I too noticed the features I believe you speak of during my last
visit to Shiloh.  I had intended to ask the Park Ranger about it but,
I pulled a Lew Wallace, taking the long way back to my car, and
didn't get back to the visitors center till after dark.

These sunken roads form from wagon ruts and erosion.  Eventually, if
not maintained or improved, they become unusable.  The farmer then
makes a new road, and the old one becomes overgrown.  There are quite
a few examples of this on my uncle's farm in Pennsylvania.

Though I have no evidence to back this up, this is what it looked
like to me.  The battlefield continued to be used as farmland for
about 40 years, IIRC, until it was turned over to the Park Service.
Over that period of time, it is very likely an already sunken road
would either be abandoned, unless it had been improved to keep it
usable.  So I think undoubtedly, the road had changed from it's
condition on the day of the battle.  The Park Service then went about
restoring the area to how they believe it was during the battle, with
the assistance of many participants and locals.

Anyway....

Eric

--- In civilwarwest@y..., "slippymississippi"
<slippymississippi@y...> wrote:
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., Matt Meador <historyb@b...> wrote:
> > sift mounds.... Three to be exact.... And then there was a
> continuous
> > mound off to the left and behind the line mound.... My question
> is....
> > Was there any record of "digging in" on a battlefield that early
in
> the
> > war?  I have seen the four inland campaign battle fields in
> Virginia as
> > well as peninsula and cold harbor... I know what the trenches
look
> like
> > as well as rifle pits... And that is what these made out to be..
> > Seeing there were numerous attacks on the hornets nest through
out
> the
> > battle I woud think that the flank would be a little more
> protected...
> >
>
> Those are likely burial mounds, where they dumped the Confederate
> dead in trenches five bodies deep.
>
> I don't believe there was ever any time to "dig in" at the Hornets
> Nest.  Prentiss fell back to that position after the first assault,
> and the fighting was more or less continuous after that point.

In a message dated 10/2/02 11:18:21 AM, hickoryflatoutlaws@...
writes:

<< Thank you for the welcome.  I wish I had my husband, but I lost him in
March.  I do have 2 sons and 4 grandchildren to yell at though!!!! >>

Grandparenting is my greatest gift.  Wish I had a few more.  Welcome Rose
Mary.

Connie Boone

----- Original Message -----

From: the lankfords

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:34 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Distant relative.

Brad,

 

There are two websites that may be able to help you.  One is the MO-CW-L@... the other is

http://history-sites.com/cgi-bin/boards/mocwmb/ 

 

You can ask your question there, and I would be willing to bet you might find your answer.  Besides, they are have a lot of interesting facts on them.  I have learned quite a bit from them. 

 

Rose Mary Lankford

www.geocities.com/outlaw72532/techie.html

----- Original Message -----

From: herpvetminson@...

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:56 PM

Subject: [civilwarwest] Distant relative.

Among my many hobbies including civil war studies, is geneaology. I found parole papers for my great-great-great grandfather, and wondered if it is not beyond the scope of this discussion, if those of you more learned in the war than I am could help me track down where my relative was, as I think this would be faily interesting. Here's what I have:

        Simon Peter Collins Sr.
       enlisted January 1 1863
       Served in  Company C 10th regiment Missouri Cavalry under Col. Wm. T. Barry where he attained the rank of private.

       He surrendered to Maj. Gen. E.R.S. Canby on May 26 1865, and was paroled on June 7 1865 in Shreveport LA

On an interesting (and probably common) side note, His son Simon Peter Collins Jr. married a girl whose father fought for the union. My Grandmother remembers them, and says the two fought like cats and dogs their entire life (not a blissful joining of the North and South I guess) and always voted opposite one another in political elections.

I'm not trying to turn this into a family tree hunt but if any of you could provide info I would be grateful, if this is beyond the scope of the discussion the I'll pipe down.

Thanks,
       Brad

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

are you joking, as in today Republicans are conservative?
Actually, if it is true that the Mormons were pro-Union and
pro-Republican in those days, why so? There was almost a war between
them and the USA, as we just learned, just previous to the ACW.
Anybody able to answer this one?
Carl

--- In civilwarwest@y..., FLYNSWEDE@A... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/1/2002 2:46:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kywddavid@y... writes:
>
>
> > According to Carl Sandburg's biography, Lincoln wanted
> > Nevada admitted as a state because its voters were
> > staunchly republican and Lincoln could count on the
> > state of Nevada ratifying an amendment to the
> > Constitution outlawing slavery.
> >
>
> One only has to remember that Nevada was highly explored and settled by
> conservative Mormans.   No wonder they went towards the Republicans.
>
> Wayne

----- Original Message -----

From: Aurelie1999@...

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:03 AM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Interesting article on CW

In a message dated 10/2/02 11:18:21 AM, hickoryflatoutlaws@...
writes:

<< Thank you for the welcome.  I wish I had my husband, but I lost him in
March.  I do have 2 sons and 4 grandchildren to yell at though!!!! >>

Grandparenting is my greatest gift.  Wish I had a few more.  Welcome Rose
Mary.

Connie Boone


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

The initial settlement of Nevada was by both prospectors and Mormons,  The first town dates to 1851, either Dayton or Genoa (ths Post Office recognized Genoa in a 1951 commemorative stamp but the state leans towards Dayton citing an unpublished Masters thesis that relied on the letters sent to Brigham Young),  In any case, nearly all the settlement came as a result of the discovery of the Comstock Lode in 1859.  These settlers came from California and "back east."  The Hearst family fortune dates from this period.  Southerners played a part but apparently not a major part.  Virginia City was named for Thomas Finney, nicknamed "Old Virginny", possibly the state's first full-time white settler.

In the 1860's the Republican Party was not conservative.  It advocated internal improvements financed by the government, federal funding of education (the Morrill Act), and a public-private partnership to build a transcontinental railroad.(financed by the RR company sale of government land grants to the RRs).  Oh yes, the Republicans also believed in a federal income tax.  Lincoln who believed in all these things was actually more moderate than many members of his party.

What little I know about Mormon politics indicates that initially they favored the Democrats (due to the role of Polk in the settlement/financing of Utah through Mormon participation in the Mexican War).  See Bernard deVoto's comments in 1846: The Year of Decision for this.

This is western history after all.

David

 carlw4514 wrote:

are you joking, as in today Republicans are conservative?
Actually, if it is true that the Mormons were pro-Union and
pro-Republican in those days, why so? There was almost a war between
them and the USA, as we just learned, just previous to the ACW.
Anybody able to answer this one?
Carl

--- In civilwarwest@y..., FLYNSWEDE@A... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/1/2002 2:46:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kywddavid@y... writes:
>
>
> > According to Carl Sandburg's biography, Lincoln wanted
> > Nevada admitted as a state because its voters were
> > staunchly republican and Lincoln could count on the
> > state of Nevada ratifying an amendment to the
> > Constitution outlawing slavery.
> >
>
> One only has to remember that Nevada was highly explored and settled by
> conservative Mormans.   No wonder they went towards the Republicans.
>
> Wayne



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

>IMHO, it was Reconstruction that brought upon the hatred of the North by
>the
>South a lot more than the war itself.  At least during the war and
>following,
>troops that fought felt a strong comraderie between for each other, but the
>South as a whole, felt nothing but contempt for the North.
>In many ways, that contempt is still felt and expressed today.

And vice versa.  I remember the week before 9/11 there was an article in the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution from a New York columnist who suggested that
either the country should go the way of the Czech Republic and Slovakia
(mutually go their separate ways) or else the
North should itself secede.  The writer listed several reasons, including
(rough paraphrase) the fact that "Southerners complain so much about big
gov't, even though they are glad to get more money from
that big gov't than any other section of the country", that Southern
reenactors won't let the war die, that die-hard Confederates hold on
tenaciously to visible symbols of the Lost Cause, etc.  His conclusion
(rough paraphrase once again) is that the South "is a gangrenous limb that
should have been lopped off long ago"; he then listed educational,
health, poverty, and crime statistics to support this.  His only reason for
pause was the two-thousand odd nuclear weapons in place in Southern states;
he suggested either offering to rebuy them, or failing that, to
keep the North's nuclear arsenal in place "just in case".  Needless to say,
there was very little of that after 9/11, but it shows that more than
likely, the mutual antipathy will never die.

Dan

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

I don't ever comment but being native to Utah and sympathetic to my neighbors I
feel I must participate.  Mormons (LDS people) held slaves when they settled in
the Salt Lake Valley.  They were not freed from bondage until the time that all
slaves were freed in northern states and territories which did not rebel.  It is
a mistake to assume that the Utah Territory sided with the north because of
feelings about slavery.  Brigham Young did not want the trouble between his
people and the US government to continue and escalate.  He, as in all things in
the territory regarding his people, made the decision to side with the north as
a sign of good faith (put simply) to the government and Lincoln in the hope that
differences could be settled somehow.  Lincoln asked Brigham Young to mount
troops to protect the territory as all the US soldiers had been removed.  Camp
Floyd, in fact, was the largest US military installation in the world before the
ACW and that shows how very fearful the government was of great 'MORMON'
equation.  Those who were stationed at this camp just miles south of Salt Lake
City, reads like a who's-who of Civil War luminaries from both North and South. 
(We even have a Confederate Cemetary at the top of Soldiers Summit in Utah - so
named because of the men who died in a spring snow storm there on their way to
join the Confederacy in April of 1861)  Brigham did not want such a huge
continguent of military to once again return to Utah to watch over him and his
people.  He expressed on many occassions a disdain for the conflict between
North and South and basically said that he didn't really care if they all killed
each other and left him alone.  He was a leader of power and intelligence and he
reigned much like a king over the people of the Utah Territory.  There are great
divisions between Mormon and non-Mormon still today in my home state which stem
from his time and decisions.  If Brigham Young wanted his people to side with
Union and Lincoln they that is what they would do for to not follow him
was....really deadly.  At the time of Statehood in 1898 the Mormons quite
literally divided each and every church (ward) in half (this half are democrats
this half republican) so to say that the Territory was pro republican is also a
mistake.  They did not care and wanted only to keep to themselves.  Thank you
for allowing me to participate.  I love following the entries.
Tracie Fielden

----- Original Message -----

From: FLYNSWEDE@...

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 6:17 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Interesting article on CW

In a message dated 10/2/2002 5:28:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, herpvetminson@... writes:

Isn't it the actions of Quantrill and his men that earned Kansas the nickname "Bloody Kansas"?

----- Original Message -----

From: FLYNSWEDE@...

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 7:30 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: MORMONS,LINCOLN & REPUBLICANS

In a message dated 10/2/2002 8:40:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, domus1000@... writes:

I don't ever comment but being native to Utah and sympathetic to my neighbors I feel I must participate.  Mormons (LDS people) held slaves when they settled in the Salt Lake Valley.

Tracie,  I too want to thank you for your excellent post.  I am quite surprised however that they held slaves.  The majority of those that traveled with Brigham and afterwards, was from New York and the New England states.  Being at Navoo, they would not have any slaves since Illinois law prevented slavery.  Matter of fact, a Southerner could not even bring a slave into Illinois for his own personal use without being arrested.  I read the Book of Morman about fifty years ago and somehow do remember that within it, there were passages that opposed slavery.  If my memory is correct, then Michael would be having a fit knowing that they had slaves.   Dadgummit, forgot the name of the town in New York where Joseph found the tablets and talked with Michael.    Getting too many senior moments with the memory.

But like Wakefield, I too could be wrong.

Wayne

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Burns definitely had an agenda, evident from Episode 1 right through to the end. 

Reconstruction wouldn't fit in to his portrayal of the Noble North.

 FLYNSWEDE@... wrote:

In a message dated 9/30/2002 4:35:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jfepperson@... writes:

While I think Burns can
be forgiven for not doing Reconstruction in detail  ---  hell,
it laster longer than the War did  ---  I think he could/should
have made some passing reference to the gains of the war being
lost in the "peace" that followed.

Nobody said he made errors, even the casual observer would admit that he presented from the North's point of view.

He chased points of view and perspectives that generally favored the North.

Prime example was his presentation of the Ft Pillow battle as a Forrest ordered  massacre of black soldiers attempting to surrender.

 Aurelie1999@... wrote:

In a message dated 10/2/2002 10:42:25 PM Central Daylight Time, carlos_detweiller@... writes:

Burns definitely had an agenda, evident from Episode 1 right through to the end.  Reconstruction wouldn't fit in to his portrayal of the Noble North.  

What specifically convinces you that Burn's was biased in favor of errors in history?

Connie

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----

From: FLYNSWEDE@...

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:17 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Interesting article on CW

In a message dated 10/2/2002 5:28:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, herpvetminson@... writes:

Isn't it the actions of Quantrill and his men that earned Kansas the nickname "Bloody Kansas"?

----- Original Message -----

From: herpvetminson@...

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:26 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Interesting article on CW

Rose Mary,

       I thoguht it was common knowledge that they fought for the South? They raided the Union towns of Kansas did they not? Isn't it the actions of Quantrill and his men that earned Kansas the nickname "Bloody Kansas"?

Brad

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.