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

21481Re: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?

Expand Messages
  • grabrulee@aol.com
    Aug 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear All
      My feeling on this issue is that the South was so deeply into State's Rights
      that the only way they would have looked seriously at the strategic
      importance of the River - especially the Mississippi/Missouri highway - was
      if they fell wholly within one state. Instead we have a situation where the
      river divided four Confederate states (Mississippi and Tennessee from Arkasas
      and Louisiana) and two states (Missouri and Kentucky) which had definite
      Confederate sympathy yet nobody thought of viewing this situation on a global
      scale. It was simply a question of nobody being prepared to take
      responsibility for fear of "treading on the toes" of the states involved.
      I only offer this as a suggestion but it is one which is borne out by
      other things I have read which indicate the difficulties Davis and his
      government had in operating the Federal System which was essential were the
      Confederacy to have any chance of establishing the nationhood they were
      claiming. This thinking had the effect of turning the WBTS into a war between
      the Union and eleven individual opponents and the Union took full advantage
      of this in the West by picking off states one at a time until the passage of
      the Mississippi could be forced and the western portion of the Confederacy
      isolated.
      It would be interesting to speculate on how long the war would have
      lasted had there been a similar river system dividing the Eastern theatre,
      would it not? Just a thought.
      Best wishes to all
      Graham Lee
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic