47200Re: The Chattanooga Conundrum
- Sep 24 2:44 PM--- In email@example.com, "Holger Klaßmann" <bucquoy@...> wrote:
>Buell might not have been able to hold Chattanooga, but might have held his job. Beauregard was deep in Mississippi and I doubt that Lee would have spared any of the AofNV. Troops might have been bought down from northern E.Tennessee, but any such response would have significantly changed the status of the war in the east.
> [My first message. Feeling a bit excited. :) ]
> Welcome to the group.
I appreciate your point, but please expound on the "psychological issues".
> I do not think that Buell could have (permanently) succeeded. There were other reasons for his failure besides his weakened army, whch still apply, e. g. psychological ones.
> Lacking the time to check the timetable of events, I can only speculate that there would have been a battle somewhere close to Chattanooga, perhaps we could have had ANV forces in the west one year earlier, and with the relationship betweem Bragg and subordinates not yet that deteriorated, the AoT might have performed better then it did one year later.
> In addition, the USA had not yet developed the means to fight guerilla warfare, so that Buell's LOS would have been much more exposed to attacks.
> It seems rather impropble to me that Buell could have taken Chattanooga, and if, he couldn't have held it.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>