13694Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Price & MO supply line
- Aug 30 4:54 PMSeems like topography may have played a big role in
the political sentiments within MO. I bet that as in
TN and, to a lesser extent VA (excluding West Virginia
which was so pro-union it seceded from secession) and
NC, the folks living on the plains were pro-southern
while mountain folk were pro-union. Of course, the
Ozarks are in south MO.
The Germans were strongly anti-slavery everywhere.
Many came over after the failure of the revolution of
1848. Even in Texas, Germans were pro-union. They
were the core element in holding St. Louis and MO for
Kansas City was strongly pro=Confederate. It was the
home of the infamous Order No. 11, the place where 160
people were crowded into two jail cells for southern
sympathy, and the home of Harry Truman's mother who
was insulted and outraged about being offered the
Lincoln bedroom while visiting the White House.
--- hank9174 <clarkc@...> wrote:
> You are certainly not 'wrong', Connie. Missouri is
> perhaps the best
> illustration of the 'civil' part of the Civil War
> (and I don't mean
> civil==nice ;) )..
> Battles were fought accross the breadth and depth of
> Missouri from
> 1861 to 1865, not just every once in a while.
> St. Louis was the 3rd largest city in the
> slave-states, behind
> Baltimore and New Orleans, but was profoundly
> pro-Union. The war in
> the west was directed from the gateway city for the
> first 12 months,
> until Nashville was captured.
> There is no convienent way of geographically
> segregating the pro-North
> and pro-South sides in Missouri, but the CSA
> supporters tended to live
> in the north and the USA supporters in the south.
> Supply, and the lack thereof, played major factors
> in the ability to
> sustain large, compact forces on the land. Small
> bands of mauraders
> had a field day, similar to Mosby, but more
> ruthless. They tended to
> have their eye on the political consequences of
> their actions as well
> as the military. War was brought to the civilians of
> Missouri, by both
> sides, long before Sherman took Atlanta...
> Grant, Sherman and Sheridan all cut their milk-teeth
> in early
> campaigns in Missouri. The CSA didn't do as well
> with OJT for their
> generals in MO.
> The Missouri State Guard was probably the
> well-maintained and courageously-lead organization
> of non-National
> troops in the country.
> I still feel that the no-holds-barred war in
> Missouri is summarized in
> the report by a USA Colonel in late 1864, 'We
> captured 6 guerillas,
> gave them their paroles and buried them on the
> All generalities are wrong, including this one, but
> I suppose I have
> proven your point...
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., Aurelie1999@a... wrote:
> > I've noticed that Missourians still see the war in
> personal terms,
> but even
> > more importantly when they talk about it, their
> view of the war is
> > to the narrow space of Missouri. It's as though
> the broader
> landscape from
> > Richmond to Vicksburg, from Lee to Grant, from
> railroads to the
> > from Greeley's Times to the refugees clogging
> Georgia byways were
> > secondary glitches that happened "over there"
> while the main force
> of the war
> > was in Missouri. Am I wrong?
> > Connie Boone
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
- << Previous post in topic