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

777Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston had replaced Pemberton at vicksburg?

Expand Messages
  • Don Plezia
    Apr 7, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I answered a post earlier in which I debated the significance of
      Vicksburg's fall. In it I recited the large quantities of confederate
      stores captured by Union forces at and after the end of the war (two
      years later).

      I would like to continue the argument by stating the the Confederacy was
      not "Cut in Half", but cut by a Fourth. Only Texas, Arkansas and
      Louisiana plus a couple of provisional territories (not counted) were on
      the wrong side of the river. The eight other states on the eastern bank
      of the Mississippi had most of the population, most of the cotton, most
      of the food growing capabilities and etc.

      I'm not aware of any printed sources to give you but most of my
      statistics came from "Battles and Leaders"

      Don Plezia


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D." <daburden@...>
      To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:37 AM
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston had replaced Pemberton at
      vicksburg?


      > Can anyone provide (or direct me to) some hard information with
      regards
      > to the significance of Vicksburg? Just how much of the CSA resources
      > were stranded in the Trans-Mississippi? If it wasn't doomed from the
      > outset, was Vicksburg really what sealed the fate of the CSA? I ask
      not
      > to argue, but rather because I remain unconvinced it was as
      significant
      > an event as it is usually portrayed and would like to know what to
      read
      > to convince me.
      > Andy
      >
      > tsalagibra@... wrote:
      > >
      > > Mr. Plezia,
      > >
      > > << I find your statement that 'Johnston would have surrendered
      sooner'
      > > inexplicable >>
      > > Reading back on what I wrote, I too find it "inexplicable".
      What I meant
      > > to say was that he would have "surrendered *Vicksburg* sooner" by
      vacating
      > > the area with his command.
      > >
      > > <<As to Vicksburg being the turning point of the war; we must
      remember
      > > that it (the war) went on vigorously for another two years. Turning
      > > points imply to me that the end is in sight.>>
      > > I believe, sir, we using the some phrase to indicate two
      different
      > > meanings.
      > > Turning Point is generally considered as that point in a war,
      battle, or
      > > skirmish when one side gains a strategic or tactical advantage which
      far
      > > outweighs the corresponding loss to the other side.
      > > Also, I believe what you are referring to is generally known in
      chess
      > > circles as "endgame". This is the phase of the game to which you
      have the
      > > power and position to force the checkmate. However, in order to
      achieve that
      > > power and position there was some move or series of moves during the
      "middle
      > > game" which gave birth to your advantage. This move or series would
      be the
      > > "turning point".
      > > During the actual course of a war or battle you will never know
      when the
      > > "turning point" was achieved without, of course, the benefit of
      psychic
      > > abilities. Therefore, it would necessarily follow that this moment
      can only
      > > be observed from the vantage point of history when you can review
      the entire
      > > event in context and, hopefully, determine the move or series of
      moves which
      > > turned the fortunes of war to your favor.
      > > Looking back from our vantage point of history one can readily
      see that
      > > when the Federals regained complete and unmolested access to the
      Mississippi
      > > River; that when the Confederacy was divided (which, by the way, is
      Step 1 in
      > > the classic maneuver called "divide and conquer") and had lost
      access (even
      > > mail/telegraph contact) with half of their country; I believe it
      would be a
      > > fair assessment to say it was the turning point of the war. A major
      > > objective had been gained for the Union and it's corresponding loss
      to the
      > > Confederacy was overwhelming.
      > > All that remained for the Federals to accomplish after this
      division was
      > > Step 2 (conquer). Which they performed to an exacting degree.
      > >
      > > <<You must read some considered opinions of the battle before you
      make
      > > statements such as you did. >>
      > > Thank you for the advice. However, "considered opinions" could
      be a
      > > relative term in this case.
      > >
      > > Respectfully,
      > >
      > > Steve McGraw
      > >
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      --
      > > Save up to 54% on Quest & Kelty tents, backpacks, sleeping bags and
      > > outdoor gear. FREE Shipping and a 30 Day Money-Back Guarantee at
      > > screaminghotdeals.com
      > > http://click.egroups.com/1/2716/2/_/14182/_/955049348/
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      --
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      --
      > @Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.
      > Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:
      > http://click.egroups.com/1/2345/2/_/14182/_/955117567/
      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      --
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic