35666Re: Why Trans-Miss. ?
- Nov 4, 2005I can accept all your answers except the supplies from Mexico. I
assume the Fed Navy blockades those supplies by sea. If they were
to come by land somewhere near the coast, then the 2 expeditions you
cite would not do anything to stop those.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
> assuming that this map is correct:
> basically the red river and the Steele campaigns [whatever their
> proper names] are the 1864 actions. From what I know about it, the
> trans-miss had a certain amount of potential to cause trouble;
> supplies were coming in from Mexico and Texas ports. So the picture
> that it sometimes painted that these CSA forces were totally
> of staying in the game is not accurate IMO. Military strategistsdismiss.
> always worry about their flanks. That's a broad flank to just
> Remember at this time it was not known that the surrender of the CS
> forces of the west and east would automatically mean that the
> trans-miss forces would also surrender. That fairly much happened,
> as far as anyone knew at the time, these areas would be CSA untilall
> eternity until federal boots were on the ground to coerce adifference.
> Additionally, it is alleged that the cotton that could be
> motivated some Federal planners.fact
> Final point: the failure of both campaigns is a testimony to the
> that the forces had potency and were not to be ignored.wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...>
> > So at peak, 70,000 Union troops west of Miss. R. Maybe slightly
> > less than that on the average after Miss. R. was under Union
> > control? Now I want to get back to my original question. After
> > Union troops and navy sealed off the Miss. R. and the Gulf fromMiss.
> > supplies, arms and men from western states and territories and
> > Mexico, so that they could not reach the CSA armies east of
> > R., why not use those 70,000 troops to finish off the CSA armiesand
> > end the war sooner? IOW, what was the thinking in DC that madefrom
> > fighting in the west so important as to divert all those troops
> > east to west?<clarkc@m...>
> > Norm
> > ==============================================
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "William H Keene"
> > <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In email@example.com, "William H Keene"
> > <wh_keene@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "hank9174"
> > wrote:out
> > > > >...
> > > > > My guess is that total US forces west of the river topped
> > atRed
> > > > > 25,000, excluding such anomalies as Arkansas Post and the
> > Riverwas
> > > > > campaign...
> > > >
> > > > Hank I think you are way off with this number. I think it
> > overthe
> > > twice that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Did some looking at data for early 1864. The Union forces in
> > > transmissippi were from 4 departments -- Gulf, Arkansas,Missouri
> > andDepartments
> > > Kansas. [There was a little bit from the Department of the
> > Tennessee,
> > > but I wont count that for now; I will also leave out the small
> > force in
> > > the upper midwest (Minnesota/Iowa)]. In March these
> > > reported the following (rounded down to the nearest 1,000):Gulf --
> > > 47,000; Arkansas -- 21,000; Missouri -- 15,000; Kansas --
> > I
> > > would knock of close to 20,000 from the Gulf as garrisons at
> > positions
> > > east of the river (New Orleans, Port Hudson, Baton Rouge,
> > Pensacola,
> > > Key West). That still leaves almost 70,000 men. There was a
> > decrease
> > > later in the year when the 19th Corps was sent to Virginia and
> > other
> > > reductions from campainging, but it never got as low as you
> > suggested.
> > >
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>