December 7... just a small battle...

[RED]

...in 1862.

The Battle of Prairie Grove was the last time two armies of almost equal strength faced each other for control of northwest Arkansas. When the Confederate Army of the Trans-Mississippi withdrew from the bloody ground on December 7, 1862, the Union forces claimed a strategic victory.

This small battle was a microcosm of the entire Cavil War. Although the numbers of each side were approximately the same, the reality is that the union troops were well armed and well supplied. For example they had 30 field artillery pieces that were mostly Parrott Rifled cannons with a effective range of 1,600 - 2,000 yards. The Confederates had about 12 smoothbore cannons with a maximum range of 800 yards, The Northern aggressors were well fed and well armed while the Confederates forced marched from Fort Smith and were issued a handful of parched corn and 5 rounds of ammunition.

The casualties on both sides were about equal but the superior artillery of the North wiped out their opponents artillery... since they were left with only bayonets, sabers, and rocks... they retreated.

Yep, that scenario was repeated time and again.

And were the fighters from Fort Smith, Van Buren and Northwest Arkansas fighting to preserve slavery... That is a hard sell when you know most of the Northwest Ark. troops had never seen a slave,

[lyman]

fighting to preserve slavery is a modern construct,

I was not taught that in grade or high school,,,,

[blackhawknj]

Not such a small battle to those who were casualties. I note the forced march of Union General Francis Herron's troops-114 miles in three days-even farther than Jackson's forced march before Second Bull Run. And Herron's men did most of the hard fighting. As was so often the case, Union artillery decided the fight.
This past November 30th was the 155th anniversary of the Battle of Franklin. I have seen it described as the "Gettysburg of the West" and Hood's assault saw more Confederate troops advance than in Pickett's Charge. Though the outcome for those Southern boys was the Fredericksburg or Cold Harbor of the West.
On March 21, 1861 Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens gave the "Cornerstone Speech" in which he emphatically declared that subordination-slavery-was the natural condition of the negro and this was a "law of nature".
"Our confederacy is founded up principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders 'is become the chief of the corner'-the real 'corner-stone'-in our new edifice."

[togor]

fighting to preserve slavery is a modern construct,

I was not taught that in grade or high school,,,,

The Confederacy formed for a primary purpose of preserving slavery among the various states. Of this there is no doubt. That may not have been the dominant reason in the case of Arkansas. One gets the feeling that they easily could have stayed, like Kentucky or Missouri. Once the shooting starts, people fight out of martial discipline, for their flag and companions while expecting the leadership to know what it is doing. But the underlying cause of the South included preservation of slavery. No doubt about it.

[Roadkingtrax]

Northern Agression. The ying to that yang was Confederate regression I guess.

[free1954]

...in 1862.



This small battle was a microcosm of the entire Cavil War. Although the numbers of each side were approximately the same, the reality is that the union troops were well armed and well supplied. For example they had 30 field artillery pieces that were mostly Parrott Rifled cannons with a effective range of 1,600 - 2,000 yards. The Confederates had about 12 smoothbore cannons with a maximum range of 800 yards, The Northern aggressors were well fed and well armed while the Confederates forced marched from Fort Smith and were issued a handful of parched corn and 5 rounds of ammunition.

The casualties on both sides were about equal but the superior artillery of the North wiped out their opponents artillery... since they were left with only bayonets, sabers, and rocks... they retreated.

Yep, that scenario was repeated time and again.

And were the fighters from Fort Smith, Van Buren and Northwest Arkansas fighting to preserve slavery... That is a hard sell when you know most of the Northwest Ark. troops had never seen a slave,

thanks red for posting that up. there was a great write up on that a few years ago on the civil war talk site. here is a link to it. https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the...7-1862.129407/

[lyman]

The Confederacy formed for a primary purpose of preserving slavery among the various states. Of this there is no doubt. That may not have been the dominant reason in the case of Arkansas. One gets the feeling that they easily could have stayed, like Kentucky or Missouri. Once the shooting starts, people fight out of martial discipline, for their flag and companions while expecting the leadership to know what it is doing. But the underlying cause of the South included preservation of slavery. No doubt about it.

they must have taught you different up north,


here the big thing was representation, and the agriculture dominated vs industrial culture ,

remember, not all northern states were slave free

[togor]

they must have taught you different up north,


here the big thing was representation, and the agriculture dominated vs industrial culture ,

remember, not all northern states were slave free

There has never been a lot of revisionism in the north regarding the Civil War. Both major articulated causes, preserving the union and ending slavery, have stood up to time as worthwhile.

The cause of preserving slavery may not have resonated much with the locals in your part of Va, but it was nonetheless part of the great cause for which the south fought. The written record of those days is overwhelming.

[lyman]

standing up to time as worth while does not mean that history was revised, or had other issues/reasons over time,

biggest thing I recall from grade school history was the voting numbers,

white man was considered one person, and the slaves were considered 3/5th of a person (thanks Vern for the correction)

lots of plantations here, so that number was overshadowed by the number of folks in the north,

[Vern Humphrey]

There was no vote based on slaves. Slaves were counted in apportioning representatives, not for voting

US Constitution:
Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

[lyman]

There was no vote based on slaves. Slaves were counted in apportioning representatives, not for voting

US Constitution:
Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

you are correct, my mistake,

(been a long time since grade school)

[free1954]

well let's see, 1 original post, 2 responses on topic, 8 off on a tangent trying to convince people of something they are already convinced about.
typical for this forum.

[togor]

well let's see, 1 original post, 2 responses on topic, 8 off on a tangent trying to convince people of something they are already convinced about.
typical for this forum.

Well it least there was discussion. The OP was pretty complete as it was, and no one was arguing with it's thesis. But feel free to add more if you like.