Shiloh was in April 1862 and Vicksburg fell 15 months later and about
14 months of that was a West Point-led 'overland' campaign.


HankC

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@y...>
wrote:
>
> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Political generals were held to a higher standard by the West
> > Pointers than the West Pomters held themselves...
> >
> > The list of generals who were slow time-wasters cannot be
> > characterized as being overly filled with 'political' officers.
In
> > fact, the list is topped by USMA graduates ;)
> >
> > Sherman's bias shows in his knee-jerk reponse to McC's success at
> > Arkansas Post. Was it necessary? No... Was it an unqualified
> > success? Yes... Especially when compared with the sloooow
> > operations in northern Mississippi, topped by the loss of Holly
> > Springs.
>
> It seems a little strange to see the words "slow" used to criticize
> the overland campaign against Vicksbug.  In under 30 days, Grant
had
> moved almost 100 miles, from Corinth to Grand Junction, to
Oxford...
> rebuilding the roads and railway infrastructure as he went.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...> wrote:
>
>
> Shiloh was in April 1862 and Vicksburg fell 15 months later.

Ah... I see your point.  I thought you were referencing the
concurrent movement by Grant, which had taken the federal army to the
doorstep of Grenada in less than 30 days.

To say that Halleck had a case of the slows is an exercise in dead
horse beating.

:)

I'm reading Kiper as well.  McClernand used his
political connections to his advantage, or at least he
tried to, and Lincoln used McClernand for his,
Lincoln's, political advantage in southern Illinois
where he was having political problems.

Kiper suggests Lincoln allowed McClernand to organize
a Vicksburg campaign, even though McClernand was not a
West Pointer, because McClellan, Pope, etc, who were
West Point graduates, had not performed as expected.
Could McClernand be any worse?

A good book.  Next is Marszalek on Halleck.  All the
good guys at once.



  --- Bill Gower <billgower@...> wrote:
> No you are correct and the feelings were mutual.
> Many of the politicians
> looked down on the West Pointers.  In fact the
> members of the JCCC thought
> that all you wanted was ambition and courage and
> anyone could be a good
> general.  I think that it is unfair to lump all the
> politician generals as
> bad and all the West pointers as good.  All we have
> to do is to consider
> that McDowell, Burnside, Hooker and McClellan were
> West Pointers.  Lincoln
> needed his political generals.  They helped to boost
> morale among the
> people.  They helped in the drive for enlistments.
> I have just been reading
> the biography of McClernand by Kiper and it is
> amazing how many troops that
> were organized by McClernand in the fall of 1862.
> The biggest problem with
> political generals was not that they were idiots,
> there were plenty of West
> Pointers that would be grouped in that bunch also.
> The biggest problem was
> that they did what they did for political gain, for
> future enhancement.  If
> you ever look at the courses that the West Pointers
> took you will see that
> it was more geared to math, geology, artillery,
> engineering.  They did not
> have courses like military strategy, managing your
> troops etc.  They were
> great at drilling, marching etc.   So I think that
> we often go overboard
> with how great the West Point generals were as
> opposed to the Political
> generals and forget that West Point was not trying
> to turn out Napoleons or
> great military strategists.  That was not the goal
> of a four year education
> at West Point.
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: Rielle [mailto:RielleBhaer@...]
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:29 PM
> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Conversation between
> Lincoln and David
> Porter
>
>
>
> I'm not an expert, but the reading I've done to date
> seems to indicate that
> politically appointed generals were looked down on
> by West Pointers,if
> that's incorrect, I'm glad to stand corrected.
>
>
>
> How body from spirit does unwind, until  we are pure
> spirit at the end
> "Infirmity" by Theodore Roethke
> American poet, 1908-1963
>
>
> --- "hank9174" <clarkc@...> wrote:
>
> From: "hank9174" <clarkc@...>
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:40:58 -0000
> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
> Subject:  [civilwarwest]  Re:  Conversation between
> Lincoln and
> David Porter
> Political generals were held to a higher standard by
> the West
> Pointers than the West Pomters held themselves...
> The list of generals who were slow time-wasters
> cannot be
> characterized as being overly filled with
> 'political' officers.
> In
> fact, the list is topped by USMA graduates ;)
> Sherman's  bias shows in his knee-jerk reponse to
> McC's success
> at
> Arkansas  Post.  Was  it necessary? No... Was it an
> unqualified
> success?
> Yes... Especially when compared with the sloooow
> operations in
> northern Mississippi, topped by the loss of Holly
> Springs.
> If  Abe  considered  him  a  thorn in his side, he
> hid the pain
> pretty
> well ;)
> HankC
> ---  In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Rick Moody
> <r_moody@y...>
> wrote:
> > McClernand and Lincoln were both born in Kentucky,
> > fought in the Black Hawk War, admitted to the bar
> in
> > Illinois, served terms in the state legislature
> and in
> > congress.  McClernand was a loyal to the union
> > Democrat and for political purposes was allowed to
> > raise the McClernand Brigade of Illinois
> volunteers
> > and was commissioned a brigadier-general of
> > volunteers.  At Shilo he was in reserve to
> Sherman.
> > It was the opinion of Admiral Foote and General
> > Sherman (Arkansas Post) that McClernand was unfit
> for
> > command and it was expressed so to Grant.  It was
> > Grant's opinion that at Champion's Hill he was
> slow
> > and wasting time.  A congratulatory order to his
> corps
> > was published in the press contrary to an order of
> > Grant, he was relieved of his command.  Lincoln
> who
> > saw him as a leader of loyal democrats restored
> him to
> > command but he resigned later that year.  One of
> the
> > most famous pictures of Lincoln is the one where
> he is
> > standing with McClernand and Alan Pinkerton.  I
> > believe that McClernand was a constant thorn in
> > Lincolns side but politics were an important part
> of
> > the war and Lincoln had to keep the loyal
> democrats on
> > board.
> > It would not surprise me if Lincoln said something
> > like that in 1862.
> >
> > Rick Moody
> > r_moody@y...
> >
> > "It is the duty of every good citizen to use all
> the
> > opportunities
> > which occur to him, for preserving documents
> relating
> > to the
> > history of our country." --Thomas Jefferson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Bill Gower <billgower@c...> wrote:
> >
> > > Is there any confirmation from the standpoint of
> > > Lincoln's work that
> > > collaborates a conversation that Porter and
> Lincoln
> > > had on October 15, 1862,
> > > in which Lincoln says to Porter?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Well, Admiral, I have in mind a better general
> than
> > > either of them (meaning
> > > Sherman and Grant) that is McClernand, an old
> and
> > > intimate friend of mine."
> > > When Porter stated that he did not know
> McClernand,
> > > Lincoln exclaimed:
> > > "What! Don't know McClernand?  Why, he saved the
> > > battle of Shiloh.He is a
> > > natural born general."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This comes from _Major General. John Alexander
> > > McClernand_ by Richard Kiper
> > > and he cites _Incidents and Anecdotes_ by David
> > > Porter for the quote.  I
> > > understand from certain readings elsewhere that
> > > Porter did not have any
> > > qualms to embellishing a story.  I just can't
> > > believe that Lincoln said
> > > this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
=== message truncated ===

I think the Vicksburg canal wasa more of a "make work" project. it kept the
soldiers busy and the administration happy with the appearance of doing
something. Compare the harrasment Rosecrans received from Halleck and Stanton
after
Murfreesboro and Tullahoma.

From what I can tell, this was not responded to by anyone....
I am quite behind, trying to catch up!

Ron, Jeff Davis was idiotically having a feud with the Missouri
Secessionists. This is outlined in Brooksher's BLOODY HILL book.

Davis had instructed Gen M., basically, to just defend Arkansas, and
only go into MO if an invasion was imminent.

if you go back to message 7868 and 25556, some posting on this.



--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "ron" <ron@s...> wrote:
>
> Wonder why McCullough had no use for battle then until ordered by
Polk?

Thanks, Bill.  I'm glad you're enjoying it.

Dave

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Gower" <billgower@c...>
wrote:
> I just started reading the book "Compelled to Appear in Print"
edited by
> David M. Smith.  It is a book based upon a manuscript written by
John C.
> Pemberton in 1881 before his death as a reaction to the "Narrative
of
> Military Operations" by Joseph E. Johnston.  This manuscript was
lost to
> posterity until it turned up in an estate sale in Cincinnati in
1995.  This
> book has been reviewed and recommended as must reads by both Brooks
D.
> Simpson and Edwin C. Bearss.  The book is a reexamination of
Pemberton's
> defense of Vicksburg and hopefully a vindication against the smear
tactic of
> Johnston in blaming Pemberton for the loss of Vicksburg.  In the
book,
> Pemberton recognizes that he made plenty of mistakes in the
campaign but he
> also is not willing to take the whole responsibility for the loss.
It is a
> very interesting read.
>
>
>
> Bill

I am a scanner newbie, so these photos blow chunks... but I have some
photos scanned showing some parts of the battlefield, in an album
marked "Battle of Raymond."

I finally, finally finished "Sherman's Horsemen" by David Evans.  As
more than a few of you mentioned when I asked about it last year, it
was an excellent book.  I definitely enjoyed reading it, and I'll be
putting up my review in a day or two.

As an aside, I tried to summarize in WAY too much detail, and it took
me a really long time to finish the book because of this.  In the
future, I'm going to stick to a structured review format which allows
me to read the books the way I meant to read them: strictly for fun
and a better understanding of the period!

In Evans' book, he basically concludes that Sherman was overoptimistic
and mishandled his cavalry around Atlanta as a result of Rousseau's
and Kenner Garrard's successful early raids on Hood's railroads.
These two raids were successful, Evans argues, because Wheeler's
Cavalry was busy protecting Hood's flanks and couldn't hunt down the
raiders.  As a result, Sherman wasted time after crossing the
Chattahoochee by sending Stoneman, McCook, and finally Kilpatrick
against the Macon & Western Railroad.  Evans says it was wasted time
for two reasons:

1) The hardy t-rails of the Macon & Western RR were more immune to
permanent damage than the flimsier rails of the Montgomery & Western
(ripped up by Rousseau) and the Georgia RR (bridges destroyed and
rails ripped up by Garrard).

2) Once Sherman crossed the Chattahoochee, Hood went into the
entrenchments around Atlanta and freed Wheeler's troopers to contest
the next set of raids.

He says Sherman should have backed these raids up with infantry,
allowing the cavalry a week or so to sit and rip up rails while being
protected from the roving Rebel horsemen.

And he concludes by saying Sherman let Hood's crippled Army get away
without sending his cavalry to round up herds of prisoners and destroy
Hood's Army for good.  In effect, Sherman had become fascinated with
Atlanta and decided to let his REAL object, Hood's Army, escape.  One
last point was made about the effects of Stoneman's and McCook's
disasters.  Evans writes that the Union Cavalry did not fully recover
from them until the Spring of 1865.

I tend to agree with most of what Evans has argued, and he backs
everything up with a wealth of notes and a large bibliography.  Does
anyone else have any comments about the book or Evans' conclusions?
I'd be interested in hearing what everyone's opinions are.

Brett S.

Civil War Uniform Buttons – The Small Details Make All the Difference
By Paula and Coach McCoach
http://www.civilwaruniforms.net


Buttons on your Civil War Uniform are one of those small things that
can make a big difference.  Buttons are not expensive and original
ones can still be found at

In ECHOES OF GLORY: ARMS AND EQUIPMENT OF THE CONFEDERACY, the
buttons on the Paine jacket look like small US eagle buttons although
one of the looks like a civilian button and the other one looks like
plain brass but it is hard to tell from the photo. They are not the
original buttons because the original buttons would have been full
size buttons.  Virginia state seal buttons would have probably been
the appropriate buttons on this jacket.

Even in photos and museums where you see original jackets you don't
know when the buttons were added.  Many of these jackets were
received to the museum without buttons and the buttons were added.

Even General Lee gave some of his buttons from his jacket to someone
who wrote a letter to him and wanted a souvenir. You can never be
100% sure that the buttons on these jackets are correct because
buttons can be so easily removed, fall off or lost.  Think about
buttons on your own clothes and how much they are loose, lost, etc.
and you are not fighting a war and living in theses clothes.

The buttons on the Jenkins jacket are obviously added.  If I were
going to do a Jenkins jacket, I would use Virginia State Seal
buttons.  Good reproduction buttons can be found at most of the
sutlers.


Jim "Coach McCoach" has been creating patterns and making Civil War
haversack items for 27 years. His Civil War uniform designs have been
seen in the movies GETTYSBURG, Antietam Visitors Center, and
ANDERSONVILLE.

2005 permission granted to reprint this article in print or on your
website so long as the contact information is included to
coach@... and http://www.civilwaruniforms.net

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Gower" <billgower@c...>
wrote:
> Does anyone have any photos of the Chickasaw Bayou battlefield?

No, but I could take some I suppose.  It's flat.  Really really
flat.  And wet.  Then there's these 300 foot tall hills that rise up
out of nowhere.

Why would you want pictures of that?

There is a scant collection of photos here:

http://www.civilwaralbum.com/vicksburg/vicksburg.htm

What color are the uniform shoulder straps as shown in p/hotos of Union army
officers?  Some color prints show them as brass, some as gold and even yellow.
Were these all sewn on or were there metal that could be pinned on? Thanks.

For a great introduction to Civil War uniforms, check out the various links
at http://members.tripod.com/howardlanham/newindex.html

Take care,

Bob

Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
303.451.6376  Huddleston.r@...

-----Original Message-----
From: CAMPAIGN62@... [mailto:CAMPAIGN62@...]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 5:05 PM
To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Civil War Uniform Buttons - The Small Details
Make All the...


What color are the uniform shoulder straps as shown in p/hotos of Union army
officers?  Some color prints show them as brass, some as gold and even
yellow.
Were these all sewn on or were there metal that could be pinned on? Thanks.

Sherman's Horsemen by David Evans does not cover the entire Atlanta
Campaign, but picks up with the numerous raids starting on July 3,
1864 and going to the end of Kilpatrick's Raid on August 22, 1864.
This book came recommended by several people in the "civilwarwest"
Yahoo Message Board, so after over 5 years on my shelf, I have finally
decided to give this one a try. Credit goes to those guys for getting
me to open it and start reading. I've never been a huge fan of Cavalry
operations in any theater, but the topic is becoming more interesting
to me and I've bought several other books as well. I am, however, a
big fan of the Atlanta Campaign, so this book filled in quite nicely a
missing piece of the overall puzzle for me. Sherman's Horsemen is on
the larger side at 645 pages, with 479 pages of text. The prodigious
amount of notes fills pages 481-592, or over 100 pages! I always like
seeing this amount of detail in the notes. It usually indicates the
author did his work and knows what he is talking about. Pages 593-623
contain the large bibliography, which is another good sign. The index
follows and brings up the rear from pages 625-645. There are 24 maps,
and the mix is nice with overview maps of raids, followed by tactical
level battle maps depicting regiments and sometimes less. And lastly,
Evans includes an Order of Battle, which I always consider a must in
books of this type. Evans contends that in no other major campaign
were horsemen as important as Sherman's were at Atlanta. He focuses on
the six raids Sherman's Cavalry made around Atlanta and he states,
"These raids, Sherman's motives for launching them, and their impact
on the course of the campaign are among the least known and less
understood aspects of one of the most interesting and most important
chapters of our Civil War". Evans sets out to educate readers and
rectify that situation. I highly recommend having a map of the Atlanta
area handy when reading my summary, as it will not make too much sense
without one.

Although it took me awhile to read this book, if I had been reading it
without taking notes, I would've probably finished it in a week or so.
The story, as the title makes obvious, is told from the Federal point
of view, and Evans has a definite knack for storytelling,
interspersing the "whens" and "wheres" with a lot of human-interest
stories. You will certainly know what it was like being in a town in
the way of any of Sherman's raiders around Atlanta when you finish, at
the very least. The reader is also given a good idea of what it was
like to go on a Cavalry raid deep in enemy territory, where straggling
or getting wounded meant certain capture, and possibly even death.
Sherman's Cavalry commanders were a mixed lot, with many castoffs from
the Army of the Potomac, George Stoneman included. But some men such
as Lovell Rousseau, Bob Minty, and Tom Harrison, were more than
capable of handling the tasks set out for them by Sherman. Evans does
what he promises to do at the opening of the book, namely to provide
insight into Sherman's thinking and reasoning when sending his Cavalry
out on these raids, and also to explain the significance each raid had
on the successful conclusion (to the North at least!) of the Atlanta
Campaign As I stated in the introduction, the maps were good, but
after reading the book I wish they had indicated the routes the
raiders took, as it would have been just a little easier to follow the
action. This book is aimed at the serious Civil War buff. A good
working knowledge of Sherman's Campaign for Atlanta, while not
technically absolutely necessary, does help fill in the blanks for the
informed reader. Many people recommended this book to me, and I
wholeheartedly endorse their recommendations. Sherman's Horsemen fills
a void in Civil War literature, and will be the definitive study on
the Union cavalry operations around Atlanta for a long time to come.
688 pp., 21 maps

For a full summary click go to:
http://www.brettschulte.net/ACWBooks/reviews/ShermHorseEvans.doc

Brett S.
www.brettschulte.net/ACWBooks/

Take care,

Bob

Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
303.451.6376  Huddleston.r@...

CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST RELEASES

REPORT ON ENDANGERED BATTLEFIELDS

Washington, D.C., 2/24/2004) - At a news conference this morning, the Civil
War Preservation Trust (CWPT) unveiled its annual report on the status of
the nation's historic battlegrounds.  The report, entitled History Under
Siege, identifies the most threatened Civil War battlefields in the United
States.

The top ten endangered battlefields cited in the report are as
follows:  Bermuda Hundred, Va.; Franklin, Tenn.; Kennesaw Mountain, Ga.;
Knoxville, Tenn.; Manassas, Va.; Mansfield, La.; Morris Island, S.C.;
Raymond, Miss.; Spotsylvania County, Va.; and Wilson's Creek, Mo.

Joining CWPT President James Lighthizer at the news conference were two
outstanding historic preservationists:  Dreamworks recording artist Darryl
Worley and Dr. Libby O'Connell, Chief Historian of The History Channel.
According to Worley, "Our country's Civil War history is so rich and so
vital, and we owe it to our children to do everything in our power to
safeguard that legacy."

For a copy of the entire news release, visit:

<http://www.civilwar.org/PressReleases/PressDetail.asp?lngPressID=74>http://
www.civilwar.org/PressReleases/PressDetail.asp?lngPressID=74

For a copy of the Most Endangered Battlefields report, visit:

<http://www.civilwar.org/news/n_mostendangeredbattlefields.htm>http://www.ci
vilwar.org/news/n_mostendangeredbattlefields.htm


To view "Standing Guard over History," CWPT's video on endangered
battlefields, visit:

<http://www.civilwar.org/news/topten2005/standingguard.htm>http://www.civilw
ar.org/news/topten2005/standingguard.htm

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact Jim Campi at
202-367-1861.  A text version of the news release appears below.

-----------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release

February 24, 2005

CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST UNVEILS MOST ENDANGERED BATTLEFIELDS LIST

Country Music Star Darryl Worley joins CWPT to unveil annual report

(Washington, D.C.) -  A pastoral Tennessee battlefield that witnessed 9,000
casualties in just five hours, the remains of a South Carolina fort where a
legendary African-American regiment found glory, and a sacred Civil War
battle site just 30 miles from the nation's capital are among America's most
endangered battlefields, it was announced today.

At a news conference this morning, the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT)
unveiled its annual report on the status of the nation's historic
battlegrounds. The report, entitled History Under Siege: A Guide to
America's Most Endangered Civil War Battlefields, identifies the most
threatened Civil War sites in the United States and what can be done to
rescue them.

"America's Civil War history is under siege," warned CWPT President James
Lighthizer during the news conference. "Nearly 20 percent of America's Civil
War battlefields have already been destroyed - denied forever to future
generations. Across the country, hallowed ground, where more than 600,000
Americans gave their lives, is being paved over for shopping malls and
housing tracts. Without swift and decisive action, many of the sites listed
in this year's report will soon be little more than a memory."

Joining Lighthizer at the news conference was DreamWorks recording artist
and historic preservationist Darryl Worley, nominated top new male vocalist
in 2002 by the Academy of Country Music. The debut single from Worley's
self-titled album, "Awful, Beautiful Life" recently held the #1 spot for two
weeks on Billboard's Hot Country Singles and Tracks chart. In his remarks,
Worley echoed Lighthizer's concerns.

"As a young child growing up near Shiloh [Tennessee], I was always
fascinated to learn more about the history that took place virtually in my
own backyard," said Worley. "Our country's Civil War history is so rich and
so vital, and we owe it to our children to do everything in our power to
safeguard that legacy."

Fought on November 30, 1864, the Battle of Franklin, Tennessee, was one of
the most agonizing defeats suffered by the South during the Civil War. After
years of neglect, the city of Franklin has pledged a $2.5 million challenge
grant toward preservation of a critical section of the battlefield. The
preservation community is working hard to meet that challenge by raising an
additional $2.5 million.

Located just outside Charleston Harbor, Morris Island, South Carolina, was
the scene of brutal fighting during the bitter siege of Charleston. It was
here that the 54th Massachusetts, the famed African-American regiment,
fought nobly, a story immortalized in the 1990 film Glory. Last year, a
developer applied for a permit to build 20 homes on Morris Island - ten
times the density allowed under current zoning.

Virginia's Manassas Battlefield, less than one hour outside the nation's
capital, was the site of two crucial Civil War battles fought during the
summers of 1861 and 1862. Today, the battlefield is surrounded by sprawl.
Commuter traffic through the battlefield threatens to turn the national park
into a vast parking lot.

Also participating in the news conference was Libby O'Connell, Ph.D., chief
historian of The History Channel. O'Connell, who developed and oversees Save
Our History, The History Channel's campaign for historic preservation and
history education, is also a trustee of CWPT, a member of the Mt. Vernon
Scholars Committee and one of the Board of Advisors of the National Council
for History Education.

History Under Siege is comprised of two parts: the first section cites the
10 most endangered battlefields in the nation, with a brief description of
their history and preservation status; the second section lists 15
additional "at risk" sites that round out the top 25 endangered battlefields
in the country.

The sites mentioned in the report range from the famous to the nearly
forgotten. However, all have a critical feature in common - each one or part
of one is in danger of being lost forever. The battlefields were chosen
based on geographic location, military significance, and the immediacy of
current threats.

In addition to Franklin, Morris Island and Manassas, History Under Siege
includes:

Bermuda Hundred, Virginia. This peninsula jutting into the James River was
expected to be the starting point for a victorious Union attack on Richmond.
Unfortunately for the Union cause, the campaign was reduced to a series of
bloody and inconclusive battles. Today, only a small percentage of the
Bermuda Hundred battlefields are preserved.

Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia. Union General William T. Sherman suffered one of
his few defeats at Kennesaw Mountain in June 1864. Today, picturesque
Kennesaw Mountain is surrounded by sprawl. The park service estimates than
an astounding 160,000 vehicles travel through the battlefield each day.

Knoxville, Tennessee. Fought during November and early December 1864, the
battles for Knoxville were among the most brutal of the Civil War. Little
remains of the fortifications that once surrounded the city. Local
preservationists are trying to save Fort Higley, one of the two remaining
forts, from being bulldozed to make way for a 250-condominium project.

Mansfield, Louisiana. The battle of Mansfield was one of the bloodiest
battles fought west of the Mississippi River. Today, only 237 acres of the
battlefield are protected from development. A lignite mining operation has
already destroyed part of the battlefield and threatens to devour even more.

Raymond, Mississippi. Raymond was a major turning point in Union General
Ulysses S. Grant's brilliant Vicksburg Campaign. Today, only 65 acres of the
1,000-acre battlefield are protected. Development pressure along State
Highway 18 remains the principal threat.

Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Situated midway between the opposing capitals
of Washington and Richmond, Spotsylvania County was the site of four of the
bloodiest battles of the war. Today, as one of the fastest-developing
counties in the nation, Spotsylvania is ground zero in the fight to save
America's remaining Civil War battlefields.

Wilson's Creek, Missouri. The rolling hills of Wilson's Creek provided the
backdrop for the first major battle of the Civil War fought west of the
Mississippi River. Today, a proposed 1,500-house development threatens to
destroy key parcels west of the battlefield and become a magnet for
irreversible sprawl.

"These endangered Civil War battlefields are the last tangible reminders of
the valor of those who donned the blue and gray," Lighthizer stated. "They
must be preserved."

With 70,000 members, CWPT is the largest nonprofit battlefield preservation
organization in the United States. Its mission is to preserve our nation's
endangered Civil War battlefields and to promote appreciation of these
hallowed grounds.

###

---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Campi, Policy and Communications Director
Civil War Preservation Trust
1331 H Street NW
Suite 1001
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 367-1861
<http://www.civilwar.org/>http://www.civilwar.org

THANKS, I THINK.

Dave,
Any changes or updates to this.
Thanks,
Barry Summers

CCNMP Study Group 2005 Seminar in the Woods
2005 Theme: Battle of Chickamauga, September 19th and 20th, 1863,
and critical turning points during that battle.

Date: Friday, March 11, and Saturday, March 12, 2005.

Thank you,
Barry
--- DPowell334@... wrote:

> In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:15:17 PM Central
> Standard Time,
> barryde_30060@... writes:
>
> >
> > Dave,
> > Any changes or updates to this.
> > Thanks,
> > Barry Summers
> >
> >
>
>
> Barry,
>
> No changes. It looks like a solid group  of 10-15
> will attend.
>
> Dave
>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

We all know that the CSS VIRGINIA was probably that most well known
confederate iron clad --- but perhaps the CSS ARKANSAS faced greater
odds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Arkansas

Kindest Regards,
Tracey

Tracey, a quote from the attached:

"The greatest naval force ever assembled in the western hemisphere had
been dispersed by a hastily built gunboat constructed in a swamp, with
scrap metal, and manned by a handful of volunteer soldiers. One of the
most incredible feats in naval history."

Carl

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, tlind1@y... wrote:
>
> We all know that the CSS VIRGINIA was probably that most well known
> confederate iron clad --- but perhaps the CSS ARKANSAS faced greater
> odds.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Arkansas
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Tracey

Imagine having to run through an entire fleet. And doing it sucessfully. I
agree.`Monitor vs.`"MerrimacK" is better known, but that's just the Eastern bias
in Civil war Studies.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, tlind1@y... wrote:
>
> We all know that the CSS VIRGINIA was probably that most well known
> confederate iron clad --- but perhaps the CSS ARKANSAS faced greater
> odds.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Arkansas
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Tracey

On the night of July 15, 1862 Lt. Robert Ballard Mathews and six other
members of Cobb's Battery of the Orphan Brigade manned a gun on the
Arkansas for it's nightly run against the Federal gunboats.
From the ORs

" HEADQUARTERS GRACEY'S [COBB'S] BATTERY,
July 17, 1862.

[Brigadier General W. PRESTON:]

GENERAL: In reply inquires concerning the volunteers from our battery
"to assist in fighting the ram Arkansas" against the lower fleet, I
report as follows: On the 15th instant, about 4p. m., Lieutenant [H.
P.] Wallace, of your staff, cameo our battery and stated that you
desired 12 volunteers from your brigade to fill the place of the
wounded and dead in the crew of the ram. Twelve members of the
battery, besides myself, immediately volunteered to go, but our
commanding office refusing to permit so many of us to leave, as it
would reduce the strength of his battery, resorted to a ballot to see
who the lucky ones might be, which resulted as follows: Sergt. James
Bridndley, Corpl. John Leonard, Privates Benjamin [G.] Moore, Daniel
Black, and Charley Thronton, nd Sergt. T. Watts. As soon as the
volunteers were ready to move, which was about five minutes after, I
took the men and reported myself and command to Captain Brown, of the
ram, as being a portion of the number required of your brigade.
Captain Brown immediately assigned us to a gun. I stated to Captain
Brown that we had come to assist him to fight the lower fleet that
evening, and that we had come to assist him to fight the lower fleet
that evening, and that as my whole experience in artillery was
confined to light filed pieces, except what I had learned from the
morning engagement with the enemy's boats, would prefer that he would
place some officer in charge that had more experience, and I would
fight as a private, which was done, as he placed Midshipman [D. M.]
Scales in charge. We worked the gun throughout the engagement to the
best of our abilities. After the engagement was over, I asked the
first lieutenant if they needed our services any more. he conducted me
to Captain brown, who stated that he had no further use for us, and
that he was very grateful for our services, and that we could return
to our camp. I asked him then for the countersign; he did not have it.
I asked General Breckinridge's son for it, who was standing by during
my conversation with Captain Brown; he not having it, was compelled to
remain in town until morning, when we returned to our battery. These
are all the circumstances connected with our aquatic expedition, and
trust that they are of such a character as will relieve your mind of
any impression you may have received of myself or any of those under
my command acting in any way except at Kentuckians have always and
will continue to act before the enemy, whether on land or water.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

R. B. MATHEWS,

First Lieutenant Cobb's Battery. "

Todd