"mike meno" <neho6-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=133
> It is my belief the Confederate armies in the west, most particulary
the
> Army of Tennesse never stood a chance against the Union forces. Any
> opportunity they had was put to an end after the cease of the
invasion of
> the north at Shiloh, and the death of Albert Sidney Johnston. After
that
> defeat it was only a matter of time before the entire west fell. This
is
> mainly due to the fact that all the Confederacy's more prominent
generals
> were given commands in the east. (Lee, Jackson, Longsteet, Stuart
etc.)The
> better generals in the west such as Nathan Bedford Forrest were never
given
> adequete numbers to take on the armies of the Cumberland, Tennesse,
and of
> course, the great army Sherman marched across Georgia. The one main
factor
> as always however in the defeat of the CSA in the west, was the
terrible
> lack of men and supplies.
>
>
______________________________________________________
This is Waldemar Winkler responding (pedinkler@...).

I'm not sure if a change of command (someone more capable than
Bragg)would have made any difference.  My understanding of the basic
Confederate political stance in the early years of the war was to
demonstrate to the international community the legitimacy of their
independence by conducting a primarily defensive campaign.  The success
of this strategy would have been recognition by a significant number of
countries (which didn't happen).

The military strategy of battle (particularly in the West) was to find
the enemy's weakest spot, attack with overwhelming majority in numbers,
do ther greatest amount of damage, steal as many supplies as possible,
and get the Hell out.

Distinctive offensive tactics may have well changed hisory, but
approval from Richmond would never happen.

I would sincerely appreciate any responses from anyone as to the sense
of my comments, as the beauty of this site is that everything said
manages to enhance learning.

pedinkle-@... wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=143
> "mike meno" <neho6-@...> wrote:
> original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=133
> > It is my belief the Confederate armies in the west, most particulary
> the
> > Army of Tennesse never stood a chance against the Union forces. Any
> > opportunity they had was put to an end after the cease of the
> invasion of
> > the north at Shiloh, and the death of Albert Sidney Johnston. After
> that
> > defeat it was only a matter of time before the entire west fell.
This
> is
> > mainly due to the fact that all the Confederacy's more prominent
> generals
> > were given commands in the east. (Lee, Jackson, Longsteet, Stuart
> etc.)The
> > better generals in the west such as Nathan Bedford Forrest were
never
> given
> > adequete numbers to take on the armies of the Cumberland, Tennesse,
> and of
> > course, the great army Sherman marched across Georgia. The one main
> factor
> > as always however in the defeat of the CSA in the west, was the
> terrible
> > lack of men and supplies.
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________
> This is Waldemar Winkler responding (pedinkler@...).
>
> I'm not sure if a change of command (someone more capable than
> Bragg)would have made any difference.  My understanding of the basic
> Confederate political stance in the early years of the war was to
> demonstrate to the international community the legitimacy of their
> independence by conducting a primarily defensive campaign.  The
success
> of this strategy would have been recognition by a significant number
of
> countries (which didn't happen).
>
> The military strategy of battle (particularly in the West) was to find
> the enemy's weakest spot, attack with overwhelming majority in
numbers,
> do ther greatest amount of damage, steal as many supplies as possible,
> and get the Hell out.
>
> Distinctive offensive tactics may have well changed hisory, but
> approval from Richmond would never happen.
>
> I would sincerely appreciate any responses from anyone as to the sense
> of my comments, as the beauty of this site is that everything said
> manages to enhance learning.

I feel pretty confident to say that anyone Davis could of chosen to
place in command in the west could have done better than Bragg. While
the Confederacy's overall strategy was to conduct a defensive campaign,
Bragg's stategy was usually to aggressively attack the much larger and
better equipped Federal forces in an offensive action, usually
resulting in a huge defeat. It was not only Bragg though. When Hood was
given commands in the west he did the same thing: attack the much
larger force and get slaughtered. My peronal belief is that the
Confederacy did not have substantial numbers to hold such a big area as
the west, especially after Donelson and Shiloh. Their best chance was
most likely to hold out as long as possible and allow Lee and the Army
of Northern Viginia to crush the Potomac and end the war. Even if Lee
did not win, but the west and the western forces remained somewhat
intact, the war may have ended because McClellan may have been elected
and then surrendered. Also, after a certain amount of time the Union
would give up as the British did in the Revolution because as long as
there is still a Confederate army in the field, there is still a
Confederacy. The only general in the west who I believe may have
somewhat understood this was Joe Johnston. When he was put up against
Sherman he knew he could not defeat his entire force, only delay its
advance. therefore he would hit Sherman, retreat, hit him again etc.
This entire strategy went out the window eventually because Johnston
did not have enough men to even continue to harrass the enemy. Then
again, this is all just my opinion.
        -Your Obediant Servant

Hood's life has, to me, always been an enigma resembling a Shakespearean
plot.  His outstanding success as a Division commander contrasts tragically
with his performance in the West.
     After the war he fathered twelve children, half of whom died along with
his wife and himself due to the fever.
     My question is; What happened to the surviving children?  Were they
adopted by members of the Texas Brigade,the people of New Orleans, or, did
they simply disappear into History's mist ?
     Any information would be appreciated.

Jack O'Connor here responding to Waldmar:
     While agreeing with much of your excellent summary, my reaction to Bragg
is in line with the opinions of many of his generals.  Whatever good could be
said of his organizational ability was dissipated as an army commander.  Had
Hardee, Smith, or Clebourne been given the command, the attack on Missionary
Ridge etc. would realistically have been different.
     One other point which D.S. Freeman develops very well - the policy of
defense primarily for the CSA.  Lee quite clearly did not accept this and his
adept handling of Davis demonstrates Lee's philosophy.  Had Lee obtained the
additional troops he wanted prior to Gettysburg, would his tactics have
differed?  Alas, Davis drew the line on that.
     Your comments would be welcomed,
     Yr obt svt,
     Jack O'Connor

After which event did the tide of the war change? When did the Union begin to
suceed? When did it seem the Confederacy lost the war?

----

Please select one of the following:

    o Gettysburg
    o Vicksburg
    o Death of Stonewall Jackson
    o the Wilderness
    o Grant's promotion to commanding general
    o Fall of Atlanta
    o Emancipation Proclamation


by going to the following Web form:

    http://www.egroups.com/vote?id=940707190667

Thank you!

Neho69, I cannot vote in your poll as you left out the true High Point of 
Confederate fortunes:  one second before the first gun fired
on Ft. Sumter.

It was ALL downhill after that.

Oh, and as a suggestion to all, could we remember to sign our names on posts? It
will help keep straight who is responding to whom,
especially when the group gets bigger and more active. Thank you. ;)

Laurie Chambliss


neho69@... wrote:

> After which event did the tide of the war change? When did the Union begin to
suceed? When did it seem the Confederacy lost the war?
>
> ----
>
> Please select one of the following:
>
>    o Gettysburg
>    o Vicksburg
>    o Death of Stonewall Jackson
>    o the Wilderness
>    o Grant's promotion to commanding general
>    o Fall of Atlanta
>    o Emancipation Proclamation
>
> by going to the following Web form:
>
>    http://www.egroups.com/vote?id=940707190667
>
> Thank you!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Imagine a credit card with a 0% Intro APR and Instant Approval…
> It seems impossible, but it’s not. Visit GetSmart.com’s Credit Card
> Finder and click on instant approval cards right now at
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1272
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Good question, but I think look no farther than Ft. Donelson. Of course
that's just my opinion
     Nick

I don't believe you can single out one event. Many historians look at the
year.Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga. this is just my opinion though.

Im doing some reserch on my family and i am trying to find some information
on  a General named Howell Cobb he was from GA. and i dont know were he
served, if it was in the east or west.  If anyone has any info on him plase
let me know


thanks
Charlie

Charlie,
                   Howell Cobb was from Cherry Hill, Jefferson County
Georgia.  He was born September 15, 1815. He was one of the foremost
Secessionists in the South, along with his brother T.R.R. Cobb, who drafted
the Constitution of the  Confederate States of America. Howell Cobb was a
Major General of the Confederacy, and served primarily in the Virginia
theater. T.R.R. Cobb was  a Brigadier General, and was killed December 13,
1862 at the battle of Fredericksburg.  Howell Cobb died of natural causes in
1868. If you need further information try the "Encyclopedia of the
Confederacy". published in 1993. It contains lengthly entries on both Cobbs.


Dameron
----- Original Message -----
From: <CHiBy524@...>
To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 1999 10:06 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Gen. Howell Cobb


> Im doing some reserch on my family and i am trying to find some
information
> on  a General named Howell Cobb he was from GA. and i dont know were he
> served, if it was in the east or west.  If anyone has any info on him
plase
> let me know
>
>
> thanks
> Charlie
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Imagine a credit card with a 0% Intro APR and Instant Approval.
> It seems impossible, but it's not. Visit GetSmart.com's Credit Card
> Finder and click on instant approval cards right now at
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1272
>
>
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>
>
>

I agree with Laurie 100% - in my opinion, there was never an event that
changed the tide of war - it was a "lost cause" from Day 1.  If you want a
single day that changed history, I suggest November 10, 1860 - Lincoln is
elected President, and the South begins its long, rebellious descent into
death and despair.

Terry Arliskas


>From: neho69@...
>Reply-To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
>To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
>Subject: [civilwarwest] POLL: Turning point in the Civil War
>Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 12:33:12 -0700
>
>After which event did the tide of the war change? When did the Union begin
>to suceed? When did it seem the Confederacy lost the war?
>
>----
>
>Please select one of the following:
>
>    o Gettysburg
>    o Vicksburg
>    o Death of Stonewall Jackson
>    o the Wilderness
>    o Grant's promotion to commanding general
>    o Fall of Atlanta
>    o Emancipation Proclamation
>
>
>by going to the following Web form:
>
>    http://www.egroups.com/vote?id=940707190667
>
>Thank you!
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Imagine a credit card with a 0% Intro APR and Instant Approval 
>It seems impossible, but it s not. Visit GetSmart.com s Credit Card
>Finder and click on instant approval cards right now at
>http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1272
>
>
>
>eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
>http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>
>

______________________________________________________

The Death of Stonewall

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 12:33:12 -0700, neho69@... wrote:

> After which event did the tide of the war change? When did the Union begin
to suceed? When did it seem the Confederacy lost the war?
>
> ----
>
> Please select one of the following:
>
>    o Gettysburg
>    o Vicksburg
>    o Death of Stonewall Jackson
>    o the Wilderness
>    o Grant's promotion to commanding general
>    o Fall of Atlanta
>    o Emancipation Proclamation
>
>
> by going to the following Web form:
>
>    http://www.egroups.com/vote?id=940707190667
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Imagine a credit card with a 0% Intro APR and Instant Approval…
> It seems impossible, but it’s not. Visit GetSmart.com’s Credit Card
> Finder and click on instant approval cards right now at
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1272
>
>
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>
>





________________________________________________________________
Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com

As a new member, I do hope the discussions will reveal both knowledge and
insight and not the bias/bigotry of the baseball chat rooms
         Jack

To me, the turning point was April 9, 1865, the day that the Army of Northern
Virginia surrendered to Grant.  Lee had an important decision to make, whether
to end it then and there or to flee to the hills, or to Johnson, and make the
war even uglier than it already was.  His decision not only saved countless
lives, but set the precedent for subsequent surrenders in the following months,
and in part paved the way into Reconstruction for the North and South to
reconcile.

Just my opinion, of course!

Mike


To:   civilwarwest@egroups.com
cc:     (bcc: Michael D. Cantor)
Date: 10/25/99 09:49 AM
From: tarliskas@...
Subject:  [civilwarwest] Re: POLL: Turning point in the Civil War

I agree with Laurie 100% - in my opinion, there was never an event that
changed the tide of war - it was a "lost cause" from Day 1.  If you want a
single day that changed history, I suggest November 10, 1860 - Lincoln is
elected President, and the South begins its long, rebellious descent into
death and despair.

Terry Arliskas


>From: neho69@...
>Reply-To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
>To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
>Subject: [civilwarwest] POLL: Turning point in the Civil War
>Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 12:33:12 -0700
>
>After which event did the tide of the war change? When did the Union begin
>to suceed? When did it seem the Confederacy lost the war?
>
>----
>
>Please select one of the following:
>
>    o Gettysburg
>    o Vicksburg
>    o Death of Stonewall Jackson
>    o the Wilderness
>    o Grant's promotion to commanding general
>    o Fall of Atlanta
>    o Emancipation Proclamation
>
>
>by going to the following Web form:
>
>    http://www.egroups.com/vote?id=940707190667
>
>Thank you!
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Imagine a credit card with a 0% Intro APR and Instant Approval
>It seems impossible, but it s not. Visit GetSmart.com s Credit Card
>Finder and click on instant approval cards right now at
>http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1272
>
>
>
>eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
>http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>
>

______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click on Instant Credit Card Approval at
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1274



eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications











*******************Internet Email Confidentiality Footer*******************


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.  If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone.
In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by
reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent
to Internet email for messages of this kind.  Opinions, conclusions and other
information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my
firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

It is nice to have you with us Jeff. I just wanted to let you know that
I really enjoy "Sid Meier's Gettysburg". Great job.

Patrick


"jeff briggs" <jbrigg-@...> wrote:

> Hello folks.
>
> Just joined and wanted to introduce myself. I'm Jeff Briggs, long
time CW buff and game designer (War of the Rebellion, Sid Meier's
Gettysburg and many others) President and CEO of FIRAXIS Games. I look
forward to the discussions.
>
> Jeff
>

I would have to strongly disagree with your answer. If the war was lost
before it ever started why were so many battles won by the South in the
first half of the war? Why did it take the promotion of Grant before the
North could consistantly win battles?

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:40:42 -0500, L.A. Chambliss wrote:

> Neho69, I cannot vote in your poll as you left out the true High Point of
Confederate fortunes:  one second before the first gun fired
> on Ft. Sumter.
>
> It was ALL downhill after that.
>
> Oh, and as a suggestion to all, could we remember to sign our names on
posts? It will help keep straight who is responding to whom,
> especially when the group gets bigger and more active. Thank you. ;)
>
> Laurie Chambliss
>
>
> neho69@... wrote:
>
> > After which event did the tide of the war change? When did the Union
begin to suceed? When did it seem the Confederacy lost the war?
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Please select one of the following:
> >
> >    o Gettysburg
> >    o Vicksburg
> >    o Death of Stonewall Jackson
> >    o the Wilderness
> >    o Grant's promotion to commanding general
> >    o Fall of Atlanta
> >    o Emancipation Proclamation
> >
> > by going to the following Web form:
> >
> >    http://www.egroups.com/vote?id=940707190667
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Imagine a credit card with a 0% Intro APR and Instant Approval…
> > It seems impossible, but it’s not. Visit GetSmart.com’s Credit Card
> > Finder and click on instant approval cards right now at
> > http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1272
> >
> > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
> > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get A 0% Intro APR Visa with Instant Approval right now a
> GetSmart.com at http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1273
>
>
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>
>





________________________________________________________________
Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com

Karen, I agree that the turning point was later in the war.  To actually put
a definite time frame to it is probably a little more difficult than Grant
taking command.  In that theater I would have to say that after the
Wilderness when the Union turned to the south( I remember reading in a
Catton volume that the morale went sky high ) is when the fortunes of war
began to change.  In the Western Theater I think that Joe Johnston's
promotion around Atlanta started the end.  It helped that the Union
commander was Sherman.  Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Hall <orvalbear@...>
To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 3:54 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: POLL: Turning point in the Civil War


> I would have to strongly disagree with your answer. If the war was lost
> before it ever started why were so many battles won by the South in the
> first half of the war? Why did it take the promotion of Grant before the
> North could consistantly win battles?
>
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:40:42 -0500, L.A. Chambliss wrote:
>
> > Neho69, I cannot vote in your poll as you left out the true High Point
of
> Confederate fortunes:  one second before the first gun fired
> > on Ft. Sumter.
> >
> > It was ALL downhill after that.
> >
> > Oh, and as a suggestion to all, could we remember to sign our names on
> posts? It will help keep straight who is responding to whom,
> > especially when the group gets bigger and more active. Thank you. ;)
> >
> > Laurie Chambliss
> >
> >
> > neho69@... wrote:
> >
> > > After which event did the tide of the war change? When did the Union
> begin to suceed? When did it seem the Confederacy lost the war?
> > >
> > > ----
> > >
> > > Please select one of the following:
> > >
> > >    o Gettysburg
> > >    o Vicksburg
> > >    o Death of Stonewall Jackson
> > >    o the Wilderness
> > >    o Grant's promotion to commanding general
> > >    o Fall of Atlanta
> > >    o Emancipation Proclamation
> > >
> > > by going to the following Web form:
> > >
> > >    http://www.egroups.com/vote?id=940707190667
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Imagine a credit card with a 0% Intro APR and Instant Approval.
> > > It seems impossible, but it's not. Visit GetSmart.com's Credit Card
> > > Finder and click on instant approval cards right now at
> > > http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1272
> > >
> > > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
> > > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get A 0% Intro APR Visa with Instant Approval right now a
> > GetSmart.com at http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1273
> >
> >
> >
> > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
> > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
> Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Imagine a credit card with a 0% Intro APR and Instant Approval.
> It seems impossible, but it's not. Visit GetSmart.com's Credit Card
> Finder and click on instant approval cards right now at
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1272
>
>
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>
>

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Briggs <jbriggs@...>
To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:47 AM
Subject: [civilwarwest] I'm New

Hello folks.

 

Just joined and wanted to introduce myself. I'm Jeff Briggs, long time CW buff and game designer (War of the Rebellion, Sid Meier's Gettysburg and many others) President and CEO of FIRAXIS Games. I look forward to the discussions.

 

Jeff

---

Click Here! eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

-----Original Message-----
From: Pam and Gary Warner <gpjbwarner@...>
To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 3:25 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] I'm New

I just found out about this group earlier today.  I'm from Ohio and have been interested in the ACW since 1961 at age 6.  I lived in Richmond Va for 10 years so I've been bombarded by that other theater.  I recently read something that Halleck was at Corinth.  I am under the opinion that he spent the war in D.C.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  Gary

---

Click Here! eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

In a message dated 10/27/1999 2:26:24 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
gpjbwarner@... writes:

<< Subj:     [civilwarwest] I'm New
  Date:  10/27/1999 2:26:24 PM Mountain Daylight Time
  From:  gpjbwarner@... (Pam and Gary Warner)
  Reply-to:  civilwarwest@egroups.com
  To:    civilwarwest@egroups.com

  I just found out about this group earlier today.  I'm from Ohio and have
been interested in the ACW since 1961 at age 6.  I lived in Richmond Va for
10 years so I've been bombarded by that other theater.  I recently read
something that Halleck was at Corinth.  I am under the opinion that he spent
the war in D.C.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  Gary

   >>
Gary,

I also grew up in Ohio and am especially interested in units from Ohio and
Pennsylvania, at this time particularly the 11th OVI. Drop me a line.

Jack Ehmer

"pam and gary warner" <gpjbwarne-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=161
> I just found out about this group earlier today.  I'm from Ohio and
have been interested in the ACW since 1961 at age 6.  I lived in
Richmond Va for 10 years so I've been bombarded by that other theater.
I recently read something that Halleck was at Corinth.  I am under the
opinion that he spent the war in D.C.  Can anyone shed any light on
this?  Gary
>
This is Waldemar Winkler responding from Southwestern Colorado.

To answer your queston I am going to go from memory, so the details
might not be exactly right.  Anyone who reads this note, please feel to
correct me at "pedinkler@...".

Halleck replaced the retiring General Fre'mont as Commanding Officer of
the Department of the West, who was headquartered in St. Louis.  He
oversaw the organization of Federal forces in the Western United
States, as everyone was gearing up for war.  Halleck was keen to secure
some kind of command in the East, and eventually capitalized on Grant's
victory at Ft. Donelson to secure recognition in Washington.  halleck
was also responsible for demoting Grant's command responsibilities
following Shiloh.  Since my interst has been the Western Theatre I am
not entirely sure what he did after transferrring to Washington, except
that he didn't do it very well.  He wasn't the first nor the last in
this regard.

Thanks to every one for your replies.  My early interest was in the West and
I'm just beginning to return to that interest.  Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: <pedinkler@...>
To: <civilwarwest@eGroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:08 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: I'm New


> "pam and gary warner" <gpjbwarne-@...> wrote:
> original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=161
> > I just found out about this group earlier today.  I'm from Ohio and
> have been interested in the ACW since 1961 at age 6.  I lived in
> Richmond Va for 10 years so I've been bombarded by that other theater.
> I recently read something that Halleck was at Corinth.  I am under the
> opinion that he spent the war in D.C.  Can anyone shed any light on
> this?  Gary
> >
> This is Waldemar Winkler responding from Southwestern Colorado.
>
> To answer your queston I am going to go from memory, so the details
> might not be exactly right.  Anyone who reads this note, please feel to
> correct me at "pedinkler@...".
>
> Halleck replaced the retiring General Fre'mont as Commanding Officer of
> the Department of the West, who was headquartered in St. Louis.  He
> oversaw the organization of Federal forces in the Western United
> States, as everyone was gearing up for war.  Halleck was keen to secure
> some kind of command in the East, and eventually capitalized on Grant's
> victory at Ft. Donelson to secure recognition in Washington.  halleck
> was also responsible for demoting Grant's command responsibilities
> following Shiloh.  Since my interst has been the Western Theatre I am
> not entirely sure what he did after transferrring to Washington, except
> that he didn't do it very well.  He wasn't the first nor the last in
> this regard.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Java or juggling?.  Everybody learns something at Learn2.com.  Where
> you'll find thousands of free 2torials, affordable online courses, and
> useful tips for everyday life.  http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/964
>
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>
>
>

neho6-@... wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=147
> After which event did the tide of the war change? When did the Union
begin to suceed? When did it seem the Confederacy lost the war?
>
> ----
>
> Please select one of the following:
>
>    o Gettysburg
>    o Vicksburg
>    o Death of Stonewall Jackson
>    o the Wilderness
>    o Grant's promotion to commanding general
>    o Fall of Atlanta
>    o Emancipation Proclamation
>
>
> by going to the following Web form:
>
>    http://www.egroups.com/vote?id=940707190667
>
> Thank you!
>

This is Waldemar Winkler (pedinkler@...) responding.

Judging from what I've read today regarding your poll, on thing is
clear....Cival War historians  aren't likely to answer a yes, no, or
multiple choice question with one word.

In my opinion one needs to determine a point of view before beginning
to answer the queston.  Shelby Foote noted that the Civil War tore at
the very fundamentals of what it meant to be an American.  There are an
awful lot of ways to interpert your question.
I would agree with one comment placing the date the day before shots
were fired on Sumpter simply because (in my opinion) the philosophical
substructure of the Conferderate States Government was inherently weak
and would not survive for long in a peaceful world. I would agree that
Lee's surrender was a sound decision, but not the moment the tide
turned in in terms of politics, economics, or military tactics.

Economically, I think the Confederate governments's failure to drive up
the price of cotton on the world market was the beginning of the death
bells.

In a tactical sense, the tide of the war changed once the enitire
Ohio/Mississippi River was under Federal control.  Sometime around the
fall of Vicksburg on July 4, 1863 (the same day the battle of
Gettysburg ended) General Scott's Anaconda Plan was complete.   All
that remained was for Federal forces to (like the great snake) squeeze
the life out of the Confederacy.  However, success on the battlefield
is a curious combination of knowledge, skill, planning, risk-taking,
and luck.   There were plenty of opportunities where the "incredible
risk" could have changed the course of the war.

Selecting a political "turning of the tide" is a tough one.  At this
stage of my study I think that too much emphasis was placed on saving
Richmond and too little placed on control of the rivers.  Had the Ohio
been under Confederate control the "snake" would have been coiling
around a different victim.

As always, I welcome responses to my comments, either personally or
globally.
To quote an often used phrase,

I am, respectfully,...

In reviewing my postings I notice a critical letter has been left off
of my e-mail address.  The correct address is pedinkler@....
Be sure to add an "r"  so the address reads pedinkler instead of
pedinkle, should anyone prefer to send a personal note as apposed to
the confusion.

Thanks for your patience.

Waldemar Winkler

"When was the turning point of the Civil War?"   Now that is an often asked
question that solicits diverse answers.  One follows.

  There were many turning points in the Civil War from my point of view.  In
the Western Theater they were Fort Donelson, which lost much of Tennessee to
the Confederacy,
Shiloh, which ended the possibility of retaining Corinth, the vital
rail-hub, Vicksburg, a great blow to Confederate morale and a moral and
economic victory for the North.  However, it is also my opinion that the
fall of Atlanta was the final nail in the Confederacy's coffin.  There was
no chance after the vital rail hub fell, because of the loss of supplies and
morale to the Confederates, but more importantly because the victory ensured
Lincoln's  re-election, which had been in doubt. Nothing that occurred in
the West after this signal defeat  had any chance of reversing the Union's
"High Tide."

In the East, which has long been considered the "main" theater, there are
different turning points.  Lee's strategic defeat at Antietam had two major
ramifications on the War; the end of the possibility of European recognition
and/or intervention, and the Emancipation Proclaimation.  Gettysburg looms
large because it destroyed  Lee's offensive capability, leaving him
continually on the defensive thereafter.

If I had to say that one particular action,  or circumstance killed the
possibility of Southern Independence,  it would have to be Bragg's failure
to follow up his victory at Chickamauga by striking Rosecrans at
Chattanooga. Had Bragg attacked and defeated Rosecrans before Grant and
reinforcements arrived, it would have had a far greater detrimental effect
to Union morale, and voter apathy, than had Atlanta been retained. Had
Rosecrans' army been destroyed, Grant would have been left in serious
trouble, and most likely on the defensive, and certainly operating with
considerable caution.

Well, for whatever it may be worth, that is my humble opinion.

Dameron







----- Original Message -----
From: <pedinkler@...>
To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 8:52 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: POLL: Turning point in the Civil War


> neho6-@... wrote:
> original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=147
> > After which event did the tide of the war change? When did the Union
> begin to suceed? When did it seem the Confederacy lost the war?
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Please select one of the following:
> >
> >    o Gettysburg
> >    o Vicksburg
> >    o Death of Stonewall Jackson
> >    o the Wilderness
> >    o Grant's promotion to commanding general
> >    o Fall of Atlanta
> >    o Emancipation Proclamation
> >
> >
> > by going to the following Web form:
> >
> >    http://www.egroups.com/vote?id=940707190667
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
>
> This is Waldemar Winkler (pedinkler@...) responding.
>
> Judging from what I've read today regarding your poll, on thing is
> clear....Cival War historians  aren't likely to answer a yes, no, or
> multiple choice question with one word.
>
> In my opinion one needs to determine a point of view before beginning
> to answer the queston.  Shelby Foote noted that the Civil War tore at
> the very fundamentals of what it meant to be an American.  There are an
> awful lot of ways to interpert your question.
> I would agree with one comment placing the date the day before shots
> were fired on Sumpter simply because (in my opinion) the philosophical
> substructure of the Conferderate States Government was inherently weak
> and would not survive for long in a peaceful world. I would agree that
> Lee's surrender was a sound decision, but not the moment the tide
> turned in in terms of politics, economics, or military tactics.
>
> Economically, I think the Confederate governments's failure to drive up
> the price of cotton on the world market was the beginning of the death
> bells.
>
> In a tactical sense, the tide of the war changed once the enitire
> Ohio/Mississippi River was under Federal control.  Sometime around the
> fall of Vicksburg on July 4, 1863 (the same day the battle of
> Gettysburg ended) General Scott's Anaconda Plan was complete.   All
> that remained was for Federal forces to (like the great snake) squeeze
> the life out of the Confederacy.  However, success on the battlefield
> is a curious combination of knowledge, skill, planning, risk-taking,
> and luck.   There were plenty of opportunities where the "incredible
> risk" could have changed the course of the war.
>
> Selecting a political "turning of the tide" is a tough one.  At this
> stage of my study I think that too much emphasis was placed on saving
> Richmond and too little placed on control of the rivers.  Had the Ohio
> been under Confederate control the "snake" would have been coiling
> around a different victim.
>
> As always, I welcome responses to my comments, either personally or
> globally.
> To quote an often used phrase,
>
> I am, respectfully,...
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Great books for the discriminating readers.  From the
> classics to the contemporaries choose any 3 books
> for $1.99 each & get 1 FREE when you join Readers'
> Subscription books club http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1365
>
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>
>
>

"pam and gary warner" <gpjbwarne-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=161
> I just found out about this group earlier today.  I'm from Ohio and
have been interested in the ACW since 1961 at age 6.  I lived in
Richmond Va for 10 years so I've been bombarded by that other theater.
I recently read something that Halleck was at Corinth.  I am under the
opinion that he spent the war in D.C.  Can anyone shed any light on
this?  Gary
>

Yes. After Shiloh, Grant was under a shadow of mistrust (as he should
have been -- almost lost that one, no entrenchments, not even with the
army when the battle started) and Halleck came down and took personal
command of the combined armies of Grant and Buell. Halleck made a slow
torturous march from Pittsburg Landing, Where Shiloh was fought to
Corinth, entrenching every night after moving roughly one mile a day.

Some background, I think explains this. The casualties at Shiloh were
horrendous compared to previous battles (I believe they amounted to a
figure greater than the size of the US army in the Mexican war) and
Halleck, as well as the rest of the country, was in shock! Halleck
wanted to take no chances of a repeat -- not on his watch.

Hope that helps.

Jeff