tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3304931643902097897.post1435372425915940360..comments2022-04-09T02:02:17.675-07:00Comments on Ramblings of a Military Historian: Army of Northern Virginia: Wearing Federal Uniforms and Flying the U.S. FlagJohn MIchael Priesthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10785520551545533243noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3304931643902097897.post-53856465733677093692015-10-03T18:24:14.815-07:002015-10-03T18:24:14.815-07:00I've found similar references to this when doi...I've found similar references to this when doing research for my masters degree which is history - military studies - concentration on the US Civil War.<br /><br />This only makes sense. The Confederates show examples many times at their willingness to use ruses. Coupled with living off captured Federals for supplies after recent victories at 2nd Manassas and Harpers Ferry, who wouldn't use captured material?<br /><br />I find too many historians and park rangers go by "the book interpretation" and fail to accurately interpret what the front line soldiers are actually doing.<br /><br />Ex. Having been a reenactor one experiences situations where loading fast is essential. There is no by the book process being followed. I can't imagine troops going through the official loading process once under fire. However when participating in an event which was recorded for a film dealing with Antietam, the park ranger insisted we follow and demonstrate the correct loading procedure as stated in the manual. What a load of crap. I can load and shoot 4 rounds a minute, 5 in 62 seconds and that isn't following the manual.<br /><br />We are also talking about a War. Of course the Confederate forces are using tactics as you described. Stuart used train whistles blowing to make federal commanders believe reinforcements were on their way. Magruder marched the same regiments around in circles at Yorktown to scare the crap out of McClellan. Whatever it takes to win. It's a war, not a game with rules or penalties for breaking them like a football game. <br /><br />Your analysis is top quality because it takes what the soldiers have said from their first hand accounts. As far as I can see you weed out the erroneous statements which are made later in life to glorify individuals and focus on those that are supported by other similar sources.<br /><br />I'll take your analysis of the ground troops slogging it out over the "generals perspective" who is normally not on the front line. Wars are won by brigade commanders and unit commanders winning the fight in their front. It's not won by the generals who lose control of the hands on approach once battle ignites. All they can due is use intuition to feed troops into the trouble spots. If they gage correctly and the brigade and unit commanders pull it off they look good. If they misjudge the timing or their subordinates screw up they look stupid. They don't see the fight. Those who do, like Mansfield, end up dead.<br /><br />What unit commander wouldn't use ANY means necessary to save their men and themselves and still achieve their objectives? Using captured Federal flags and/or uniforms makes perfect sense. And if the guy facing and shooting at/being shot at says it happened...it happened even if some idiot historian who goes by the book disagrees.<br /><br />This idiot who criticized your analysis is the same type of moron who believes that an Afghanistan farmer with a pack animal loaded with TNT isn't a threat to US soldiers according to the ROE. He's just taking his TNT for a walk because the "by the book approach" says " it can only be this way".<br /><br />Keep up the great interpretations. ..the soldiers interpretation. Let those nay sayers go jump in Antietam Creek.A.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04557979425409883713noreply@blogger.com