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

Re: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?

Expand Messages
  • Don Myers
    Dick, I have been a sideline observer for some time now. I m afraid I have many more questions than answers. I have studied Grant s Ft. s Henry and Donaldson
    Message 1 of 26 , Aug 2 8:33 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dick,

      I have been a sideline observer for some time now. I'm afraid I have
      many more questions than answers. I have studied Grant's Ft.'s Henry and
      Donaldson campaign in some detail, and I am now begining to look at Bragg's
      62 Kentucky Invasion.

      The question posed reference fixed field fortifications by the CSA
      instead of gunboats is thought provoking. Anyone with an shread of tactical
      ability could see the importance of the Rivers in the defense of the South.
      Yet, despite their promises otherwise the Forts were not prepared to meet
      their purpose, and no "Navy" was available to assist in their defense.

      Does anyone believe that not one person in West Tennessee could have
      advised somebody where the high water mark for the Tennessee River was ar
      Ft. Henry. Or was the temperment of the day such that a private or civilian
      could not approach a commander and relay such info?

      Don Myers
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Dick Weeks <shotgun@...>
      To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
      Date: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:55 PM
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?


      >Andy, I could not agree more. Some time back I started this discussion
      >group to try to learn more about the Western Theater.
      >
      >A friend of mine, who is now deceased, that you folks that have visited the
      >various portions of my website knew as Irish, and whom his students knew as
      >Dr. Butner, told me in one of his essay's for the site, "One of the first
      >key moments of the war was found in the security of the border states and
      >the long wide, rolling transportation conduits known as the Ohio,
      Tennessee,
      >Cumberland and Mississippi Rivers. These were the grand prizes that would
      >either spell defeat or victory in the eyes of the people who held them."
      >Since the inception of my studies of the Civil War many years ago I had
      >concentrated my studies in the East. I am very knowledgeable, can and have
      >given tours on the battlefields of Manassas (both 1st and 2nd), South
      >Mountain and Antietam, and Gettysburg. However, Irish's words struck a
      cord
      >and it suddenly dawned on me that regardless of what happened in the East,
      >the war was to be won or lost in the West.
      >
      >Some time after the death of Irish, I decided to see if I could learn more
      >about this "war in the West." I already had read quite a bit and
      >established some opinions but needed more. That being the opinions of
      >others. Irish and I had many a private discussion about the action in the
      >West. We discussed such things as "what if Richmond had fallen in
      >McClellan's Peninsula Campaign? Would this have been the end of the war?
      Why
      >would the South build forts to defend the rivers when any student of
      history
      >knows that "fixed fortifications" are a monument to stupidity? Was it
      >because they were stupid or just did not have the resources to man the
      >rivers with ironclads?" Now, if the war in the West was so important, why
      is
      >the war in the East so studied and the war in the West is virtually
      ignored.
      >Maybe some of you folks have an answer.
      >
      >The main purpose of this this mail is to let you folks know that I am very
      >disappointed in the discussions this group has had to date. Let me try to
      >explain. As of today, there is 176 members in this group. There is no way
      >you are going to convince me that of this number there is not at least half
      >that don't have strong opinions about the war in the West. Why then do we
      >not get more discussions started? I can tell you why I don't really try
      to
      >start a discussion, but can speak for no one else. Think back when you were
      >in school and the teacher/instructor/professor, at the end of the lecture
      >asked "are there any questions?" and you thought to yourself, and were
      >afraid to admit to anyone, that you did not know enough to ask an
      >intelligent question. That is were I am. I hope you all understand
      because
      >I firmly believe there the purpose of a "discussion group" is to "discuss."
      >If there is no one out there that has opinions, questions, ideas, then why
      >am I maintaining it? I hope everyone gets my meaning.
      >
      >I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
      >Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
      >http://www.civilwarhome.com
      >
      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D. <daburden@...>
      >To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
      >Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 4:11 PM
      >Subject: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?
      >
      >
      >> The following quote can be found at:
      >> http://www.delawareonline.com/news/2000/april/story404302000.html
      >>
      >> I thought this was an interesting observation, by a reenactor no less:
      >>
      >>
      >> "I believe you can't understand America today unless you
      >> understand the Civil
      >> War," Pickett said. "We came as close as we've ever come
      >> to being two
      >> nations. And this battle was the turning point in the
      >> war. Prior to Gettysburg, the
      >> South had won everything."
      >>
      >> Has this guy never studied the Western theater? It was, after all,
      >> where the war was won/lost (depending upon your perspective).
      >> Andy
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Don Myers
      Dick, I have been a sideline observer for some time now. I m afraid I have many more questions than answers. I have studied Grant s Ft. s Henry and Donaldson
      Message 2 of 26 , Aug 2 8:33 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Dick,

        I have been a sideline observer for some time now. I'm afraid I have
        many more questions than answers. I have studied Grant's Ft.'s Henry and
        Donaldson campaign in some detail, and I am now begining to look at Bragg's
        62 Kentucky Invasion.

        The question posed reference fixed field fortifications by the CSA
        instead of gunboats is thought provoking. Anyone with an shread of tactical
        ability could see the importance of the Rivers in the defense of the South.
        Yet, despite their promises otherwise the Forts were not prepared to meet
        their purpose, and no "Navy" was available to assist in their defense.

        Does anyone believe that not one person in West Tennessee could have
        advised somebody where the high water mark for the Tennessee River was ar
        Ft. Henry. Or was the temperment of the day such that a private or civilian
        could not approach a commander and relay such info?

        Don Myers
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Dick Weeks <shotgun@...>
        To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
        Date: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:55 PM
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?


        >Andy, I could not agree more. Some time back I started this discussion
        >group to try to learn more about the Western Theater.
        >
        >A friend of mine, who is now deceased, that you folks that have visited the
        >various portions of my website knew as Irish, and whom his students knew as
        >Dr. Butner, told me in one of his essay's for the site, "One of the first
        >key moments of the war was found in the security of the border states and
        >the long wide, rolling transportation conduits known as the Ohio,
        Tennessee,
        >Cumberland and Mississippi Rivers. These were the grand prizes that would
        >either spell defeat or victory in the eyes of the people who held them."
        >Since the inception of my studies of the Civil War many years ago I had
        >concentrated my studies in the East. I am very knowledgeable, can and have
        >given tours on the battlefields of Manassas (both 1st and 2nd), South
        >Mountain and Antietam, and Gettysburg. However, Irish's words struck a
        cord
        >and it suddenly dawned on me that regardless of what happened in the East,
        >the war was to be won or lost in the West.
        >
        >Some time after the death of Irish, I decided to see if I could learn more
        >about this "war in the West." I already had read quite a bit and
        >established some opinions but needed more. That being the opinions of
        >others. Irish and I had many a private discussion about the action in the
        >West. We discussed such things as "what if Richmond had fallen in
        >McClellan's Peninsula Campaign? Would this have been the end of the war?
        Why
        >would the South build forts to defend the rivers when any student of
        history
        >knows that "fixed fortifications" are a monument to stupidity? Was it
        >because they were stupid or just did not have the resources to man the
        >rivers with ironclads?" Now, if the war in the West was so important, why
        is
        >the war in the East so studied and the war in the West is virtually
        ignored.
        >Maybe some of you folks have an answer.
        >
        >The main purpose of this this mail is to let you folks know that I am very
        >disappointed in the discussions this group has had to date. Let me try to
        >explain. As of today, there is 176 members in this group. There is no way
        >you are going to convince me that of this number there is not at least half
        >that don't have strong opinions about the war in the West. Why then do we
        >not get more discussions started? I can tell you why I don't really try
        to
        >start a discussion, but can speak for no one else. Think back when you were
        >in school and the teacher/instructor/professor, at the end of the lecture
        >asked "are there any questions?" and you thought to yourself, and were
        >afraid to admit to anyone, that you did not know enough to ask an
        >intelligent question. That is were I am. I hope you all understand
        because
        >I firmly believe there the purpose of a "discussion group" is to "discuss."
        >If there is no one out there that has opinions, questions, ideas, then why
        >am I maintaining it? I hope everyone gets my meaning.
        >
        >I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
        >Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
        >http://www.civilwarhome.com
        >
        >----- Original Message -----
        >From: D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D. <daburden@...>
        >To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
        >Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 4:11 PM
        >Subject: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?
        >
        >
        >> The following quote can be found at:
        >> http://www.delawareonline.com/news/2000/april/story404302000.html
        >>
        >> I thought this was an interesting observation, by a reenactor no less:
        >>
        >>
        >> "I believe you can't understand America today unless you
        >> understand the Civil
        >> War," Pickett said. "We came as close as we've ever come
        >> to being two
        >> nations. And this battle was the turning point in the
        >> war. Prior to Gettysburg, the
        >> South had won everything."
        >>
        >> Has this guy never studied the Western theater? It was, after all,
        >> where the war was won/lost (depending upon your perspective).
        >> Andy
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Dick Weeks
        Andy, I could not agree more. Some time back I started this discussion group to try to learn more about the Western Theater. A friend of mine, who is now
        Message 3 of 26 , Aug 2 8:52 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Andy, I could not agree more. Some time back I started this discussion
          group to try to learn more about the Western Theater.

          A friend of mine, who is now deceased, that you folks that have visited the
          various portions of my website knew as Irish, and whom his students knew as
          Dr. Butner, told me in one of his essay's for the site, "One of the first
          key moments of the war was found in the security of the border states and
          the long wide, rolling transportation conduits known as the Ohio, Tennessee,
          Cumberland and Mississippi Rivers. These were the grand prizes that would
          either spell defeat or victory in the eyes of the people who held them."
          Since the inception of my studies of the Civil War many years ago I had
          concentrated my studies in the East. I am very knowledgeable, can and have
          given tours on the battlefields of Manassas (both 1st and 2nd), South
          Mountain and Antietam, and Gettysburg. However, Irish's words struck a cord
          and it suddenly dawned on me that regardless of what happened in the East,
          the war was to be won or lost in the West.

          Some time after the death of Irish, I decided to see if I could learn more
          about this "war in the West." I already had read quite a bit and
          established some opinions but needed more. That being the opinions of
          others. Irish and I had many a private discussion about the action in the
          West. We discussed such things as "what if Richmond had fallen in
          McClellan's Peninsula Campaign? Would this have been the end of the war? Why
          would the South build forts to defend the rivers when any student of history
          knows that "fixed fortifications" are a monument to stupidity? Was it
          because they were stupid or just did not have the resources to man the
          rivers with ironclads?" Now, if the war in the West was so important, why is
          the war in the East so studied and the war in the West is virtually ignored.
          Maybe some of you folks have an answer.

          The main purpose of this this mail is to let you folks know that I am very
          disappointed in the discussions this group has had to date. Let me try to
          explain. As of today, there is 176 members in this group. There is no way
          you are going to convince me that of this number there is not at least half
          that don't have strong opinions about the war in the West. Why then do we
          not get more discussions started? I can tell you why I don't really try to
          start a discussion, but can speak for no one else. Think back when you were
          in school and the teacher/instructor/professor, at the end of the lecture
          asked "are there any questions?" and you thought to yourself, and were
          afraid to admit to anyone, that you did not know enough to ask an
          intelligent question. That is were I am. I hope you all understand because
          I firmly believe there the purpose of a "discussion group" is to "discuss."
          If there is no one out there that has opinions, questions, ideas, then why
          am I maintaining it? I hope everyone gets my meaning.

          I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
          Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
          http://www.civilwarhome.com

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D. <daburden@...>
          To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
          Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 4:11 PM
          Subject: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?


          > The following quote can be found at:
          > http://www.delawareonline.com/news/2000/april/story404302000.html
          >
          > I thought this was an interesting observation, by a reenactor no less:
          >
          >
          > "I believe you can't understand America today unless you
          > understand the Civil
          > War," Pickett said. "We came as close as we've ever come
          > to being two
          > nations. And this battle was the turning point in the
          > war. Prior to Gettysburg, the
          > South had won everything."
          >
          > Has this guy never studied the Western theater? It was, after all,
          > where the war was won/lost (depending upon your perspective).
          > Andy
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Dick Weeks
          Andy, I could not agree more. Some time back I started this discussion group to try to learn more about the Western Theater. A friend of mine, who is now
          Message 4 of 26 , Aug 2 8:52 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Andy, I could not agree more. Some time back I started this discussion
            group to try to learn more about the Western Theater.

            A friend of mine, who is now deceased, that you folks that have visited the
            various portions of my website knew as Irish, and whom his students knew as
            Dr. Butner, told me in one of his essay's for the site, "One of the first
            key moments of the war was found in the security of the border states and
            the long wide, rolling transportation conduits known as the Ohio, Tennessee,
            Cumberland and Mississippi Rivers. These were the grand prizes that would
            either spell defeat or victory in the eyes of the people who held them."
            Since the inception of my studies of the Civil War many years ago I had
            concentrated my studies in the East. I am very knowledgeable, can and have
            given tours on the battlefields of Manassas (both 1st and 2nd), South
            Mountain and Antietam, and Gettysburg. However, Irish's words struck a cord
            and it suddenly dawned on me that regardless of what happened in the East,
            the war was to be won or lost in the West.

            Some time after the death of Irish, I decided to see if I could learn more
            about this "war in the West." I already had read quite a bit and
            established some opinions but needed more. That being the opinions of
            others. Irish and I had many a private discussion about the action in the
            West. We discussed such things as "what if Richmond had fallen in
            McClellan's Peninsula Campaign? Would this have been the end of the war? Why
            would the South build forts to defend the rivers when any student of history
            knows that "fixed fortifications" are a monument to stupidity? Was it
            because they were stupid or just did not have the resources to man the
            rivers with ironclads?" Now, if the war in the West was so important, why is
            the war in the East so studied and the war in the West is virtually ignored.
            Maybe some of you folks have an answer.

            The main purpose of this this mail is to let you folks know that I am very
            disappointed in the discussions this group has had to date. Let me try to
            explain. As of today, there is 176 members in this group. There is no way
            you are going to convince me that of this number there is not at least half
            that don't have strong opinions about the war in the West. Why then do we
            not get more discussions started? I can tell you why I don't really try to
            start a discussion, but can speak for no one else. Think back when you were
            in school and the teacher/instructor/professor, at the end of the lecture
            asked "are there any questions?" and you thought to yourself, and were
            afraid to admit to anyone, that you did not know enough to ask an
            intelligent question. That is were I am. I hope you all understand because
            I firmly believe there the purpose of a "discussion group" is to "discuss."
            If there is no one out there that has opinions, questions, ideas, then why
            am I maintaining it? I hope everyone gets my meaning.

            I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
            Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
            http://www.civilwarhome.com

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D. <daburden@...>
            To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 4:11 PM
            Subject: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?


            > The following quote can be found at:
            > http://www.delawareonline.com/news/2000/april/story404302000.html
            >
            > I thought this was an interesting observation, by a reenactor no less:
            >
            >
            > "I believe you can't understand America today unless you
            > understand the Civil
            > War," Pickett said. "We came as close as we've ever come
            > to being two
            > nations. And this battle was the turning point in the
            > war. Prior to Gettysburg, the
            > South had won everything."
            >
            > Has this guy never studied the Western theater? It was, after all,
            > where the war was won/lost (depending upon your perspective).
            > Andy
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • grabrulee@aol.com
            Dear All My feeling on this issue is that the South was so deeply into State s Rights that the only way they would have looked seriously at the strategic
            Message 5 of 26 , Aug 2 9:23 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear All
              My feeling on this issue is that the South was so deeply into State's Rights
              that the only way they would have looked seriously at the strategic
              importance of the River - especially the Mississippi/Missouri highway - was
              if they fell wholly within one state. Instead we have a situation where the
              river divided four Confederate states (Mississippi and Tennessee from Arkasas
              and Louisiana) and two states (Missouri and Kentucky) which had definite
              Confederate sympathy yet nobody thought of viewing this situation on a global
              scale. It was simply a question of nobody being prepared to take
              responsibility for fear of "treading on the toes" of the states involved.
              I only offer this as a suggestion but it is one which is borne out by
              other things I have read which indicate the difficulties Davis and his
              government had in operating the Federal System which was essential were the
              Confederacy to have any chance of establishing the nationhood they were
              claiming. This thinking had the effect of turning the WBTS into a war between
              the Union and eleven individual opponents and the Union took full advantage
              of this in the West by picking off states one at a time until the passage of
              the Mississippi could be forced and the western portion of the Confederacy
              isolated.
              It would be interesting to speculate on how long the war would have
              lasted had there been a similar river system dividing the Eastern theatre,
              would it not? Just a thought.
              Best wishes to all
              Graham Lee
            • grabrulee@aol.com
              Dear All My feeling on this issue is that the South was so deeply into State s Rights that the only way they would have looked seriously at the strategic
              Message 6 of 26 , Aug 2 9:23 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear All
                My feeling on this issue is that the South was so deeply into State's Rights
                that the only way they would have looked seriously at the strategic
                importance of the River - especially the Mississippi/Missouri highway - was
                if they fell wholly within one state. Instead we have a situation where the
                river divided four Confederate states (Mississippi and Tennessee from Arkasas
                and Louisiana) and two states (Missouri and Kentucky) which had definite
                Confederate sympathy yet nobody thought of viewing this situation on a global
                scale. It was simply a question of nobody being prepared to take
                responsibility for fear of "treading on the toes" of the states involved.
                I only offer this as a suggestion but it is one which is borne out by
                other things I have read which indicate the difficulties Davis and his
                government had in operating the Federal System which was essential were the
                Confederacy to have any chance of establishing the nationhood they were
                claiming. This thinking had the effect of turning the WBTS into a war between
                the Union and eleven individual opponents and the Union took full advantage
                of this in the West by picking off states one at a time until the passage of
                the Mississippi could be forced and the western portion of the Confederacy
                isolated.
                It would be interesting to speculate on how long the war would have
                lasted had there been a similar river system dividing the Eastern theatre,
                would it not? Just a thought.
                Best wishes to all
                Graham Lee
              • Terry M. Cabak
                Shotgun... you are right and your perspective is correct. The only thing I fear is the fact that no one cares. However, the answer to the attention the east
                Message 7 of 26 , Aug 2 9:24 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Shotgun... you are right and your perspective is correct. The only thing
                  I fear is the fact that no one cares.

                  However, the answer to the attention the east gets is simple: there's
                  more people there.

                  Also, the two capitals were there and there are more battlefields in
                  driving distance than you can shake a stick at. Ours is a convenience
                  society. We believe what is convenient or suits us at the time. We, all
                  of us, must stop the infestation of hero worship that is professional
                  sports. We must stop supporting and condoning the sickening wages being
                  paid and gained by these filthy people and those who support professional
                  sports before it is too late.

                  It is only because of the proliferation of hero worship that the minds of
                  the young are steered away from those things that really matter, such as
                  the western theatre of the war. Everyone is slowly starting to see that
                  the real fight was waged in the west; the eastern battles were just
                  politics and it's true.

                  Hopefully, now that professional sports are self-destructing from their
                  obscenities, the attention that history study deserves will finally
                  become a reality and true leadership will emerge in this country.

                  All of us, each day and breathing moment, must speak out against these
                  horrible reliances on things shallow and for this reason I cite
                  professional sports. I myself, am a former athelete of hockey and
                  football. The game for me died when the stadiums needed to be made
                  larger to accomodate larger egos. It was no longer a sport, it was
                  money. It is no longer a battlefield, it's wasted space that could be
                  used for parking.

                  The disintegration of this country and the minds of the people can be
                  directly related to the dependence on satisfaction, immediate, paid for.

                  I am not religious, but will not stand by and let meaningful subjects and
                  important human conditions be trounced or forgotten or not be discussed
                  because there's no money in it.

                  Terry Cabak
                • Terry M. Cabak
                  Shotgun... you are right and your perspective is correct. The only thing I fear is the fact that no one cares. However, the answer to the attention the east
                  Message 8 of 26 , Aug 2 9:24 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Shotgun... you are right and your perspective is correct. The only thing
                    I fear is the fact that no one cares.

                    However, the answer to the attention the east gets is simple: there's
                    more people there.

                    Also, the two capitals were there and there are more battlefields in
                    driving distance than you can shake a stick at. Ours is a convenience
                    society. We believe what is convenient or suits us at the time. We, all
                    of us, must stop the infestation of hero worship that is professional
                    sports. We must stop supporting and condoning the sickening wages being
                    paid and gained by these filthy people and those who support professional
                    sports before it is too late.

                    It is only because of the proliferation of hero worship that the minds of
                    the young are steered away from those things that really matter, such as
                    the western theatre of the war. Everyone is slowly starting to see that
                    the real fight was waged in the west; the eastern battles were just
                    politics and it's true.

                    Hopefully, now that professional sports are self-destructing from their
                    obscenities, the attention that history study deserves will finally
                    become a reality and true leadership will emerge in this country.

                    All of us, each day and breathing moment, must speak out against these
                    horrible reliances on things shallow and for this reason I cite
                    professional sports. I myself, am a former athelete of hockey and
                    football. The game for me died when the stadiums needed to be made
                    larger to accomodate larger egos. It was no longer a sport, it was
                    money. It is no longer a battlefield, it's wasted space that could be
                    used for parking.

                    The disintegration of this country and the minds of the people can be
                    directly related to the dependence on satisfaction, immediate, paid for.

                    I am not religious, but will not stand by and let meaningful subjects and
                    important human conditions be trounced or forgotten or not be discussed
                    because there's no money in it.

                    Terry Cabak
                  • grabrulee@aol.com
                    Terry.....your remarks about perspective are absolutely right. As I remarked in an earlier posting, I am British and my Brit education said little about the
                    Message 9 of 26 , Aug 2 9:33 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Terry.....your remarks about perspective are absolutely right. As I remarked
                      in an earlier posting, I am British and my Brit education said little about
                      the War as a whole, got the causes absolutely wrong and suggested that the
                      whole thing was fought out on the Washington/Richmond axis.

                      Again I think this goes beyond the sporting arena and through the whole of
                      Society (on both sides of the Atlantic I must confess). We have created a
                      society in which everything must be "instant". Thrift has given way to debt,
                      the past withits values and traditions is just something that happened and
                      has no relevance to today and the future only exists on a financial
                      projection.

                      Now that I have joined the group I intend to make a full contribution even if
                      most of my posting (as I'm sure they will) are prefaced by "What..?",
                      "Why...?" or "Where...?"

                      Sincerely
                      Graham Lee
                    • grabrulee@aol.com
                      Terry.....your remarks about perspective are absolutely right. As I remarked in an earlier posting, I am British and my Brit education said little about the
                      Message 10 of 26 , Aug 2 9:33 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Terry.....your remarks about perspective are absolutely right. As I remarked
                        in an earlier posting, I am British and my Brit education said little about
                        the War as a whole, got the causes absolutely wrong and suggested that the
                        whole thing was fought out on the Washington/Richmond axis.

                        Again I think this goes beyond the sporting arena and through the whole of
                        Society (on both sides of the Atlantic I must confess). We have created a
                        society in which everything must be "instant". Thrift has given way to debt,
                        the past withits values and traditions is just something that happened and
                        has no relevance to today and the future only exists on a financial
                        projection.

                        Now that I have joined the group I intend to make a full contribution even if
                        most of my posting (as I'm sure they will) are prefaced by "What..?",
                        "Why...?" or "Where...?"

                        Sincerely
                        Graham Lee
                      • JOHN OPAGER
                        Perhaps the answer to the importance of the Eastern Theatre lies in the fact that the nations of Europe had their embassies and observers there. Remember
                        Message 11 of 26 , Aug 3 8:25 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Perhaps the answer to the "importance" of the Eastern Theatre lies in the fact that the nations of Europe had their embassies and observers there. Remember that on the eve of the Sharpsburg-South Mountain-Harper's Ferry campaign the European Powers stood poised to recognize the Confederacy as an independent and sovereign Nation. Had they done so,lost rivers and territory in the West would have become meaningless as Britain and France would probably have forced a negotiated peace OR entered the War as Allies to the South.
                          An unsupported South certainly did LOSE the war as a result of the Western Theatre, but I believe they could only have WON the war in the East, hence their attention to it and ours ever since.
                          Regards to the troops,






                          Luvankizzez, JohnO
                          Sign up for a free About.com Email account at http://About.com

                        • JOHN OPAGER
                          Perhaps the answer to the importance of the Eastern Theatre lies in the fact that the nations of Europe had their embassies and observers there. Remember
                          Message 12 of 26 , Aug 3 8:25 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Perhaps the answer to the "importance" of the Eastern Theatre lies in the fact that the nations of Europe had their embassies and observers there. Remember that on the eve of the Sharpsburg-South Mountain-Harper's Ferry campaign the European Powers stood poised to recognize the Confederacy as an independent and sovereign Nation. Had they done so,lost rivers and territory in the West would have become meaningless as Britain and France would probably have forced a negotiated peace OR entered the War as Allies to the South.
                            An unsupported South certainly did LOSE the war as a result of the Western Theatre, but I believe they could only have WON the war in the East, hence their attention to it and ours ever since.
                            Regards to the troops,






                            Luvankizzez, JohnO
                            Sign up for a free About.com Email account at http://About.com

                          • Terry Cabak
                            Excellent. Finally a worthwhile group.
                            Message 13 of 26 , Aug 3 9:09 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Excellent. Finally a worthwhile group.
                            • Terry Cabak
                              Excellent. Finally a worthwhile group.
                              Message 14 of 26 , Aug 3 9:09 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Excellent. Finally a worthwhile group.
                              • Terry Cabak
                                PS I am from Toronto
                                Message 15 of 26 , Aug 3 9:10 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  PS
                                  I am from Toronto
                                • Terry Cabak
                                  PS I am from Toronto
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Aug 3 9:10 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    PS
                                    I am from Toronto
                                  • Terry Cabak
                                    I am a wargamer and am THIS CLOSE to redoing all my WWII armies into Civil War armies and refighting the Civil War with WWII stuff.. this comes from the old
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Aug 3 9:12 AM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I am a wargamer and am THIS CLOSE to redoing all my WWII armies into Civil
                                      War armies and refighting the Civil War with WWII stuff.. this comes from
                                      the old boardgame Dixie. Anyone interested? I will be broadcasting this
                                      miniature game and other games over the Internet. Info at
                                      http://members.xoom.com/companycmd
                                    • Terry Cabak
                                      I am a wargamer and am THIS CLOSE to redoing all my WWII armies into Civil War armies and refighting the Civil War with WWII stuff.. this comes from the old
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Aug 3 9:12 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I am a wargamer and am THIS CLOSE to redoing all my WWII armies into Civil
                                        War armies and refighting the Civil War with WWII stuff.. this comes from
                                        the old boardgame Dixie. Anyone interested? I will be broadcasting this
                                        miniature game and other games over the Internet. Info at
                                        http://members.xoom.com/companycmd
                                      • Bryan Dameron McRaven
                                        I must agree with John. It would seem that the reason the West has been long ignored is because it never was the primary focus of the Confederacy, the Union,
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Aug 3 9:20 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                                 I must agree with John. It would seem that the reason the "West" has been long ignored is because it never was the primary focus of the Confederacy, the Union, or the European nations. There are multiple reasons for this mindset. Besides the European embassies in Washington, both capitols were on the eastern seaboard. Concern for the military situation of their respective nation's capitols must have drawn contemporaries to the areas in which they were located. The Union's interest in the Eastern theater  is readily understandable due to the proximity of hostile armies to the nation's demographic and industrial centers. Confederate armies were in retrograde after Bragg's invasion of Kentucky in 1862, and when the Rebel armies of the West began offensive movements it was not invade the North, but to reclaim lost Southern territory. The threats were just not as immediate as in the East. 
                                                From the Confederate standpoint, I would argue that the Southern populace's hopes lay with Lee's army for their independence.  Lee fielded the only consistently successful army in the South, up to July 1863, having only lost or drawn battles on foreign soil. When the populace looked to the West, very few events transpired which augmented Southern morale. Thus, I would argue that Southerner's looked to the east, and particulary Robert E. Lee for their independence, and an end to the war.
                                               I think if these premises are accepted, one can readily discern that the study of the war in the east is only natural. Living 135+ years after the fact, we can see that many of the events which transpired in the West severely constrained the chances for Southern Independence, if not guaranteed defeat, but I think it isn't really appropriate to criticise contemporary Americans for their focus on the East.    
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:25 AM
                                          Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?

                                          Perhaps the answer to the "importance" of the Eastern Theatre lies in the fact that the nations of Europe had their embassies and observers there. Remember that on the eve of the Sharpsburg-South Mountain-Harper's Ferry campaign the European Powers stood poised to recognize the Confederacy as an independent and sovereign Nation. Had they done so,lost rivers and territory in the West would have become meaningless as Britain and France would probably have forced a negotiated peace OR entered the War as Allies to the South.
                                          An unsupported South certainly did LOSE the war as a result of the Western Theatre, but I believe they could only have WON the war in the East, hence their attention to it and ours ever since.
                                          Regards to the troops,






                                          Luvankizzez, JohnO
                                          Sign up for a free About.com Email account at http://About.com

                                        • Bryan Dameron McRaven
                                          I must agree with John. It would seem that the reason the West has been long ignored is because it never was the primary focus of the Confederacy, the Union,
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Aug 3 9:20 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                                   I must agree with John. It would seem that the reason the "West" has been long ignored is because it never was the primary focus of the Confederacy, the Union, or the European nations. There are multiple reasons for this mindset. Besides the European embassies in Washington, both capitols were on the eastern seaboard. Concern for the military situation of their respective nation's capitols must have drawn contemporaries to the areas in which they were located. The Union's interest in the Eastern theater  is readily understandable due to the proximity of hostile armies to the nation's demographic and industrial centers. Confederate armies were in retrograde after Bragg's invasion of Kentucky in 1862, and when the Rebel armies of the West began offensive movements it was not invade the North, but to reclaim lost Southern territory. The threats were just not as immediate as in the East. 
                                                  From the Confederate standpoint, I would argue that the Southern populace's hopes lay with Lee's army for their independence.  Lee fielded the only consistently successful army in the South, up to July 1863, having only lost or drawn battles on foreign soil. When the populace looked to the West, very few events transpired which augmented Southern morale. Thus, I would argue that Southerner's looked to the east, and particulary Robert E. Lee for their independence, and an end to the war.
                                                 I think if these premises are accepted, one can readily discern that the study of the war in the east is only natural. Living 135+ years after the fact, we can see that many of the events which transpired in the West severely constrained the chances for Southern Independence, if not guaranteed defeat, but I think it isn't really appropriate to criticise contemporary Americans for their focus on the East.    
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:25 AM
                                            Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?

                                            Perhaps the answer to the "importance" of the Eastern Theatre lies in the fact that the nations of Europe had their embassies and observers there. Remember that on the eve of the Sharpsburg-South Mountain-Harper's Ferry campaign the European Powers stood poised to recognize the Confederacy as an independent and sovereign Nation. Had they done so,lost rivers and territory in the West would have become meaningless as Britain and France would probably have forced a negotiated peace OR entered the War as Allies to the South.
                                            An unsupported South certainly did LOSE the war as a result of the Western Theatre, but I believe they could only have WON the war in the East, hence their attention to it and ours ever since.
                                            Regards to the troops,






                                            Luvankizzez, JohnO
                                            Sign up for a free About.com Email account at http://About.com

                                          • hvonbork@aol.com
                                            While applauding both John and Dameron for a well presented and logical thesis, I would only add Louis Napoleon s belated, backdoor approach to buttress their
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Aug 3 10:46 AM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              While applauding both John and Dameron for a well presented and logical
                                              thesis, I would only add Louis Napoleon's belated, backdoor approach to
                                              buttress their political/military rationale and its' relation to timing. (A
                                              wee bit of Confederate humor there, folks)
                                              Yr. obt. svt.,
                                              Von
                                            • hvonbork@aol.com
                                              While applauding both John and Dameron for a well presented and logical thesis, I would only add Louis Napoleon s belated, backdoor approach to buttress their
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Aug 3 10:46 AM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                While applauding both John and Dameron for a well presented and logical
                                                thesis, I would only add Louis Napoleon's belated, backdoor approach to
                                                buttress their political/military rationale and its' relation to timing. (A
                                                wee bit of Confederate humor there, folks)
                                                Yr. obt. svt.,
                                                Von
                                              • Daniel Giallombardo
                                                ... discussion ... visited the ... knew as ... the first ... states and ... Tennessee, ... would ... them. ... had ... and have ... South ... struck a cord
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Aug 3 11:07 AM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, "Dick Weeks" <shotgun@c...> wrote:
                                                  > Andy, I could not agree more. Some time back I started this
                                                  discussion
                                                  > group to try to learn more about the Western Theater.
                                                  >
                                                  > A friend of mine, who is now deceased, that you folks that have
                                                  visited the
                                                  > various portions of my website knew as Irish, and whom his students
                                                  knew as
                                                  > Dr. Butner, told me in one of his essay's for the site, "One of
                                                  the
                                                  first
                                                  > key moments of the war was found in the security of the border
                                                  states and
                                                  > the long wide, rolling transportation conduits known as the Ohio,
                                                  Tennessee,
                                                  > Cumberland and Mississippi Rivers. These were the grand prizes that
                                                  would
                                                  > either spell defeat or victory in the eyes of the people who held
                                                  them."
                                                  > Since the inception of my studies of the Civil War many years ago I
                                                  had
                                                  > concentrated my studies in the East. I am very knowledgeable, can
                                                  and have
                                                  > given tours on the battlefields of Manassas (both 1st and 2nd),
                                                  South
                                                  > Mountain and Antietam, and Gettysburg. However, Irish's words
                                                  struck a cord
                                                  > and it suddenly dawned on me that regardless of what happened in
                                                  the
                                                  East,
                                                  > the war was to be won or lost in the West.
                                                  >
                                                  > Some time after the death of Irish, I decided to see if I could
                                                  learn more
                                                  > about this "war in the West." I already had read quite a bit and
                                                  > established some opinions but needed more. That being the opinions
                                                  of
                                                  > others. Irish and I had many a private discussion about the action
                                                  in the
                                                  > West. We discussed such things as "what if Richmond had fallen in
                                                  > McClellan's Peninsula Campaign? Would this have been the end of the
                                                  war? Why
                                                  > would the South build forts to defend the rivers when any student
                                                  of
                                                  history
                                                  > knows that "fixed fortifications" are a monument to stupidity? Was
                                                  it
                                                  > because they were stupid or just did not have the resources to man
                                                  the
                                                  > rivers with ironclads?" Now, if the war in the West was so
                                                  important, why is
                                                  > the war in the East so studied and the war in the West is virtually
                                                  ignored.
                                                  > Maybe some of you folks have an answer.
                                                  >
                                                  > The main purpose of this this mail is to let you folks know that I
                                                  am very
                                                  > disappointed in the discussions this group has had to date. Let me
                                                  try to
                                                  > explain. As of today, there is 176 members in this group. There
                                                  is
                                                  no way
                                                  > you are going to convince me that of this number there is not at
                                                  least half
                                                  > that don't have strong opinions about the war in the West. Why
                                                  then
                                                  do we
                                                  > not get more discussions started? I can tell you why I don't
                                                  really try to
                                                  > start a discussion, but can speak for no one else. Think back when
                                                  you were
                                                  > in school and the teacher/instructor/professor, at the end of the
                                                  lecture
                                                  > asked "are there any questions?" and you thought to yourself, and
                                                  were
                                                  > afraid to admit to anyone, that you did not know enough to ask an
                                                  > intelligent question. That is were I am. I hope you all
                                                  understand
                                                  because
                                                  > I firmly believe there the purpose of a "discussion group" is to
                                                  "discuss."
                                                  > If there is no one out there that has opinions, questions, ideas,
                                                  then why
                                                  > am I maintaining it? I hope everyone gets my meaning.
                                                  >
                                                  > I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                                                  > Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                                                  > http://www.civilwarhome.com
                                                  >
                                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                                  > From: D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D. <daburden@m...>
                                                  > To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                                  > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 4:11 PM
                                                  > Subject: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > > The following quote can be found at:
                                                  > > http://www.delawareonline.com/news/2000/april/story404302000.html
                                                  > >
                                                  > > I thought this was an interesting observation, by a reenactor no
                                                  less:
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > "I believe you can't understand America today
                                                  unless you
                                                  > > understand the Civil
                                                  > > War," Pickett said. "We came as close as we've
                                                  ever come
                                                  > > to being two
                                                  > > nations. And this battle was the turning point in
                                                  the
                                                  > > war. Prior to Gettysburg, the
                                                  > > South had won everything."
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Has this guy never studied the Western theater? It was, after
                                                  all,
                                                  > > where the war was won/lost (depending upon your perspective).
                                                  > > Andy
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Dick,

                                                  I don't know that I can agree that the west was the most
                                                  important theater-I can say this: without the defeat of the west,the
                                                  war would've continued much longer.....each defeat in the West-and
                                                  there were lots of them-meant another nail into the
                                                  political/economic
                                                  coffin of the CSA.And the loss of cities like New Orleans and Mobile
                                                  (although Mobile was taken much later)meant that much less coming
                                                  into
                                                  the Confederacy.....the horizon became more and more restricted,the
                                                  options to the government that much fewer......>Dan
                                                  > >
                                                • Daniel Giallombardo
                                                  ... discussion ... visited the ... knew as ... the first ... states and ... Tennessee, ... would ... them. ... had ... and have ... South ... struck a cord
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Aug 3 11:07 AM
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, "Dick Weeks" <shotgun@c...> wrote:
                                                    > Andy, I could not agree more. Some time back I started this
                                                    discussion
                                                    > group to try to learn more about the Western Theater.
                                                    >
                                                    > A friend of mine, who is now deceased, that you folks that have
                                                    visited the
                                                    > various portions of my website knew as Irish, and whom his students
                                                    knew as
                                                    > Dr. Butner, told me in one of his essay's for the site, "One of
                                                    the
                                                    first
                                                    > key moments of the war was found in the security of the border
                                                    states and
                                                    > the long wide, rolling transportation conduits known as the Ohio,
                                                    Tennessee,
                                                    > Cumberland and Mississippi Rivers. These were the grand prizes that
                                                    would
                                                    > either spell defeat or victory in the eyes of the people who held
                                                    them."
                                                    > Since the inception of my studies of the Civil War many years ago I
                                                    had
                                                    > concentrated my studies in the East. I am very knowledgeable, can
                                                    and have
                                                    > given tours on the battlefields of Manassas (both 1st and 2nd),
                                                    South
                                                    > Mountain and Antietam, and Gettysburg. However, Irish's words
                                                    struck a cord
                                                    > and it suddenly dawned on me that regardless of what happened in
                                                    the
                                                    East,
                                                    > the war was to be won or lost in the West.
                                                    >
                                                    > Some time after the death of Irish, I decided to see if I could
                                                    learn more
                                                    > about this "war in the West." I already had read quite a bit and
                                                    > established some opinions but needed more. That being the opinions
                                                    of
                                                    > others. Irish and I had many a private discussion about the action
                                                    in the
                                                    > West. We discussed such things as "what if Richmond had fallen in
                                                    > McClellan's Peninsula Campaign? Would this have been the end of the
                                                    war? Why
                                                    > would the South build forts to defend the rivers when any student
                                                    of
                                                    history
                                                    > knows that "fixed fortifications" are a monument to stupidity? Was
                                                    it
                                                    > because they were stupid or just did not have the resources to man
                                                    the
                                                    > rivers with ironclads?" Now, if the war in the West was so
                                                    important, why is
                                                    > the war in the East so studied and the war in the West is virtually
                                                    ignored.
                                                    > Maybe some of you folks have an answer.
                                                    >
                                                    > The main purpose of this this mail is to let you folks know that I
                                                    am very
                                                    > disappointed in the discussions this group has had to date. Let me
                                                    try to
                                                    > explain. As of today, there is 176 members in this group. There
                                                    is
                                                    no way
                                                    > you are going to convince me that of this number there is not at
                                                    least half
                                                    > that don't have strong opinions about the war in the West. Why
                                                    then
                                                    do we
                                                    > not get more discussions started? I can tell you why I don't
                                                    really try to
                                                    > start a discussion, but can speak for no one else. Think back when
                                                    you were
                                                    > in school and the teacher/instructor/professor, at the end of the
                                                    lecture
                                                    > asked "are there any questions?" and you thought to yourself, and
                                                    were
                                                    > afraid to admit to anyone, that you did not know enough to ask an
                                                    > intelligent question. That is were I am. I hope you all
                                                    understand
                                                    because
                                                    > I firmly believe there the purpose of a "discussion group" is to
                                                    "discuss."
                                                    > If there is no one out there that has opinions, questions, ideas,
                                                    then why
                                                    > am I maintaining it? I hope everyone gets my meaning.
                                                    >
                                                    > I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                                                    > Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                                                    > http://www.civilwarhome.com
                                                    >
                                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                                    > From: D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D. <daburden@m...>
                                                    > To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                                    > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 4:11 PM
                                                    > Subject: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > > The following quote can be found at:
                                                    > > http://www.delawareonline.com/news/2000/april/story404302000.html
                                                    > >
                                                    > > I thought this was an interesting observation, by a reenactor no
                                                    less:
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > "I believe you can't understand America today
                                                    unless you
                                                    > > understand the Civil
                                                    > > War," Pickett said. "We came as close as we've
                                                    ever come
                                                    > > to being two
                                                    > > nations. And this battle was the turning point in
                                                    the
                                                    > > war. Prior to Gettysburg, the
                                                    > > South had won everything."
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Has this guy never studied the Western theater? It was, after
                                                    all,
                                                    > > where the war was won/lost (depending upon your perspective).
                                                    > > Andy
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Dick,

                                                    I don't know that I can agree that the west was the most
                                                    important theater-I can say this: without the defeat of the west,the
                                                    war would've continued much longer.....each defeat in the West-and
                                                    there were lots of them-meant another nail into the
                                                    political/economic
                                                    coffin of the CSA.And the loss of cities like New Orleans and Mobile
                                                    (although Mobile was taken much later)meant that much less coming
                                                    into
                                                    the Confederacy.....the horizon became more and more restricted,the
                                                    options to the government that much fewer......>Dan
                                                    > >
                                                  • Daniel Giallombardo
                                                    ... State s Rights ... highway - was ... where the ... from Arkasas ... definite ... on a global ... involved. ... out by ... his ... were the ... were ... war
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Aug 3 11:18 AM
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, grabrulee@a... wrote:
                                                      > Dear All
                                                      > My feeling on this issue is that the South was so deeply into
                                                      State's Rights
                                                      > that the only way they would have looked seriously at the strategic
                                                      > importance of the River - especially the Mississippi/Missouri
                                                      highway - was
                                                      > if they fell wholly within one state. Instead we have a situation
                                                      where the
                                                      > river divided four Confederate states (Mississippi and Tennessee
                                                      from Arkasas
                                                      > and Louisiana) and two states (Missouri and Kentucky) which had
                                                      definite
                                                      > Confederate sympathy yet nobody thought of viewing this situation
                                                      on
                                                      a global
                                                      > scale. It was simply a question of nobody being prepared to take
                                                      > responsibility for fear of "treading on the toes" of the states
                                                      involved.
                                                      > I only offer this as a suggestion but it is one which is borne
                                                      out by
                                                      > other things I have read which indicate the difficulties Davis and
                                                      his
                                                      > government had in operating the Federal System which was essential
                                                      were the
                                                      > Confederacy to have any chance of establishing the nationhood they
                                                      were
                                                      > claiming. This thinking had the effect of turning the WBTS into a
                                                      war between
                                                      > the Union and eleven individual opponents and the Union took full
                                                      advantage
                                                      > of this in the West by picking off states one at a time until the
                                                      passage of
                                                      > the Mississippi could be forced and the western portion of the
                                                      Confederacy
                                                      > isolated.
                                                      > It would be interesting to speculate on how long the war would
                                                      have
                                                      > lasted had there been a similar river system dividing the Eastern
                                                      theatre,
                                                      > would it not? Just a thought.
                                                      > Best wishes to all
                                                      > Graham Lee



                                                      Graham,

                                                      I believe you have managed to put into words something which
                                                      has
                                                      eluded me for years.....and a fine example (still another example)of
                                                      how states rights killed the confederacy.------Dan
                                                    • Daniel Giallombardo
                                                      ... State s Rights ... highway - was ... where the ... from Arkasas ... definite ... on a global ... involved. ... out by ... his ... were the ... were ... war
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Aug 3 11:18 AM
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, grabrulee@a... wrote:
                                                        > Dear All
                                                        > My feeling on this issue is that the South was so deeply into
                                                        State's Rights
                                                        > that the only way they would have looked seriously at the strategic
                                                        > importance of the River - especially the Mississippi/Missouri
                                                        highway - was
                                                        > if they fell wholly within one state. Instead we have a situation
                                                        where the
                                                        > river divided four Confederate states (Mississippi and Tennessee
                                                        from Arkasas
                                                        > and Louisiana) and two states (Missouri and Kentucky) which had
                                                        definite
                                                        > Confederate sympathy yet nobody thought of viewing this situation
                                                        on
                                                        a global
                                                        > scale. It was simply a question of nobody being prepared to take
                                                        > responsibility for fear of "treading on the toes" of the states
                                                        involved.
                                                        > I only offer this as a suggestion but it is one which is borne
                                                        out by
                                                        > other things I have read which indicate the difficulties Davis and
                                                        his
                                                        > government had in operating the Federal System which was essential
                                                        were the
                                                        > Confederacy to have any chance of establishing the nationhood they
                                                        were
                                                        > claiming. This thinking had the effect of turning the WBTS into a
                                                        war between
                                                        > the Union and eleven individual opponents and the Union took full
                                                        advantage
                                                        > of this in the West by picking off states one at a time until the
                                                        passage of
                                                        > the Mississippi could be forced and the western portion of the
                                                        Confederacy
                                                        > isolated.
                                                        > It would be interesting to speculate on how long the war would
                                                        have
                                                        > lasted had there been a similar river system dividing the Eastern
                                                        theatre,
                                                        > would it not? Just a thought.
                                                        > Best wishes to all
                                                        > Graham Lee



                                                        Graham,

                                                        I believe you have managed to put into words something which
                                                        has
                                                        eluded me for years.....and a fine example (still another example)of
                                                        how states rights killed the confederacy.------Dan
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.