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

35674Re: Why Trans-Miss. ?

Expand Messages
  • William H Keene
    Nov 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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?

      The thinking in DC went something like this:
      - Troops were continually needed to maintain order in Missouri;
      - Troops were continually needed to protect the frontier in Kansas;
      - Troops were needed for the invasion and occupation of Arkanss, with
      the objective of controlling additional territoriy, try to restablish
      a Union goverment in Arakansas; and defeating the confederate forces
      in Arkansas.
      - Troops were needed in the gulf to control parts of Louisiaina; to
      attmept to drive the Confederates from the rest of Louisiana; and to
      occupy a part of Texas for reasons having mostly to do with the
      situation in Mexico.

      Halleck beleived it was worth trying to defeat the confederate forces
      in the west and he also beleived in the imporantce of siimply holding
      more territoriy; Lincoln hoped to be able to begin political
      reconstruction of Arkansas and Louisiana.
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic