The American Civil War

[The Aryan Nations]

I care more about the coming Civil War than the first one!

My hypothesis is that the leftists will secede from the US, and the rightists wont care. they will then try and come back, and this will cause the civil war, because the right doesnt want them.

[The Aryan Nations]

>My father signs a contract to be married to my mother
>my father dies, i succeed him as head of household
by your logic, i am now married to my mother.

That's bullshit. You're not a state.

i am a state with a population in the billions i call them 'cells' and they populate my lungs. it still does not invalidate the argument; you (and her) are basically saying that even if one of the parties who signed the contract is dead, (and the contract was from a puppet regime) the successor of that contract signer is responsible for what their predecessor signed. which is bullshit.

[IshCong]

No, they don't. Not unless they have a clause in the lease saying they can. Contracts have to be binding or all agreements not constantly enforced at gunpoint are worthless.

>My father signs a contract to be married to my mother
>my father dies, i succeed him as head of household
by your logic, i am now married to my mother.

The contract would have married your father to your mother, not the 'head of household' (ie, government) to your mother.

How? He had more men (not better), more guns, better guns, more food? That makes him better?

on top of that, Grant basically Zerg Rushed the south. Look at the death tolls.

>Union
>~140,000 KIA
>~365,000 Total dead
>~200,000 wounded

>South
>~72,000 KIA
>~260,000 total dead
>~140,000 wounded

Death tolls don't mean you zerg-rushed, and even if they did, one cannot argue with results. One also cannot argue with the fact that many of those Union casualties didn't come during Grant's command.

because the south fought for the same thing that the 13 colonies had fought for less than 80 years before the war

Nope.

because all 13 colonies seceded from the the government of the Articles of Confederation, making two precedents for the legality of such secession.

The American Revolution wasn't a legal secession. It was a revolution, thus the name.
All members of a compact multilaterally agreeing to repudiate said compact is nowhere near the same as half the members of a compact choosing to repudiate said compact.

because the north was economically dependent on southern agriculture

That's why the North was economically and industrially strangled as the war dragged on, yes?
Although, really, even if true, that's not a valid reason for secession. At all. Saying 'we're more wealthy, we get to secede' makes no sense in any perspective, aside from, perhaps, 'might makes right'.

because Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus

And the South indefinitely suspended legal rights for a huge chunk of the population, and then some. Your point?

Because their uniforms were cooler (SS argument, i know, i know)

[Zathganastan]

No, they don't. Not unless they have a clause in the lease saying they can. Contracts have to be binding or all agreements not constantly enforced at gunpoint are worthless.

>My father signs a contract to be married to my mother
>my father dies, i succeed him as head of household
by your logic, i am now married to my mother.

More like, you sign an agreement with a landlord to rent an appartment.The landlord then dies and someone new replaces him, after which he kicks you out of the appartment even though your lease is still good.

[TaQud]

That's bullshit. You're not a state.

i am a state with a population in the billions i call them 'cells' and they populate my lungs. it still does not invalidate the argument; you (and her) are basically saying that even if one of the parties who signed the contract is dead, (and the contract was from a puppet regime) the successor of that contract signer is responsible for what their predecessor signed. which is bullshit.

Thats how the law or whatever works...

[Laerod]

Slavery?

The war kinda disproved that, particularly when you consider that Southern agriculture was busted by the end of the war and in no way could have supported anything.

In Maryland. Davis did it in Tennessee and Alabama, and would have done it in West Virginia if it hadn't been for McClellan.

Way to bet on the losing side. Sukhomlinov effect, and all that.

>Slavery
independence from a perceived foreign threat

Hahahaha! LOL.

>War kinda disproved that
the war does not disprove that the south had a higher GDP, and that whole tariff issue.

For one, the war cut off the North from the Southern economy. So yeah, seeing as it survived, I call bullshit on the argument that the North was economically dependent on the South. Second, source for the GDP. Third, there was no tariff issue.

>in maryland!
irrelevant. he still suspended the constitutional rights of the American citizens in a state not in rebellion.

If you really cared about those constitutional rights, you would not support those that spat on them more often.

>bet on the losing side
what?

You didn't notice that the South lost the war? Or are you unaware of the Sukhomlinov effect?

[Laerod]

That's bullshit. You're not a state.

i am a state with a population in the billions i call them 'cells' and they populate my lungs. it still does not invalidate the argument; you (and her) are basically saying that even if one of the parties who signed the contract is dead, (and the contract was from a puppet regime) the successor of that contract signer is responsible for what their predecessor signed. which is bullshit.

No. Quit comparing apples to oranges.

[IshCong]

Slavery?

The war kinda disproved that, particularly when you consider that Southern agriculture was busted by the end of the war and in no way could have supported anything.

In Maryland. Davis did it in Tennessee and Alabama, and would have done it in West Virginia if it hadn't been for McClellan.

Way to bet on the losing side. Sukhomlinov effect, and all that.

>Slavery
independence from a perceived foreign threat

Not foreign, so....nope. Try again.
EDIT: The South also gets points for attacking first.

>War kinda disproved that
the war does not disprove that the south had a higher GDP, and that whole tariff issue.

What tariff issue? The one Alien Space Bats murdered?

<continued from above>

Everything You Know Is Wrong - Part II

---

In the interest of brevity, I will not document all of the claims I have made above regarding the faulty narrative most Americans are given in secondary school as part of the established explanation of the causes underlying the War of the Rebellion; rather, I will briefly repeat those claims I have already established in other posts and threads, and if challenged cite those other posts. This should save us all a great deal of time.

As a segue into this, let me start by quoting my previous post:

But I also learned many, many things that were wrong, the three greatest being: That the war was about the future of slavery, especially as it pertained to expansion into the West; that the war was about States' Rights, insofar as the South sought to free itself from unwarranted Federal interference with the same; and that the war was about high tariffs, which the South believed would be their ruin.

Of these three "truths", I have learned this: That the first was an oversimplification to the point of completely obfuscating the real issues involved in the matter; that the second was worse than a fabrication, but indeed a complete reversal of the truth; and that the third was at best an old argument of minor importance that had long since been resolved in favor of the South, and which was only brought up later to expand the list of "grievances" claimed by Dixie as justification for its cause.

Just for the sake of completeness, let me address these three "issues" in increasing order of importance.

#1: Tariffs

I will not claim that North and South did not have differing interests when it came to the collection of tariffs; the South, which imported a great many luxury goods from abroad and had little interest in major public works, wanted tariffs kept as low as possible; Northern industrial interests, OTOH - which faced competition from foreign business enterprises (and especially English ones) that enjoyed both lower labor costs than could be found in America and had the backing of a government quite willing to engage in unfair trade practices (including forcible monopolization [by both legal and military means] of foreign markets and dumping) - wanted protection from such competition, which high import tariffs provided. There were other factors as well (eg., any protectionist trade policy that suppressed imports also worked to hobble exports, including cotton - the South's economic mainstay), but this should be enough for now.

That said, these same Northern interests never had the political clout to impose their will on the country when it came to tariffs for any great length of time: From the end of the War of 1812 until the War of the Rebellion, proponents of high protective tariffs got their way only twice - once in 1828 (in enacting the so-called "Tariff of Abominations") and once in 1842 (with the so-called "Black Tariff"). Moreover, each of these tariffs was repealed within a few years of its passage (with the Tariff of 1828 being subsequently slashed in 1832 and then phased out altogether beginning the following year; the Tariff of 1842, in turn, was repealed in full four years later [in 1846]; the resulting Walker Tariff was even lower than the Compromise Tariff that had been in place prior to the Black Tariff's passage [in 1842], making the final outcome of that round of political duelling a net loss for protectionists). However populous the North, and however badly Northern industrial interests wanted protectionist policies put into place, they apparently lacked sufficient influence in Washington to either get such policies enacted or manage to have them stick once they did.

Indeed, claims of Southern apologists to the contrary, secession can not realistically be seen as a response to a pattern of continually rising tariffs; the reason for this is simple: After the defeat of the Black Tariff in 1846, tariffs not only remained at an all-time low, but rather actually fell again on the eve of the War, in 1857.

So unless "constantly rising tariffs" is some kind of wierd code-phrase for "historically low and falling tariff rates", and the South actually wanted to be taxed harder, any claim that the South didn't get what it wanted when it came to customs duties in the last decade and a half of the antebellum era is factually inaccurate; consequently, claims that rising tariffs were a cause of the War of the Rebellion must be rejected out of hand as ridiculous.

I will, however, concede one pont here: For reasons I will discuss in future posts, tariffs remained a sensitive issue with the South; in spite of historically low customs duties in particular, the South clearly thought that they were forced to bear an unfair share of the Nation's tax burden. In that respect - much like today - Southern carping about "constantly rising taxes" was less a reflection of historical reality than it was a simple statement of general offense at the notion of having to bear any sort of real Federal tax burden whatsoever.

Sauce on GDP, though it still isn't relevant.

>in maryland!
irrelevant. he still suspended the constitutional rights of the American citizens in a state not in rebellion.

So did Davis, and the rest of the South. As such, that argument is no reason to support one side over the other. At least, not when it comes to Habeas Corpus. The drastic rights violations the South perpetrated in other areas, however...

[IshCong]

>My father signs a contract to be married to my mother
>my father dies, i succeed him as head of household
by your logic, i am now married to my mother.

More like, you sign an agreement with a landlord to rent an appartment.The landlord then dies and someone new replaces him, after which he kicks you out of the appartment even though your lease is still good.

Much better analogy, thankee.

[Ifreann]

>My father signs a contract to be married to my mother
>my father dies, i succeed him as head of household
by your logic, i am now married to my mother.

That's bullshit. You're not a state.

Or is he? Maybe his father was Yugoslavia.

[TaQud]

That's bullshit. You're not a state.

Or is he? Maybe his father was Yugoslavia.

that was a country

[Laerod]

That's bullshit. You're not a state.

Or is he? Maybe his father was Yugoslavia.

If he's an APH character I will hate him so much more.

[Ifreann]

I care more about the coming Civil War than the first one!

My hypothesis is that the leftists will secede from the US, and the rightists wont care. they will then try and come back, and this will cause the civil war, because the right doesnt want them.

If they seceded it wouldn't be a civil war, it would just be a war. Though, that's still ridiculous.

[IshCong]

Or is he? Maybe his father was Yugoslavia.

that was a country

State means country in that context.

[Alien Space Bats]

<continued from above>

Everything You Know Is Wrong - Part III (Continued [Again])

---

From the previous post, we can see that Congress was able to drum up support for a ban on slavery in the new lands of the "Northwest" (i.e., north of the Ohio River), but not within their counterparts in the "Southwest" (i.e., south of the Ohio River). This was partly due to the fact that the Northwest would have never existed if it hadn't been for compromise between just about everybody involved in the creation of the new country (including the "free" States of New England, which all opposed the spread of slavery), whereas those lands south of the Ohio river either gained Statehood through direct and voluntary separation from another "slave" State (eg., Kentucky from Virginia) or through the Territorial organization of lands ceded by a "slave" State under the condition that slavery remain legal there (eg., the Southwest Territory [which became Tennessee] being created from land so ceded by North Carolina). Perhaps the most important reason Mississippi Territory ended up being organized under rules permitting slavery (though not the foreign slave trade) was that fact that by 1798, those lands south of the Ohio River were already being seen as "belonging" to the slaveholding South; thus, recognizing this state of affairs didn't seem all that radical a move.

Yet there were other factors that bear mention. While the Northwest Territory's prohibition against slavery ultimately produced five "free" States with a strong pro-aboilitionist feelings, there can be no doubt that it slowed the settlement of the region. One need only compare the relative development of Kentucky and Tennessee with that of Ohio and Indiana in the final decade of the 18th Century and the opening decade of the 19th Century to see why many politicians and civic leaders both in Washington and across the frontier believed that slavery was necessary in the new lands of the west were to be developed as rapidly as many hoped would be the case.

Indeed, through the course of the first decade of the 19th Century, a great many individuals - Indiana Governor and future President William Henry Harrison foremost among them - actively sought to have the Northwest Territory's prohibition against slavery repealed; Harrison even went so far as to (unlawfully) seek to suspend its enforcement as a matter of Territorial policy, with the result that slavery enjoyed a bried period of quasi-legality within the Territory - although it never became a major component within the local economy.

This aspect of the early slavery debate - that slavery was necessary for the rapid development of the virgin lands of the West - is crucial in understanding what happened west of the Mississippi. It wasn't just an argument relating to the need for cheap labor to clear land or work fields; it was an argument relating to the question of whether American settlers of means (i.e., slaveholding Southerners) would willingly move to new lands if they couldn't take their slaves with them. The rapid development and population growth of Kentucky and Tennessee (which achieved Statehood in 1792 and 1796 respectively) compared with that of Ohio and Indiana (which achieved Statehood in 1803 and 1816, respectively) seemed to lend weight to the argument that if the United States wanted to occupy and develop the lands along the Mississippi (which many feared might be taken from America by one of its European rivals - see below), it would have to make slavery legal in those lands.

It is in this context that we must begin to view the way in which Congress addressed the issue of slavery west of the Mississippi in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase.

We've already seen the beginnings of how that purchase came to be: France, wishing to keep its faint imperial hopes alive in North America, ceded French Louisiana in its entirety to Spain in 1762. This was done secretly, as specified earlier; secret, too, was the agreement between France and Spain that the former could have the lands back at some future date through an act of "retrocession". When the Seven Years War was finally settled the following year, Britain took possession of that portion of Louisiana lying east of the Mississippi River as part of its peace with Spain, leaving the latter all lands to the west.

As indicated earlier, the eastern half of French Louisiana was in turn ceded to the United States upon the successful resolution of the War of American Independence. Over the next 15 years, the United States would dispose of these lands, organizing them as States and Territories, with slavery banned north of the Ohio River while being permitted south of the river.

Throughout this period, however, America became increasingly concerned with its navigation rights along the Mississippi River, and especially over its right to use the Port of New Orleans. Although this right had already become a bone of contention on a number of prior occasions due the Spanish interruptions of the river trade (usually due to American smuggling), things really came to the forefront when Napoleon Bonaparte, then First Consul of France, decided to turn his attention to the West Indies.

Spain and France were not allies, the French Revolutionaries having deposed and executed their French Bourbon monarch - cousin to the King of Spain - less than a decade earlier. But France's military successes in Europe left Spain in a difficult position, such that it was not really in a place where it could refuse the "retrocession" of Louisiana to France. The result was the Treaty of San Ildefonso (1800), in which France agreed to secure a kingdom in Italy for one of Spain's royal princes in exchange for the earlier agreed-upon "retrocession" and the transfer of six Spanish ships of the line to France. The Italian end of the agreement was subsequently modified, leading to its eventual abandonment, with the result that Spain ended up with nothing; Napoleon, OTOH, ended up with a foothold in the Americas, which he hoped to use to build an empire there.

The following year, in 1802, Napoleon began his military designs to conquer the West Indies by sending an expedition to Haiti; when the expedition ended in disaster thanks to a yellow fever epidemic, he changed his mind and decided to sell his newly reclaimed North American possessions to America instead, even though they weren't technically his yet (the terms of France's earlier treaties with Spain not yet having been properly fulfilled). That said, Spain really had no choice but to go along - it could not stand up to France in Europe any more than it could stand up to the United States in the Americas.

The transfer of control had an almost comic-opera air: In order to adhere to the already questionable legalities of the bizarre situation (the United States and France both understood that the U.S. was buying Spanish territory from France - territory which France didn't properly own), two ceremonies were conducted, one in New Orleans and another several months later in St. Louis: In each, the Spanish flag was lowered and replaced with the French flag; the following day (one day's possession being deemed the minimum interval required to make French ownership "official"), the French flag went down and the American flag went up.

With those two ceremonies, the United States effectively doubled in size.

President Jefferson faced legal difficulties getting the whole purchase through Congress, especially in light of the growing knowledge within Washington that the whole deal was bogus, at least on the French side (which is not to say that America's claim to Louisiana was itself invalid; from the perspective of the United States, the arrangement could be viewed as an American purchase of France's right to "retrocession", and to Hell with the whole Italian angle [indeed, in all likelihood, the transfer of Spanish ships of the line to France in exchange for the proposed "Kingdom of Etruria" was probably a legal fig leaf to maintain the "official" notion that Spain's "retrocession" of France came without strings (because the original French cession effectively demanded that Spain hand Louisiana back without strings if asked)]); yet the U.S. Senate finally approved the whole deal on October 20, 1803, which left Congress with the legal responsibility for organizing some sort of arrangement for Territorial government.

<more to come>

[Ravineworld]

Confederates all of the way.
I doubt slavery would last very long in the confederate states even if they won. Maybe 20 years at maximum. Slavery was gonna go either way, and the war was about way more than slavery.

[Northern Knights]

if it did happen it would be about Corporations, Politicians vs states and small businesses

Not a race war?
That's a pretty likely event too.

I have no idea where you stand on the issue but I believe that Race is a non issue. I am almost fifty years old and for the life of me I have never been able to figure out why people continue to blame so many things on racism. I fully understand the problems of the past, but we live in a different world today. It seems to me that the race card is either a crutch for losers, a diversion for those with with out a rational argument or a tool for those who are looking to take advantage of the unlucky or the under achievers in life. There is no guarantee in life that working hard and making sound decisions will result in success, however you define it. But It is much easier for the losers in life to blame others for their condition than it is for them to accept responsibility for their lives and strive for change. However, more often than not, bad decisions have bad consequences.

A few years ago I lost everything I had worked twenty five years to achieve, just like many others. I could have sat around blaming others, collecting unemployment for 99 weeks(almost two full years) and just waiting for a money magically appear one day. Instead I took the little I had left and went back to University. I had people telling me that I was to old and it was a waste of time and effort because no one would give me a job when I graduated due to age discrimination(could have been race). But my view was that I could sit around and drink beer for 99 weeks, blame Corporations, Politicians, Banks, Oil companies and anyone with a different skin tone and hope a source of income is handed to me. Or, I could spend the same amount of time and a little more money to work towards improving my future chance of success.

Guess what I have approx two years left to finish two degrees and I have already had multiple job offers including an Internship at Intel. Yes it is an entry position with very limited hours but had I sat around blaming others I would be in the same place I was two years ago. Waiting for the Government to steal(tax) money from those who are actually productive and give it to me; because for some unexplained reason I am entitled to a piece of what others have worked hard to obtain. By the way, this is also the definition of what Obama and others promote as "The Redistribution of Wealth", a fancy word for stealing money from others. In the old days you only had to worry about Gangsters who thought they were entitled to piece of your action. Now it is morons like 99%(same percentage of their occupy members that are socially dysfunctional and unemployed) and the US Government stealing your families wealth.

If you have read this far I apologize for this long winded rant that went completely out on a tangent but I have not slept in over fifty hours and I need to sleep. I hope I was not to scattered with my thoughts. For those who may read this post don't waste your time posting here if you don't agree with me because I don't care. Like the majority of honest, hard working Americans of all races I will be working hard for future success with the understanding that there is no guarantee I will achieve it. But it sure beats accusing others of racism to escape the reality of ones own bad decisions.

:clap:

The Kingdom of Northern Knights

“EAT A BEAVER SAVE A TREE”

:palm:

[The UK in Exile]

and all you had to do was give up sleep. sounds like a fair trade.....

[TaQud]

and all you had to do was give up sleep. sounds like a fair trade.....

[Koharu]

Tsa-la-gi Nation wrote:
With that being said, as a Cherokee, my goal would have been to defeat the union. Even with the benifit of hindsight, I think Indian peoples were right to fight against the north for what Jackson did just 20 years or so earlier, the trail of tears gave us "just cause". It is oftened overlooked that the Cherokee under Stand Watie were the last to surrender to the union. Native americans should have fought against the union, if for no other reason, just to try & stop, or delay the union army from commiting acts of genocide after the war with their newly found millitary machine turned westward.

You do have a very good point there Tsa-la-gi Nation. I could only hope that the CSA would have respected the Indian Nation after the war.

[Maresborough]

i chose option d- help mexico raid forts when the soldiers are fighting so they wont notice. its freaking FOOLPROOF.

[Jefferson and Paul]

Union. Although, and a big although, Constitutionally the South had the right to secession.

[Laerod]

Union. Although, and a big although, Constitutionally the South had the right to secession.

Source it.

[Bornisia]

Tsa-la-gi Nation wrote:
With that being said, as a Cherokee, my goal would have been to defeat the union. Even with the benifit of hindsight, I think Indian peoples were right to fight against the north for what Jackson did just 20 years or so earlier, the trail of tears gave us "just cause". It is oftened overlooked that the Cherokee under Stand Watie were the last to surrender to the union. Native americans should have fought against the union, if for no other reason, just to try & stop, or delay the union army from commiting acts of genocide after the war with their newly found millitary machine turned westward.

You do have a very good point there Tsa-la-gi Nation. I could only hope that the CSA would have respected the Indian Nation after the war.

Indeed thats the very reason many did, one of my relatives (whose name I shan't mention for fear of argument) that served with the Confederacy was Choctaw, he also signed the treaty with General Pike at the beginning of the war. And as a result, signed the treaty with the North afterwards.

[The Republic Of Ardenhelm]

First Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment
(Hockey and Skiing are the best sports.)

---

Pre Gettysburg and Organization

The 1st Minnesota was the first state volunteer regiment formally tendered to the Federal government under Abraham Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops in 1861, being offered on April 14 for three months service, Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey happening to be in Washington at the time. It was organized at Fort Snelling, Minnesota, on April 29 and subsequently remustered for three years service on May 10.

The regiment suffered significant losses during its term of service in the Eastern Theater. At the First Battle of Bull Run, it took the heaviest casualties of any Federal regiment on the field, an unfortunate honor that it would hold in more than one battle. At the Battle of Antietam, the Minnesotans and their parent brigade, commanded by the regiment's former colonel, Willis A. Gorman, were in General John Sedgwick's ill-famed assault on the West Woods, resulting in a Union rout from that part of the field. However, as always, the 1st Minnesota fought with courage and distinction.

---

The Battle Of Gettysburg

One of the most heroic acts at The Battle Of Gettysburg:
On the second day of Gettysburg they held the lines against thousands of confederates who saw the gap made, even though the only numbered 262 they we're able to hold it for about.

On the third day the helped repel picket's charge:
During the chaotic fighting that took place in the repulse of Pickett's Charge, Private Marshall Sherman of Company C of the 1st Minnesota captured the colors of the 28th Virginia Infantry. Private Sherman received the Medal of Honor for his exploit. The flag was taken back to Minnesota as a prize of war and is kept but not publicly displayed at the Minnesota Historical Society. In the mid-1990s, several groups of Virginians threatened to sue the Society to return the 28th Virginia's battle flag to the Old Dominion. However, the Minnesota Attorney General advised that such threats were without a legal basis and the flag remains in the possession of the Society to this day.

Cpl Henry O'Brien repeatedly picked up the fallen colors of the 1st Minnesota, and carried a wounded comrade back to the Union lines despite being knocked out by a bullet to the head and shot in the hand. He was awarded a Medal of Honor for his heroism.

---

The Monument at Gettysburg, which I have stood next to

---

The Inscription on The Statue:
On the afternoon of July 2, 1863 Sickles' Third Corps, having advanced from this line to the Emmitsburg Road, eight companies of the First Minnesota Regiment, numbering 262 men were sent to this place to support a battery upon Sickles repulse.

As his men were passing here in confused retreat, two Confederate brigades in pursuit were crossing the swale. To gain time to bring up the reserves & save this position, Gen Hancock in person ordered the eight companies to charge the rapidly advancing enemy.

The order was instantly repeated by Col Wm Colvill. And the charge as instantly made down the slope at full speed through the concentrated fire of the two brigades breaking with the bayonet the enemy's front line as it was crossing the small brook in the low ground there the remnant of the eight companies, nearly surrounded by the enemy held its entire force at bay for a considerable time & till it retired on the approach of the reserve the charge successfully accomplished its object. It saved this position & probably the battlefield. The loss of the eight companies in the charge was 215 killed & wounded. More than 83% percent. 47 men were still in line & no man missing. In self sacrificing desperate valor this charge has no parallel in any war. Among the severely wounded were Col Wm Colvill, Lt Col Chas P Adams & Maj Mark W. Downie. Among the killed Capt Joseph Periam, Capt Louis Muller & Lt Waldo Farrar. The next day the regiment participated in repelling Pickett's charge losing 17 more men killed & wounded.

---

Post Gettysburg and after the war

The 1st Minnesota continued in the Army of the Potomac, serving later in 1863 in the Bristoe Campaign and the subsequent Mine Run Campaign. It was mustered out of service upon completion of its enlistment on April 29, 1864, at Fort Snelling. Enough of the regiment's veterans reenlisted to form the nucleus of the 1st Minnesota Battalion of Infantry which returned to Virginia and served through the end of the war.[4] Other veterans provided officers for the 1st Minnesota Heavy Artillery Regiment.[5]

The 1st Minnesota Infantry suffered the loss of 10 officers and 177 enlisted men killed in action or who later died of their wounds, plus another 2 officers and 97 enlisted men who died of disease, for a total of 286 fatalities.[4] and 609 wounded.

The 2nd Battalion, 135th Infantry Regiment, 34th Infantry Division (Minnesota Army National Guard) traces its roots back to the historic 1st Minnesota Volunteers.

---

L’Étoile du Nord
(Et-wah du-nord)
The Star Of The North