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

46981Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion

Expand Messages
  • Patricia B. Swan
    Jan 31, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hank, Yes it seems that Hooker took a chance by using so few troops.  Luckily the operation didn't fail.  Had it failed, however, he had the additional troop strength to make what probably would have been a successful attack, albeit under more difficult conditions, his target having been revealed.  Thus, it seems that this was not really a good opportunity to capture the A of C; i.e. with the 11th and 12th Corps there they had the means to open up the Cracker Line.



      From: hank9174 <clarkc@...>
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 9:54:41 AM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion

       


      Which is a good point but raises the question: if 2 corps are waiting to attack why use a fairly complex operation with one brigade?

      It's failure then alerts the defense to the operation's target...

      HankC

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Patricia B. Swan" <pbswan@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hank, If the taking of Brown's Ferry by Hazen et al. had failed, would not have
      > the 11th and 12th Corps moved in for another and, probably successful, attempt?
      > I'm not certain that the A of C would have starved if the first attempt had
      > failed. So, was it a "good opportunity?" I'm not certain that it was.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: hank9174 <clarkc@...>
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 9:06:41 AM
      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion
      >
      >
      > If Bragg wins the battle of Browns Ferry, union forces in Chattanooga are soon
      > starved into surrender.
      >
      > The army of the cumberland is lost and the main US position reverts to Nashville
      > if not Louisville.
      >
      > The chances of replacing the army and retaking lost territory, much less
      > advancing to Atlanta before the 1864 election, is zero.
      >
      > Browns Ferry is the biggest little battle of the war...
      >
      > HankC
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Patricia B. Swan" <pbswan@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Off course I meant "after Vicksburg."
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > From: Patricia B. Swan <pbswan@>
      > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 7:29:31 AM
      > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion
      > >
      > >
      > > What were the "good opportunities" that the Confederates had to win the war in
      >
      > > the West after Gettysburg?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > From: Bronco <21stcentury@>
      > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Thu, January 27, 2011 10:35:34 PM
      > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion
      > >
      > >
      > > I hope I didn't kill the discussion..
      > >
      > > Robert
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > >
      > >
      > > Chris is correct. That was an overstatement on my behalf. The Confederacy
      > > squandered/missed several subsequent opportunities that might have
      > > politically brought the war to an end via a strategic stalemate. However, I
      >
      > > think Vicksburg dramatically weakened, and maybe ended, all Southern chances
      > >
      > > for a military victory.
      > > >
      > > >Robert
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >>
      > > >>I don't at all buy the notion that it was over after Vicksburg;If
      > >you
      > >
      > > >>think that,then I think you don't understand much about the
      > > >>psychology of the war.Point here that has been made by better minds
      > > >>then mine is that the Confederacy could win the war by NOT LOSING.If
      > > >>they could raise morale again{which they did to some degree}and
      > > >>continue the war,then the Union might eventually give up,regardless of
      > > >>its advantages.
      > > >> Chris
      > > >>
      > > >>
      > > >>
      > > >>Thanks Chet,
      > > >>>
      > > >>>What could they have done? Jumping into a time machine and
      > >taking
      > >
      > > >>>charge, what could have been done?
      > > >>>
      > > >>>Why didn't every Confederate unit in the Trans-Mississippi head
      > >
      > > >>>towards Vicksburg? EVERYBODY... in Arkansas, Texas, Tennessee,
      >
      > > >>>Mississippi and Oklahoma...including the Partisan Rangers
      > >operating
      > >
      > > >>>in Missouri and Kansas??
      > > >>>
      > > >>>The war is basically over after Vicksburg--all but the
      > > >>>dying--strategically, it was like Stalingrad.
      > > >>>
      > > >>
      > >
      >

    • Show all 56 messages in this topic