.

The first part is correct. Hooker probably should have attacked, but this is again using hindsight and previous experience had shown that Lee would attack anyway (which he did); so why attack when Lee would theoretically destroy himself? Hooker actually sent orders to General Howard to better defend the flank, but Howard either didn't get the orders due to the dense forest or he ignored them. Hooker was also energetically preparing a defense that theoretically would have halted the Confederate advance right when it was losing cohesion, but a artillery shell knocked him unconscious and the reinforcements were not sent. The rest of the battle was confused, as Hooker's coordination was lacking after his concussion. For the record, Hooker's supposed claim that he "for once lost confidence in Joe Hooker" is a myth (source: Stephen Sears, Controversies and Commanders).

On 7/30/64 Grant's engineers exploded a huge mine under the Confederates, knocking a literal hole in their line, but then, while the drunk and cowardly officer in charge of the attackers stayed behind, his men entered the crater and milled about until the Confederates moved back above them and slaughtered them.

I just wanted to stress that Grant was not drunk during the Battle of the Crater. The drunk officer was General James Ledlie, a division commander under Burnside who failed to train his men for the attack and sent them straight to their death (they didn't "mill about", the far ridge of the crater was too steep and the men flooding in behind them prevented those in front from retreating; it was a perfect slaughter, all thanks to General Ledlie).

The fact is, McClellon, in the final analysis, didn't have enough guts for true war. For that, they needed someone as crazy and brutal and Gen. Grant, whose tactics resemble a lot of those of Napoleon. Grant had few qualms about sending as many bodies into the meat grinder as he thought was needed. If it bothered Grant, he soothed his tortured soul with alcohol. Perhaps McClellon was just to humane to fight a war as it was "meant" to be fought in those times. Whatever.

I just feel that the basic randomness and uncontrollability and unpredictablity of the events of humankind are to great to support the overarching conspiracy theories presented here.

For the record, there's little evidence that Grant drank while in command of the Army of the Potomac. However you're completely right about McClellan: he was cautious because he liked being popular, and nobody wants to hurt the thing that makes you popular. Grant's very interesting, because part of the reason he was so successful was that he had the good timing to be put in charge when the Army of Northern Virginia was bleeding to death; had he been put in command earlier, it's doubtful he would have lasted any longer than someone like Burnside or Pope. But on the flipside, part of the reason Grant incurred so many casualties was because Lee was bleeding to death and his only tactic was to dig in and let Grant attack his fortifications. So if Grant had been in charge earlier in the war when Lee used stand-and-fight tactics, who knows what would have happened. But you're absolutely right, war is very unpredictable and as hard as it is to believe that McClellan and Burnside were as bad as they were, it's even more hard for me to believe that somehow they were able to coordinate their blunders in such a way as to extend the war as long as it lasted.

As an aside, I love the American Civil War (it was my concentration at Ohio University) and this was a thoroughly enjoyable post

Edited for typos

Edited August 25, 2009 by Teej

[CaitSith]

so the revisionist history is that the civil war, fought almost 150 YEARS ago, was contrived and unnecessary. Rigggghtt. We should have let the south seceed. Riighhtt. The OP's real point is that he wants to reignite the civil war and have the south go again because, well we have a black president. OMFG!! Will the racists ever give up?!:angry2:

The OP is a News Bot. . I dont think we need to worry about racist bots

[IronGhost]

The OP is a News Bot. . I dont think we need to worry about racist bots

The OP is not a BOT -- this piece was written by William Stoecker -- but I don't think he's a racist, just presenting an alternative view to history.

To ttej, I would say I agree with you about Grant not being drunkin that battle -- I was referring to his frequent bouts of boozing when he was ofduty, so to speak.

[Teej]

To ttej, I would say I agree with you about Grant not being drunkin that battle -- I was referring to his frequent bouts of boozing when he was ofduty, so to speak.

Just checking, a lot of people assume he was drunk all the time and somehow that gave him a fighting spirit or something.

[ninjadude]

The OP is not a BOT -- this piece was written by William Stoecker -- but I don't think he's a racist, just presenting an alternative view to history.

But I'm going further. What is the point of his "alternative" history? What does it get? I believe the motivation behind it is new civil war, secession, and racism because of the sitting presidents race. People who want to accurately portray history, don't make stuff up and then cloud their motivation with minutia.

[Oen Anderson]

But I'm going further. What is the point of his "alternative" history? What does it get? I believe the motivation behind it is new civil war, secession, and racism because of the sitting presidents race. People who want to accurately portray history, don't make stuff up and then cloud their motivation with minutia.

In the first paragraph he points out that after the war the monied elite got richer which lead eventually to the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which lead us to the financial crisis we are in today.

Also, history is written by the winners of the wars. "Alternative" history is what they fought so hard to keep the rest of us from knowing. It is the history the side that lost would have told. But truly the Southerners didn't know they were being played by the secret societies into the position of leaving the union. They were lead down that path very skillfully. Humans are all too often sheep.

[ninjadude]

ok so now we have someone plugging their federal reserve conspiracy theory. This needs moved to the conspiracy section.