Let me first take the opportunity to wish all of the members a Happy
and Healthy New Year..... and to express my appreciation to those who
who so freely give of their time and knowledge to this group.  I'd
like to hope I've been able to retain just a little what has gone
over these lines over the last year.

My question has to do with Brig. Gen. Stand Watie. Gen. Watie was the
last Confederate General to surrender (June 23, '65) almost a month
and a half after what is acknowledged as the last battle of the war
(Palmetto Ranche, Tx. on May 13, 1865).  I'm curious as to where Gen.
Watie was at the time of his surrender and to whom did he surrender.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks and best regards
Ron Church
Manchester Md.

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

From: buckshot_21102

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 2:19 PM

Subject: [civilwarwest] Stand Watie

Let me first take the opportunity to wish all of the members a Happy
and Healthy New Year..... and to express my appreciation to those who
who so freely give of their time and knowledge to this group.  I'd
like to hope I've been able to retain just a little what has gone
over these lines over the last year. 

My question has to do with Brig. Gen. Stand Watie. Gen. Watie was the
last Confederate General to surrender (June 23, '65) almost a month
and a half after what is acknowledged as the last battle of the war
(Palmetto Ranche, Tx. on May 13, 1865).  I'm curious as to where Gen.
Watie was at the time of his surrender and to whom did he surrender. 

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks and best regards
Ron Church
Manchester Md.  



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

From: P. B. Jones

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 4:24 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Stand Watie

Hi Ron,

 

According to Civil War In The Ozarks (pg. 103):

 

The war's last formal surrender of any sizeable force of Confederate troops took place in Indian Territory on June 23, 1865, when Brig. Gen. Stand Watie rode into the capital of the Choctaw Nation and surrendered his hard-riding Rebel warriors.

 

Doesn't mention to whom the force was surrendered.  Addison?  Surely you have that info at your fingertips.  ;)

 

Best regards and HAPPY NEW YEAR from SEK.

 

Pat

 

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

From: buckshot_21102

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 2:19 PM

Subject: [civilwarwest] Stand Watie

Let me first take the opportunity to wish all of the members a Happy
and Healthy New Year..... and to express my appreciation to those who
who so freely give of their time and knowledge to this group.  I'd
like to hope I've been able to retain just a little what has gone
over these lines over the last year. 

My question has to do with Brig. Gen. Stand Watie. Gen. Watie was the
last Confederate General to surrender (June 23, '65) almost a month
and a half after what is acknowledged as the last battle of the war
(Palmetto Ranche, Tx. on May 13, 1865).  I'm curious as to where Gen.
Watie was at the time of his surrender and to whom did he surrender. 

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks and best regards
Ron Church
Manchester Md.  



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

From: P. B. Jones

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 4:29 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] And more on Stand Watie

http://members.aol.com/swarren385/cabincreek/watie.htm

 

 

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

From: P. B. Jones

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 4:24 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Stand Watie

Hi Ron,

 

According to Civil War In The Ozarks (pg. 103):

 

The war's last formal surrender of any sizeable force of Confederate troops took place in Indian Territory on June 23, 1865, when Brig. Gen. Stand Watie rode into the capital of the Choctaw Nation and surrendered his hard-riding Rebel warriors.

 

Doesn't mention to whom the force was surrendered.  Addison?  Surely you have that info at your fingertips.  ;)

 

Best regards and HAPPY NEW YEAR from SEK.

 

Pat

 

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

From: buckshot_21102

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 2:19 PM

Subject: [civilwarwest] Stand Watie

Let me first take the opportunity to wish all of the members a Happy
and Healthy New Year..... and to express my appreciation to those who
who so freely give of their time and knowledge to this group.  I'd
like to hope I've been able to retain just a little what has gone
over these lines over the last year. 

My question has to do with Brig. Gen. Stand Watie. Gen. Watie was the
last Confederate General to surrender (June 23, '65) almost a month
and a half after what is acknowledged as the last battle of the war
(Palmetto Ranche, Tx. on May 13, 1865).  I'm curious as to where Gen.
Watie was at the time of his surrender and to whom did he surrender. 

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks and best regards
Ron Church
Manchester Md.  



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

From: P. B. Jones

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 7:36 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] And more on Stand Watie

If I dig far enough...  ;)  From Civil War In The Indian Territory  by Steve Cottrell (pg. 107):

 

"Finally on June 19 at Doaksville, capital of the Choctaw Nation, the Confederate military forces of that tribe were surrendered by their new principal chief, Peter Pitchlynn.   Four days later, on June 23, near the same place, Gen. Stand Watie at last surrendered his hard-riding Cherokee troopers, together with the Creek and Seminole forces, as well as the Osage Battalion.  The Cherokee general surrendered to Lt. Col. A. C. Matthews who had been sent south with a detachment of U. S. cavalry to seek him out."

 

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

From: Mary Alice Pickett

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 5:55 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Stand Watie

Greetings Ron,

 

Just as you, PapaP, GenP and MAP likewise wish all members of this esteemed group the happiest of New Years from our headquarters here in FL.  2002 is apt to be full of many new surprises when I am one to actually post a serious CW response on this forum!  {Now, no one go fainting or anything!!  (-:  }

 

I looked up this information in Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War.  It says, "23 June 1865 ~ When the leaders of the Confederate Indians learned that the government in Richmond had fallen and the Eastern armies had been surrendered, they, too, began making their plans to seek peace with the Federal government.  The chiefs convened the Grand Council 15 June and passed resolutions calling for Indian commanders to lay down their arms and for emissaries to approach Federal authorities for peace terms.  The largest force in Indian Territory was commanded by Confederate Brig. Gen. Stand Watie, who was also a chief of the Cherokee Nation.  Dedicated to the Confederate cause and unwilling to admit defeat, he kept his troops in the field for nearly a month after Lt. Gen. E. Kirby Smith surrendered the Trans-Mississippi 26 May.  Finally accepting the futility of continued resistance, on 23 June Watie rode into Doaksville near Fort Towson in Indian Territory and surrendered his battalion of Creek, Seminole, Cherokee, and Osage Indians to Lt. Col. Asa C. Matthews, appointed a few weeks earlier to negotiate a peace with the Indians.  Watie was the last Confederate general officer to surrender his command."

 

To quote a dear friend, "Of course, I could be wrong",....but only if the editor of this book is or of I missed something as I typed this.  (-:

 

Best always,

 

Mary Alice, aka MAP, aka MAPster

      

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

From: "buckshot_21102" <rchurch@...>

To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 5:19 PM

Subject: [civilwarwest] Stand Watie

> Let me first take the opportunity to wish all of the members a Happy
> and Healthy New Year..... and to express my appreciation to those who
> who so freely give of their time and knowledge to this group.  I'd
> like to hope I've been able to retain just a little what has gone
> over these lines over the last year. 
>
> My question has to do with Brig. Gen. Stand Watie. Gen. Watie was the
> last Confederate General to surrender (June 23, '65) almost a month
> and a half after what is acknowledged as the last battle of the war
> (Palmetto Ranche, Tx. on May 13, 1865).  I'm curious as to where Gen.
> Watie was at the time of his surrender and to whom did he surrender. 
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks and best regards
> Ron Church
> Manchester Md.  
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
> Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
> Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/GmiolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>  
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

From: Ron Church

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 8:59 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Stand Watie

Mary Alice, Susan, Pat

Can't say thanks enuf, this is exactly what I needed......... and a picture to boot.

 

Sure do appreciate it.

Ron 

 

I am just happy to have been able to contribute something.

Could someone please tell me the difference between a Sent Col. and a Lt. Col. if there is any difference.

 

Sue

In a message dated 1/1/2002 4:14:23 PM Hawaiian Standard Time,
s_hudson82@... writes:

<<   Could someone please tell me the difference between a Sent Col. and a
Lt. Col. if there is any difference. >>

A Lt Col is an actual rank.  I don't know where you got Sent Col.  Perhaps if
we had some of the context in which you found it we could help decipher it.

Regards,
Cash

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

From: CashG79@...

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 10:31 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Stand Watie

In a message dated 1/1/2002 4:14:23 PM Hawaiian Standard Time,
s_hudson82@... writes:

<<   Could someone please tell me the difference between a Sent Col. and a
Lt. Col. if there is any difference. >>

A Lt Col is an actual rank.  I don't know where you got Sent Col.  Perhaps if
we had some of the context in which you found it we could help decipher it.

Regards,
Cash

Evidently you did not read my earlier message nor did you follow the link I gave. In that case I will give you the link again and ask you to look at the signatures.

 

 http://www.yvwiiusdinvnohii.net/history/watie.html

 

Sue

 

In a message dated 1/1/2002 5:38:56 PM Hawaiian Standard Time,
s_hudson82@... writes:

<<   In a message dated 1/1/2002 4:14:23 PM Hawaiian Standard Time,
    s_hudson82@... writes:

    <<   Could someone please tell me the difference between a Sent Col. and a
    Lt. Col. if there is any difference. >>

    A Lt Col is an actual rank.  I don't know where you got Sent Col.  Perhaps
if
    we had some of the context in which you found it we could help decipher it.

    Regards,
    Cash

    Evidently you did not read my earlier message nor did you follow the link
I gave. In that case I will give you the link again and ask you to look at
the signatures.

     http://www.yvwiiusdinvnohii.net/history/watie.html >>

Since the originals are not there, I'll assume whoever transcribed the
signatures did so in error.

Regards,
Cash

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

From: CashG79@...

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 10:49 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Stand Watie

Since the originals are not there, I'll assume whoever transcribed the
signatures did so in error.

Regards,
Cash

Since no one that I have asked has ever heard Sent Col. I will also assume that it is an error. It appears both in the signature and the first paragraph of the treaty so at least they were consistant in their errors. <VBG>

 

Thank you

 

Sue

I have been away from the computer for a couple of days and finally get
back on and notice not one mention of Stones River. Shame, shame, shame.
Well let me just say:
Stones River
William S. Rosecrans
Phil Sheridan
William Hazen
John Mendenhall

Kevin S. Coy

To my dear friend Brother Coy-
Please permit me to respond-
Murfreesboro
William J. Hardee
Patrick R. Cleburne
John Breckenridge
Daniel Donelson
Matthew Ector
Lucius Polk
etc...
Regards-
Wakefield


--- In civilwarwest@y..., thecoys@k... wrote:
> I have been away from the computer for a couple of days and finally
get
> back on and notice not one mention of Stones River. Shame, shame,
shame.
> Well let me just say:
> Stones River
> William S. Rosecrans
> Phil Sheridan
> William Hazen
> John Mendenhall
>
> Kevin S. Coy

Hey Kevin ,
  Stone's River - what a battle!! I  believe there is still so much to be
written on this battle.Look at how much has been done on the Chickamauga
of the east (Gettysburg).
    Stewart
On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 07:04:26 -0500 thecoys@... writes:
>I have been away from the computer for a couple of days and finally
>get
>back on and notice not one mention of Stones River. Shame, shame,
>shame.
>Well let me just say:
>Stones River
>William S. Rosecrans
>Phil Sheridan
>William Hazen
>John Mendenhall
>
>Kevin S. Coy
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

----- Original Message -----
From: "aot1952" <wakefield1952@...>
To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 8:39 AM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Stones River


> To my dear friend Brother Coy-
> Please permit me to respond-
> Murfreesboro
> William J. Hardee
> Patrick R. Cleburne
> John Breckenridge
> Daniel Donelson
> Matthew Ector
> Lucius Polk
> etc...
> Regards-
> Wakefield
>
>
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., thecoys@k... wrote:
> > I have been away from the computer for a couple of days and finally
> get
> > back on and notice not one mention of Stones River. Shame, shame,
> shame.
> > Well let me just say:
> > Stones River
> > William S. Rosecrans
> > Phil Sheridan
> > William Hazen
> > John Mendenhall
> >
> > Kevin S. Coy
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

<<< I have been away from the computer for a couple of days and finally get back
on and notice not one mention of Stones River. Shame, shame, shame. >>>

I hear ya my hard drive is down and i have to go chk my email at a friends : (
talking about withdraws....

They had quite a few events there at the park this past weekend.. talks and
walks etc..

To bad bragg desided not to finish what he started on the 31 and waited till the
2nd...

Steven

Kevin how about Brig.General Joshua W. Sill?
          Clyde

=====
Clyde

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

--- In civilwarwest@y..., thecoys@k... wrote:
> I have been away from the computer for a couple of days and finally
get
> back on and notice not one mention of Stones River. Shame, shame,
shame.
> Well let me just say:
> Stones River
> William S. Rosecrans
> Phil Sheridan
> William Hazen
> John Mendenhall
>
> Kevin S. Coy

Allow me to add James St. Clair Morton.

Geoff

Stewart,
     I agree that much more is needed on the battle.  Cozzens' 'No Better
Place to Die' is considered the best work unfortunately it is severely
lacking, compared to other battle studies, IMHO.  I would say that the reason
for neglect is that it did not have any of the big participants, Grant, Lee,
Jackson, Sherman, or Longstreet.  But when you study/read of the battle you
won't find much more terrific fighting as that that took place in the Round
Forest.  Of course this is only my opinion and I'm just a little biased.

Kevin S. Coy

Stewart L Bennett wrote:

> Hey Kevin ,
>  Stone's River - what a battle!! I  believe there is still so much to be
> written on this battle.Look at how much has been done on the Chickamauga
> of the east (Gettysburg).
>    Stewart
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 07:04:26 -0500 thecoys@... writes:
> >I have been away from the computer for a couple of days and finally
> >get
> >back on and notice not one mention of Stones River. Shame, shame,
> >shame.
> >Well let me just say:
> >Stones River
> >William S. Rosecrans
> >Phil Sheridan
> >William Hazen
> >John Mendenhall
> >
> >Kevin S. Coy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Sill is probably one of the great unknowns.  He performed well during the
Kentucky campaign and was doing well at Stones River before he was killed.
How good could he have been? Who knows. They named a fort after him so he
can't be all that bad....oh never mind...they named a fort for Bragg also.:)

Kevin S. Coy

Clyde Thompson wrote:

>    Kevin how about Brig.General Joshua W. Sill?
>          Clyde
>
> =====
> Clyde
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

With Sill:
   We re-enact the 78th PVI they and the 33rd Ohio were

   on the hinge were McCook pulled back.The 78th took
   fire from front and right flank. They held till were
   ordered to retreat.Their big day was last day of
   battle when they crossed the river and took 26th
   Tenn.regimental colors .  Clyde
--- thecoys@... wrote:
> Sill is probably one of the great unknowns.  He
> performed well during the
> Kentucky campaign and was doing well at Stones River
> before he was killed.
> How good could he have been? Who knows. They named a
> fort after him so he
> can't be all that bad....oh never mind...they named
> a fort for Bragg also.:)
>
> Kevin S. Coy
>
> Clyde Thompson wrote:
>
> >    Kevin how about Brig.General Joshua W. Sill?
> >          Clyde
> >
> > =====
> > Clyde
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> > http://greetings.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====
Clyde

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Over the past months there is one thing about Grant critics here and
on other boards that I have never understood. Why they seem to
overlook or ignore what to me was Grant's single greatest military
miscue of the war. It was such a fundalmental and elementary error
that it seems to have been overlooked in the sea of nit picks and
semantics. It is also an error that Grant I believe never tried to
directly explain or really address in his Memories.
I confess I am no expert on Grant's actions in Virginia but in late
March and early April 1862 Grant had placed his Army on the wrong
side of the Tennessee River. How many pickets where or where not sent
out, whether or not it was a good idea to entrench or not to
entrench, Grant's excusable or unexcuseable absence from the front,
whether he purposely lied when he stated Sherman had been severly
wounded, etc... all seem to me to be various degrees of Monday
morning quarterbacking that really miss the HUGE mistake.
After the initial stabs at the Confederate rail roads clearly the
purpose of the campaign had become for Grant to wait for Buell to
hook up with his forces before the big push on Corinth.
IMHO Grant's placement of his forces on the West side of the
Tennessee River was an inexcusable error of the highest order and one
that one would expect of a Pope, Banks, or Butler. I have read where
Charles Smith was the one who made this decision and Grant merely
accepted it upon re-assuming command in late March. I am not sure
this is accurate and even if it was I do not see how it relieves
Grant from liability for an incredibly 'bonehead' decision. Grant had
more than enough time to change the troop dispositions after he was
reasigned to command on I think March 17 or 18. By placing his forces
(however arrayed) on the West side of the River Grant for no reason
whatsoever set the stage for a possible Union disaster.
For what it is worth this seems to me to have been the clearest,
biggest mistake Grant ever made while commanding troops in the West.
I think I am safe in ranking it up there with General Pillow's
Mexican War experience of digging trenchs which faced in the wrong
direction.
Does this mistake make Grant a bad military commander, in my book?
Not necessarily in view of his overall performance . But I do remain
puzzled why his present day critics fail to focus on this error and
instead concentrate on other areas of much more dubious substance.
I suppose I could be wrong-
Wakefield

Wakefield:
        My thoughts on Grant, You may whip him today,
    he'll be out there tomarrow coming at you.
         Clyde

=====
Clyde

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Clyde-
I certainly agree that Grant consistently displayed a grim
determination to close with and fight his opponets. I think that for
many this trait has far too often been confused with a willingness to
be no more than a Butcher or a ruthless mathamatican (?)). I have
never bought that Grant simply was a bull in a china shop calculating
that the Confederates simply could not replace their losses at the
rate that Grant could replace his.
I know because of past debates here many may think that I believe
Grant never did any wrong. This is far from the case but on balance I
do believe he was one of the Great Captains of the war because of a
few rather fundalmental believes that he held on to at all cost.
Grant I have always felt understood more than any other Union
commander in the West the importance of grabbing and maintaining the
initiative. Serious problems occurred to the Union war effort in the
West everytime the initiative was surrendered. Something inside the
man told him that sitting down and getting ready was the game that
the South wanted and needed for the North's military forces to play.
Grant coupled this consistent desire to have the initiative with a
grim willingness to fight. He was not a brillant tactican, and a
fairly good argument can be made that Forrest was the only brillant
and innovative tactican of the war. But Grant understood or at least
came to understand that when you possess greater resources than your
opponet the one think you can not allow your opponet to do is dictate
how and when battle is to occur. Because of the vast resources of the
United States this basic lesson more than any other IMHO is the great
contribution that Grant made to American Military thinking.
Having said all that on April 6, 1862, his army was on the wrong side
of the Tennessee River! This remains at least in my mind the single
greatest boner of his career. JMHO
As always I could be wrong-
Wakefield
--- In civilwarwest@y..., Clyde Thompson <cl3454@y...> wrote:
>
>
>    Wakefield:
>        My thoughts on Grant, You may whip him today,
>    he'll be out there tomarrow coming at you.
>         Clyde
>
> =====
> Clyde
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com

In a message dated 1/3/02 9:59:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wakefield1952@... writes:

<< I confess I am no expert on Grant's actions in Virginia but in late
  March and early April 1862 Grant had placed his Army on the wrong
  side of the Tennessee River. How many pickets where or where not sent
  out, whether or not it was a good idea to entrench or not to
  entrench, Grant's excusable or unexcuseable absence from the front,
  whether he purposely lied when he stated Sherman had been severly
  wounded, etc... all seem to me to be various degrees of Monday
  morning quarterbacking that really miss the HUGE mistake.  >>

Somehow it comes to mind that it was Sherman that chose the location and to
what side of the river that the army would eventually be  placed.  He stopped
there briefly the first week of March on his way up the Tennessee looking for
a suitable landing site.  He went further up the river to close to Muscle
Shoals and then came back to Pittsburg Landing arriving there on the 14th of
March.  On the 15th of March, the first troops disembarked which was the 1st
Brigade of the 5th Division.  They further marched to Shiloh Church were
upon the first pickets set up around the perimeter of the church was the 40th
Illinois.

Apparently, although there was the bluff at Pittsburg Landing, it was more
suitable than the opposite side of the river for the number of boats that
would eventually arrive and dock there.  In addition, they were not setting
up a defensive site (which probably the other side of the river would be more
suitable), but were setting up an offensive staging site knowing that Albert
Sydney was at Corinth.  This would allow the movement of troops towards
Corinth without having to cross them across the river, but at the same time,
it would allow ASJ a direct path as well, which as we all know he used.  In
the same thought, ASJ never intended to remain at Pittsburg Landing but to
drive Grant into the river, collect as much supplies that he could, and then
return to Corinth,  also knowing that Buell was moving to strengthen Grant.

Wayne

In a message dated 1/3/02 9:59:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wakefield1952@... writes:

<< I confess I am no expert on Grant's actions in Virginia but in late
  March and early April 1862 Grant had placed his Army on the wrong
  side of the Tennessee River. How many pickets where or where not sent
  out, whether or not it was a good idea to entrench or not to
  entrench, Grant's excusable or unexcuseable absence from the front,
  whether he purposely lied when he stated Sherman had been severly
  wounded, etc... all seem to me to be various degrees of Monday
  morning quarterbacking that really miss the HUGE mistake.  >>

In addendum to my previous post,  one also has to remember that Grant was at
Savannah not Pittsburg Landing.  I have not found any evidence that Grant was
at the Landing prior to that April day when the Confederates attacked.
Pickets were sent out by the various regiments.  Two days before the battle,
a detail including an officer got into a skirmish with Confederate pickets
and were captured, and a rescue party went out and did get some of them back.
  There were signs galore of strong Confederate activity, yet these signs were
mainly ignored by Sherman and other division commanders.  There was a lot of
frustration amongst regimental commanders that when reporting enemy activity,
they were rebutted as a result of the belief of the command officers that the
Confederates would not dare to attack the camp.  Ooooh   were they ever
wrong.    In dispatches to Grant, none of them indicated a heavy buildup of
enemy troops, and reported that there were only minor skirmishes, most likely
with the enemy's cavalry or forward pickets.

As much as I am an afficiando of Sherman, I will admit he was the one that
made the major goof, not Grant.  He along with the other Division Commanders
failed to heed the warnings by their subordinates.   If they had listen to
the warnings, IMHO the battle of Shiloh would have had a different historical
scenario.

Daggumit -  Getting more like Wakefield where I too (like Sherman) could be
wrong

Wayne

I think it did go like this:
- the confederates under-emphasize Tennessee defenses because too many expected
a short war in the East to decide everything, for a
while Kentucky's "neutrality" was expected to protect the area, there was an odd
concern about "the left flank" which displaced troops
into the Arkansas wilderness,  and too few Reb planners knew what to expect or
do or to anticipate in the war for the control of the
Rivers.
- after a series of disasters, it becomes clear that the area has been neglected
and a call goes out to concentrate troops in the area;
notably, the post- Pea Ridge Arkansas troops do not make it in time for Shiloh,
and the gamble to strip New Orleans is another disaster.
- the great opportunity to strike presents itself: evidently the Union forces
are unaware of the build-up; Grant and the others are
confident that there  are not enough Confederate forces in the area to worry
about. Didn't they  just round them all up at Fort's Henry
and Donelson? The Federals allow themselves to camp in an unprepared condition
with their backs to a River: the incredible blunder
of Steven's post.
       How bad was this mistake? IMHO, pretty bad, allowing over-confidence to
set in with an opponent who has every motivation to pull
off a secret troop re-disposition to try to reverse a huge loss in territory and
with the clear ability to do so with the use of the
railroads, wow. Hadn't Bull Run demonstrated the value of the RR for the war?
Depending on whether one agrees that the Secesh
forces could have won at Shiloh - and I would say yes with a couple of "what
ifs" thrown in - the Union's fortunes could have gone
from the triumph of a thus-far brilliant campaign in the West to the disaster of
losing a major battle. I truly believe it would have
meant the ends to the careers of Grant and Sherman both.
       What can be said in defense of Grant? I would only say that bad
intelligence often makes great generals look bad. I think we can add
RE Lee to that list.
Carl
  --- In civilwarwest@y..., FLYNSWEDE@A... wrote:
> In a message dated 1/3/02 9:59:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> wakefield1952@m... writes:
>
> << I confess I am no expert on Grant's actions in Virginia but in late
>  March and early April 1862 Grant had placed his Army on the wrong
>  side of the Tennessee River. How many pickets where or where not sent
>  out, whether or not it was a good idea to entrench or not to
>  entrench, Grant's excusable or unexcuseable absence from the front,
>  whether he purposely lied when he stated Sherman had been severly
>  wounded, etc... all seem to me to be various degrees of Monday
>  morning quarterbacking that really miss the HUGE mistake.  >>
>
> In addendum to my previous post,  one also has to remember that Grant was at
> Savannah not Pittsburg Landing.  I have not found any evidence that Grant was
> at the Landing prior to that April day when the Confederates attacked.
> Pickets were sent out by the various regiments.  Two days before the battle,
> a detail including an officer got into a skirmish with Confederate pickets
> and were captured, and a rescue party went out and did get some of them back.
>  There were signs galore of strong Confederate activity, yet these signs were
> mainly ignored by Sherman and other division commanders.  There was a lot of
> frustration amongst regimental commanders that when reporting enemy activity,
> they were rebutted as a result of the belief of the command officers that the
> Confederates would not dare to attack the camp.  Ooooh   were they ever
> wrong.    In dispatches to Grant, none of them indicated a heavy buildup of
> enemy troops, and reported that there were only minor skirmishes, most likely
> with the enemy's cavalry or forward pickets.
>
> As much as I am an afficiando of Sherman, I will admit he was the one that
> made the major goof, not Grant.  He along with the other Division Commanders
> failed to heed the warnings by their subordinates.   If they had listen to
> the warnings, IMHO the battle of Shiloh would have had a different historical
> scenario.
>
> Daggumit -  Getting more like Wakefield where I too (like Sherman) could be
> wrong
>
> Wayne

The wrong "side of the river" argument, which Buell stressed in B&L,
has several weaknesses when used against Grant, not the least of
which is that both Buell and Halleck were aware of Smith establishing
a tete-du-pont at Pittsburg by about March 14, and neither voiced an
objection.  In fact the plan was that this was to be the point of
concentration for the move upon Corinth.

Taking a step back...

The Mid-March objective was to land forces that would move south and
destroy the railroads in the vicinity of Cornith or the Bear Creek
Bridge, without bringing on a general engagement.  The flooded nature
along the river at that time greatly limited the choices of landing
sites. Pittsburg is described as the best choice, having "high and
dry" camping for the entire army, a landing still useable in high
water, and direct roads to Corinth.

After a few Federal attempts to move on the railroads, it was
discovered that the rebels were present in force.  Any forward
movement would require a general engagment.  Federal plans to isolate
Polk's forces from AS Johnston's through destruction of the railroads
had been thwarted.

At this point Halleck (3/17) orders Buell to Savannah to join up with
Smith:

NASHVILLE, TENN., March 17, 1862.
  Major-General HALLECK:
I have information, which seems reliable, that Beauregard moved last
Thursday from Corinth and Jackson to some other point not named--
probably Savannah--to operate against Smith, in anticipation of his
crossing. A part of the force was to strike the river below Savannah,
to cut off transportation. The force moving toward Savannah is said
to number 26,000.
  D.C. BUELL,
Brigadier-General.

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
  Saint Louis, March 17, 1862.
  General D.C. BUELL,
Nashville, Tenn.:
I fully understand these movements. Move on, as ordered to-day, to re-
enforce Smith. Savannah is now the strategic point. Don't fail to
carry out my instructions. I know that I am right.
  H. W. HALLECK,
Major-General



Also on the 17th, Grant arrived at Savannah:

HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT OF WEST TENNESSEE,
Savannah, Tenn., March 17, 1862.
  Capt. N. H. McLEAN,
Saint Louis, Mo.:
I have the honor of reporting my arrival but a few minutes since at
this place. Just as I arrived a report was received from General
Sherman, which I herewith inclose. (+) A man employed by General
Smith as scout also came in, reporting the enemy very strong from
Chickasaw to Corinth. Their number was estimated at 150,000, about
one-third of them being at Corinth. General Johnston, with his force,
is said to be with them. The number is of course very much
exaggerated, and Johnston being there was very much against my
expectations. <ar11_43>
This country is so overflowed that but few roads can be traveled, and
all are most impassable for artillery. A few dry days, however, would
remedy this, and it is certainly time to look for a change of
weather. I shall order all the forces here, except McClernand's
division, to Pittsburg, and send back steamers as rapidly as possible.
It is with great difficulty that quartermasters at Paducah and Cairo
can be impressed with the magnitude of our wants in coal and forage.
We are now short in both these articles. Corn can be procured here
for a few days, but not for a long period. I would respectfully
suggest to the general commanding the importance of having funds in
the hands of the quartermaster to pay the people for such supplies as
we get from them.
All the troops of my command, except those left to garrison Forts
Henry and Donelson, two regiments at Clarksville yet to arrive, and
McClernand's division, will be at Pittsburg. The accompanying report
of General Sherman, with the above statement, shows the present
distribution of my forces. The Fifty-second Illinois, Col. T. W.
Sweeny commanding, has just arrived.
  U.S. GRANT,
Major-General.


It is at this point Grant becomes responsible for the troop
dispositions, which were:

HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT OF WEST TENNESSEE,
Savannah, March 18, 1862.
  Maj. Gen H. W. HALLECK,
Saint Louis, Mo.:
Your dispatch of the 16th is just received and replied to by
telegraph from Fort Henry. I arrived here last evening, and found
that Generals Sherman and Hurlbut's divisions were at Pittsburg,
partially debarked; General Wallace at Crump's Landing, 6 miles
below, same side of the river; General McClernand's division at this
place, encamped, and General Smith's, with unattached regiments, on
board transports, also here. I immediately ordered all troops, except
McClernand's command, to Pittsburg, and to debark there at once and
discharge the steamers, to report at Paducah for further orders.
All your instructions will be carried out to the best of my ability.
There is no doubt a large force is being concentrated at Corinth and
on the line of the railroad......I shall go to-morrow to Crump's
Landing and Pittsburg, and if I think any change of position for any
of the troops needed I will make the change. Having full faith,
however, in the judgment of General Smith, who located the present
points of debarkation, I do not expect any change will be made....


Given this situation, what argument does Grant make to Halleck for
pulling back to the north/east side of River?  ie, what reason is
there to retreat?  Conversely, if being at Pittsburg is against
military principles why does Halleck not order a retreat?

In the meantime, Grant is aware that Buell's forces have reached
Columbia on 3/19 (about 60 miles from Savannah).  Buell estimates 4-5
days to repair the bridges so Grant estimates his arrival on the
Tennessee at about 3/28.  I think this point somewhat mitigates
criticisms for the failure to entrench.  Grant expected to be in
motion by the end of March, and preparing for that move was given a
higher priority than building defenses.  However, Grant is
responsible for prevailing attitude among the Federals that "no
battle would be fought closer than Corinth."  This attitude is the
reason for the Federals inablity to "read the tea leaves" and see an
approaching Rebel army on 4/4 or 4/5.  It is almost inexplicable that
that by the evening of 4/5 the Federal divisions were not all in
battle line awaiting Johnston's onslaught.  IMHO, this more than
anything else is the reason for the Federal debacle of 4/6, and is
more the responsiblity of Grant than any of the other issues raised.

Eric