What was the most violent civil war battle?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Lucas Tam, Apr 13, 2004.

  1. Lucas Tam

    Lucas Tam Guest

    I don't mean necessarily the most fatalities but the battle that was
    most vicious and caused the most amount of suffering in the shortest
    Lucas Tam, Apr 13, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Lucas Tam

    Kenshiro Guest

    Kenshiro, Apr 13, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Lucas Tam

    W. G. Davis Guest

    For both sides....Antietam, and maybe Atlanta second, Shiloh third.

    Some one sided affairs:

    Cold Harbor,
    The Crater


    W. G. Jeff Davis

    "When soldiers have been baptized
    in the fire of a battle-field,
    they have all one rank in my eyes."
    --Napoleon Bonaparte
    W. G. Davis, Apr 13, 2004
  4. the assault on fort gregg april 2nd 1865 , petersburg va.
    raymond o'hara, Apr 13, 2004
  5. You mean outside of this newsgroup?
    Brooks D. Simpson, Apr 13, 2004
  6. It may be Shiloh.

    The Yanks were at breakfast when the "Seccech" came through the woods upon
    them. My great-grandfather's regiment, the Eighteenth Missouri, was right at
    the cusp of the Rebel attack. He was wounded three times fighting the
    attack. The regiment lost all their food, clothes, tents, equipment,
    records, etc. They were caught flat footed and suffered badly. Grant and
    Sherman had not required any defensive bulwarks erected. They had assumed
    the Rebs were at least twenty miles away in Corinth, Mississippi. But they
    never made that mistake again!

    The public reaction to the battle was shock that so many men could be killed
    or wounded so fast. For perhaps the first time both the North and the South
    knew they were in for modern warfare consisting of mass deaths achieved


    W. D. Allen Sr., Apr 13, 2004
  7. Lucas Tam

    Brad Meyer Guest

    In terms to casualties as a percentage of total personel engaged, I
    think it might well be Groveton (AKA Brawner's Farm). This was also
    where Ewell lost his leg.
    Brad Meyer, Apr 15, 2004
  8. Lucas Tam

    Bob Schmall Guest

    7,000 Union soldiers fell in less than 30 minutes at Cold Harbor.
    Bob Schmall, Apr 15, 2004
  9. Wrong, but thanks for playing.
    Brooks D. Simpson, Apr 15, 2004
  10. Lucas Tam

    Bob Schmall Guest

    Wrong yourself. Look it up.
    Bob Schmall, Apr 19, 2004
  11. We've discussed this a short time ago; I suggest you consult Gordon Rhea's
    study of the battle, a certain rcent biography of Grant, and the archives
    here. The figure you cite is simply myth.
    Brooks D. Simpson, Apr 19, 2004

  12. it's not simply myth , it's confederate myth . that makes it gospel .
    raymond o'hara, Apr 20, 2004
  13. Lucas Tam

    Bob Schmall Guest

    A "myth" that has been cited in the following works:
    (excuse the variation from accepted format--this is an informal group)
    "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson p. 735
    "The Destructive War" by Charles Royster p.335
    "How the North Won" by Herman Hattaway and Archer Jones p. 579
    "A Great Civil War" by Russell Weigley p. 335
    "Grant" by Jean Edward Smith p. 364
    "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" article by Jeffry Wert
    and of course, Bruce Catton

    The above citations were found in my own library after a 5-minute search.
    There are certainly many more. Prof. Simpson's excellent biography of Grant,
    which I have, disagrees, but there is a considerable body of accepted
    evidence that indicates that Cold Harbor was in fact the most intensively
    destructive battle of the war. I stand on my original assertion.
    As for the previous discussion on this newsgroup, I have avoided Civil War
    groups, which have been dominated by the "Yahoo-Go Rebs" crowd. I ran across
    it on a digital camera newsgroup!
    I cannot claim Dr. Simpson's eminence, having not completed the PhD--but I
    have studied and taught the war for more than 25 years, including
    undergraduate classes at Wisconsin and Marquette. This does not, of course,
    trump any of the learned contributors here, but does help establish my

    Bob Schmall
    Bob Schmall, Apr 20, 2004
  14. Once more, the 7,000 men falling in 30 minutes is a myth.

    This sort of error often happens in CW scholarship. Something gains
    currency and then is repeated without question. Then you look into it, and
    you find that the story doesn't hold up. For example, it's improbable that
    Lincoln ever said, "I can't spare this man--he fights!" The reason is
    simple. Everything else in that story in tis original source -- a tale by
    Alexander McCkure -- is false.
    Brooks D. Simpson, Apr 20, 2004
  15. Lucas Tam

    Bob Schmall Guest

    That famous painting of the Last Meeting between and Jackson is mythology
    also. History is revision, and since it is not an objective science one
    factor that helps determine whether a revision is credible is the opinion of
    a critical mass of experts.* Your argument about the actual number of
    casualties may very well prove acceptable to the historical community--but I
    prefer to remain skeptical until that time.

    Bob Schmall
    *Expert: someone who avoids the small error as he sweeps on to the grand
    Benjamin Stolberg
    Bob Schmall, Apr 20, 2004
  16. The above citations were found in my own library after a 5-minute
    (David Starkey has an interesting chapter on this in his book Six Wives The
    Queens of Henry VIII. Fascinating how many learned authors have got caught
    out by this.)

    Had a quick search on google, googles records of this group and JSTOR but
    nothing came up. Any idea where the myth has been debunked?
    Mark Thompson, Apr 20, 2004
  17. Actually, McPherson says the total Union losses for the entire day was
    7,000; he says nothing about 7,000 in 30 minutes.
    7,000, no time parameter.
    In this case, 7,000 in an hour.
    7,000, "most" in a single half hour, according to the text.
    Almost a copy of the Weigley claim.
    Catton, Grant Takes Command, 267: 7,000, most in the first *two* hours of

    Thius should suggest that even the sources you cite agree on the 7,000, but
    disagree as to the time span.

    None of these people have looked as closely at this action as has Gordon
    Rhea. He suggests (Cold Harbor, page 362) a total of 4,500 for the assault
    and its aftermath, estimating 3,500 for the assaults themselves. I think
    I'll trust the fellow who looked closely at the numbers rather than people
    who repeat an unexamined assertion. But these variations in the sources you
    yourself cited serve as a cautionary tale; *none* that I examined said 7,000
    in 30 minutes.
    Brooks D. Simpson, Apr 20, 2004
  18. Lucas Tam

    Brad Meyer Guest

    Actually, the bulk of the best and most recent work on the battle
    points to the safe conclusion that your assertion, "7,000 Union
    soldiers fell in less than 30 minutes at Cold Harbor", is in fact an
    exaggeration. Maintaining it as literal truth flies in the face of a
    huge weight of research. OTOH, maintaining that the underlying reality
    (that Grant lost a large amount of men in a short time for no gain by
    initiating an attack that was, IMO at best, no better thought out then
    Burnside's attacks at Fredricksburg), represented by the iconic "7,000
    Union soldiers fell in less than 30 minutes at Cold Harbor" is valid
    even if the statement itself is not literally true.

    On the one hand it is worth noting that Mr Simpson has demonstrated
    himself to be well read and more familiar with current "numbers and
    losses" resarch on time in question then most folks and a reply of
    "Wrong yourself. Look it up" would be totally insufficient. OTOH it
    occurs to me that there is sufficient chaff with the wheat that a body
    could miss it by reviewing his posts. Nonetheless, ISTM if your intent
    was to challenge his accuracy rather then just to start an arguement,
    you might have checked it out. If you argue that he made a flippant
    reply to you and you made a flippant one in return I will not deny it
    but will respond ISTM that you are effectively conceeding that you
    apply a standard to your self in such matters no better then one you
    seem to deplore. I would suggest that if you deplore any aspect of Mr
    Simpson's posting habits (and Lord knows I deplore some of them -- no
    doubt the reverse is true as well) the best revenge is to hold
    yourself to whatever you believe is a higher standard, demonstrate it,
    and maintain it.
    Brad Meyer, Apr 22, 2004
  19. Grant's pushers had done their job and the war was over. Up until that time
    using marksmen to cut into a Union flank followed by a calvary charge
    guaranteed the lines would break and the boys in blue would run.
    Unfortunately Lee would not presue.
    One can usually find both sides of an arguement on the internet. My
    favorite are those that post mutually exclusive information in the course of
    the discussion.
    Either way, the Union line held.
    Tarver Engineering, Apr 22, 2004

  20. nor was it any better thought out than lee's attacks at malvern hill , or
    july 3rd , major massacres where little damage was done to the enemy and
    thousands of casualties were suffered in minutes . lee it seemed never
    learned , except of course how to get the blame placed on others ,
    magruder at malvern and longstreet at gettysburg .
    raymond o'hara, Apr 22, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.