Bill Cross Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 As some of you know, my 28 year-old son and I have been Civil War reenactors since 2000. I don't get into the field very often these days (knees and back don't like sleeping on the ground), but this weekend we're driving to Endview Plantation outside Newport News, VA for "On to Richmond," and event commemorating the Seven Days in 1862. I'm on staff (carrying discretely a walkie-talkie so we can get the troops into position to faithfully recreate the battles of Seven Pines, Gaines Mill and Malvern Hill. Needless to say, I won't be on the Internet, as it will take us a day driving each way. See y'all next week sometime. BiggTim, Tnarg, mpk and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpk Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Owens Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 What would have been the outcome had Little Mac displayed a little more Patton or Little Napoleon (his other nickname) and a little less Montgomery? By no means do I wish to impugn the leadership of Sir B.L. Montgomery, I only wish to poin out his and McClellan's "set-piece" approach. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix 54 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 What would have been the outcome had Little Mac displayed a little more Patton or Little Napoleon (his other nickname) and a little less Montgomery? By no means do I wish to impugn the leadership of Sir B.L. Montgomery, I only wish to poin out his and McClellan's "set-piece" approach. . . Rob, impugn away! My Dad fought under Auchinleck and Montgomery................guess which one he prefered! The Auck was honest, sadly Churchill wasn't in listening mood, so................Monty got the job............. time scale was about the same.................... If Patton had have had a little more Monty, and Monty had have had a lot more Patton.............. when could the war in the ETO realistically have ended? (answers, on a post card, addressed to the dark side of the moon!) Paul PS Bill for hijacking your thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Have fun Bill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Mike Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Yeah, have fun. The seven days were some of the bloodiest, worst fighting up to that point IIRC. At the same time as the Wilderness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Cross Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 Enjoy. We had a GREAT time. Had an image "struck" (tintype or ferrotype). Used the period chemicals, uncoated lens, natural light. My son has blue eyes so they turn ghostly because the emulsion can't pick up the blue spectrum. What would have been the outcome had Little Mac displayed a little more Patton or Little Napoleon (his other nickname) and a little less Montgomery? By no means do I wish to impugn the leadership of Sir B.L. Montgomery, I only wish to poin out his and McClellan's "set-piece" approach. . . The two most-interesting battles of the war are the Seven Days and Antietam. There were several times where Lee could have bagged a significant portion of the Federal army, perhaps bringing the British into the war or inducing them and France to broker a truce. At Antietam, Lee lost a copy of his orders that McClellan found, and would have been defeated piecemeal by anyone other than the tiny mind of his adversary (who with Alan Pinkerton's help, imagined Lee as having 2z-3x the troops the Federals had. Lee was trapped in front of a swollen river and the Federal army, and all Mac had to do was roll him up. The South would have lost its Eastern field army and perhaps would have been out of the war. Rob, impugn away! My Dad fought under Auchinleck and Montgomery................guess which one he prefered! The Auck was honest, sadly Churchill wasn't in listening mood, so................Monty got the job............. time scale was about the same.................... If Patton had have had a little more Monty, and Monty had have had a lot more Patton.............. when could the war in the ETO realistically have ended? (answers, on a post card, addressed to the dark side of the moon!) Paul PS Bill for hijacking your thread No need to apologize, I'm no fan of Monty, haha. Have fun Bill! We did, John. A ton of fun. Yeah, have fun. The seven days were some of the bloodiest, worst fighting up to that point IIRC. At the same time as the Wilderness? No, the Wilderness have 1864. By then "Butcher" Grant figured out the only way to get the South to throw in the towel was to bleed it white. The North was shocked at the losses after Grant stripped the forts around Washington of troops and hammered Lee all the way to Petersburg where he constructed WW1-style trenches and fortifications. The war ground to a halt. But yes, the Seven Days was far bloodier than anything before, so in the North the "change of base" McClellan made to the James River (relieving the pressure on Richmond) was greeted as a huge defeat. The South was buoyed by the tactical victories, but didn't have the manpower to maintain that kind of carnage. The Seven Days is one of the most-interesting battles in history, and Stephen Sears' To the Gates of Richmond is a fascinating look at the mistakes, bad luck, foibles and intricate maneuvers that characterized the campaign, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Mike Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Yes. Grant understood the war of attrition could not be sustained by the South. Cold Harbor was another example of his troops realizing this strategy, and as a means of self preservation, going back to using every bit of natural cover they could. The ACW is a fascinating study of how many battles turned on seemingly simple twists of fate. The stone bridge at first Bull Run is a prime example. Nice photo BTW. Bill Cross 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnarg Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Excellent photo. I have one of a great great grandfather that was about that faded from the same time and war. When I actually got a good look at it after improving the histogram in Corel Photo Paint, you could see what a kid he was at the time. It is great that we have a few photos of people back in that day, just to make them come alive in our minds. Tnarg Bill Cross 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Mike Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Vicksburg= engineering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Cross Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 To me, Grant was a butcher, not much more than that. I give him credit for figuring it all out, though. During the War of Northern Aggression, the North suffered many inept Generals who needlessly slaughtered their own and I believe, cost hundreds of thousands of fine young men a needless death. It's funny how many of the States Rights issues that irritated the South enough to break away are still unresolved even today. That being said, I give the reenactors all the credit in the World for keeping history alive. The military history is fascinating. The ability of Generals to completely ignore common sense is even more fascinating. Lest we veer into politics, I will say simply that my crowd tries to portray the history accurately. I have slaveowners in my lineage, and I freely admit they were on the wrong side of history, but that they acted in keeping with their beliefs and did what seemed right at the time. They paid a heavy price (one dead at Kennesaw Mountain and another of measles). My great-great grandfather Julius Michael Heilig, 54th NC, was wounded in that campaign. He was taken prisoner, eventually exchanged, went home, sired my great grandfather (whew!), then returned to service. He took a belly full of grape shot at the Battle of Fisher's Hill and was killed. Buried in a mass grave at Mt. Jackson, VA. Very many KIA went into unmarked graves. The Union soldiers at Cold Harbor sewed their names into the fatigue blouses so they would get a marked grave. The army didn't issue dog tags or other ID badges which is why sutlers offered them. It's a sobering hobby. Here are some images from the weekend: The young Cross is to the right of the flag bearer: And here's a weeper: him at 12 in grown-up clothes much like drummer boys of the period: mpk and Tnarg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Mike Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Nice photos. The history is very interesting. Model-wise, I have an interest in ironclads, and artillery. Bill Cross and mpk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomber_County Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Bill, you got me thinking, I've read WW1-WW2-Korea and Vietnam but nothing on the Civil War...... Perhaps you guys can suggest some books etc......... Bill Cross and mpk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Mike Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Yeah, I wish someone would do some ironclads that work out to about 20 inches long. 50cm for the metric among us. Bill Cross and mpk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpk Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 This is very cool. Thanks mate for sharing. A personal love of mine is Rome, right through early Livy up until it's fall in the east in 1453. I've read all the translations. Even the cookbook. (Which I used to stage a Roman dinner party. But that's a story for another site.) Why mention this? Because I once happened to stumble across a website full of people who re-enacted Roman battles. These people had the finest detail one could imagine. In all my reading I never learned what they knew. These people, such as yourself Bill, help keep history alive and vibrant. Sadly with the loss of my brain I have forgotten the above mentioned site. History is so easy to lose. People, just decades after WWII still wonder about certain paint colours. Imagine trying to really understand Rome, say circa 906 AD? Hopefully your fellow enthusiasts will make this history a little harder to lose. Tnarg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now