Bloody Shiloh

Bloody Shiloh

There are 15 comments on the Sunherald.com story from Apr 13, 2012, titled Bloody Shiloh. In it, Sunherald.com reports that:

Tim Isbell is a staff photographer for the Sun Herald and a lifelong student of the Civil War.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sunherald.com.

student

Corinth, MS

#1 May 6, 2012
i learned about this
soldier

Ridgeland, MS

#2 May 7, 2012
did u learn about me?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#3 May 22, 2012
Ah, sad. I was hoping that there would be some active discussions of the Civil War going on, but it looks like mine is the first post on all the Civil War threads in 3 weeks. Too bad.
other student

Florence, MS

#4 May 24, 2012
Yes, tragically, no one wants to enter into any active discussion with you.
Reenactor

Corinth, MS

#5 May 24, 2012
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Ah, sad. I was hoping that there would be some active discussions of the Civil War going on, but it looks like mine is the first post on all the Civil War threads in 3 weeks. Too bad.
Yes Shiloh was a bloody battle it set the tone for the years to come and prove Mr.Lincoln wrong.
He had thought and had said before the battle for Southern Indepence and Southern defense against Northern invadison on Southern soil that it would be a short war.That the Southern solider didnt have the heart or desire to fight how wrong he was and Shiloh proved the fact that the Southern solider even when under trained,under supplied and out man was a great fighting force.
And that the Confederacy had just as capable Officers if not better than the Federal troops had.As most Civil War students know that Shiloh was fought over the control of the railroads at Corinth. No place was more important to both side than the railroads at Corinth a major supply line for troops and supplies.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#6 May 28, 2012
Reenactor wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Shiloh was a bloody battle it set the tone for the years to come and prove Mr.Lincoln wrong.
He had thought and had said before the battle for Southern Indepence and Southern defense against Northern invadison on Southern soil that it would be a short war.That the Southern solider didnt have the heart or desire to fight how wrong he was and Shiloh proved the fact that the Southern solider even when under trained,under supplied and out man was a great fighting force.
And that the Confederacy had just as capable Officers if not better than the Federal troops had.As most Civil War students know that Shiloh was fought over the control of the railroads at Corinth. No place was more important to both side than the railroads at Corinth a major supply line for troops and supplies.
I take it from your language and your location that you are pro-Confederate. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Lincoln was not the only one that made the mistake on how long the war would last. Most people, other than Sherman and a few others, thought the war would be short...North and South.

Yes, Shiloh was bloody. By the end of the war, however, it was only the 10th bloodiest battle. The soldiers on both sides were gung-ho and willing to take enormous casualties. Add to that the outmoded Napoleonic tactics and the new lethality of the weapons and high casualties are not a surprise.
Reenactor

Corinth, MS

#7 May 28, 2012
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it from your language and your location that you are pro-Confederate. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
Lincoln was not the only one that made the mistake on how long the war would last. Most people, other than Sherman and a few others, thought the war would be short...North and South.
Yes, Shiloh was bloody. By the end of the war, however, it was only the 10th bloodiest battle. The soldiers on both sides were gung-ho and willing to take enormous casualties. Add to that the outmoded Napoleonic tactics and the new lethality of the weapons and high casualties are not a surprise.
Yes it can be safely assumed that I am pro-Confederate of which we can agree and I would take from your question that you are pro-Union? But then my friend if you want to be wrong well for be it I stand in your way.
Yes there were many mistakes made I think the first and maybe the most shocking was Mr. Lincoln thinking all the Union General's under his Command before the War would fight for the Union aganist there beloved homeland. History now shows us he was badly wrong to think they would follow him.
When Robert E Lee, Jeb Sturat,Stonewall Jackson,Albert S. Johnston and other Southern men pulled out of the Union to defend there homeland that was a blow and spelled doom to the idea this would be short war.Because Lincoln had planed to have them in charge of the Union forces and when they left he had to go to a second level of Commander's.
But back to Bloody Shiloh there were mistakes made at Shiloh among the Southern Command after the death of Gen Albert S.Johnson the 1st day had they the Confedrate Commander's been more organized and listerned to one of the greatest Military leader of the War of Northern Aggerson on Southern soil on either side Confederate or Union, the Southern forces could have and probaly would have scored a victory at Shiloh and that leader was Gen.Nathan Bedford Forrest had Forrest been put in Command or just have they listerned and heeded his advice they would have finished the battle the 1st day and the fresh Union troops that arrived that 1st day & night and early the 2nd day would have been of no use.
Yes Shiloh may not have been the bloodiest battle of the fight for Southern Indepence but I doubt any other battle had the over-all affects on the Confederacy as the lost at Shilh did. Simply because of the lost control of the Railroads at Corinth
But again my new friend and darn "Yankee" this is my take on what happened at Shiloh.I do live only 16 mile's from the Hallow ground's of Shiloh.Looking forward to your in-sight on Shiloh.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#8 May 28, 2012
Reenactor wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it can be safely assumed that I am pro-Confederate of which we can agree and I would take from your question that you are pro-Union? But then my friend if you want to be wrong well for be it I stand in your way.
Yes there were many mistakes made I think the first and maybe the most shocking was Mr. Lincoln thinking all the Union General's under his Command before the War would fight for the Union aganist there beloved homeland. History now shows us he was badly wrong to think they would follow him.
When Robert E Lee, Jeb Sturat,Stonewall Jackson,Albert S. Johnston and other Southern men pulled out of the Union to defend there homeland that was a blow and spelled doom to the idea this would be short war.Because Lincoln had planed to have them in charge of the Union forces and when they left he had to go to a second level of Commander's.
Well, I will point out that several of those officers you mention had already resigned from Federal service prior to Lincoln taking office.

Also, the word "defend" is rather disingenuous. Consider that the South (starting with South Carolina) attacked Federal positions before Lincoln had even called on the first troops. And the Virginia militia attacked and seized Harper's Ferry and Hampton Roads even before that state had declared secession.

Plus consider that when eastern Tennessee attempted to stay with the Union when Tennessee voted for secession, and the Confederacy sent in troops to stop this "secession from secession". The South loses quite a bit of its moral ground on this, IMHO.
Reenactor wrote:
But back to Bloody Shiloh there were mistakes made at Shiloh among the Southern Command after the death of Gen Albert S.Johnson the 1st day had they the Confedrate Commander's been more organized and listerned to one of the greatest Military leader of the War of Northern Aggerson on Southern soil on either side Confederate or Union, the Southern forces could have and probaly would have scored a victory at Shiloh and that leader was Gen.Nathan Bedford Forrest had Forrest been put in Command or just have they listerned and heeded his advice they would have finished the battle the 1st day and the fresh Union troops that arrived that 1st day & night and early the 2nd day would have been of no use.
Yes Shiloh may not have been the bloodiest battle of the fight for Southern Indepence but I doubt any other battle had the over-all affects on the Confederacy as the lost at Shilh did. Simply because of the lost control of the Railroads at Corinth
But again my new friend and darn "Yankee" this is my take on what happened at Shiloh.I do live only 16 mile's from the Hallow ground's of Shiloh.Looking forward to your in-sight on Shiloh.
Well, Johnston's plan was not a very good one to begin with. He stretched all three of his corps across his entire line, in three waves. As they advanced, they became mixed together making command control nearly impossible. All three corps commanders had responsibility along the entire front, which really loses the purpose of having corps commanders.

Add to that Johnston did not know where Buell's army was, though he knew it was in the area, and did not plan for it arriving that night.

As for Forest, he was certainly a brilliant commander of brigade sized cavalry forces. However, he had no military training, and his talents may not have run to commanding large infantry forces. There is no way of telling.

But, he certainly didn't have the rank to take over command.

“5gen pokemon fc:2752-6929-897 3”

Since: Apr 12

elite trainer 1 of 4

#9 May 28, 2012
omh this is the video game section, not the really boring long time ago fourm

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#10 May 28, 2012
ice-Arceaus wrote:
omh this is the video game section, not the really boring long time ago fourm
Sorry, but according the heading where I am posting, it is the Civil War Forum, not a game forum.

Besides, I find history fascinating, particularly the Civil War.
Reenactor

Corinth, MS

#11 May 28, 2012
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I will point out that several of those officers you mention had already resigned from Federal service prior to Lincoln taking office.
Also, the word "defend" is rather disingenuous. Consider that the South (starting with South Carolina) attacked Federal positions before Lincoln had even called on the first troops. And the Virginia militia attacked and seized Harper's Ferry and Hampton Roads even before that state had declared secession.
Plus consider that when eastern Tennessee attempted to stay with the Union when Tennessee voted for secession, and the Confederacy sent in troops to stop this "secession from secession". The South loses quite a bit of its moral ground on this, IMHO.
<quoted text>
Well, Johnston's plan was not a very good one to begin with. He stretched all three of his corps across his entire line, in three waves. As they advanced, they became mixed together making command control nearly impossible. All three corps commanders had responsibility along the entire front, which really loses the purpose of having corps commanders.
Add to that Johnston did not know where Buell's army was, though he knew it was in the area, and did not plan for it arriving that night.
As for Forest, he was certainly a brilliant commander of brigade sized cavalry forces. However, he had no military training, and his talents may not have run to commanding large infantry forces. There is no way of telling.
But, he certainly didn't have the rank to take over command.
Yes you are right and I stand corrected about the time frame of some of the Southern officers left the service of the U.S.Army I knew better.
Yes Johson did have a good plan of attack but I feel some of his Generals Bragg for one did not carry at the battle plan Johnson had laid out for Shiloh.Johson was a leader of men but he had some Commander serving under his Command that were not on the same level as he was.
Yes Buell's absent and his where abouts did cause a great deal of concern for not only Johnson but also for Grant.
As for Forrest he never was reconized for his ability as a leader of men or troops because as you stated he had no formal training an thus was not a West Point man and never accepted by some of the Southern Commanders.
Even today as 150 years ago the debate over the War for Southern Indepence is still be debated by both sides.Many question of what if? And and if they had? are still being asked about the action of the Commanders on both sides.Both Armies were led by two of the most brillant Military minds our country has ever had.Grant has never been reconized for his leadership not only at Shiloh but maybe his greatest feat was at Vicksburg.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#12 May 28, 2012
Reenactor wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you are right and I stand corrected about the time frame of some of the Southern officers left the service of the U.S.Army I knew better.
Yes Johson did have a good plan of attack but I feel some of his Generals Bragg for one did not carry at the battle plan Johnson had laid out for Shiloh.Johson was a leader of men but he had some Commander serving under his Command that were not on the same level as he was.
Yes Buell's absent and his where abouts did cause a great deal of concern for not only Johnson but also for Grant.
As for Forrest he never was reconized for his ability as a leader of men or troops because as you stated he had no formal training an thus was not a West Point man and never accepted by some of the Southern Commanders.
Even today as 150 years ago the debate over the War for Southern Indepence is still be debated by both sides.Many question of what if? And and if they had? are still being asked about the action of the Commanders on both sides.Both Armies were led by two of the most brillant Military minds our country has ever had.Grant has never been reconized for his leadership not only at Shiloh but maybe his greatest feat was at Vicksburg.
Personally, I don't consider Grant a military genius. He was, however, quite competent and he understood "modern" warfare, in terms of the Civil War, better than just about anyone. He was also aggressive and determined, which put him head and shoulders above most of the Union generals. On top of that, he knew with his manpower and material advantages how to beat Lee.

I agree, though, that Grant did exceptionally well in the Vicksburg campaign. Cutting loose from his supply lines and coming at Vicksburg from the east was an exceptional maneuver for its day. It was a lesson Grant had learned well from Scott during the Mexican War.

I have Grant's memoirs on my Kindle, but haven't gotten around to reading them yet. Will have to do that soon.

If you get a chance, read Joshua Chamberlain's "Passing of the Armies". The first half gives Chamberlain's personal memories of the war from Five Forks to Appomattox and the official surrender of arms (which Chamberlain was in charge of).
Reenactor

Corinth, MS

#13 May 29, 2012
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, I don't consider Grant a military genius. He was, however, quite competent and he understood "modern" warfare, in terms of the Civil War, better than just about anyone. He was also aggressive and determined, which put him head and shoulders above most of the Union generals. On top of that, he knew with his manpower and material advantages how to beat Lee.
I agree, though, that Grant did exceptionally well in the Vicksburg campaign. Cutting loose from his supply lines and coming at Vicksburg from the east was an exceptional maneuver for its day. It was a lesson Grant had learned well from Scott during the Mexican War.
I have Grant's memoirs on my Kindle, but haven't gotten around to reading them yet. Will have to do that soon.
If you get a chance, read Joshua Chamberlain's "Passing of the Armies". The first half gives Chamberlain's personal memories of the war from Five Forks to Appomattox and the official surrender of arms (which Chamberlain was in charge of).
I argee with your statement Grant was far from being a military genius,but he was a solder's General he understood the solder on the front line and in the trench's.
As yes having adquate supplies didnt hurt his leadership any also.But I do feel Shiloh was turning point in the War as the South suffered another defeat on the western front and on Southern soil.
This had to be very dis-hearting for the Southern soldier.But as I attened the memorial at Shiloh yesterday I was made to wonder and feel the pain for lost of men that was sufferd by both great Armies.
And how they could go on to fight for many months and years to come after Shiloh.
I will read the book you referred to. Do you go to Shiloh often?
shilohgirl

Boynton Beach, FL

#14 May 29, 2012
Have you ever talked to Larry DeBerry at Shiloh about the war? He is very informative.
derp

Tishomingo, MS

#15 May 29, 2012
ice-Arceaus wrote:
omh this is the video game section, not the really boring long time ago fourm
WFA

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Walker Boys Studio Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Debate now as much about Confederacy's role in ... (Jul '16) Sep '17 Halcomb 73
News Trump asks why American Civil War couldn't have... (May '17) Aug '17 spocko 74
News Georgia renames Confederate holidays (Aug '15) Aug '15 Will Dockery 1
News Even in museums, battles loom over Confederate ... (Jul '15) Jul '15 rebel111 2
News Confederate, Jim Crow tributes go well beyond b... (Jun '15) Jul '15 BLOODY__FATALITY 7
News Guest column: Why erase the South's historical ... (Jul '15) Jul '15 Ecossais 2
News Thoughts on Confederate flag column (Jul '15) Jul '15 Uber-Bro of the U... 1
More from around the web