35674Re: Why Trans-Miss. ?
- Nov 4, 2005--- In email@example.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
> Union troops and navy sealed off the Miss. R. and the Gulf fromand
> 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
> 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?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
- 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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>