Irish in Civil War? (USA)

Subject: RE: Irish in Civil War? (USA)
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 30 Jul 05 - 11:45 AM

Don't know if this is any use; the rifles/muskets used by many in the Civil War did not have much of a range to them. That said there were other weapons available that did; however, and this to me is just nutz, officers commanding at the time preferred a 'charge' attack upon objectives, accordingly the only use for the rifle would a be a few rounds at close range then to hand fighting. Attacking a cannon emplacement would thus be almost suicide since the range of that gun is far greater.

So it isn't the bravery or lack thereof of the rank and file that shocks me, rather, its the stupidity of the CO's in not providing their own cannons to oppose the enemy.

It is often said, so I need to repeat it here, that in such battles time was most important not soldiers.

Whatever you think, it is almost certain that both Confederate and Union Irish troops would have known about Fontanoy where a French Irish Regiment withstood the winning British and charging into the them sent the Englishmen running away.

Subject: RE: Irish in Civil War? (USA)
From: Melani
Date: 30 Jul 05 - 12:17 PM

There is an interesting take on the Irish in the Civil War and the American attitude toward them in general in a book called "Myles Keogh: the Life and Legend of an Irish Dragoon in the Seventh Cavalry," eds. John P. Langellier, Kurt Hamilton Cox, and Brian Pohanka. It's kind of hard to find, but may be available as an inter-library loan. It says, among other things, that Phil Sheridan found it more politic to play down his Irish ancestry because of prejudice. There is also a website that discusses the issue:http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/plains.html

Subject: RE: Irish in Civil War? (USA)
From: DannyC
Date: 30 Jul 05 - 12:58 PM

Melani: There is an article in today's Louisville (Kentucky) Courier Journal (concerning violence there in 1855) that might shed some light on Sheridan's reluctance to be linked with his Irish heritage:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050730/NEWS01/507300373


On another note, Gerry Farrelly (a fine singer from Oldcastle, Co Meath - now living and singing in Balto., MD. USA) can document his family connection to Phil Sheridan through his late mother's side (she was a Sheridan).

Subject: RE: Irish in Civil War? (USA)
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Jul 05 - 03:43 PM

Bonnie Shaljean, the cannons on both sides remained in position once the gunners had adjusted them to fire. According to the U.S. National Parks Service site,

" Federal artillery tried desperately to blast the Confederate gunners from their fortifications. Many of the Union shells furrowed and exploded on the heights. One Confederate confessed that "amidst shrieking shells and singing rifle-balls" that the area around the Willis Cemetery was a "frightful scene to traverse, --every inch of ground continually struck, apparently by bullets or fragments of shells. . . .It looked like certain death, or ghastly wounds" to expose oneself outside of the gunpits. The whitewashed brick dwelling immediately beside Captain Squires' pits had been hit so many times by shells and bullets, that the facade had changed from white to brick-dust red by afternoon.

" The artilleryman maintained a steady fire as they lashed back at the oncoming attackers. One participant related, "We who were able were speedily working our guns with all our souls and bodies." Wave after wave of Union troops melted away before the storm "blown back as if by the breath of Hell's Door suddenly opened." The ceaseless roar of the cannon left a picture of deafening pandemonium. One solider admitted that he was overwhelmed by "the noise, confusion, and excitement" being "too great" for him to bear." "

Union soldiers made repeated disastrous assaults on Marye's Heights, each one turned back with heavy casualties after accomplishing essentially nothing. The Confederates, who had a clear view of the battlefield, must have astonished to see the Union infantry rising again and again, with reinforcements, to renew the attack in truly "suicidal" circumstances.

One cause for cheering during the battle was when South Carolina Sgt. Richard R. Kirkland climbed over the wall, under fire, to give water to wounded enemy soldiers. He carried a number of canteens and there was a lull for over an hour as he offered water and some kind words to the wounded and dying. Union troops cheered his courage. Kirkland, a remarkable humanitarian hero, was killed at the battle of Chickamauga the following year.

A piece about Kirkland appeared in Life Magazine during the Civil War Centennial, but his story is little known today to the general public.

Sorry to have drifted so far off the topic of the Irish.

Subject: RE: Irish in Civil War? (USA)
From: GUEST,NH Dave - new browser
Date: 30 Jul 05 - 05:21 PM

Unfortunately there were few methods to quell enemy artillery other than counter battery fire - blowing them out of their positions by artillery from your own side, or attack by infantry. The last is often less hazardous than might be imagined, as most cannon can only be depressed so far, and once you get past the swept area - the area of danger from the artillery - the only defense the cannoneers have is individual firearms.

Most artillery pieces could not be fired while traveling, as they required to be set up, in place, and zeroed in on visible or known targets. There was little exception to this situation back in the 1860's. Today of course we have self propelled artillery, large bore weapons mounted on tread equipped transportation like tanks, and tanks themselves, which also suffer from their vulnerability to antitank weapons carried by infantry, the reason that tanks try to have infantry support. The tanks work against distant targets and shelters their supporting infantry, while these troops supress antitank fire from close up infantry.

As for the infantry in those days. They had the choice of advancing as a unit into cannon and rifle fire, or being shot out of hand or later for cowardice. Death from the opposition was less likely than death from your own people, for cowardice or desertion. Even in WWI, groups of infantry went "over the top" against rifle and machine gun fire, as the "normal" way to wage a battle. This method of fighting was only used on landing beachheads in WWII.

Conscription or not, serving in the military offered the Irish as well as other recent immigrants was one way of assuring of meals and a place to sleep. As recently as 1960, when I enlisted in the Army, immigrants were enlisting in the Army to gain citizenship or escape the uncertainty of conscription, or to avenge former ocurances. One of my platoon mates was the son of the Uraguayan ambassador to the US, whom I suspected of being much too close to Naziism for my taste, and a Hungarian refugee who joined up for an opportunity, ". . . to kill some Communists!"   During that period many immigrants took advantage of an act that conferred citizenship upon people who completed a tour in the military, as opposed to the seven years of residence required of others.

Dave

Subject: RE: Irish in Civil War? (USA)
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Jul 05 - 06:17 PM

Total Union casualties alone at Fredericksburg are believed to have been about *twice* the total number of all American casualties on D-Day at Omaha and Utah Beaches combined. Fredericksburg represents the worst defeat of the U.S. army until the surrender of Bataan and Corregidor in 1942.

As the price of victory, the number of Confederate casualties also equaled or exceeded the D-Day totals.