35640Re: Why Trans-Miss. ?
- Nov 1, 2005--- In email@example.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...> wrote:
> I don't understand why the Union spent a lot of military resources
> fighting in the trans-mississippi region. Once it had gained
> of the Miss. R. and cut off supplies and men from that area, whynot
> focus on driving the CSA forces towards to east to end the warsooner?
> Then the trans. Miss. CSA would have had to surrender.The trans-Mississippi encompassed the states of Minnesota, Iowa,
> Any thoughts on these ideas?
Missouri, Arkansas, most of Louisiana and Texas. That's a pretty fair
chunk of territory.
Robert L. Kerby, author of 'Kirby Smith's Confederacy: The Trans-
Mississippi South, 1863-1865', describes Missouri as the "garden" of
the trans-Mississippi. The state produces more tobacco, wool, hemp,
wheat, rye, corn and oats, and supports more mines, and has more
railroad miles than the rest of the trans-Mississippi states
combined. Missouri raises more horses and swine than either Texas or
Arkansas, while only Texas cattle and Louisiana mules outnumbered
Missouri livestock. In nearly every category, including industrial
production, mining, agricultural productivity, and population
Missouri has no peer west of the Mississippi. Much of the fighting
takes place in Missouri. A lot of it is basic military police work
against guerillas (think Quantrill) but many military campaigns are
aimed at capturing, or denying, these resources. St. Louis is the 8th
largest city in the country with a population of 160,000.
Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas cotton is sold over the border in
Mexico. This is a major source of foreign exchange and hard currency
for the CSA. The Texas border is also a possible target of adventure
Louisiana is the major producer of sugar and salt in the South and
Texas is the prime supplier of beef.
My guess is that total US forces west of the river topped out at
25,000, excluding such anomalies as Arkansas Post and the Red River
Hope this helps,
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>