good points Jeff.

1864 brought a new sense of Union urgency.

whether due to the election, the Grant-Sherman mindset, a combination of thos or
something else, there certainly was more campaining (west and east) then
previous years.

shucks, even Thomas' order to go into winter quarters was reversed in early
winter 1864...


HankC


--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "jeffcarlson01" <jeffcarlson01@...> wrote:
>
> I am still a novice at understanding all there was about the various
campaigns, however, I am a resident of Marietta, Ga. I've been a Georgia
resident 32 years now. I can attest, the months of June through September can be
awefully hot. Some years better than others, no different than any other
climate.I somewhat disagree with referring to the Atlanta Campaign as nothing
"pitched". WHile there was a tremendous amount of maneuvering and flanking
Johnston's positions, there were still quite a few costly battles. Kennesaw
Mountain, obviously, Picket's Mill and Cheatham Hill, were very bloody
encounters. These happened late June and early July. I can tell you, it was hot
and humid. Add the wool uniforms, the gear they had to carry, and the terrain.
Many hills, valleys, thick underbrush.....no this was more intense than you
might imagine.
>
> I am blessed with living a short distance from Cheatham Hill. My neighborhood
was a former plantation adjacent to the Park. My wife and I love visiting the
Park, and trying to gather in and understand all that happened there.
>
> Cheers,
>
> JEff Carlson
> Marietta, Ga
>
> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@> wrote:
> >
> > Pondering our weather (hot), it seems that there were few large western
engagements during the summer months.
> >
> > Sure there was plenty of campaigning but not many pitched battles from June
21 through September 20.
> >
> > Now, Vicksburg surrendered on July 4th but most of the campaigning took
place in May. During the siege, most troops were avoiding shells and bullets and
looking for shade and water.
> >
> > Chickamauga is the exception that proves the rule: September 19-20 .
> >
> > Of course, Atlanta was one long summer campaign, mirroring the eastern
overland campaign but without battles on the same scale…
> >
> >
> > HankC
> >
>

I just returned from a visit to the Chattanooga & Chicamauga National Military
Park, and was very impressed with both the park and the staff.
Sept. 19th & 20th marked the 149th anniversary of the Battle of Chicamauga.  I
encourage all who can attend to join me there next year.

The strategic importance of Chattanooga can be fully appreciated only by seeing
(and climbing) the terrain of Lookout Mtn. and Missionary Ridge.

That prompted me to think of this essay question which I offer free to all of
you educators out there.

Keeping in mind that Buell's goal was to take Chattanooga in the spring of 1862,
after Corinth, and that his mission failed because his entire army was needed to
maintain the supply lines from his base of operations in Louisville (more than
500 miles in hostile territory), how would the course of the war have changed if
he had simply moved his base from Louisville to Nashville or Columbia and taken
Chattanooga in the summer of '62?

I am adding a picture of Cravens, house atop Lookout Mtn. for reference.

Sam

wow this is amazing you should look into it
http://www.business7newsbe.net/work/?finance=39877

[My first message. Feeling a bit excited. :) ]

I do not think that Buell could have (permanently) succeeded. There were other
reasons for his failure besides his weakened army, whch still apply, e. g.
psychological ones.

Lacking the time to check the timetable of events, I can only speculate that
there would have been a battle somewhere close to Chattanooga, perhaps we could
have had ANV forces in the west one year earlier, and with the relationship
betweem Bragg and subordinates not yet that deteriorated, the AoT might have
performed better then it did one year later.

In addition, the USA had not yet developed the means to fight guerilla warfare,
so that Buell's LOS would have been much more exposed to attacks.

It seems rather impropble to me that Buell could have taken Chattanooga, and if,
he couldn't have held it.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Holger Klaßmann" <bucquoy@...> wrote:
>
> [My first message. Feeling a bit excited. :) ]
> Welcome to the group.

Buell might not have been able to hold Chattanooga, but might have held his job.
Beauregard was deep in Mississippi and I doubt that Lee would have spared any of
the AofNV.  Troops might have been bought down from northern E.Tennessee, but
any such response would have significantly changed the status of the war in the
east.

I appreciate your point, but please expound on the "psychological issues".

Sam

> I do not think that Buell could have (permanently) succeeded. There were other
reasons for his failure besides his weakened army, whch still apply, e. g.
psychological ones.
>
> Lacking the time to check the timetable of events, I can only speculate that
there would have been a battle somewhere close to Chattanooga, perhaps we could
have had ANV forces in the west one year earlier, and with the relationship
betweem Bragg and subordinates not yet that deteriorated, the AoT might have
performed better then it did one year later.
>
> In addition, the USA had not yet developed the means to fight guerilla
warfare, so that Buell's LOS would have been much more exposed to attacks.
>
> It seems rather impropble to me that Buell could have taken Chattanooga, and
if, he couldn't have held it.
>

I'm not sure that Buell's goal was to take Chattanooga.

The US focus was on the Mississippi valley.

Mitchell certainly saw opportunity to the east once he was in northern Alabama.
The Andrews raid resulted but his movement was under-manned and slowed by
terrain...


HankC


--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "sammylf@..." <sammylf@...> wrote:
>
> I just returned from a visit to the Chattanooga & Chicamauga National Military
Park, and was very impressed with both the park and the staff.
> Sept. 19th & 20th marked the 149th anniversary of the Battle of Chicamauga.  I
encourage all who can attend to join me there next year.
>
> The strategic importance of Chattanooga can be fully appreciated only by
seeing (and climbing) the terrain of Lookout Mtn. and Missionary Ridge.
>
> That prompted me to think of this essay question which I offer free to all of
you educators out there.
>
> Keeping in mind that Buell's goal was to take Chattanooga in the spring of
1862, after Corinth, and that his mission failed because his entire army was
needed to maintain the supply lines from his base of operations in Louisville
(more than 500 miles in hostile territory), how would the course of the war have
changed if he had simply moved his base from Louisville to Nashville or Columbia
and taken Chattanooga in the summer of '62?
>
> I am adding a picture of Cravens, house atop Lookout Mtn. for reference.
>
> Sam
>

Hello friends. we are looking for more People thats want to have a blog at my
civil war site,or writers. http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/

http://bankmadinasyariah.com/wp-content/themes/CleanResponse/helloworld.php?feat\
ure287.jpg

I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during the
campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you folks think.

1. Was Grant that good; or

2. Was Pemberton that bad; or

3. Is it some where in between?

I really can't wait to read opinions and to engage in discussion. Thanks.

 

I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during the campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you folks think.

1. Was Grant that good; or

2. Was Pemberton that bad; or

3. Is it some where in between?

I really can't wait to read opinions and to engage in discussion. Thanks.

 

I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during the campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you folks think.

1. Was Grant that good; or

2. Was Pemberton that bad; or

3. Is it some where in between?

I really can't wait to read opinions and to engage in discussion. Thanks.

Johnston did little to help and Pemberton allowed himself to be trapped in a
fixed position. Davis did nothing to break the stalemate.

placing 35,000 troops in fixed fortifications with their backs to a river
without an attempt at relief is incompetence by Pemberton, Johnston and Davis...

with all the talk of the civil war being the first 'modern war', the there was
tremendous room for maneuver in the west.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "callicles1" <callicles1@...> wrote:
>
> I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during the
campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you folks think.
>
> 1. Was Grant that good; or
>
> 2. Was Pemberton that bad; or
>
> 3. Is it some where in between?
>
> I really can't wait to read opinions and to engage in discussion. Thanks.
>

Hello.
They lacked the skill set.
Blaming them and ignoring Grant begs the issue.
  Regards,
Jack

hank9174 <clarkc@...> wrote:

>
>Johnston did little to help and Pemberton allowed himself to be trapped in a
fixed position. Davis did nothing to break the stalemate.
>
>placing 35,000 troops in fixed fortifications with their backs to a river
without an attempt at relief is incompetence by Pemberton, Johnston and Davis...
>
>with all the talk of the civil war being the first 'modern war', the there was
tremendous room for maneuver in the west.
>
>--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "callicles1" <callicles1@...> wrote:
>>
>> I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during the
campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you folks think.
>>
>> 1. Was Grant that good; or
>>
>> 2. Was Pemberton that bad; or
>>
>> 3. Is it some where in between?
>>
>> I really can't wait to read opinions and to engage in discussion. Thanks.
>>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

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

From: Keith Giordano

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:20 AM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg Campaign)

I personally think Johnston was more to blame. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 2, 2013, at 1:52 AM, "callicles1" <callicles1@...> wrote:

 

I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during the campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you folks think.

1. Was Grant that good; or

2. Was Pemberton that bad; or

3. Is it some where in between?

I really can't wait to read opinions and to engage in discussion. Thanks.

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

From: rbaquero@...

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:38 AM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg Campaign)

 

The RIGHT  questions is; " was Grant a murder or a genocide after 47 days of Vicksburg's city bombardment ?

 

 

I think Pemberton wasn't that bad, I remind Foote calling it something like:
"Pemberton was inflexible, but he was in a position where a more flexible man
might fly to pieces".

Though Grant's generalship was superior to Pemberton's, I wonder how he would
have fared against Joe Johnston, if Pemberton had followed his orders to unite
his forces with Johnston's.
The main reason for Pemberton's failure was the confederate command structure
(if you can call it that), because it was unclear and Davis always had a hand in
the game.

Confederate siege warfare? I think of Harper's Ferry (VA) and Lexington (MO),
but these were pretty short affairs.

Kind regards,
Holger





-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:00:07 -0800 (PST)
> Von: Pamela Kirklin <pamelakirklin@...>
> An: "civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com" <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
> Betreff: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg
Campaign)

> A combination of seige warfare wearing down the men and taking the war to
> the people. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Keith Giordano <keg032461@...>
> To: "civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com" <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent
> (Vicksburg Campaign)
>
>
>  
>
> I personally think Johnston was more to blame. 
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 2, 2013, at 1:52 AM, "callicles1" <callicles1@...> wrote:
>  
> >I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during
> the campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you
> folks think.
> >
> >1. Was Grant that good; or
> >
> >2. Was Pemberton that bad; or
> >
> >3. Is it some where in between?
> >
> >I really can't wait to read opinions and to engage in discussion. Thanks.
> >
> >
>

I live 30 miles from Lexington and was in Harpers ferry in October.
Not sure I would call them Cities, let alone northern cities.

Your comment on Confederate command structure is right on.

Regards,

Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: ""Holger Klaßmann"" <bucquoy@...>
To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg
Campaign)


>I think Pemberton wasn't that bad, I remind Foote calling it something
>like: "Pemberton was inflexible, but he was in a position where a more
>flexible man might fly to pieces".
>
> Though Grant's generalship was superior to Pemberton's, I wonder how he
> would have fared against Joe Johnston, if Pemberton had followed his
> orders to unite his forces with Johnston's.
> The main reason for Pemberton's failure was the confederate command
> structure (if you can call it that), because it was unclear and Davis
> always had a hand in the game.
>
> Confederate siege warfare? I think of Harper's Ferry (VA) and Lexington
> (MO), but these were pretty short affairs.
>
> Kind regards,
> Holger
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> Datum: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:00:07 -0800 (PST)
>> Von: Pamela Kirklin <pamelakirklin@...>
>> An: "civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com" <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
>> Betreff: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent
>> (Vicksburg Campaign)
>
>> A combination of seige warfare wearing down the men and taking the war to
>> the people.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>  From: Keith Giordano <keg032461@...>
>> To: "civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com" <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent
>> (Vicksburg Campaign)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I personally think Johnston was more to blame.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Jan 2, 2013, at 1:52 AM, "callicles1" <callicles1@...> wrote:
>>
>> >I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during
>> the campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you
>> folks think.
>> >
>> >1. Was Grant that good; or
>> >
>> >2. Was Pemberton that bad; or
>> >
>> >3. Is it some where in between?
>> >
>> >I really can't wait to read opinions and to engage in discussion.
>> >Thanks.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

From: Ronald black

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:37 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg Campaign)

Mr. Baquero, 

When you imply that Grant was a murderer because of civilian casualties incurred during the 47 day siege as you state, you are judging him using today's standards and not those of mid-nineteenth centaury.  The standards of today and that of the era of the civil war are not the same.  It was much harder to care for battle casualties, the wounded, the hospital care of soldiers and also the welfare of civilians trapped in sectors of military operations.  Both armies simply did not have the means to provide meaningful resources, food and medical personnel.  It was common practice to allow wounded soldiers to lay on the battlefield until they were finally retrieved if they were not dead yet.  The medical staffs after a large battle were overwhelmed by the numbers of the wounded.  This applies to the situation during the siege of Vicksburg.  Grant pressed the confederates and civilians got in the way.  He should not be blamed if they suffered (they did) because the confederates choose to fight a battle here even after several rebel leaders advised the field army be withdrawn.  Grant was successful in his operations and plans.  If he had blame for civilian casualties, then the confederates are equally to blame. 

The jury of popular opinion has rendered a verdict, one of NOT GUILTY.

Ron 

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

From: rbaquero@...

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:38 AM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg Campaign)

 

The RIGHT  questions is; " was Grant a murder or a genocide after 47 days of Vicksburg's city bombardment ?

 

 

Same with blaming Pemberton.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence@...> wrote:
>
> If we blame Johnston, we are de facto blaming Davis.
> Regards,
> Jack
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Keith Giordano
>   To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:20 AM
>   Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg
Campaign)
>
>
>
>
>
>   I personally think Johnston was more to blame.
>
>
>   Sent from my iPhone
>
>   On Jan 2, 2013, at 1:52 AM, "callicles1" <callicles1@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>     I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during
the campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you folks
think.
>
>     1. Was Grant that good; or
>
>     2. Was Pemberton that bad; or
>
>     3. Is it some where in between?
>
>     I really can't wait to read opinions and to engage in discussion. Thanks.
>

There you go.
Regards,
Jack

Maybe this is why there us no study if command for the Confederacy?

Ned Baldwin <ned_baldwin@...> wrote:

>Same with blaming Pemberton.
>
>--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence@...> wrote:
>>
>> If we blame Johnston, we are de facto blaming Davis.
>> Regards,
>> Jack
>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>   From: Keith Giordano
>>   To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
>>   Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:20 AM
>>   Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent
(Vicksburg Campaign)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   I personally think Johnston was more to blame.
>>
>>
>>   Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>   On Jan 2, 2013, at 1:52 AM, "callicles1" <callicles1@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>     I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during
the campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you folks
think.
>>
>>     1. Was Grant that good; or
>>
>>     2. Was Pemberton that bad; or
>>
>>     3. Is it some where in between?
>>
>>     I really can't wait to read opinions and to engage in discussion. Thanks.
>>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

HI,

Newbie here.  Does anyone know of a mod or alternate scenario to the HPS
Simulations game "Campaign Chickamauga" which covers the McLemore's Cove
incident?  It is treated in Glen Tucker's excellent book as a lost oppurtunity
for the CSA to pounce on an isolated USA division?

thanks.

Hi!

Didn't even know the game, but after checking I must say I' like to have this
one. Does anybody know how to get it in Germany? I have no credit card and
Amazon does not have it.

Knd regards!

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:31:08 -0000
> Von: "drummytommer" <drummytommer@...>
> An: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [civilwarwest] HPS Campaign Chickamauga

> HI,
>
> Newbie here.  Does anyone know of a mod or alternate scenario to the HPS
> Simulations game "Campaign Chickamauga" which covers the McLemore's Cove
> incident?  It is treated in Glen Tucker's excellent book as a lost oppurtunity
> for the CSA to pounce on an isolated USA division?
>
> thanks.
>

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "callicles1"  wrote:
>
> I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during the
campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you folks think.
>
> 1. Was Grant that good; or
>
> 2. Was Pemberton that bad; or
>
> 3. Is it some where in between?
>

Can I answer this in multiple parts? :)

Grant's Yazoo Pass raid, though turned back at Fort Pemberton, had a major
impact on Pemberton's ability to defend the interior of Mississippi.  When
Pemberton learned troops were sailing south through Yazoo pass, he deployed his
scouts into the Yazoo River delta where they could not easily be recalled.  As a
consequence, Pemberton was forced to utilize amateur scouts against Grant's
seasoned veterans between Port Gibson / Jackson / Edward's Station.  As a
result, Gregg assumed he was facing only a brigade at Raymond.  This resulted in
a complete rout at Raymond, which took Gregg's brigade off the table at Jackson
and meant Johnston only had roughly 4000 men to defend Jackson.  Complicating
matters, Pemberton's cavalry was run ragged and his rail infratructure was
compromised by Grierson's raid.

GOOD: Grant kept Pemberton on his toes, launching multiple efforts to strike at
Pemberton's ability to wage war and open up a path south of Vicksburg.  Yazoo
Pass Raid, Grierson's raid, Sherman's feigned assault at Snyder's Bluff, Grant's
canal, and Lake Providence all kept Pemberton guessing as to Grant's intent and
direction of attack.

BAD: Pemberton really should have spent some energy developing intel on the area
south of the railroad.  When the sh*t hit the fan, Pemberton's troops acted like
they were the visiting team, often taking the wrong roads and failing to
understand the location and direction of Grant's movements.

2) Pemberton

Sorry, meant to say:


BAD: Pemberton really should have spent some energy developing intel on the area
south of the railroad. When the sh*t hit the fan, Pemberton's troops acted like
they were the visiting team, often taking the wrong roads and failing to
understand the location and direction of Grant's movements.  Regarding the
cavalry Johnston failed to return, Pemberton had other options: abandon north
mississippi temporarily and pull most of his cavalry south.  Vicksburg was much
more important strategically, and it would take a couple of weeks for the
federals to realize that most of the cavalry was gone from their front.

UGLY: Johnston really didn't need to hold onto Van Dorn's cavalry division after
Pemberton had requested it be returned multiple times.  With the size of the
threat facing Pemberton and the lack of activity in Tennessee, it seems bizarre
that Johnston was calling for reinforcements from Pemberton just before Grant's
surprise move south.  Johnston also failed to keep a reserve force between the
two departments that rapidly could respond to any unexpected threat.  Johnston
seems to have been acting more as the head of the department of tennessee rather
than a theater commander.