Cash I must admit, I am almost there. You have almost convinced me and you make great arguments that I find hard to counter. I just keep thinking, even ifMessage 1 of 127 , Jun 1, 2001View SourceCash
I must admit, I am almost there. You have almost convinced me and
you make great arguments that I find hard to counter. I just keep
thinking, even if the armies just sat idle, the South would run
out of supplies to sustain the army before the Union.
The "Anaconda Plan" that was discussed would have assured this.
Granted, the sentiment might remain unless you totally defeat the
enemy (like the Germans after WWI, which led to WWII), but I still
think time is the greatest thing in the Union's favor. The
Confederates had to act and act quickly. The could not afford to
tactfully retreat until the opportunity presented itself. They
had to try to make the opportunity.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
Your point about supplies is a good one, but it assumes the
Federals would have remained in control of all that area once they
conquered it.� They could only do this if there was not a
Confederate army to oppose them, as Hood's blundering ensured.
Once again, though, as the Federals conquered territory they had
to protect that territory.� The detachment of troops to do that
would progressively weaken the Union forces to the point where the
Confederates could achieve local superiority of forces for an
attack.� This is what Johnston would have done.� He would have
taken the Federals on bit by bit, achieving local superiority and
attacking them at their weak points.
I think we have to realize that by 1864 there was little to no
hope of foreign recognition and assistance for the confederacy.�
The Emancipation Proclamation and diplomacy by Charles F. Adams
and the Lincoln Administration took care of this.
Hood's second mistake was leaving Sherman's army alone and heading
into Tennessee.� Without a Confederate force to worry about,
Sherman didn't need to detach troops along the way.� He could
remain concentrated, and he didn't have to fear an attack while he
was on the march.� Because he was on the move, unopposed, he could
live off the land.� If he had an army opposing him, in entrenched
positions, he would have quickly used up the supplies in one area
and would have been forced to rely on a supply line that was
vulnerable to attack.� Also, the Confederate army in front of him
would also be using up local supplies, further reducing what was
available to Sherman's troops and placing even more reliance on
vulnerable supply lines.� This would force Sherman to further
detach troops to protect that supply line, weakening him
progressively the farther he advanced, eventually leaving him
vulnerable to attack on his main army.
I would second Carl. Grandpa s knee is a wonderful place to learn to love history but often a terrible place to learn accurate history. I do not recall anyMessage 127 of 127 , Jul 7, 2001View SourceI would second Carl. Grandpa's knee is a wonderful place to learn to
love history but often a terrible place to learn accurate history.
I do not recall any mention of anyone telling Scott how to run a war.
And he was an experienced general -- I doubt that anyone needed to give
him ideas about how to run a war.
There were similar claims for a Marylander named Anna Carroll (? I may
have the name wrong) who claimed that she gave Lincoln the idea for the
But some things are so obvious -- John Sherman recalled going to visit
his brother early in the war and finding Cump and Thomas crawling around
on the floor on a huge map of the United States, "talking shop" about
how *they* would defeat the Rebels. As the senator remembered the story,
his brother and Thomas basically outlined the way the war turned out.
The secret was not in figuring out the strategy, but in finding the man
or men who would be able to carry out the plan. It took a while but
Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Sheridan and a few others, Lincoln finally found
the men who imposed their will on the armies.
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
Hello addison, please do share that. I'll caution you, tho', that
family traditions are a bit touchy, you know, everyone in the family
cherishes them and all; but sometimes they are a bit hard to confirm.
Carl aka Unre, etc
--- In civilwarwest@y..., jaaah@t... wrote:
> Well, if this isn't too late, I want too add something.
> Family history records that we are related to the Scotts, and that
my Great Great Grandmother was the one to actually give General Scott
the idea for the 'Anaconda Plan'. My Grandfather has the full
details, but from what I remember, she was at a dinner party with
him, and he was telling her about the plans for the war against the
Confederacy. She then asked "well why don't you just cut them off
from everything?" When he asked what she meant, she gave him the
basic idea for what became the 'Anaconda Plan.' If you want the full
details, my Grandfather has them all!
> A. Hart
> > ** Original Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] The Anaconda Myth