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

35666Re: Why Trans-Miss. ?

Expand Messages
  • Norm Mikalac
    Nov 4, 2005
      I 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.

      Norm

      ===============================================

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
      wrote:
      >
      > assuming that this map is correct:
      > http://americancivilwar.com/tl/1864_west_large.jpg
      > 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
      incapable
      > of staying in the game is not accurate IMO. Military strategists
      > always worry about their flanks. That's a broad flank to just
      dismiss.
      >
      > 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,
      but
      > as far as anyone knew at the time, these areas would be CSA until
      all
      > eternity until federal boots were on the ground to coerce a
      difference.
      >
      > Additionally, it is alleged that the cotton that could be
      confiscated
      > motivated some Federal planners.
      >
      > Final point: the failure of both campaigns is a testimony to the
      fact
      > that the forces had potency and were not to be ignored.
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...>
      wrote:
      > >
      > > 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
      the
      > > Union troops and navy sealed off the Miss. R. and the Gulf from
      > > supplies, arms and men from western states and territories and
      > > Mexico, so that they could not reach the CSA armies east of
      Miss.
      > > R., why not use those 70,000 troops to finish off the CSA armies
      and
      > > end the war sooner? IOW, what was the thinking in DC that made
      > > fighting in the west so important as to divert all those troops
      from
      > > east to west?
      > >
      > > Norm
      > >
      > > ==============================================
      > >
      > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
      > > <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
      > > <wh_keene@y...>
      > > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174"
      <clarkc@m...>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > >...
      > > > > > 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
      > > > > > campaign...
      > > > >
      > > > > Hank I think you are way off with this number. I think it
      was
      > > over
      > > > twice that.
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > Did some looking at data for early 1864. The Union forces in
      the
      > > > transmissippi were from 4 departments -- Gulf, Arkansas,
      Missouri
      > > and
      > > > 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
      Departments
      > > > reported the following (rounded down to the nearest 1,000):
      Gulf --
      > >
      > > > 47,000; Arkansas -- 21,000; Missouri -- 15,000; Kansas --
      6,000.
      > > 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.
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic