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

46983Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion

Expand Messages
  • hank9174
    Feb 3, 2011
      Perhaps there is an morale element of having the AotC (Hazen) break out rather then Hooker (AotP) break in?

      The Army of the Cumberland has a chip on its shoulder with both the AotT and a large portion of the eastern army coming to its 'rescue'...

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Patricia B. Swan" <pbswan@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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