Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13703Re: Nathaniel Banks

Expand Messages
  • wh_keene
    Aug 31 8:14 PM
      My main point about Banks is:
      -Banks is called inept because he lost to Jackson with a force twice
      as large as his.
      -If this is the standard of ineptness, then I'd like to hear why most
      of the generals that people around her speak highly are not also
      inept.




      --- In civilwarwest@y..., David Kowalski <kywddavid@y...> wrote:
      > Several points about Banks generalship.
      >
      > First, Jackson fought Shields at Kernstown well before
      > he met up with Banks.

      True. At the time of Kernstwon, Sheilds was part of Banks force.
      But Kernstown is seperate than either Port Republic or Winchester.
      As part of Sheilds victory over Jackson, what did Banks do that was
      inept?


      > Jackson's men marched most of the night.

      So did Banks. Thus I am wondering what you referred to about
      marching too slow? Banks marched as fast as Jackson.


      > One well known aim of Banks forces at Port Hudson was
      > to capture the city in time to help Grant at
      > Vicksburg. Vicksburg fell first.

      And Grant was earlier to help Banks by detaching part of his force to
      Port Hudson before going after Vicksburg. This didn't happen and
      neither did Banks succeed in caputrign Port Hudson before Vicksburg.
      So?


      > Banks was placed between a rock and a hard place in
      > the Valley. However, a post-Kernstown junction with
      > Shields might have done the trick.

      The did form a junction--Shields was partof Banks army. But then
      Banks was instructed to detach Sheilds and send him to McDowell.
      Banks had no control over this. Jackson, learning of this and being
      himself reinforces with Ewell, went after Banks in his now weakened
      position.
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic