Some links I find useful, but feel free to add on:

http://fcsutler.com/ (I get nearly all my gear here. They have nice section of wepons and unifroms. Most CSA combants wore Richmond deprout type IIs or butternut. The comon rifles of the day were Enfeilds (CS) and Springfeilds (US)

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/ (good overview)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Campaign (Not to bad)

Sir Joseph Whitworth, one of the premier inventors and firearms designers of his era, manufactured his singular rifle in Manchester, England. It fired a unique, hard metal, hexagonal-sided bullet with a very long aspect ratio (.445 inches by 1.45 inches, or 2½ times its diameter) that gave it superior ballistic performance at extended ranges. In order to give his long bullet the same 530-grain weight as that of the Enfield, Sir Joseph reduced the caliber to .451. Seventy to eight-five grains of British-manufactured powder launched the bullet at twelve hundred to fourteen hundred feet per second, considerably faster than the Enfield. While the Whitworth's light weight meant that while a soldier could easily carry it around the battlefield, he could count on it giving him a heavy kick when he pulled the trigger. Overall, the Enfield made a better all-purpose infantry weapon, and equaled the Whitworth's accuracy to five hundred yards.

The rifle was available with and without bayonet attachments and came with a 36-inch or a 33-inch barrel, which made for an overall length of 49 to 52½ inches. All had a hexagonal bore and a fast 1:20 twist. "Typical 'Confederate Whitworths' featured a 33-inch barrel, two Enfield pattern barrel bands, iron mounts of the military target rifle pattern, and Enfield-type lock with no safety bolt and an Enfield-style hammer; open sights, with a blade front being adjustable for windage allowance, and a stock which extends to within a short distance of the muzzle, giving the rifle a snub-nosed appearance."

Sighting arrangements varied also. Some Whitworths had Enfield-type sights graduated to twelve hundred yards, and others had a sophisticated sliding blade sight with a vernier screw adjustment for windage; some had simple front sights, and others boasted an adjustable post-and-globe front sight. A few rifles sported a four-power telescopic sight, fitted in an adjustable mount on the gun's left side. While it was a state-of-the-art system in 1864 it did have its drawbacks. "After a fight those who used them had black eyes," remembered one sharpshooter, "as the end of the tube rested against the eye while taking aim, and the 'kick,' being pretty hard, bruised the eye."

Most of the men in the Army of Northern Virginia's sharpshooter battalions used Enfields, and only one or two men per battalion carried Whitworths. Thus in the approximately thirty-six infantry brigades of the Army of Northern Virginia, there were most likely between thirty-six and seventy-two of these rifles in service. Although some claims of its accuracy are no doubt exaggerated, the fact remains that the Whitworth could and did strike at a thousand yards and beyond. "The claim of 'fatal results at 1,500 yards,'" concluded one modern expert, "was no foolish boast." Overall, it was a deadly weapon that, in the right hands, repaid its high cost many times over. "I do not believe a harder-shooting, harder-kicking, longer-range gun was ever made than the Whitworth rifle," asserted sharpshooter veteran Isaac Shannon.

Just some random video of Historian Shelby Foote one of the greatest Historians and storytellers to walk this earth or at least that what I think. But then he is one of my heroes so… Its worth a listen if you have a little free time. http://youtube.com/watch?v=-szx8DJinBk

For those who need a refresher on thier cw history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

Its okay, but they dewel on slavery WAY too much.

Well, it *is* Wikipedia. :D

Yup. I might find smothing better.

http://www.civilwar.com/ Okay.

My baby! http://schwartz.eng.auburn.edu/ACW/arty/3inrif.html The3-Inch Ordinance Rifle.

Nice little high-level timeline for a refresher course. Be sure to check out the other articles on the battles and the glossary of Civil War terms, too.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history.htm

Nice.

Yup! And if you're into reference books, Thomas R. Flagel's "The History Buff's Guide to the Civil War" is also an excellent resource.

You should pin this thread up too Lee.

*waves timidly* Actually, that was me, exercising my moderator-powers. Good idea, though!

Wait, what? *Brain slowing* Arrrrrrrrg!

Deep breath, Lee. I'm editing some posts for spelling errors and marking the important topics so they'll be easier to see for newcomers. That's all.

Oh. *sighs* you mean my spelling isn't coolafi anough fer youse?

No, no, I just made it easier to understand. Some people aren't as smart as we are, you know. They can't get past spelling errors.

*cough Dani cough*

yes...most resources miss the fact that the North was taxing the South to pieces to fund the building of northern infrastructure (railroads) to feed the industrialized cities. Slavery was such a minor note in why the Union Congress voted to go to war. And secession had nothing to do with keeping African Americans in bondage. Confederates weren't fighting to keep slaves, though so many history books basically say that. Drive me nuts. The whole nasty institution was winding down, and about a 1/3 of all negros in 1860 were freemen in Virginia, and another 1/3 of that population were over 50, and no longer working, but being kept by their owners as family members, childcare workers and cooks, honored places in the home that did not change with emancipation. No, modern history has it wrong, and of course, modern racial issues and the loud mouth voices of today go ballistic if anyone says different. They don't seem to see that it was Jim Crow Laws that began after Reconstruction that really forced their people into the bottom of the economic ladder, places them in harsher bondage than any landowner trying to grow a few bails of cotton and see his farm holdings increase. Most estates were like Tara (Gone with the Wind) not the dirt farm portrayed in Roots. Most small farmers had a family, a man for the heavy work of land clearing and his wife to cook and do laundry, and their children to do all those little chores. Breaking families wasn't economically profitable. The children suffered and failed to thrive, the parents refused to function in their roles. Marriage and family was encouraged, especially in smaller holdings. But that would make "masters' seem kind and thoughtful, something this current level of history just isn't going to show.

Now...I'm not saying slavery was a good system, or that we should go back to it or anything in that matter. I'm not denying that the middle passage was horrible, or that horrific abuses happened. We all know they did. But that was not the norm.

And if you numbered the list of reasons behind the Civil War, ending slavery would rank about 4 or 5.

Mm-hm.

Here's another good resource on the Civil War. Good for pictures and detailed explanations of the subjects.

http://civilwar.si.edu/splash.html

Plus, it's got a cool movie! ;)

Here's another resource...

http://www.civilwar.com/

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions, language and content, must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)