I watched the 4th show of this television series. It was by far the best of the mini-series showing how much the railroads changed the landscape of North America including the military’s use of rail during the war in America between 1862-65. (See, I kept it ‘politically correct’) 
The statistics about the amount of freight and the movement of goods, war materiel and troops was staggering, as was the miles of new track, etc. from 1860 - 1890’s.
“The statistics about the amount of freight and the movement of goods, war materiel and troops was staggering, as was the miles of new track, etc. from 1860 - 1890’s.”
Force people to stay in crowded ghettos and its surprising how hard the smart ones will work to get out.
Ric Golding said:
"The statistics about the amount of freight and the movement of goods, war materiel and troops was staggering, as was the miles of new track, etc. from 1860 - 1890's."Force people to stay in crowded ghettos and its surprising how hard the smart ones will work to get out.
All pretty interesting to me.
Also, the Chinese in the day were rather supermen: They ate a balanced diet and didn’t get Dysentery 'cause they boiled their water for tea.
I found it interesting that they mentioned the blacks who fought for the North, but failed to mention the 90,000 black soldiers who fought for the South.
Steve Featherkile said:There were many "interesting" omissions and additions but you aren't going to get me to 'poke that skunk'.
I found it interesting that they mentioned the blacks who fought for the North, but failed to mention the 90,000 black soldiers who fought for the South.
Steve Featherkile said:that is something i did not know. could you guide me, to where i can read about it?
...to mention the 90,000 black soldiers who fought for the South.
Korm Kormsen said:[url=http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Kjq7JlyOlLIjgA1g0PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTExYm4wbDlvBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA3NwMQR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=12dkq0pn4/EXP=1273698789/**http%3A//www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm]Look here[/url] and [url=http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Kjq7JlyOlLIjgA2A0PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTExMDhmZWFrBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNwRjb2xvA3NwMQR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=12fagm5et/EXP=1273698789/**http%3A//www.stonewallbrigade.com/articles_black_confeds.html]here[/url] and [url=http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Kjq7MXyelLifkABmMPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTEyMjk5N21oBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTIEY29sbwNzcDEEdnRpZAMEbANXUzE-/SIG=12elvmj46/EXP=1273698967/**http%3A//www.petersburgexpress.com/Petersburg_Black-CSA.html]here[/url] and [url=http://thomaslegion.net/blackconfederates.html]here.[/url]Steve Featherkile said:that is something i did not know. could you guide me, to where i can read about it?
...to mention the 90,000 black soldiers who fought for the South.
Or, just google black confederates.
David Hill said:
I forget the number, something like 300,000 Chinese workers were brought in to work on the tunneling. The stated reason was "since they built the Great Wall, they can build a tunnel", and Chinese were closer and it was quicker to get them there to work than the Irish from the East Coast around the Horn or 6 months via wagon.All pretty interesting to me.
Forrest Scott Wood said:David Hill said:
I forget the number, something like 300,000 Chinese workers were brought in to work on the tunneling. The stated reason was "since they built the Great Wall, they can build a tunnel", and Chinese were closer and it was quicker to get them there to work than the Irish from the East Coast around the Horn or 6 months via wagon.All pretty interesting to me.
One doesn’t see that factor mentioned in any of the history textbooks I’ve seen.
I will say that as a homeschool parent of 4 children over 8 years, we did discover many things about history we never remember being taught in the state public school. As a reference, I graduated high school in 1968. Of course the History Channel could be wrong on this point as well.
David Hill said:Forrest Scott Wood said:David Hill said:
I forget the number, something like 300,000 Chinese workers were brought in to work on the tunneling. The stated reason was "since they built the Great Wall, they can build a tunnel", and Chinese were closer and it was quicker to get them there to work than the Irish from the East Coast around the Horn or 6 months via wagon.All pretty interesting to me.
One doesn’t see that factor mentioned in any of the history textbooks I’ve seen.
Do you believe the problem is with the textbooks, or the TV program?I will say that as a homeschool parent of 4 children over 8 years, we did discover many things about history we never remember being taught in the state public school. As a reference, I graduated high school in 1968. Of course the History Channel could be wrong on this point as well.
I’m picking nits, to be sure. To do the US history in 6 programs is a huge undertaking, and a lot necessarily has to be left out. They left out the Battle of the Cow Pens, the hated Tarleton, the Swamp Fox, too much to list here. Me hat’s off to them for even trying!
Steve Featherkile said:David Hill said:Forrest Scott Wood said:Do you believe the problem is with the textbooks, or the TV program?
One doesn't see that factor mentioned in any of the history textbooks I've seen.I will say that as a homeschool parent of 4 children over 8 years, we did discover many things about history we never remember being taught in the state public school. As a reference, I graduated high school in 1968. Of course the History Channel could be wrong on this point as well.
Another thing you don’t see mentioned is that the Chinese were the “Supermen” of their era. They ate a balanced diet, and boiled their water for their tea, so they did not get dysentery or cholera, like happened in other camps.
thanks Steve!"
(much to read - there goes my night)
Steve Featherkile said:All of the above happened right here around the house. Just finished a pretty amazing book on the Battle of Cowpens http://www.amazon.com/Devil-Whipping-Battle-Cowpens/dp/080784926X , and just began a biography on Henry Knox. http://www.amazon.com/Henry-Knox-Visionary-American-Revolution/dp/0230623883/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273862122&sr=1-1
I'm picking nits, to be sure. To do the US history in 6 programs is a huge undertaking, and a lot necessarily has to be left out. They left out the Battle of the Cow Pens, the hated Tarleton, the Swamp Fox, too much to list here. Me hat's off to them for even trying!
Attended an Appleseed a few weeks ago, didn’t come close to qualifying…going again at end of June.
There is no frickin way there were 90, 000 black soldiers in the confederacy: that’s just total nonsense. By 1864 the Confederacy had about 164,000 troops in the field–are you seriously trying to claim that more than half of the confederate Army was black men?
There were a very few black men–slaves, virtually all of them–pressed into service very late in the war. When the Union marched into Richmond it found two companies of slaves being trained: they never saw action. Here is a quote about it, from the Jackson, MS Mississippian, 1863
“We are forced by the necessity of our condition to take a step which is revolting to every sentiment of pride and to every principle that governed out institutions before the war.” The editor argued “we can make them fight better than the Yankees are able to do. Masters and overseers can marshal them for battle by the3 same authority and habit of obedience with which they are marshaled to labor” That is, they would force slaves to fight. The debate over the subject in the ranks and in Richmond was fierce
If you want a good scholarly account–that is, an account based on actual verifiable evidence–try McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom, chapter 28. Or for a superb account of what soldiers on both sides said they were fighting for, based on their letters and diaries, see Chandra Manning, What this Cruel War Was Over
90,000! That’s utterly, totally, and completely false
Or for more info on the subject, see this review by Yale historian David Blight of a recent book on the subject
Gee, Mike, I guess you were there, you are so sure of yourself!
According to reliable reports, the Army of Northern Virginia by itself had over 50,000 men under arms.
From: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWarmyC.htm: “A total of 1,406,180 men enlisted in the Confederate Army during the war. An estimated 52,954 men who were killed in action, 21,570 died of their wounds and 59,297 were the victims of disease. At the end of the war 174,223 men surrendered to the Union Army.”
So, if 1.4 million men enlisted in the CSA over the 4 years of the war, it is more likely than not that there could easily have been 90,000 Black Confederates, over the course of a 4 years war.
If you look at the political debate over enlisting slaves as soldiers, you will see that it was fiercely opposed until the very end of the war. Lee’s famous letter asking for the enlistment of slaves comes very late–it’s a desperate last minute measure. So as I said, by the end of the War the Confed. Army had dwindled to about 164, 000 men in the field. Make it 174,223–are you still going to claim there were 92, 000 black men, more than half the force?
The Confederate govt. forbid the enlistment of slaves until late in the war–let me repeat that–the government of the Confederacy forbid the enlistment of slaves until VERY late in the war. So there cannot have been 92, 000 black soldiers in the confederate army. I have no doubt there were some instances of slaves serving the confed. army, and that there might have been some instances of free blacks. But it’s extremely small.
Read the Chandra Manning book I mentioned—it’s extremely well researched and tells you what confed. soldiers and officers were saying about the idea. Meanwhile, Union Army officers complain constantly about the large number of slaves who cross their lines to join the Union cause.
Here’s a historical account from 1919, to show how long historians have been aware of the subject. This excerpt covers debate about black enlistment. Note the dates
"On November 7, 1864, W. G. Swan of Virginia introduced a resolution into the house setting forth the statement "That in the judgment of this House no emergency now exists or is likely to occur . . . which demands that negroes shall be placed in service as soldiers in the field."58 This resolution may have been drawn to forestall President Davis’ remarks in his annual message of the same date in which he suggested that negroes “might be employed as pioneer and engineer laborers” to the extent of 40,000 men59 and also to put the house on record as being opposed to any extensive military use of negroes as soldiers. The resolution was deferred to November 10 for consideration before the house.80 On November 8 Mr. H. S. Foote of Tennessee introduced a long resolution referring to the use of negroes, which among other matters, resolved that " the ‘general levy and arming of the slaves for the duty of soldiers’ would be inexpedient."91 On November 10, the day appointed for discussion of the resolutions (the meeting was a secret session) no record or detailed and definite statement of consideration of these resolutions is found in the journals of the confederate congress. On the same day, however, a resolution by H. C. Chambers of Mississippi, which had been introduced on November 7, was taken up in which it was stated that “our citizen soldiers . . . will continue a sufficient guaranty of … independence,” and the house “spent some time” considering it. The discussion was long and bitter, so long, in fact, that all the time of the session was consumed in discussing it and none was left in which to consider the resolutions offered by Swan and by Foote which were to come up in order of presentation after Chambers’ resolution had been disposed of.82
Referring particularly to the employment of negroes as soldiers Chambers said that he was “ashamed to debate the question. All nature cries out against it. The negro was ordained to slavery by the Almighty. Emancipation would be the destruction of our political and social system. God forbid that this Trojan horse should be introduced among us.” Goode of Virginia was opposed to the suggested use of the negroes because it was “a confession of weakness to the enemy”; because he thought “it would end in abolition”; and because it was "degrading to our men."68 "
This is in LATE 1864. This is the Confederate Congress, even though they are in desperate straits by this point, they don’t want to allow slaves to serve. There could not have been 94, 000 men enlisted before 1864, because as you can see, it was intensely opposed and at this late date–November 1864–was still forbidden. Here’s a link to the whole article: