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

13704Re: Nathaniel Banks [east vs west]

Expand Messages
  • wh_keene
    Aug 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...> wrote:
      > -as far as the disposition of troops in 1862, the fact is that the
      > Union made the classic military mistake in VA of splitting up into
      > small groups that could be defeated independently. I don't care if
      > group A was northwest or southeast of group B, the fact is they were
      > all in the same general area and could have been combined. Banks,
      > however, bore no responsibility for that mistake, but did fail to
      > realize the impact on himself.

      As you pointed out, the responsibility was not Banks--he had been
      ordered to send Sheilds away and he had no control over Fremont.


      > -What happened to Banks vs Jackson in a nutshell: Banks was pushing
      up
      > [going south] the Shenandoah valley with great ambition to press the
      > left flank of the overall CS defence of Richmond. Jackson used
      cavalry
      > to screen the fact that he was stealing a march, using the mountains
      > also as a screen, and came in on Banks' rear. Now it is true that
      > Banks reacted in time, but barely so, and WAS ADVISED TO HAVE DONE
      SO
      > MUCH EARLIER BY HIS MILITARY AIDE; Banks foolishly refused to admit
      > the mortal danger he had put his army in till it was almost too
      late,
      > narrowly avoided disaster, and trailing elements in the rush north
      > took a beating. As David notes, this impacted his later stand, and
      he
      > wound up getting routed, leaving Virginia altogether behind the
      > Potomac River in Maryland.

      Once again--routed by a force twice his size commanded by Jackson.
      Name the generals who would not have been routed?


      > -In the Red River Campaign, I can't say that I would be the guy to
      > really explain all that happened there, but to interpret the federal
      > Victory at Pleasant Hill as an opportunity to rally and defeat the
      > Rebs just ignores the fact that the Yanks were stunned, suffering
      one
      > defeat, and viewing the P.H. victory as more of a "here we narrowly
      > avoided disaster." Taylor criticized his own generalship, comparing
      > himself to someone in a chess match who cannot envision the changed
      > board after the moves have been made. Hopefully someone was around
      to
      > point out that he had accomplished a lot without the 3 to 1
      advantage
      > usually advised for someone undertaking an attack; the Yanks had
      > gotten a bloody nose they hadn't anticipated, were in an
      irreversible
      > state of collapsed morale, and couldn't get out of the area fast
      > enough. Shreveport was out of danger and Banks' last grand ambition,
      > the Genius that scared Napolean [ok, the third] with his invasion of
      > Texas, was gone for good.

      Banks ambition? He had been ordered to make the expedition over his
      objections.
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic