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

[civilwarwest] Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?

Expand Messages
  • Stewart L Bennett
    Question to any and all out there. Did Lincoln really need Sherman s gift of the city of Atlanta in order for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from
    Message 1 of 29 , Oct 13, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Question to any and all out there.

      Did Lincoln really need Sherman's "gift" of the city of Atlanta in order
      for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from others that the taking of
      Atlanta assured Lincoln's re-election.The more I think about it the more
      uncomfortable I am with it.What do you think..? Even if Atlanta did hold
      out until after the election did Lincoln really have anything to worry
      about?

      Stewart

      ___________________________________________________________________
      Get the Internet just the way you want it.
      Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
      Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
    • Stewart L Bennett
      Question to any and all out there. Did Lincoln really need Sherman s gift of the city of Atlanta in order for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from
      Message 2 of 29 , Oct 13, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Question to any and all out there.

        Did Lincoln really need Sherman's "gift" of the city of Atlanta in order
        for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from others that the taking of
        Atlanta assured Lincoln's re-election.The more I think about it the more
        uncomfortable I am with it.What do you think..? Even if Atlanta did hold
        out until after the election did Lincoln really have anything to worry
        about?

        Stewart

        ___________________________________________________________________
        Get the Internet just the way you want it.
        Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
        Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
      • Karen Hall
        I really don t think that Lincoln needed Atlanta to win re-election. The North was on a winning role and the war looked like it was going to be over soon. By
        Message 3 of 29 , Oct 14, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          I really don't think that Lincoln needed Atlanta to win re-election. The
          North was on a winning role and the war looked like it was going to be over
          soon. By appointing Grant to lead the Army Lincoln had finally found someone
          who knew how to defeat Lee. Although people were getting tired of the war I
          think they knew that only Lincoln would be able to see them through to the
          end. I also think that most people were thinking about what to do with the
          South after the war and felt that Lincoln was a good leader to bring the
          country back together.
          Just my thoughts.
          Karen Hall
          On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:38:55 -0500, Stewart L Bennett wro
          > Question to any and all out there.
          >
          > Did Lincoln really need Sherman's "gift" of the city of Atlanta in order
          > for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from others that the taking of
          > Atlanta assured Lincoln's re-election.The more I think about it the more
          > uncomfortable I am with it.What do you think..? Even if Atlanta did hold
          > out until after the election did Lincoln really have anything to worry
          > about?
          >
          > Stewart
          >
          > ___________________________________________________________________
          > Get the Internet just the way you want it.
          > Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
          > Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
          > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
          >
          >
          >
          >





          ________________________________________________________________
          Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
          Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
        • Karen Hall
          I really don t think that Lincoln needed Atlanta to win re-election. The North was on a winning role and the war looked like it was going to be over soon. By
          Message 4 of 29 , Oct 14, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            I really don't think that Lincoln needed Atlanta to win re-election. The
            North was on a winning role and the war looked like it was going to be over
            soon. By appointing Grant to lead the Army Lincoln had finally found someone
            who knew how to defeat Lee. Although people were getting tired of the war I
            think they knew that only Lincoln would be able to see them through to the
            end. I also think that most people were thinking about what to do with the
            South after the war and felt that Lincoln was a good leader to bring the
            country back together.
            Just my thoughts.
            Karen Hall
            On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:38:55 -0500, Stewart L Bennett wro
            > Question to any and all out there.
            >
            > Did Lincoln really need Sherman's "gift" of the city of Atlanta in order
            > for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from others that the taking of
            > Atlanta assured Lincoln's re-election.The more I think about it the more
            > uncomfortable I am with it.What do you think..? Even if Atlanta did hold
            > out until after the election did Lincoln really have anything to worry
            > about?
            >
            > Stewart
            >
            > ___________________________________________________________________
            > Get the Internet just the way you want it.
            > Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
            > Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >
            > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
            > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
            >
            >
            >
            >





            ________________________________________________________________
            Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
            Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
          • L.A. Chambliss
            Dear Karen, Stewart, and group, One of the hardest things to do, at least for me, is to study the War or any other historical event from the perspective of
            Message 5 of 29 , Oct 14, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Karen, Stewart, and group,

              One of the hardest things to do, at least for me, is to study the War or any
              other historical event from the perspective of those who were there IN that
              time, blocking out everything that we now know came after that.

              I think that Lincoln THOUGHT that he needed Atlanta, or some other major
              battlefield victory, and preferably a consistent string of them, very very
              badly. What we now think of as the "turning point" victories of Gettysburg and
              Vicksburg were now a long time in the past. Chickamauga had been a dreadful
              setback to what seemed at the time like an inexorable sweep by Rosecrans. The
              war in the east had settled into the siege around Petersburg that must have
              seemed to the public to be going absolutely nowhere in terms of bringing the
              war to a swift conclusion.

              The example I will cite here as far as battlefield reality vs. political
              reality is the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. The action was a near
              total loss for the North Vietnamese. They lost huge amounts of materiel and
              manpower, held none of the objectives that they tried to take. From a military
              perspective it was the last desperate gasp of a force on the verge of losing.

              From a POLITICAL perspective though it was an unmitigated loss for Lyndon
              Johnson, simply because the enemy was not supposed to be anywhere NEAR able to
              attempt such a thing. The shock that went through the American people (I was
              about 17 at the time and remember it well) was palpable. Commentators like
              Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey, who had previously taken the attitude of "we
              must stay the course", started giving editorials to the effect of "We have
              spent all this time, money and blood, and these people are just not giving up,
              it's time to cut our losses and get out."

              To return to the War that we are discussing here though, I can see a very
              similar situation happening if Jefferson Davis had ordered that Atlanta be
              defended to the last man, and then pumped in every man and boy capable of
              firing a gun. Heck, if he had had a 20-century attitude towards propaganda he
              would have staged some photos of women drilling with rifles, followed by one of
              armed slaves going to the defense of their country! Can you imagine THOSE
              pictures running in Harper's Weekly, or the London Times? ;)

              Could they have held out from Sept. 1 till Election Day? Who knows? But the
              constant attitude of Johnston, and then Hood, that "I must save my army to
              fight another day" accomplished nothing but saving them to surrender at
              Bentonville or Appomatox.

              Laurie Chambliss
              Civil War Interactive
              www.almshouse.com

              Karen Hall wrote:

              > I really don't think that Lincoln needed Atlanta to win re-election. The
              > North was on a winning role and the war looked like it was going to be over
              > soon. By appointing Grant to lead the Army Lincoln had finally found someone
              > who knew how to defeat Lee. Although people were getting tired of the war I
              > think they knew that only Lincoln would be able to see them through to the
              > end. I also think that most people were thinking about what to do with the
              > South after the war and felt that Lincoln was a good leader to bring the
              > country back together.
              > Just my thoughts.
              > Karen Hall
              > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:38:55 -0500, Stewart L Bennett wro
              > > Question to any and all out there.
              > >
              > > Did Lincoln really need Sherman's "gift" of the city of Atlanta in order
              > > for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from others that the taking of
              > > Atlanta assured Lincoln's re-election.The more I think about it the more
              > > uncomfortable I am with it.What do you think..? Even if Atlanta did hold
              > > out until after the election did Lincoln really have anything to worry
              > > about?
              > >
              > > Stewart
              > >
              > > ___________________________________________________________________
              > > Get the Internet just the way you want it.
              > > Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
              > > Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > >
              > > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
              > > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              > ________________________________________________________________
              > Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
              > Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
              > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
            • L.A. Chambliss
              Dear Karen, Stewart, and group, One of the hardest things to do, at least for me, is to study the War or any other historical event from the perspective of
              Message 6 of 29 , Oct 14, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Karen, Stewart, and group,

                One of the hardest things to do, at least for me, is to study the War or any
                other historical event from the perspective of those who were there IN that
                time, blocking out everything that we now know came after that.

                I think that Lincoln THOUGHT that he needed Atlanta, or some other major
                battlefield victory, and preferably a consistent string of them, very very
                badly. What we now think of as the "turning point" victories of Gettysburg and
                Vicksburg were now a long time in the past. Chickamauga had been a dreadful
                setback to what seemed at the time like an inexorable sweep by Rosecrans. The
                war in the east had settled into the siege around Petersburg that must have
                seemed to the public to be going absolutely nowhere in terms of bringing the
                war to a swift conclusion.

                The example I will cite here as far as battlefield reality vs. political
                reality is the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. The action was a near
                total loss for the North Vietnamese. They lost huge amounts of materiel and
                manpower, held none of the objectives that they tried to take. From a military
                perspective it was the last desperate gasp of a force on the verge of losing.

                From a POLITICAL perspective though it was an unmitigated loss for Lyndon
                Johnson, simply because the enemy was not supposed to be anywhere NEAR able to
                attempt such a thing. The shock that went through the American people (I was
                about 17 at the time and remember it well) was palpable. Commentators like
                Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey, who had previously taken the attitude of "we
                must stay the course", started giving editorials to the effect of "We have
                spent all this time, money and blood, and these people are just not giving up,
                it's time to cut our losses and get out."

                To return to the War that we are discussing here though, I can see a very
                similar situation happening if Jefferson Davis had ordered that Atlanta be
                defended to the last man, and then pumped in every man and boy capable of
                firing a gun. Heck, if he had had a 20-century attitude towards propaganda he
                would have staged some photos of women drilling with rifles, followed by one of
                armed slaves going to the defense of their country! Can you imagine THOSE
                pictures running in Harper's Weekly, or the London Times? ;)

                Could they have held out from Sept. 1 till Election Day? Who knows? But the
                constant attitude of Johnston, and then Hood, that "I must save my army to
                fight another day" accomplished nothing but saving them to surrender at
                Bentonville or Appomatox.

                Laurie Chambliss
                Civil War Interactive
                www.almshouse.com

                Karen Hall wrote:

                > I really don't think that Lincoln needed Atlanta to win re-election. The
                > North was on a winning role and the war looked like it was going to be over
                > soon. By appointing Grant to lead the Army Lincoln had finally found someone
                > who knew how to defeat Lee. Although people were getting tired of the war I
                > think they knew that only Lincoln would be able to see them through to the
                > end. I also think that most people were thinking about what to do with the
                > South after the war and felt that Lincoln was a good leader to bring the
                > country back together.
                > Just my thoughts.
                > Karen Hall
                > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:38:55 -0500, Stewart L Bennett wro
                > > Question to any and all out there.
                > >
                > > Did Lincoln really need Sherman's "gift" of the city of Atlanta in order
                > > for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from others that the taking of
                > > Atlanta assured Lincoln's re-election.The more I think about it the more
                > > uncomfortable I am with it.What do you think..? Even if Atlanta did hold
                > > out until after the election did Lincoln really have anything to worry
                > > about?
                > >
                > > Stewart
                > >
                > > ___________________________________________________________________
                > > Get the Internet just the way you want it.
                > > Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
                > > Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
                > >
                > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > >
                > > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                > > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                > ________________________________________________________________
                > Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
                > Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
                >
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
              • John C Roger
                Here s my two cents worth. A major victory in the summer of 64 was, indeed, critical to Lincoln s reelection hopes, I believe. It certainly wasn t coming in
                Message 7 of 29 , Oct 14, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Here's my two cents worth. A major victory in the summer of '64 was,
                  indeed, critical to Lincoln's reelection hopes, I believe. It certainly
                  wasn't coming in the east, even though Grant's steady and effective "move by
                  the left flank" strategy slowly pushed Lee's embattled army to the gates of
                  Richmond. Grant's campaign came at a horrendous cost of lives with no
                  foreseeable hope for ultimate victory. Sherman was bogged down in No.
                  Georgia and faced the prospect of doing battle with Rebel commanders,
                  Longstreet, Hood, and Johnston, who (although not perfect by a long shot)
                  were vastly superior soldiers compared to Bragg. Jubal Early was in the
                  Valley threatening Washington, and Lincoln had Copperhead and "peace"
                  Democrats nipping at his heels - - so much so that a November victory by his
                  old nemesis Geo. McClellan could have certainly led to a settled truce with
                  the Confederacy and the continuation of slavery (it was actually in Little
                  Mac's political platform!!).
                  The average soldier in the field was overwhelmingly for "Father Abraham",
                  but for the common voters up north it was another question altogether.
                  Regards to all, John

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: L.A. Chambliss <xanthipp@...>
                  To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                  Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 9:18 AM
                  Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?


                  >Dear Karen, Stewart, and group,
                  >
                  >One of the hardest things to do, at least for me, is to study the War or
                  any
                  >other historical event from the perspective of those who were there IN that
                  >time, blocking out everything that we now know came after that.
                  >
                  >I think that Lincoln THOUGHT that he needed Atlanta, or some other major
                  >battlefield victory, and preferably a consistent string of them, very very
                  >badly. What we now think of as the "turning point" victories of Gettysburg
                  and
                  >Vicksburg were now a long time in the past. Chickamauga had been a dreadful
                  >setback to what seemed at the time like an inexorable sweep by Rosecrans.
                  The
                  >war in the east had settled into the siege around Petersburg that must have
                  >seemed to the public to be going absolutely nowhere in terms of bringing
                  the
                  >war to a swift conclusion.
                  >
                  >The example I will cite here as far as battlefield reality vs. political
                  >reality is the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. The action was a near
                  >total loss for the North Vietnamese. They lost huge amounts of materiel and
                  >manpower, held none of the objectives that they tried to take. From a
                  military
                  >perspective it was the last desperate gasp of a force on the verge of
                  losing.
                  >
                  >From a POLITICAL perspective though it was an unmitigated loss for Lyndon
                  >Johnson, simply because the enemy was not supposed to be anywhere NEAR able
                  to
                  >attempt such a thing. The shock that went through the American people (I
                  was
                  >about 17 at the time and remember it well) was palpable. Commentators like
                  >Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey, who had previously taken the attitude of
                  "we
                  >must stay the course", started giving editorials to the effect of "We have
                  >spent all this time, money and blood, and these people are just not giving
                  up,
                  >it's time to cut our losses and get out."
                  >
                  >To return to the War that we are discussing here though, I can see a very
                  >similar situation happening if Jefferson Davis had ordered that Atlanta be
                  >defended to the last man, and then pumped in every man and boy capable of
                  >firing a gun. Heck, if he had had a 20-century attitude towards propaganda
                  he
                  >would have staged some photos of women drilling with rifles, followed by
                  one of
                  >armed slaves going to the defense of their country! Can you imagine THOSE
                  >pictures running in Harper's Weekly, or the London Times? ;)
                  >
                  >Could they have held out from Sept. 1 till Election Day? Who knows? But the
                  >constant attitude of Johnston, and then Hood, that "I must save my army to
                  >fight another day" accomplished nothing but saving them to surrender at
                  >Bentonville or Appomatox.
                  >
                  >Laurie Chambliss
                  >Civil War Interactive
                  >www.almshouse.com
                  >
                  >Karen Hall wrote:
                  >
                  >> I really don't think that Lincoln needed Atlanta to win re-election. The
                  >> North was on a winning role and the war looked like it was going to be
                  over
                  >> soon. By appointing Grant to lead the Army Lincoln had finally found
                  someone
                  >> who knew how to defeat Lee. Although people were getting tired of the war
                  I
                  >> think they knew that only Lincoln would be able to see them through to
                  the
                  >> end. I also think that most people were thinking about what to do with
                  the
                  >> South after the war and felt that Lincoln was a good leader to bring the
                  >> country back together.
                  >> Just my thoughts.
                  >> Karen Hall
                  >> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:38:55 -0500, Stewart L Bennett wro
                  >> > Question to any and all out there.
                  >> >
                  >> > Did Lincoln really need Sherman's "gift" of the city of Atlanta in
                  order
                  >> > for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from others that the taking of
                  >> > Atlanta assured Lincoln's re-election.The more I think about it the
                  more
                  >> > uncomfortable I am with it.What do you think..? Even if Atlanta did
                  hold
                  >> > out until after the election did Lincoln really have anything to worry
                  >> > about?
                  >> >
                  >> > Stewart
                  >> >
                  >> > ___________________________________________________________________
                  >> > Get the Internet just the way you want it.
                  >> > Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
                  >> > Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
                  >> >
                  >>
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >> >
                  >> > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                  >> > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >>
                  >> ________________________________________________________________
                  >> Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
                  >> Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
                  >>
                  >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >>
                  >> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                  >> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                  >
                  >
                  >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >
                  >eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                  >http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • John C Roger
                  Here s my two cents worth. A major victory in the summer of 64 was, indeed, critical to Lincoln s reelection hopes, I believe. It certainly wasn t coming in
                  Message 8 of 29 , Oct 14, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Here's my two cents worth. A major victory in the summer of '64 was,
                    indeed, critical to Lincoln's reelection hopes, I believe. It certainly
                    wasn't coming in the east, even though Grant's steady and effective "move by
                    the left flank" strategy slowly pushed Lee's embattled army to the gates of
                    Richmond. Grant's campaign came at a horrendous cost of lives with no
                    foreseeable hope for ultimate victory. Sherman was bogged down in No.
                    Georgia and faced the prospect of doing battle with Rebel commanders,
                    Longstreet, Hood, and Johnston, who (although not perfect by a long shot)
                    were vastly superior soldiers compared to Bragg. Jubal Early was in the
                    Valley threatening Washington, and Lincoln had Copperhead and "peace"
                    Democrats nipping at his heels - - so much so that a November victory by his
                    old nemesis Geo. McClellan could have certainly led to a settled truce with
                    the Confederacy and the continuation of slavery (it was actually in Little
                    Mac's political platform!!).
                    The average soldier in the field was overwhelmingly for "Father Abraham",
                    but for the common voters up north it was another question altogether.
                    Regards to all, John

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: L.A. Chambliss <xanthipp@...>
                    To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                    Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 9:18 AM
                    Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?


                    >Dear Karen, Stewart, and group,
                    >
                    >One of the hardest things to do, at least for me, is to study the War or
                    any
                    >other historical event from the perspective of those who were there IN that
                    >time, blocking out everything that we now know came after that.
                    >
                    >I think that Lincoln THOUGHT that he needed Atlanta, or some other major
                    >battlefield victory, and preferably a consistent string of them, very very
                    >badly. What we now think of as the "turning point" victories of Gettysburg
                    and
                    >Vicksburg were now a long time in the past. Chickamauga had been a dreadful
                    >setback to what seemed at the time like an inexorable sweep by Rosecrans.
                    The
                    >war in the east had settled into the siege around Petersburg that must have
                    >seemed to the public to be going absolutely nowhere in terms of bringing
                    the
                    >war to a swift conclusion.
                    >
                    >The example I will cite here as far as battlefield reality vs. political
                    >reality is the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. The action was a near
                    >total loss for the North Vietnamese. They lost huge amounts of materiel and
                    >manpower, held none of the objectives that they tried to take. From a
                    military
                    >perspective it was the last desperate gasp of a force on the verge of
                    losing.
                    >
                    >From a POLITICAL perspective though it was an unmitigated loss for Lyndon
                    >Johnson, simply because the enemy was not supposed to be anywhere NEAR able
                    to
                    >attempt such a thing. The shock that went through the American people (I
                    was
                    >about 17 at the time and remember it well) was palpable. Commentators like
                    >Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey, who had previously taken the attitude of
                    "we
                    >must stay the course", started giving editorials to the effect of "We have
                    >spent all this time, money and blood, and these people are just not giving
                    up,
                    >it's time to cut our losses and get out."
                    >
                    >To return to the War that we are discussing here though, I can see a very
                    >similar situation happening if Jefferson Davis had ordered that Atlanta be
                    >defended to the last man, and then pumped in every man and boy capable of
                    >firing a gun. Heck, if he had had a 20-century attitude towards propaganda
                    he
                    >would have staged some photos of women drilling with rifles, followed by
                    one of
                    >armed slaves going to the defense of their country! Can you imagine THOSE
                    >pictures running in Harper's Weekly, or the London Times? ;)
                    >
                    >Could they have held out from Sept. 1 till Election Day? Who knows? But the
                    >constant attitude of Johnston, and then Hood, that "I must save my army to
                    >fight another day" accomplished nothing but saving them to surrender at
                    >Bentonville or Appomatox.
                    >
                    >Laurie Chambliss
                    >Civil War Interactive
                    >www.almshouse.com
                    >
                    >Karen Hall wrote:
                    >
                    >> I really don't think that Lincoln needed Atlanta to win re-election. The
                    >> North was on a winning role and the war looked like it was going to be
                    over
                    >> soon. By appointing Grant to lead the Army Lincoln had finally found
                    someone
                    >> who knew how to defeat Lee. Although people were getting tired of the war
                    I
                    >> think they knew that only Lincoln would be able to see them through to
                    the
                    >> end. I also think that most people were thinking about what to do with
                    the
                    >> South after the war and felt that Lincoln was a good leader to bring the
                    >> country back together.
                    >> Just my thoughts.
                    >> Karen Hall
                    >> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:38:55 -0500, Stewart L Bennett wro
                    >> > Question to any and all out there.
                    >> >
                    >> > Did Lincoln really need Sherman's "gift" of the city of Atlanta in
                    order
                    >> > for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from others that the taking of
                    >> > Atlanta assured Lincoln's re-election.The more I think about it the
                    more
                    >> > uncomfortable I am with it.What do you think..? Even if Atlanta did
                    hold
                    >> > out until after the election did Lincoln really have anything to worry
                    >> > about?
                    >> >
                    >> > Stewart
                    >> >
                    >> > ___________________________________________________________________
                    >> > Get the Internet just the way you want it.
                    >> > Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
                    >> > Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
                    >> >
                    >>
                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >> >
                    >> > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                    >> > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >>
                    >> ________________________________________________________________
                    >> Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
                    >> Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
                    >>
                    >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >>
                    >> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                    >> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                    >
                    >
                    >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    >eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                    >http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Terry Arliskas
                    Another opinion to add to the pile: I believe that Sherman s gift of Atlanta was a huge boost to the Lincoln campaign - as others have stated, the war was
                    Message 9 of 29 , Oct 15, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Another opinion to add to the pile:

                      I believe that Sherman's "gift" of Atlanta was a huge boost to the Lincoln
                      campaign - as others have stated, the war was not progressing in Virginia as
                      rapidly as many wished - casualty lists were long the summer of '64, and
                      even at that time late in the War, the Copperhead movement was alive and
                      well. Even though Grant had moved East, many were of the consensus that the
                      War would be won in the West, and then more troops sent East to aid the
                      Potomac Army. Lincoln was not a popular president with the people at home.
                      BUT, he was popular with the men in uniform. The sentiment of the men in
                      uniform was that they were in it for the long haul - they were not leaving
                      the service until the rebellion was put down. I am of the opinion that
                      giving the soldiers the right to vote from the field was far more
                      influential to the reelection of Lincoln than the fall of Atlanta. Lincoln
                      himself thought so - evidence his "the pen is mightier than the sword"
                      quote.

                      I submit in support of my opinion the following letter from Private Marcus
                      Pratt Wheeler, Co. G, 29th Wisc. Vols dated November 8, 1864. The sentiment
                      expressed is the one commonly found among the men of the regiment, but Pvt.
                      Wheeler's letter is probably the most eloquently written of those that I've
                      come across:

                      "November 8, 1864
                      Mouth of White River

                      Dear Mother: Election 1864 & c.

                      I will write today just to keep you posted if I do remain in ignorance of
                      your welfare. Besides, I expect to move at once, when the thing does break
                      loose and letter comes at all. Nothing startling has transpired since my
                      last. Yesterday we had an election, and Abe got a large majority, McClellan
                      getting 88, Abe 280. Total number votes cast, 360! In the 21st Iowa, in
                      our Brigade, the vote stood, Lincoln 410, McClellan 24! The other regiments
                      are from Ill. and Ind. and do not vote. The 120th Ohio had less than 130
                      votes, and stands very equal.

                      Co. "G" went 25 union, 14 copperhead. The latter votes were
                      German from Cross Plains. All the Westport men voted for Abe! Enclosed I
                      send the identical ticket which I voted. I want you to preserve it, as they
                      do the copies of the Emancipation Proclimation as I consider it a valuable
                      relic. I also send a "secesh" ticket voted at the same time. Please keep
                      both, as I may want to refer McClellan men to the "men they voted for" in
                      future time. I shall frame them and keep them for my grandchildren to look
                      upon with pride! Tell Cramer that I recalled his prophecy made four years
                      since - that "men who voted for Lincoln in 1860 would be damned shamed of it
                      before his term of office expired" and "Lincoln would kill the Republican
                      Party"! I was a Lincoln man then, and I voted for him yesterday! I am
                      proud to say it, and am ready to avow it "from the housetops"! But the
                      "Little Mackrels" were so ashamed of their position that they were shy and
                      foxy, as old Damp, and have no reason to give for voting as they did except
                      "Dey had fought long enough and want to have Peace and go home"!!!

                      We are "Union" men all the time! Consequently, we are Lincoln men! We are
                      "Peace men" too, but not anxious to give the South independence or to abate
                      one "just a little" of our first claims until we are decidedly and
                      unequivocally whipped! We don't see that this war had "failed", even so far
                      - it is gradually restoring the Union!

                      And I go in for calling out all the men at home and keeping all now in the
                      field until the rebs are whipped or we are! If it is not considered
                      necessary to have all out, then let those at home take a turn at serving the
                      country, which feeds and protects them! One word more to Cramer - he
                      prophecied that in case of war between the states, foreign powers would step
                      in and we would lose our liberty and the right to vote "in less than six
                      months". Please tell him I voted, after four years of war!

                      Ed has been on fatigue duty at the commissary and is getting is supper.
                      Sends love and regard to which add mine.

                      Yours affectionatly,

                      M.P. Wheeler"

                      ______________________________________________________
                    • Terry Arliskas
                      Another opinion to add to the pile: I believe that Sherman s gift of Atlanta was a huge boost to the Lincoln campaign - as others have stated, the war was
                      Message 10 of 29 , Oct 15, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Another opinion to add to the pile:

                        I believe that Sherman's "gift" of Atlanta was a huge boost to the Lincoln
                        campaign - as others have stated, the war was not progressing in Virginia as
                        rapidly as many wished - casualty lists were long the summer of '64, and
                        even at that time late in the War, the Copperhead movement was alive and
                        well. Even though Grant had moved East, many were of the consensus that the
                        War would be won in the West, and then more troops sent East to aid the
                        Potomac Army. Lincoln was not a popular president with the people at home.
                        BUT, he was popular with the men in uniform. The sentiment of the men in
                        uniform was that they were in it for the long haul - they were not leaving
                        the service until the rebellion was put down. I am of the opinion that
                        giving the soldiers the right to vote from the field was far more
                        influential to the reelection of Lincoln than the fall of Atlanta. Lincoln
                        himself thought so - evidence his "the pen is mightier than the sword"
                        quote.

                        I submit in support of my opinion the following letter from Private Marcus
                        Pratt Wheeler, Co. G, 29th Wisc. Vols dated November 8, 1864. The sentiment
                        expressed is the one commonly found among the men of the regiment, but Pvt.
                        Wheeler's letter is probably the most eloquently written of those that I've
                        come across:

                        "November 8, 1864
                        Mouth of White River

                        Dear Mother: Election 1864 & c.

                        I will write today just to keep you posted if I do remain in ignorance of
                        your welfare. Besides, I expect to move at once, when the thing does break
                        loose and letter comes at all. Nothing startling has transpired since my
                        last. Yesterday we had an election, and Abe got a large majority, McClellan
                        getting 88, Abe 280. Total number votes cast, 360! In the 21st Iowa, in
                        our Brigade, the vote stood, Lincoln 410, McClellan 24! The other regiments
                        are from Ill. and Ind. and do not vote. The 120th Ohio had less than 130
                        votes, and stands very equal.

                        Co. "G" went 25 union, 14 copperhead. The latter votes were
                        German from Cross Plains. All the Westport men voted for Abe! Enclosed I
                        send the identical ticket which I voted. I want you to preserve it, as they
                        do the copies of the Emancipation Proclimation as I consider it a valuable
                        relic. I also send a "secesh" ticket voted at the same time. Please keep
                        both, as I may want to refer McClellan men to the "men they voted for" in
                        future time. I shall frame them and keep them for my grandchildren to look
                        upon with pride! Tell Cramer that I recalled his prophecy made four years
                        since - that "men who voted for Lincoln in 1860 would be damned shamed of it
                        before his term of office expired" and "Lincoln would kill the Republican
                        Party"! I was a Lincoln man then, and I voted for him yesterday! I am
                        proud to say it, and am ready to avow it "from the housetops"! But the
                        "Little Mackrels" were so ashamed of their position that they were shy and
                        foxy, as old Damp, and have no reason to give for voting as they did except
                        "Dey had fought long enough and want to have Peace and go home"!!!

                        We are "Union" men all the time! Consequently, we are Lincoln men! We are
                        "Peace men" too, but not anxious to give the South independence or to abate
                        one "just a little" of our first claims until we are decidedly and
                        unequivocally whipped! We don't see that this war had "failed", even so far
                        - it is gradually restoring the Union!

                        And I go in for calling out all the men at home and keeping all now in the
                        field until the rebs are whipped or we are! If it is not considered
                        necessary to have all out, then let those at home take a turn at serving the
                        country, which feeds and protects them! One word more to Cramer - he
                        prophecied that in case of war between the states, foreign powers would step
                        in and we would lose our liberty and the right to vote "in less than six
                        months". Please tell him I voted, after four years of war!

                        Ed has been on fatigue duty at the commissary and is getting is supper.
                        Sends love and regard to which add mine.

                        Yours affectionatly,

                        M.P. Wheeler"

                        ______________________________________________________
                      • Mark Wiggin
                        John, You wrote (partial) ... I agree with you on the importance of a union victory with regards to Lincoln s re-election. Atlanta was of vast political
                        Message 11 of 29 , Oct 15, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          John,
                          You wrote (partial)
                          >Grant's campaign came at a horrendous
                          >cost of lives with no
                          >foreseeable hope for ultimate victory. Sherman was
                          >bogged down in No.
                          >Georgia and faced the prospect of doing battle with
                          >Rebel commanders,
                          >Longstreet, Hood, and Johnston, who (although not
                          >perfect by a long shot)
                          >were vastly superior soldiers compared to Bragg.
                          >Jubal Early was in the
                          >Valley threatening Washington, and Lincoln had
                          >Copperhead and "peace"
                          >Democrats nipping at his heels - - so much so that
                          >a November victory by his
                          >old nemesis Geo. McClellan could have certainly led
                          >to a settled truce with
                          >the Confederacy and the continuation of slavery (it
                          >was actually in Little
                          >Mac's political platform!!).
                          >The average soldier in the field was overwhelmingly
                          >for "Father Abraham",
                          >but for the common voters up north it was another
                          >question altogether.
                          I agree with you on the importance of a union victory with regards to Lincoln's
                          re-election. Atlanta was of vast political importance to not only Lincoln's
                          re-election but on the southern mind and Lincoln's political enemies. This was
                          one of the most important rail and supply hubs in the south that the confederacy
                          lost. This combined with Sheridan's defeat of Early in the Valley prior to the
                          elections was of vast political importance to Lincoln. Not to get into the
                          eastern theater but what Grant was doing outside of Petersburg was of such
                          importance to the western campaign, by depriving Johnston then Hood of
                          reinforcements from Lee, such as what happened at Chicamauga was decisive to the
                          western campaign. I agree with you partially on the superiority of Longstreet,
                          Hood & Johnston over Bragg. But at this time in the war Longstreet was still
                          recovering from his wounds received in the Battle of the Wilderness so he was
                          unavailable. Hood was one of the best division commanders on either side. He
                          didn't have a chance to prove if he was a good corps commander because he wasn't
                          one for long. As an Army commander he wasn't ready for that position, not
                          enough experiance.(just my opinion) That leaves Joe Johnston. He was probably
                          Sherman's best opponent. However, I believe Johnston was only good at one
                          thing, Retreating. He may have held out for a while at Atlanta, but probably it
                          wouldn't have mattered. Even Lil' Mac' was backing off his party's platform of a
                          negotiated peace with the south, prior to the elections. In no small part by
                          the fall of Atlanta and the other union victories.

                          With respect
                          Mark Wiggin
                        • Mark Wiggin
                          John, You wrote (partial) ... I agree with you on the importance of a union victory with regards to Lincoln s re-election. Atlanta was of vast political
                          Message 12 of 29 , Oct 15, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            John,
                            You wrote (partial)
                            >Grant's campaign came at a horrendous
                            >cost of lives with no
                            >foreseeable hope for ultimate victory. Sherman was
                            >bogged down in No.
                            >Georgia and faced the prospect of doing battle with
                            >Rebel commanders,
                            >Longstreet, Hood, and Johnston, who (although not
                            >perfect by a long shot)
                            >were vastly superior soldiers compared to Bragg.
                            >Jubal Early was in the
                            >Valley threatening Washington, and Lincoln had
                            >Copperhead and "peace"
                            >Democrats nipping at his heels - - so much so that
                            >a November victory by his
                            >old nemesis Geo. McClellan could have certainly led
                            >to a settled truce with
                            >the Confederacy and the continuation of slavery (it
                            >was actually in Little
                            >Mac's political platform!!).
                            >The average soldier in the field was overwhelmingly
                            >for "Father Abraham",
                            >but for the common voters up north it was another
                            >question altogether.
                            I agree with you on the importance of a union victory with regards to Lincoln's
                            re-election. Atlanta was of vast political importance to not only Lincoln's
                            re-election but on the southern mind and Lincoln's political enemies. This was
                            one of the most important rail and supply hubs in the south that the confederacy
                            lost. This combined with Sheridan's defeat of Early in the Valley prior to the
                            elections was of vast political importance to Lincoln. Not to get into the
                            eastern theater but what Grant was doing outside of Petersburg was of such
                            importance to the western campaign, by depriving Johnston then Hood of
                            reinforcements from Lee, such as what happened at Chicamauga was decisive to the
                            western campaign. I agree with you partially on the superiority of Longstreet,
                            Hood & Johnston over Bragg. But at this time in the war Longstreet was still
                            recovering from his wounds received in the Battle of the Wilderness so he was
                            unavailable. Hood was one of the best division commanders on either side. He
                            didn't have a chance to prove if he was a good corps commander because he wasn't
                            one for long. As an Army commander he wasn't ready for that position, not
                            enough experiance.(just my opinion) That leaves Joe Johnston. He was probably
                            Sherman's best opponent. However, I believe Johnston was only good at one
                            thing, Retreating. He may have held out for a while at Atlanta, but probably it
                            wouldn't have mattered. Even Lil' Mac' was backing off his party's platform of a
                            negotiated peace with the south, prior to the elections. In no small part by
                            the fall of Atlanta and the other union victories.

                            With respect
                            Mark Wiggin
                          • L.A. Chambliss
                            Hey Terry, GREAT post there! Along with Steve Wakefield s compilations from the Official Records and the like, this letter is a prime example of what we need
                            Message 13 of 29 , Oct 15, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hey Terry, GREAT post there! Along with Steve Wakefield's compilations from the
                              Official Records and the like, this letter is a prime example of what we need
                              on this list.

                              And I love the writer's outlook on his "relics", if more soldiers had taken
                              this attitude we would be better informed today. The popular phrase in
                              collecting is "If these men had realized that their guns, uniforms, buttons,
                              and letters and such were incredibly expensive antiques, they would have taken
                              better care of them. " ;)

                              Laurie

                              Terry Arliskas wrote:

                              > Another opinion to add to the pile:
                              >
                              > I believe that Sherman's "gift" of Atlanta was a huge boost to the Lincoln
                              > campaign - as others have stated, the war was not progressing in Virginia as
                              > rapidly as many wished - casualty lists were long the summer of '64, and
                              > even at that time late in the War, the Copperhead movement was alive and
                              > well. Even though Grant had moved East, many were of the consensus that the
                              > War would be won in the West, and then more troops sent East to aid the
                              > Potomac Army. Lincoln was not a popular president with the people at home.
                              > BUT, he was popular with the men in uniform. The sentiment of the men in
                              > uniform was that they were in it for the long haul - they were not leaving
                              > the service until the rebellion was put down. I am of the opinion that
                              > giving the soldiers the right to vote from the field was far more
                              > influential to the reelection of Lincoln than the fall of Atlanta. Lincoln
                              > himself thought so - evidence his "the pen is mightier than the sword"
                              > quote.
                              >
                              > I submit in support of my opinion the following letter from Private Marcus
                              > Pratt Wheeler, Co. G, 29th Wisc. Vols dated November 8, 1864. The sentiment
                              > expressed is the one commonly found among the men of the regiment, but Pvt.
                              > Wheeler's letter is probably the most eloquently written of those that I've
                              > come across:
                              >
                              > "November 8, 1864
                              > Mouth of White River
                              >
                              > Dear Mother: Election 1864 & c.
                              >
                              > I will write today just to keep you posted if I do remain in ignorance of
                              > your welfare. Besides, I expect to move at once, when the thing does break
                              > loose and letter comes at all. Nothing startling has transpired since my
                              > last. Yesterday we had an election, and Abe got a large majority, McClellan
                              > getting 88, Abe 280. Total number votes cast, 360! In the 21st Iowa, in
                              > our Brigade, the vote stood, Lincoln 410, McClellan 24! The other regiments
                              > are from Ill. and Ind. and do not vote. The 120th Ohio had less than 130
                              > votes, and stands very equal.
                              >
                              > Co. "G" went 25 union, 14 copperhead. The latter votes were
                              > German from Cross Plains. All the Westport men voted for Abe! Enclosed I
                              > send the identical ticket which I voted. I want you to preserve it, as they
                              > do the copies of the Emancipation Proclimation as I consider it a valuable
                              > relic. I also send a "secesh" ticket voted at the same time. Please keep
                              > both, as I may want to refer McClellan men to the "men they voted for" in
                              > future time. I shall frame them and keep them for my grandchildren to look
                              > upon with pride! Tell Cramer that I recalled his prophecy made four years
                              > since - that "men who voted for Lincoln in 1860 would be damned shamed of it
                              > before his term of office expired" and "Lincoln would kill the Republican
                              > Party"! I was a Lincoln man then, and I voted for him yesterday! I am
                              > proud to say it, and am ready to avow it "from the housetops"! But the
                              > "Little Mackrels" were so ashamed of their position that they were shy and
                              > foxy, as old Damp, and have no reason to give for voting as they did except
                              > "Dey had fought long enough and want to have Peace and go home"!!!
                              >
                              > We are "Union" men all the time! Consequently, we are Lincoln men! We are
                              > "Peace men" too, but not anxious to give the South independence or to abate
                              > one "just a little" of our first claims until we are decidedly and
                              > unequivocally whipped! We don't see that this war had "failed", even so far
                              > - it is gradually restoring the Union!
                              >
                              > And I go in for calling out all the men at home and keeping all now in the
                              > field until the rebs are whipped or we are! If it is not considered
                              > necessary to have all out, then let those at home take a turn at serving the
                              > country, which feeds and protects them! One word more to Cramer - he
                              > prophecied that in case of war between the states, foreign powers would step
                              > in and we would lose our liberty and the right to vote "in less than six
                              > months". Please tell him I voted, after four years of war!
                              >
                              > Ed has been on fatigue duty at the commissary and is getting is supper.
                              > Sends love and regard to which add mine.
                              >
                              > Yours affectionatly,
                              >
                              > M.P. Wheeler"
                              >
                              > ______________________________________________________
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              > In the market for computer hardware or software? Compare prices on
                              > more that 100,000 products at CNET.com. Get all the latest news,
                              > reviews and prices! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1159
                              >
                              > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                              > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                            • L.A. Chambliss
                              Hey Terry, GREAT post there! Along with Steve Wakefield s compilations from the Official Records and the like, this letter is a prime example of what we need
                              Message 14 of 29 , Oct 15, 1999
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hey Terry, GREAT post there! Along with Steve Wakefield's compilations from the
                                Official Records and the like, this letter is a prime example of what we need
                                on this list.

                                And I love the writer's outlook on his "relics", if more soldiers had taken
                                this attitude we would be better informed today. The popular phrase in
                                collecting is "If these men had realized that their guns, uniforms, buttons,
                                and letters and such were incredibly expensive antiques, they would have taken
                                better care of them. " ;)

                                Laurie

                                Terry Arliskas wrote:

                                > Another opinion to add to the pile:
                                >
                                > I believe that Sherman's "gift" of Atlanta was a huge boost to the Lincoln
                                > campaign - as others have stated, the war was not progressing in Virginia as
                                > rapidly as many wished - casualty lists were long the summer of '64, and
                                > even at that time late in the War, the Copperhead movement was alive and
                                > well. Even though Grant had moved East, many were of the consensus that the
                                > War would be won in the West, and then more troops sent East to aid the
                                > Potomac Army. Lincoln was not a popular president with the people at home.
                                > BUT, he was popular with the men in uniform. The sentiment of the men in
                                > uniform was that they were in it for the long haul - they were not leaving
                                > the service until the rebellion was put down. I am of the opinion that
                                > giving the soldiers the right to vote from the field was far more
                                > influential to the reelection of Lincoln than the fall of Atlanta. Lincoln
                                > himself thought so - evidence his "the pen is mightier than the sword"
                                > quote.
                                >
                                > I submit in support of my opinion the following letter from Private Marcus
                                > Pratt Wheeler, Co. G, 29th Wisc. Vols dated November 8, 1864. The sentiment
                                > expressed is the one commonly found among the men of the regiment, but Pvt.
                                > Wheeler's letter is probably the most eloquently written of those that I've
                                > come across:
                                >
                                > "November 8, 1864
                                > Mouth of White River
                                >
                                > Dear Mother: Election 1864 & c.
                                >
                                > I will write today just to keep you posted if I do remain in ignorance of
                                > your welfare. Besides, I expect to move at once, when the thing does break
                                > loose and letter comes at all. Nothing startling has transpired since my
                                > last. Yesterday we had an election, and Abe got a large majority, McClellan
                                > getting 88, Abe 280. Total number votes cast, 360! In the 21st Iowa, in
                                > our Brigade, the vote stood, Lincoln 410, McClellan 24! The other regiments
                                > are from Ill. and Ind. and do not vote. The 120th Ohio had less than 130
                                > votes, and stands very equal.
                                >
                                > Co. "G" went 25 union, 14 copperhead. The latter votes were
                                > German from Cross Plains. All the Westport men voted for Abe! Enclosed I
                                > send the identical ticket which I voted. I want you to preserve it, as they
                                > do the copies of the Emancipation Proclimation as I consider it a valuable
                                > relic. I also send a "secesh" ticket voted at the same time. Please keep
                                > both, as I may want to refer McClellan men to the "men they voted for" in
                                > future time. I shall frame them and keep them for my grandchildren to look
                                > upon with pride! Tell Cramer that I recalled his prophecy made four years
                                > since - that "men who voted for Lincoln in 1860 would be damned shamed of it
                                > before his term of office expired" and "Lincoln would kill the Republican
                                > Party"! I was a Lincoln man then, and I voted for him yesterday! I am
                                > proud to say it, and am ready to avow it "from the housetops"! But the
                                > "Little Mackrels" were so ashamed of their position that they were shy and
                                > foxy, as old Damp, and have no reason to give for voting as they did except
                                > "Dey had fought long enough and want to have Peace and go home"!!!
                                >
                                > We are "Union" men all the time! Consequently, we are Lincoln men! We are
                                > "Peace men" too, but not anxious to give the South independence or to abate
                                > one "just a little" of our first claims until we are decidedly and
                                > unequivocally whipped! We don't see that this war had "failed", even so far
                                > - it is gradually restoring the Union!
                                >
                                > And I go in for calling out all the men at home and keeping all now in the
                                > field until the rebs are whipped or we are! If it is not considered
                                > necessary to have all out, then let those at home take a turn at serving the
                                > country, which feeds and protects them! One word more to Cramer - he
                                > prophecied that in case of war between the states, foreign powers would step
                                > in and we would lose our liberty and the right to vote "in less than six
                                > months". Please tell him I voted, after four years of war!
                                >
                                > Ed has been on fatigue duty at the commissary and is getting is supper.
                                > Sends love and regard to which add mine.
                                >
                                > Yours affectionatly,
                                >
                                > M.P. Wheeler"
                                >
                                > ______________________________________________________
                                >
                                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                > In the market for computer hardware or software? Compare prices on
                                > more that 100,000 products at CNET.com. Get all the latest news,
                                > reviews and prices! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1159
                                >
                                > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                                > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                              • The Coys
                                Terry: A wonderful letter from Private Wheeler, Co G, 29th Wisc. I would like to hear more about and from the lad. :) About the gift of Atlanta being a boost
                                Message 15 of 29 , Oct 15, 1999
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Terry:
                                  A wonderful letter from Private Wheeler, Co G, 29th Wisc. I would like to
                                  hear more about and from the lad. :)

                                  About the gift of Atlanta being a boost for Lincoln's reelection, it sure
                                  didn't hurt. :) One thing that amazes me about the election and reelection of
                                  Presidents in the mid-19th century is that the President did not campaign (if
                                  only that could happen now). Lincoln spent his time, as he should, running the
                                  country and his many minions then campaigned for him. I mention this only to
                                  point out that MAYBE Lincoln never realized what good stead he was in. We know
                                  that Lincoln claimed he didn't think he would win, remember this is from a man
                                  who suffered from melancholy/depression at times, but have there ever been many
                                  numbers, polls, whatever to substantiate it.

                                  I have also found intersting, and now I am going to have to dig for
                                  references, is that McClellans (ol' Abe's opponent in 1864) popularity was not
                                  what it once was. First of all, in the early part of the war politics was still
                                  a major factor and northern/union Democrats were still a strong political group.
                                  Lincoln did much to appease them. McClellan was a Union Democrat and many of
                                  tha armies were largely populated by democrats fighting for the Union. Thus,
                                  McClellan was not only the General-in-chief but also was seen as within the same
                                  political party and beliefs, he became very popular, as we all know, to his
                                  soldiers.


                                  As the war progressed and emancipation became a major factor in addition to
                                  union, Lincoln's popularity was constantly on the rise and McClellan's
                                  declining. The soldier saw real victories in the east (possesion of fields),
                                  Lee was bottled up in Petersburg by Grant. Grant of course new a little
                                  something about seige warfare. Sherman riding on the coatails of the almighty
                                  Army of the Cumberland :) was taking the war to those that seceded. They, the
                                  Federals, could feel and see that the war was going much in there favor. IMHO,
                                  Lincoln would still have one the election even without Atlanta's fortuitous
                                  occupation. The Union was on the move and the people would know that it would be
                                  taken eventually.

                                  IMHO,
                                  Your obedient servant

                                  Kevin S. Coy
                                  **I used 'Grant' properly**

                                  > -------------------------------------------------------
                                  > In the market for computer hardware or software? Compare prices on
                                  > more that 100,000 products at CNET.com. Get all the latest news,
                                  > reviews and prices! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1159
                                  >
                                  > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                                  > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                • The Coys
                                  Terry: A wonderful letter from Private Wheeler, Co G, 29th Wisc. I would like to hear more about and from the lad. :) About the gift of Atlanta being a boost
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Oct 15, 1999
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Terry:
                                    A wonderful letter from Private Wheeler, Co G, 29th Wisc. I would like to
                                    hear more about and from the lad. :)

                                    About the gift of Atlanta being a boost for Lincoln's reelection, it sure
                                    didn't hurt. :) One thing that amazes me about the election and reelection of
                                    Presidents in the mid-19th century is that the President did not campaign (if
                                    only that could happen now). Lincoln spent his time, as he should, running the
                                    country and his many minions then campaigned for him. I mention this only to
                                    point out that MAYBE Lincoln never realized what good stead he was in. We know
                                    that Lincoln claimed he didn't think he would win, remember this is from a man
                                    who suffered from melancholy/depression at times, but have there ever been many
                                    numbers, polls, whatever to substantiate it.

                                    I have also found intersting, and now I am going to have to dig for
                                    references, is that McClellans (ol' Abe's opponent in 1864) popularity was not
                                    what it once was. First of all, in the early part of the war politics was still
                                    a major factor and northern/union Democrats were still a strong political group.
                                    Lincoln did much to appease them. McClellan was a Union Democrat and many of
                                    tha armies were largely populated by democrats fighting for the Union. Thus,
                                    McClellan was not only the General-in-chief but also was seen as within the same
                                    political party and beliefs, he became very popular, as we all know, to his
                                    soldiers.


                                    As the war progressed and emancipation became a major factor in addition to
                                    union, Lincoln's popularity was constantly on the rise and McClellan's
                                    declining. The soldier saw real victories in the east (possesion of fields),
                                    Lee was bottled up in Petersburg by Grant. Grant of course new a little
                                    something about seige warfare. Sherman riding on the coatails of the almighty
                                    Army of the Cumberland :) was taking the war to those that seceded. They, the
                                    Federals, could feel and see that the war was going much in there favor. IMHO,
                                    Lincoln would still have one the election even without Atlanta's fortuitous
                                    occupation. The Union was on the move and the people would know that it would be
                                    taken eventually.

                                    IMHO,
                                    Your obedient servant

                                    Kevin S. Coy
                                    **I used 'Grant' properly**

                                    > -------------------------------------------------------
                                    > In the market for computer hardware or software? Compare prices on
                                    > more that 100,000 products at CNET.com. Get all the latest news,
                                    > reviews and prices! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1159
                                    >
                                    > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                                    > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                  • D. W. Plezia
                                    Albert Castel discusses the 1864 election and the possible outcome in his book Winning and Losing in The Civil War , pp 15-32. In essence he says that Lincoln
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Albert Castel discusses the 1864 election and the possible outcome in
                                      his book "Winning and Losing in The Civil War", pp 15-32.

                                      In essence he says that Lincoln could have lost the election even
                                      though Sherman took Atlanta! Thus he is at odds with the unquestioning
                                      "Conventional Knowledge" so prevalent in american chronicling.

                                      He reviews the results of the 'Close States' (totalling 102 electoral
                                      votes)and finds that Lincoln beat McClellan by only 85,000 votes of
                                      approximately 2.1 million cast.

                                      Of course, with the surrender of Atlanta, probably insured the outcome.




                                      "john c roger" <john.roge-@...> wrote:
                                      original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=128
                                      > Here's my two cents worth. A major victory in the summer of '64 was,
                                      > indeed, critical to Lincoln's reelection hopes, I believe. It
                                      certainly
                                      > wasn't coming in the east, even though Grant's steady and effective
                                      "move by
                                      > the left flank" strategy slowly pushed Lee's embattled army to the
                                      gates of
                                      > Richmond. Grant's campaign came at a horrendous cost of lives with no
                                      > foreseeable hope for ultimate victory. Sherman was bogged down in No.
                                      > Georgia and faced the prospect of doing battle with Rebel commanders,
                                      > Longstreet, Hood, and Johnston, who (although not perfect by a long
                                      shot)
                                      > were vastly superior soldiers compared to Bragg. Jubal Early was in
                                      the
                                      > Valley threatening Washington, and Lincoln had Copperhead and "peace"
                                      > Democrats nipping at his heels - - so much so that a November victory
                                      by his
                                      > old nemesis Geo. McClellan could have certainly led to a settled
                                      truce with
                                      > the Confederacy and the continuation of slavery (it was actually in
                                      Little
                                      > Mac's political platform!!).
                                      > The average soldier in the field was overwhelmingly for "Father
                                      Abraham",
                                      > but for the common voters up north it was another question altogether.
                                      > Regards to all, John
                                      >
                                      > -----Original Message-----
                                      > From: L.A. Chambliss <xanthipp@...>
                                      > To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                      > Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 9:18 AM
                                      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > >Dear Karen, Stewart, and group,
                                      > >
                                      > >One of the hardest things to do, at least for me, is to study the
                                      War or
                                      > any
                                      > >other historical event from the perspective of those who were there
                                      IN that
                                      > >time, blocking out everything that we now know came after that.
                                      > >
                                      > >I think that Lincoln THOUGHT that he needed Atlanta, or some other
                                      major
                                      > >battlefield victory, and preferably a consistent string of them,
                                      very very
                                      > >badly. What we now think of as the "turning point" victories of
                                      Gettysburg
                                      > and
                                      > >Vicksburg were now a long time in the past. Chickamauga had been a
                                      dreadful
                                      > >setback to what seemed at the time like an inexorable sweep by
                                      Rosecrans.
                                      > The
                                      > >war in the east had settled into the siege around Petersburg that
                                      must have
                                      > >seemed to the public to be going absolutely nowhere in terms of
                                      bringing
                                      > the
                                      > >war to a swift conclusion.
                                      > >
                                      > >The example I will cite here as far as battlefield reality vs.
                                      political
                                      > >reality is the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. The action was
                                      a near
                                      > >total loss for the North Vietnamese. They lost huge amounts of
                                      materiel and
                                      > >manpower, held none of the objectives that they tried to take. From
                                      a
                                      > military
                                      > >perspective it was the last desperate gasp of a force on the verge of
                                      > losing.
                                      > >
                                      > >From a POLITICAL perspective though it was an unmitigated loss for
                                      Lyndon
                                      > >Johnson, simply because the enemy was not supposed to be anywhere
                                      NEAR able
                                      > to
                                      > >attempt such a thing. The shock that went through the American
                                      people (I
                                      > was
                                      > >about 17 at the time and remember it well) was palpable.
                                      Commentators like
                                      > >Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey, who had previously taken the
                                      attitude of
                                      > "we
                                      > >must stay the course", started giving editorials to the effect of
                                      "We have
                                      > >spent all this time, money and blood, and these people are just not
                                      giving
                                      > up,
                                      > >it's time to cut our losses and get out."
                                      > >
                                      > >To return to the War that we are discussing here though, I can see a
                                      very
                                      > >similar situation happening if Jefferson Davis had ordered that
                                      Atlanta be
                                      > >defended to the last man, and then pumped in every man and boy
                                      capable of
                                      > >firing a gun. Heck, if he had had a 20-century attitude towards
                                      propaganda
                                      > he
                                      > >would have staged some photos of women drilling with rifles,
                                      followed by
                                      > one of
                                      > >armed slaves going to the defense of their country! Can you imagine
                                      THOSE
                                      > >pictures running in Harper's Weekly, or the London Times? ;)
                                      > >
                                      > >Could they have held out from Sept. 1 till Election Day? Who knows?
                                      But the
                                      > >constant attitude of Johnston, and then Hood, that "I must save my
                                      army to
                                      > >fight another day" accomplished nothing but saving them to surrender
                                      at
                                      > >Bentonville or Appomatox.
                                      > >
                                      > >Laurie Chambliss
                                      > >Civil War Interactive
                                      > >www.almshouse.com
                                      > >
                                      > >Karen Hall wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >> I really don't think that Lincoln needed Atlanta to win
                                      re-election. The
                                      > >> North was on a winning role and the war looked like it was going
                                      to be
                                      > over
                                      > >> soon. By appointing Grant to lead the Army Lincoln had finally
                                      found
                                      > someone
                                      > >> who knew how to defeat Lee. Although people were getting tired of
                                      the war
                                      > I
                                      > >> think they knew that only Lincoln would be able to see them
                                      through to
                                      > the
                                      > >> end. I also think that most people were thinking about what to do
                                      with
                                      > the
                                      > >> South after the war and felt that Lincoln was a good leader to
                                      bring the
                                      > >> country back together.
                                      > >> Just my thoughts.
                                      > >> Karen Hall
                                      > >> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:38:55 -0500, Stewart L Bennett wro
                                      > >> > Question to any and all out there.
                                      > >> >
                                      > >> > Did Lincoln really need Sherman's "gift" of the city of Atlanta
                                      in
                                      > order
                                      > >> > for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from others that the
                                      taking of
                                      > >> > Atlanta assured Lincoln's re-election.The more I think about it
                                      the
                                      > more
                                      > >> > uncomfortable I am with it.What do you think..? Even if Atlanta
                                      did
                                      > hold
                                      > >> > out until after the election did Lincoln really have anything to
                                      worry
                                      > >> > about?
                                      > >> >
                                      > >> > Stewart
                                      > >> >
                                      > >> > ________________________________________________________________
                                      ___
                                      > >> > Get the Internet just the way you want it.
                                      > >> > Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
                                      > >> > Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
                                      > >> >
                                      > >>
                                      > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      -----
                                      > >> >
                                      > >> > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                                      > >> > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                      > >> >
                                      > >> >
                                      > >> >
                                      > >> >
                                      > >>
                                      > >> ________________________________________________________________
                                      > >> Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
                                      > >> Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
                                      > >>
                                      > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      ------
                                      > >>
                                      > >> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                                      > >> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                    • D. W. Plezia
                                      Albert Castel discusses the 1864 election and the possible outcome in his book Winning and Losing in The Civil War , pp 15-32. In essence he says that Lincoln
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Albert Castel discusses the 1864 election and the possible outcome in
                                        his book "Winning and Losing in The Civil War", pp 15-32.

                                        In essence he says that Lincoln could have lost the election even
                                        though Sherman took Atlanta! Thus he is at odds with the unquestioning
                                        "Conventional Knowledge" so prevalent in american chronicling.

                                        He reviews the results of the 'Close States' (totalling 102 electoral
                                        votes)and finds that Lincoln beat McClellan by only 85,000 votes of
                                        approximately 2.1 million cast.

                                        Of course, with the surrender of Atlanta, probably insured the outcome.




                                        "john c roger" <john.roge-@...> wrote:
                                        original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=128
                                        > Here's my two cents worth. A major victory in the summer of '64 was,
                                        > indeed, critical to Lincoln's reelection hopes, I believe. It
                                        certainly
                                        > wasn't coming in the east, even though Grant's steady and effective
                                        "move by
                                        > the left flank" strategy slowly pushed Lee's embattled army to the
                                        gates of
                                        > Richmond. Grant's campaign came at a horrendous cost of lives with no
                                        > foreseeable hope for ultimate victory. Sherman was bogged down in No.
                                        > Georgia and faced the prospect of doing battle with Rebel commanders,
                                        > Longstreet, Hood, and Johnston, who (although not perfect by a long
                                        shot)
                                        > were vastly superior soldiers compared to Bragg. Jubal Early was in
                                        the
                                        > Valley threatening Washington, and Lincoln had Copperhead and "peace"
                                        > Democrats nipping at his heels - - so much so that a November victory
                                        by his
                                        > old nemesis Geo. McClellan could have certainly led to a settled
                                        truce with
                                        > the Confederacy and the continuation of slavery (it was actually in
                                        Little
                                        > Mac's political platform!!).
                                        > The average soldier in the field was overwhelmingly for "Father
                                        Abraham",
                                        > but for the common voters up north it was another question altogether.
                                        > Regards to all, John
                                        >
                                        > -----Original Message-----
                                        > From: L.A. Chambliss <xanthipp@...>
                                        > To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                        > Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 9:18 AM
                                        > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > >Dear Karen, Stewart, and group,
                                        > >
                                        > >One of the hardest things to do, at least for me, is to study the
                                        War or
                                        > any
                                        > >other historical event from the perspective of those who were there
                                        IN that
                                        > >time, blocking out everything that we now know came after that.
                                        > >
                                        > >I think that Lincoln THOUGHT that he needed Atlanta, or some other
                                        major
                                        > >battlefield victory, and preferably a consistent string of them,
                                        very very
                                        > >badly. What we now think of as the "turning point" victories of
                                        Gettysburg
                                        > and
                                        > >Vicksburg were now a long time in the past. Chickamauga had been a
                                        dreadful
                                        > >setback to what seemed at the time like an inexorable sweep by
                                        Rosecrans.
                                        > The
                                        > >war in the east had settled into the siege around Petersburg that
                                        must have
                                        > >seemed to the public to be going absolutely nowhere in terms of
                                        bringing
                                        > the
                                        > >war to a swift conclusion.
                                        > >
                                        > >The example I will cite here as far as battlefield reality vs.
                                        political
                                        > >reality is the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. The action was
                                        a near
                                        > >total loss for the North Vietnamese. They lost huge amounts of
                                        materiel and
                                        > >manpower, held none of the objectives that they tried to take. From
                                        a
                                        > military
                                        > >perspective it was the last desperate gasp of a force on the verge of
                                        > losing.
                                        > >
                                        > >From a POLITICAL perspective though it was an unmitigated loss for
                                        Lyndon
                                        > >Johnson, simply because the enemy was not supposed to be anywhere
                                        NEAR able
                                        > to
                                        > >attempt such a thing. The shock that went through the American
                                        people (I
                                        > was
                                        > >about 17 at the time and remember it well) was palpable.
                                        Commentators like
                                        > >Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey, who had previously taken the
                                        attitude of
                                        > "we
                                        > >must stay the course", started giving editorials to the effect of
                                        "We have
                                        > >spent all this time, money and blood, and these people are just not
                                        giving
                                        > up,
                                        > >it's time to cut our losses and get out."
                                        > >
                                        > >To return to the War that we are discussing here though, I can see a
                                        very
                                        > >similar situation happening if Jefferson Davis had ordered that
                                        Atlanta be
                                        > >defended to the last man, and then pumped in every man and boy
                                        capable of
                                        > >firing a gun. Heck, if he had had a 20-century attitude towards
                                        propaganda
                                        > he
                                        > >would have staged some photos of women drilling with rifles,
                                        followed by
                                        > one of
                                        > >armed slaves going to the defense of their country! Can you imagine
                                        THOSE
                                        > >pictures running in Harper's Weekly, or the London Times? ;)
                                        > >
                                        > >Could they have held out from Sept. 1 till Election Day? Who knows?
                                        But the
                                        > >constant attitude of Johnston, and then Hood, that "I must save my
                                        army to
                                        > >fight another day" accomplished nothing but saving them to surrender
                                        at
                                        > >Bentonville or Appomatox.
                                        > >
                                        > >Laurie Chambliss
                                        > >Civil War Interactive
                                        > >www.almshouse.com
                                        > >
                                        > >Karen Hall wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > >> I really don't think that Lincoln needed Atlanta to win
                                        re-election. The
                                        > >> North was on a winning role and the war looked like it was going
                                        to be
                                        > over
                                        > >> soon. By appointing Grant to lead the Army Lincoln had finally
                                        found
                                        > someone
                                        > >> who knew how to defeat Lee. Although people were getting tired of
                                        the war
                                        > I
                                        > >> think they knew that only Lincoln would be able to see them
                                        through to
                                        > the
                                        > >> end. I also think that most people were thinking about what to do
                                        with
                                        > the
                                        > >> South after the war and felt that Lincoln was a good leader to
                                        bring the
                                        > >> country back together.
                                        > >> Just my thoughts.
                                        > >> Karen Hall
                                        > >> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:38:55 -0500, Stewart L Bennett wro
                                        > >> > Question to any and all out there.
                                        > >> >
                                        > >> > Did Lincoln really need Sherman's "gift" of the city of Atlanta
                                        in
                                        > order
                                        > >> > for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from others that the
                                        taking of
                                        > >> > Atlanta assured Lincoln's re-election.The more I think about it
                                        the
                                        > more
                                        > >> > uncomfortable I am with it.What do you think..? Even if Atlanta
                                        did
                                        > hold
                                        > >> > out until after the election did Lincoln really have anything to
                                        worry
                                        > >> > about?
                                        > >> >
                                        > >> > Stewart
                                        > >> >
                                        > >> > ________________________________________________________________
                                        ___
                                        > >> > Get the Internet just the way you want it.
                                        > >> > Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
                                        > >> > Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
                                        > >> >
                                        > >>
                                        > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        -----
                                        > >> >
                                        > >> > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                                        > >> > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                        > >> >
                                        > >> >
                                        > >> >
                                        > >> >
                                        > >>
                                        > >> ________________________________________________________________
                                        > >> Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
                                        > >> Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
                                        > >>
                                        > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        ------
                                        > >>
                                        > >> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                                        > >> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                      • Nonums@aol.com
                                        This post relates to my long-held skepticism of the subject. Firstly, with part of the country s polling booths under armed guard and the great voting turnout
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          This post relates to my long-held skepticism of the subject. Firstly, with
                                          part of the country's polling booths under armed guard and the great voting
                                          turnout of Federal troops, has anyone addressed the subject of "hanky panky"
                                          whether in the form of army muscle or extensive free booze for the troops?
                                          It's hard to imagine how "Little Macs" popularity with the troops would have
                                          dissipated as it did.
                                          Your extended comments would be appreciated.
                                          Yr.obt.svt.
                                          Jack O'Connor
                                        • Nonums@aol.com
                                          This post relates to my long-held skepticism of the subject. Firstly, with part of the country s polling booths under armed guard and the great voting turnout
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            This post relates to my long-held skepticism of the subject. Firstly, with
                                            part of the country's polling booths under armed guard and the great voting
                                            turnout of Federal troops, has anyone addressed the subject of "hanky panky"
                                            whether in the form of army muscle or extensive free booze for the troops?
                                            It's hard to imagine how "Little Macs" popularity with the troops would have
                                            dissipated as it did.
                                            Your extended comments would be appreciated.
                                            Yr.obt.svt.
                                            Jack O'Connor
                                          • Terry Arliskas
                                            Jack - Just can t let this post go unanswered. I am not sure where your skepticism comes from regarding the re-election of Lincoln, and would be interested in
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Jack -

                                              Just can't let this post go unanswered. I am not sure where your skepticism
                                              comes from regarding the re-election of Lincoln, and would be interested in
                                              the sources that you used in contending that Federal soldiers were either
                                              strong-armed or coerced with liquor into voting for Lincoln.

                                              I can only give the example of one Federal regiment - the 29th Wisconsin
                                              Vol. Inf., who in Nov. of 1864 was posted at the White River in Arkansas.

                                              From the diary of Charles Merrill, Private, Co. I:

                                              "Nov. 8 - Showery all day. We had an election today. Co. I had 46 votes for
                                              Abe Lincoln and none for McClellan. The Regt gave a Union vote of 191
                                              Majority."

                                              From the diary of Sergt. Edward Potter, Co. D:

                                              "Tues., Nov. 8 - Our Election for President and Vice President passed off
                                              very quiet. In Co. D the vote took 30 for L. and 8 for M. In the Regt. 280
                                              for L. and 88 for M. Rumor of another move up W.R."

                                              From the diary of Lt. David Curtis, Co. D:

                                              "Nov 8 - Voted today for A. Lincoln and A. Johnson for Presdient - mouth of
                                              White River Ark. Regt. cast 280 votes for Lincoln and 88 for McClellan and
                                              Pendleton. Co. Do cast 30 for Lin. and 8 for Little Mac. 21st Iowa 438 for
                                              Lincoln and 24 for Mac."

                                              From a letter date Nov. 8, 1864 to "Dear Mother" from Marcus Wheeler, Co. G:

                                              "Co. "G" went 25 union - 14 copperhead. The latter votes were German from
                                              Cross Plains. . . All the Westport men voted for Abe!! Enclosed I send the
                                              identical ticket which I voted. I want you to preserve it, as they do the
                                              copies of the "Emancipation Proclamation" as I consider it a valuable relic.
                                              I also send a "secesh" ticket, voted at the same time. Please, keep both,
                                              as I may want to refer McClellan men to the "men they voted for" in future
                                              teim. I shall frame them, and keep them for my "grandchildren" to look upon
                                              with pride. Tell Cramer that I recall his prophecy made four years since -
                                              that "men who voted for Lincoln in 1860 would be damned shamed of it before
                                              his term of office expired" and "Lincoln would kill the Republican Party!"
                                              I was a Lincoln man then and I voted for him yesterday! I am proud to say
                                              it, and am ready to avow it "from the housetops"! But the "Little
                                              Mackerels" were so much ashamed of their position that they were shy and
                                              foxy, and gave no reason to give for voting as they did except "Dey had
                                              fought long enough and want to have Peace and go home"!!!"

                                              From a letter to "Friend Willard" from 2nd Lieut. John Scott, Co. F, dated
                                              Nov. 22, 1864:

                                              "I have just been privately celebrating the re-election of "old Abe" and
                                              have the news here that "Mike Lellan" has only received 20 Electoral votes.
                                              I suppose we will have to be contented although that is 20 more than I
                                              wanted to see him have. The thing don't seem to suit the "Dimmy crats."

                                              I have seen no mention EVER in a letter or diary of a soldier being forced
                                              to vote one way or another, nor any mention of free liquor for votes. From
                                              the research that I have done of this very typical, Western Theatre
                                              regiment, I can only make the assumption that they voted for Lincoln because
                                              they felt he was the best candidate for President!

                                              Terry Arliskas
                                              29WVI

                                              >From: Nonums@...
                                              >Reply-To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                              >To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                              >Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?
                                              >Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:50:01 EST
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >This post relates to my long-held skepticism of the subject. Firstly, with
                                              >part of the country's polling booths under armed guard and the great voting
                                              >turnout of Federal troops, has anyone addressed the subject of "hanky
                                              >panky"
                                              >whether in the form of army muscle or extensive free booze for the troops?
                                              >It's hard to imagine how "Little Macs" popularity with the troops would
                                              >have
                                              >dissipated as it did.
                                              >Your extended comments would be appreciated.
                                              > Yr.obt.svt.
                                              > Jack O'Connor
                                              >
                                              >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              >WEMedia.com empowers persons with disabilities to build a strong and
                                              >vibrant community.
                                              >http://click.egroups.com/1/682/1/_/14182/_/948829887/
                                              >
                                              >-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
                                              >-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=civilwarwest&m=1
                                              >

                                              ______________________________________________________
                                            • Terry Arliskas
                                              Jack - Just can t let this post go unanswered. I am not sure where your skepticism comes from regarding the re-election of Lincoln, and would be interested in
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Jack -

                                                Just can't let this post go unanswered. I am not sure where your skepticism
                                                comes from regarding the re-election of Lincoln, and would be interested in
                                                the sources that you used in contending that Federal soldiers were either
                                                strong-armed or coerced with liquor into voting for Lincoln.

                                                I can only give the example of one Federal regiment - the 29th Wisconsin
                                                Vol. Inf., who in Nov. of 1864 was posted at the White River in Arkansas.

                                                From the diary of Charles Merrill, Private, Co. I:

                                                "Nov. 8 - Showery all day. We had an election today. Co. I had 46 votes for
                                                Abe Lincoln and none for McClellan. The Regt gave a Union vote of 191
                                                Majority."

                                                From the diary of Sergt. Edward Potter, Co. D:

                                                "Tues., Nov. 8 - Our Election for President and Vice President passed off
                                                very quiet. In Co. D the vote took 30 for L. and 8 for M. In the Regt. 280
                                                for L. and 88 for M. Rumor of another move up W.R."

                                                From the diary of Lt. David Curtis, Co. D:

                                                "Nov 8 - Voted today for A. Lincoln and A. Johnson for Presdient - mouth of
                                                White River Ark. Regt. cast 280 votes for Lincoln and 88 for McClellan and
                                                Pendleton. Co. Do cast 30 for Lin. and 8 for Little Mac. 21st Iowa 438 for
                                                Lincoln and 24 for Mac."

                                                From a letter date Nov. 8, 1864 to "Dear Mother" from Marcus Wheeler, Co. G:

                                                "Co. "G" went 25 union - 14 copperhead. The latter votes were German from
                                                Cross Plains. . . All the Westport men voted for Abe!! Enclosed I send the
                                                identical ticket which I voted. I want you to preserve it, as they do the
                                                copies of the "Emancipation Proclamation" as I consider it a valuable relic.
                                                I also send a "secesh" ticket, voted at the same time. Please, keep both,
                                                as I may want to refer McClellan men to the "men they voted for" in future
                                                teim. I shall frame them, and keep them for my "grandchildren" to look upon
                                                with pride. Tell Cramer that I recall his prophecy made four years since -
                                                that "men who voted for Lincoln in 1860 would be damned shamed of it before
                                                his term of office expired" and "Lincoln would kill the Republican Party!"
                                                I was a Lincoln man then and I voted for him yesterday! I am proud to say
                                                it, and am ready to avow it "from the housetops"! But the "Little
                                                Mackerels" were so much ashamed of their position that they were shy and
                                                foxy, and gave no reason to give for voting as they did except "Dey had
                                                fought long enough and want to have Peace and go home"!!!"

                                                From a letter to "Friend Willard" from 2nd Lieut. John Scott, Co. F, dated
                                                Nov. 22, 1864:

                                                "I have just been privately celebrating the re-election of "old Abe" and
                                                have the news here that "Mike Lellan" has only received 20 Electoral votes.
                                                I suppose we will have to be contented although that is 20 more than I
                                                wanted to see him have. The thing don't seem to suit the "Dimmy crats."

                                                I have seen no mention EVER in a letter or diary of a soldier being forced
                                                to vote one way or another, nor any mention of free liquor for votes. From
                                                the research that I have done of this very typical, Western Theatre
                                                regiment, I can only make the assumption that they voted for Lincoln because
                                                they felt he was the best candidate for President!

                                                Terry Arliskas
                                                29WVI

                                                >From: Nonums@...
                                                >Reply-To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                                >To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                                >Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?
                                                >Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:50:01 EST
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >This post relates to my long-held skepticism of the subject. Firstly, with
                                                >part of the country's polling booths under armed guard and the great voting
                                                >turnout of Federal troops, has anyone addressed the subject of "hanky
                                                >panky"
                                                >whether in the form of army muscle or extensive free booze for the troops?
                                                >It's hard to imagine how "Little Macs" popularity with the troops would
                                                >have
                                                >dissipated as it did.
                                                >Your extended comments would be appreciated.
                                                > Yr.obt.svt.
                                                > Jack O'Connor
                                                >
                                                >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                >WEMedia.com empowers persons with disabilities to build a strong and
                                                >vibrant community.
                                                >http://click.egroups.com/1/682/1/_/14182/_/948829887/
                                                >
                                                >-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
                                                >-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=civilwarwest&m=1
                                                >

                                                ______________________________________________________
                                              • David Woodbury
                                                ... The disenchantment with McClellan seems to center on the idea that a vote for his peace platform would effectively render meaningless all those years of
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  At 2:50 PM -0500 1/25/00, Nonums@... wrote:
                                                  >It's hard to imagine how "Little Macs" popularity with the troops would have
                                                  >dissipated as it did.

                                                  The disenchantment with McClellan seems to center on the idea that a
                                                  vote for his peace platform would effectively render meaningless all
                                                  those years of hard-fought, bloody war, and tarnish the sacrifice of
                                                  so many lost comrades.

                                                  David
                                                • David Woodbury
                                                  ... The disenchantment with McClellan seems to center on the idea that a vote for his peace platform would effectively render meaningless all those years of
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    At 2:50 PM -0500 1/25/00, Nonums@... wrote:
                                                    >It's hard to imagine how "Little Macs" popularity with the troops would have
                                                    >dissipated as it did.

                                                    The disenchantment with McClellan seems to center on the idea that a
                                                    vote for his peace platform would effectively render meaningless all
                                                    those years of hard-fought, bloody war, and tarnish the sacrifice of
                                                    so many lost comrades.

                                                    David
                                                  • Steve Charles
                                                    Terry, I have to back you up on this one. Private Hamilton Coates of the 5th Wisconsin Battery writes in his diary: Tuesday (Nov.) 8. Election day and we
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Terry,
                                                      I have to back you up on this one.
                                                      Private Hamilton Coates of the 5th Wisconsin Battery writes in his diary:
                                                      "Tuesday (Nov.) 8. "
                                                      "Election day and we exercised the right of franchise in the battery and
                                                      voted for Abraham Lincoln to be President another term of office".

                                                      Major James A. Connolly, a division staff officer on Gen. Baird's staff.
                                                      Bairds Div., 14th Corps, AOC wrote in his diary of the election also. He
                                                      writes:
                                                      "There are comparatively few McClellan men in the army. In one brigade of
                                                      our division consisting of the 17th, 31st, 89th, & 92nd Ohio, 82nd Ind. and
                                                      23rd Missouri, the vote polled today stood Lincoln 1229, McClellan 101".

                                                      -----Original Message-----
                                                      From: Terry Arliskas <tarliskas@...>
                                                      To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                                      Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 12:33 PM
                                                      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?


                                                      >Jack -
                                                      >
                                                      >Just can't let this post go unanswered. I am not sure where your
                                                      skepticism
                                                      >comes from regarding the re-election of Lincoln, and would be interested in
                                                      >the sources that you used in contending that Federal soldiers were either
                                                      >strong-armed or coerced with liquor into voting for Lincoln.
                                                      >
                                                      >I can only give the example of one Federal regiment - the 29th Wisconsin
                                                      >Vol. Inf., who in Nov. of 1864 was posted at the White River in Arkansas.
                                                      >
                                                      >From the diary of Charles Merrill, Private, Co. I:
                                                      >
                                                      >"Nov. 8 - Showery all day. We had an election today. Co. I had 46 votes
                                                      for
                                                      >Abe Lincoln and none for McClellan. The Regt gave a Union vote of 191
                                                      >Majority."
                                                      >
                                                      >From the diary of Sergt. Edward Potter, Co. D:
                                                      >
                                                      >"Tues., Nov. 8 - Our Election for President and Vice President passed off
                                                      >very quiet. In Co. D the vote took 30 for L. and 8 for M. In the Regt.
                                                      280
                                                      >for L. and 88 for M. Rumor of another move up W.R."
                                                      >
                                                      >From the diary of Lt. David Curtis, Co. D:
                                                      >
                                                      >"Nov 8 - Voted today for A. Lincoln and A. Johnson for Presdient - mouth of
                                                      >White River Ark. Regt. cast 280 votes for Lincoln and 88 for McClellan and
                                                      >Pendleton. Co. Do cast 30 for Lin. and 8 for Little Mac. 21st Iowa 438
                                                      for
                                                      >Lincoln and 24 for Mac."
                                                      >
                                                      >From a letter date Nov. 8, 1864 to "Dear Mother" from Marcus Wheeler, Co.
                                                      G:
                                                      >
                                                      >"Co. "G" went 25 union - 14 copperhead. The latter votes were German from
                                                      >Cross Plains. . . All the Westport men voted for Abe!! Enclosed I send the
                                                      >identical ticket which I voted. I want you to preserve it, as they do the
                                                      >copies of the "Emancipation Proclamation" as I consider it a valuable
                                                      relic.
                                                      > I also send a "secesh" ticket, voted at the same time. Please, keep
                                                      both,
                                                      >as I may want to refer McClellan men to the "men they voted for" in future
                                                      >teim. I shall frame them, and keep them for my "grandchildren" to look
                                                      upon
                                                      >with pride. Tell Cramer that I recall his prophecy made four years since -
                                                      >that "men who voted for Lincoln in 1860 would be damned shamed of it before
                                                      >his term of office expired" and "Lincoln would kill the Republican Party!"
                                                      >I was a Lincoln man then and I voted for him yesterday! I am proud to say
                                                      >it, and am ready to avow it "from the housetops"! But the "Little
                                                      >Mackerels" were so much ashamed of their position that they were shy and
                                                      >foxy, and gave no reason to give for voting as they did except "Dey had
                                                      >fought long enough and want to have Peace and go home"!!!"
                                                      >
                                                      >From a letter to "Friend Willard" from 2nd Lieut. John Scott, Co. F, dated
                                                      >Nov. 22, 1864:
                                                      >
                                                      >"I have just been privately celebrating the re-election of "old Abe" and
                                                      >have the news here that "Mike Lellan" has only received 20 Electoral votes.
                                                      >I suppose we will have to be contented although that is 20 more than I
                                                      >wanted to see him have. The thing don't seem to suit the "Dimmy crats."
                                                      >
                                                      >I have seen no mention EVER in a letter or diary of a soldier being forced
                                                      >to vote one way or another, nor any mention of free liquor for votes. From
                                                      >the research that I have done of this very typical, Western Theatre
                                                      >regiment, I can only make the assumption that they voted for Lincoln
                                                      because
                                                      >they felt he was the best candidate for President!
                                                      >
                                                      >Terry Arliskas
                                                      >29WVI
                                                      >
                                                      >>From: Nonums@...
                                                      >>Reply-To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                                      >>To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                                      >>Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?
                                                      >>Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:50:01 EST
                                                      >>
                                                      >>
                                                      >>This post relates to my long-held skepticism of the subject. Firstly,
                                                      with
                                                      >>part of the country's polling booths under armed guard and the great
                                                      voting
                                                      >>turnout of Federal troops, has anyone addressed the subject of "hanky
                                                      >>panky"
                                                      >>whether in the form of army muscle or extensive free booze for the troops?
                                                      >>It's hard to imagine how "Little Macs" popularity with the troops would
                                                      >>have
                                                      >>dissipated as it did.
                                                      >>Your extended comments would be appreciated.
                                                      >> Yr.obt.svt.
                                                      >> Jack O'Connor
                                                      >>
                                                      >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      >>WEMedia.com empowers persons with disabilities to build a strong and
                                                      >>vibrant community.
                                                      >>http://click.egroups.com/1/682/1/_/14182/_/948829887/
                                                      >>
                                                      >>-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
                                                      >>-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=civilwarwest&m=1
                                                      >>
                                                      >
                                                      >______________________________________________________
                                                      >
                                                      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      >For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them from
                                                      >anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance to win a
                                                      >digital camera.
                                                      >http://click.egroups.com/1/337/1/_/14182/_/948838297/
                                                      >
                                                      >eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/
                                                      >http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                    • Steve Charles
                                                      Terry, I have to back you up on this one. Private Hamilton Coates of the 5th Wisconsin Battery writes in his diary: Tuesday (Nov.) 8. Election day and we
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Terry,
                                                        I have to back you up on this one.
                                                        Private Hamilton Coates of the 5th Wisconsin Battery writes in his diary:
                                                        "Tuesday (Nov.) 8. "
                                                        "Election day and we exercised the right of franchise in the battery and
                                                        voted for Abraham Lincoln to be President another term of office".

                                                        Major James A. Connolly, a division staff officer on Gen. Baird's staff.
                                                        Bairds Div., 14th Corps, AOC wrote in his diary of the election also. He
                                                        writes:
                                                        "There are comparatively few McClellan men in the army. In one brigade of
                                                        our division consisting of the 17th, 31st, 89th, & 92nd Ohio, 82nd Ind. and
                                                        23rd Missouri, the vote polled today stood Lincoln 1229, McClellan 101".

                                                        -----Original Message-----
                                                        From: Terry Arliskas <tarliskas@...>
                                                        To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                                        Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 12:33 PM
                                                        Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?


                                                        >Jack -
                                                        >
                                                        >Just can't let this post go unanswered. I am not sure where your
                                                        skepticism
                                                        >comes from regarding the re-election of Lincoln, and would be interested in
                                                        >the sources that you used in contending that Federal soldiers were either
                                                        >strong-armed or coerced with liquor into voting for Lincoln.
                                                        >
                                                        >I can only give the example of one Federal regiment - the 29th Wisconsin
                                                        >Vol. Inf., who in Nov. of 1864 was posted at the White River in Arkansas.
                                                        >
                                                        >From the diary of Charles Merrill, Private, Co. I:
                                                        >
                                                        >"Nov. 8 - Showery all day. We had an election today. Co. I had 46 votes
                                                        for
                                                        >Abe Lincoln and none for McClellan. The Regt gave a Union vote of 191
                                                        >Majority."
                                                        >
                                                        >From the diary of Sergt. Edward Potter, Co. D:
                                                        >
                                                        >"Tues., Nov. 8 - Our Election for President and Vice President passed off
                                                        >very quiet. In Co. D the vote took 30 for L. and 8 for M. In the Regt.
                                                        280
                                                        >for L. and 88 for M. Rumor of another move up W.R."
                                                        >
                                                        >From the diary of Lt. David Curtis, Co. D:
                                                        >
                                                        >"Nov 8 - Voted today for A. Lincoln and A. Johnson for Presdient - mouth of
                                                        >White River Ark. Regt. cast 280 votes for Lincoln and 88 for McClellan and
                                                        >Pendleton. Co. Do cast 30 for Lin. and 8 for Little Mac. 21st Iowa 438
                                                        for
                                                        >Lincoln and 24 for Mac."
                                                        >
                                                        >From a letter date Nov. 8, 1864 to "Dear Mother" from Marcus Wheeler, Co.
                                                        G:
                                                        >
                                                        >"Co. "G" went 25 union - 14 copperhead. The latter votes were German from
                                                        >Cross Plains. . . All the Westport men voted for Abe!! Enclosed I send the
                                                        >identical ticket which I voted. I want you to preserve it, as they do the
                                                        >copies of the "Emancipation Proclamation" as I consider it a valuable
                                                        relic.
                                                        > I also send a "secesh" ticket, voted at the same time. Please, keep
                                                        both,
                                                        >as I may want to refer McClellan men to the "men they voted for" in future
                                                        >teim. I shall frame them, and keep them for my "grandchildren" to look
                                                        upon
                                                        >with pride. Tell Cramer that I recall his prophecy made four years since -
                                                        >that "men who voted for Lincoln in 1860 would be damned shamed of it before
                                                        >his term of office expired" and "Lincoln would kill the Republican Party!"
                                                        >I was a Lincoln man then and I voted for him yesterday! I am proud to say
                                                        >it, and am ready to avow it "from the housetops"! But the "Little
                                                        >Mackerels" were so much ashamed of their position that they were shy and
                                                        >foxy, and gave no reason to give for voting as they did except "Dey had
                                                        >fought long enough and want to have Peace and go home"!!!"
                                                        >
                                                        >From a letter to "Friend Willard" from 2nd Lieut. John Scott, Co. F, dated
                                                        >Nov. 22, 1864:
                                                        >
                                                        >"I have just been privately celebrating the re-election of "old Abe" and
                                                        >have the news here that "Mike Lellan" has only received 20 Electoral votes.
                                                        >I suppose we will have to be contented although that is 20 more than I
                                                        >wanted to see him have. The thing don't seem to suit the "Dimmy crats."
                                                        >
                                                        >I have seen no mention EVER in a letter or diary of a soldier being forced
                                                        >to vote one way or another, nor any mention of free liquor for votes. From
                                                        >the research that I have done of this very typical, Western Theatre
                                                        >regiment, I can only make the assumption that they voted for Lincoln
                                                        because
                                                        >they felt he was the best candidate for President!
                                                        >
                                                        >Terry Arliskas
                                                        >29WVI
                                                        >
                                                        >>From: Nonums@...
                                                        >>Reply-To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                                        >>To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                                        >>Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?
                                                        >>Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:50:01 EST
                                                        >>
                                                        >>
                                                        >>This post relates to my long-held skepticism of the subject. Firstly,
                                                        with
                                                        >>part of the country's polling booths under armed guard and the great
                                                        voting
                                                        >>turnout of Federal troops, has anyone addressed the subject of "hanky
                                                        >>panky"
                                                        >>whether in the form of army muscle or extensive free booze for the troops?
                                                        >>It's hard to imagine how "Little Macs" popularity with the troops would
                                                        >>have
                                                        >>dissipated as it did.
                                                        >>Your extended comments would be appreciated.
                                                        >> Yr.obt.svt.
                                                        >> Jack O'Connor
                                                        >>
                                                        >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        >>WEMedia.com empowers persons with disabilities to build a strong and
                                                        >>vibrant community.
                                                        >>http://click.egroups.com/1/682/1/_/14182/_/948829887/
                                                        >>
                                                        >>-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
                                                        >>-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=civilwarwest&m=1
                                                        >>
                                                        >
                                                        >______________________________________________________
                                                        >
                                                        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        >For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them from
                                                        >anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance to win a
                                                        >digital camera.
                                                        >http://click.egroups.com/1/337/1/_/14182/_/948838297/
                                                        >
                                                        >eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/
                                                        >http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                      • Steve Charles
                                                        Terry, I have to back you up on this one. Private Hamilton Coates of the 5th Wisconsin Battery writes in his diary: Tuesday (Nov.) 8. Election day and we
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Terry,
                                                          I have to back you up on this one.
                                                          Private Hamilton Coates of the 5th Wisconsin Battery writes in his diary:
                                                          "Tuesday (Nov.) 8. "
                                                          "Election day and we exercised the right of franchise in the battery and
                                                          voted for Abraham Lincoln to be President another term of office".

                                                          Major James A. Connolly, a division staff officer on Gen. Baird's staff.
                                                          Bairds Div., 14th Corps, AOC wrote in his diary of the election also. He
                                                          writes:
                                                          "There are comparatively few McClellan men in the army. In one brigade of
                                                          our division consisting of the 17th, 31st, 89th, & 92nd Ohio, 82nd Ind. and
                                                          23rd Missouri, the vote polled today stood Lincoln 1229, McClellan 101".


                                                          Steve Charles
                                                          -----Original Message-----
                                                          From: Terry Arliskas <tarliskas@...>
                                                          To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                                          Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 12:33 PM
                                                          Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?


                                                          >Jack -
                                                          >
                                                          >Just can't let this post go unanswered. I am not sure where your
                                                          skepticism
                                                          >comes from regarding the re-election of Lincoln, and would be interested in
                                                          >the sources that you used in contending that Federal soldiers were either
                                                          >strong-armed or coerced with liquor into voting for Lincoln.
                                                          >
                                                          >I can only give the example of one Federal regiment - the 29th Wisconsin
                                                          >Vol. Inf., who in Nov. of 1864 was posted at the White River in Arkansas.
                                                          >
                                                          >From the diary of Charles Merrill, Private, Co. I:
                                                          >
                                                          >"Nov. 8 - Showery all day. We had an election today. Co. I had 46 votes
                                                          for
                                                          >Abe Lincoln and none for McClellan. The Regt gave a Union vote of 191
                                                          >Majority."
                                                          >
                                                          >From the diary of Sergt. Edward Potter, Co. D:
                                                          >
                                                          >"Tues., Nov. 8 - Our Election for President and Vice President passed off
                                                          >very quiet. In Co. D the vote took 30 for L. and 8 for M. In the Regt.
                                                          280
                                                          >for L. and 88 for M. Rumor of another move up W.R."
                                                          >
                                                          >From the diary of Lt. David Curtis, Co. D:
                                                          >
                                                          >"Nov 8 - Voted today for A. Lincoln and A. Johnson for Presdient - mouth of
                                                          >White River Ark. Regt. cast 280 votes for Lincoln and 88 for McClellan and
                                                          >Pendleton. Co. Do cast 30 for Lin. and 8 for Little Mac. 21st Iowa 438
                                                          for
                                                          >Lincoln and 24 for Mac."
                                                          >
                                                          >From a letter date Nov. 8, 1864 to "Dear Mother" from Marcus Wheeler, Co.
                                                          G:
                                                          >
                                                          >"Co. "G" went 25 union - 14 copperhead. The latter votes were German from
                                                          >Cross Plains. . . All the Westport men voted for Abe!! Enclosed I send the
                                                          >identical ticket which I voted. I want you to preserve it, as they do the
                                                          >copies of the "Emancipation Proclamation" as I consider it a valuable
                                                          relic.
                                                          > I also send a "secesh" ticket, voted at the same time. Please, keep
                                                          both,
                                                          >as I may want to refer McClellan men to the "men they voted for" in future
                                                          >teim. I shall frame them, and keep them for my "grandchildren" to look
                                                          upon
                                                          >with pride. Tell Cramer that I recall his prophecy made four years since -
                                                          >that "men who voted for Lincoln in 1860 would be damned shamed of it before
                                                          >his term of office expired" and "Lincoln would kill the Republican Party!"
                                                          >I was a Lincoln man then and I voted for him yesterday! I am proud to say
                                                          >it, and am ready to avow it "from the housetops"! But the "Little
                                                          >Mackerels" were so much ashamed of their position that they were shy and
                                                          >foxy, and gave no reason to give for voting as they did except "Dey had
                                                          >fought long enough and want to have Peace and go home"!!!"
                                                          >
                                                          >From a letter to "Friend Willard" from 2nd Lieut. John Scott, Co. F, dated
                                                          >Nov. 22, 1864:
                                                          >
                                                          >"I have just been privately celebrating the re-election of "old Abe" and
                                                          >have the news here that "Mike Lellan" has only received 20 Electoral votes.
                                                          >I suppose we will have to be contented although that is 20 more than I
                                                          >wanted to see him have. The thing don't seem to suit the "Dimmy crats."
                                                          >
                                                          >I have seen no mention EVER in a letter or diary of a soldier being forced
                                                          >to vote one way or another, nor any mention of free liquor for votes. From
                                                          >the research that I have done of this very typical, Western Theatre
                                                          >regiment, I can only make the assumption that they voted for Lincoln
                                                          because
                                                          >they felt he was the best candidate for President!
                                                          >
                                                          >Terry Arliskas
                                                          >29WVI
                                                          >
                                                          >>From: Nonums@...
                                                          >>Reply-To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                                          >>To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                                          >>Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?
                                                          >>Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:50:01 EST
                                                          >>
                                                          >>
                                                          >>This post relates to my long-held skepticism of the subject. Firstly,
                                                          with
                                                          >>part of the country's polling booths under armed guard and the great
                                                          voting
                                                          >>turnout of Federal troops, has anyone addressed the subject of "hanky
                                                          >>panky"
                                                          >>whether in the form of army muscle or extensive free booze for the troops?
                                                          >>It's hard to imagine how "Little Macs" popularity with the troops would
                                                          >>have
                                                          >>dissipated as it did.
                                                          >>Your extended comments would be appreciated.
                                                          >> Yr.obt.svt.
                                                          >> Jack O'Connor
                                                          >>
                                                          >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          >>WEMedia.com empowers persons with disabilities to build a strong and
                                                          >>vibrant community.
                                                          >>http://click.egroups.com/1/682/1/_/14182/_/948829887/
                                                          >>
                                                          >>-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
                                                          >>-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=civilwarwest&m=1
                                                          >>
                                                          >
                                                          >______________________________________________________
                                                          >
                                                          >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          >For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them from
                                                          >anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance to win a
                                                          >digital camera.
                                                          >http://click.egroups.com/1/337/1/_/14182/_/948838297/
                                                          >
                                                          >eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/
                                                          >http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                        • Steve Charles
                                                          Terry, I have to back you up on this one. Private Hamilton Coates of the 5th Wisconsin Battery writes in his diary: Tuesday (Nov.) 8. Election day and we
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Jan 25, 2000
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Terry,
                                                            I have to back you up on this one.
                                                            Private Hamilton Coates of the 5th Wisconsin Battery writes in his diary:
                                                            "Tuesday (Nov.) 8. "
                                                            "Election day and we exercised the right of franchise in the battery and
                                                            voted for Abraham Lincoln to be President another term of office".

                                                            Major James A. Connolly, a division staff officer on Gen. Baird's staff.
                                                            Bairds Div., 14th Corps, AOC wrote in his diary of the election also. He
                                                            writes:
                                                            "There are comparatively few McClellan men in the army. In one brigade of
                                                            our division consisting of the 17th, 31st, 89th, & 92nd Ohio, 82nd Ind. and
                                                            23rd Missouri, the vote polled today stood Lincoln 1229, McClellan 101".


                                                            Steve Charles
                                                            -----Original Message-----
                                                            From: Terry Arliskas <tarliskas@...>
                                                            To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                                            Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 12:33 PM
                                                            Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?


                                                            >Jack -
                                                            >
                                                            >Just can't let this post go unanswered. I am not sure where your
                                                            skepticism
                                                            >comes from regarding the re-election of Lincoln, and would be interested in
                                                            >the sources that you used in contending that Federal soldiers were either
                                                            >strong-armed or coerced with liquor into voting for Lincoln.
                                                            >
                                                            >I can only give the example of one Federal regiment - the 29th Wisconsin
                                                            >Vol. Inf., who in Nov. of 1864 was posted at the White River in Arkansas.
                                                            >
                                                            >From the diary of Charles Merrill, Private, Co. I:
                                                            >
                                                            >"Nov. 8 - Showery all day. We had an election today. Co. I had 46 votes
                                                            for
                                                            >Abe Lincoln and none for McClellan. The Regt gave a Union vote of 191
                                                            >Majority."
                                                            >
                                                            >From the diary of Sergt. Edward Potter, Co. D:
                                                            >
                                                            >"Tues., Nov. 8 - Our Election for President and Vice President passed off
                                                            >very quiet. In Co. D the vote took 30 for L. and 8 for M. In the Regt.
                                                            280
                                                            >for L. and 88 for M. Rumor of another move up W.R."
                                                            >
                                                            >From the diary of Lt. David Curtis, Co. D:
                                                            >
                                                            >"Nov 8 - Voted today for A. Lincoln and A. Johnson for Presdient - mouth of
                                                            >White River Ark. Regt. cast 280 votes for Lincoln and 88 for McClellan and
                                                            >Pendleton. Co. Do cast 30 for Lin. and 8 for Little Mac. 21st Iowa 438
                                                            for
                                                            >Lincoln and 24 for Mac."
                                                            >
                                                            >From a letter date Nov. 8, 1864 to "Dear Mother" from Marcus Wheeler, Co.
                                                            G:
                                                            >
                                                            >"Co. "G" went 25 union - 14 copperhead. The latter votes were German from
                                                            >Cross Plains. . . All the Westport men voted for Abe!! Enclosed I send the
                                                            >identical ticket which I voted. I want you to preserve it, as they do the
                                                            >copies of the "Emancipation Proclamation" as I consider it a valuable
                                                            relic.
                                                            > I also send a "secesh" ticket, voted at the same time. Please, keep
                                                            both,
                                                            >as I may want to refer McClellan men to the "men they voted for" in future
                                                            >teim. I shall frame them, and keep them for my "grandchildren" to look
                                                            upon
                                                            >with pride. Tell Cramer that I recall his prophecy made four years since -
                                                            >that "men who voted for Lincoln in 1860 would be damned shamed of it before
                                                            >his term of office expired" and "Lincoln would kill the Republican Party!"
                                                            >I was a Lincoln man then and I voted for him yesterday! I am proud to say
                                                            >it, and am ready to avow it "from the housetops"! But the "Little
                                                            >Mackerels" were so much ashamed of their position that they were shy and
                                                            >foxy, and gave no reason to give for voting as they did except "Dey had
                                                            >fought long enough and want to have Peace and go home"!!!"
                                                            >
                                                            >From a letter to "Friend Willard" from 2nd Lieut. John Scott, Co. F, dated
                                                            >Nov. 22, 1864:
                                                            >
                                                            >"I have just been privately celebrating the re-election of "old Abe" and
                                                            >have the news here that "Mike Lellan" has only received 20 Electoral votes.
                                                            >I suppose we will have to be contented although that is 20 more than I
                                                            >wanted to see him have. The thing don't seem to suit the "Dimmy crats."
                                                            >
                                                            >I have seen no mention EVER in a letter or diary of a soldier being forced
                                                            >to vote one way or another, nor any mention of free liquor for votes. From
                                                            >the research that I have done of this very typical, Western Theatre
                                                            >regiment, I can only make the assumption that they voted for Lincoln
                                                            because
                                                            >they felt he was the best candidate for President!
                                                            >
                                                            >Terry Arliskas
                                                            >29WVI
                                                            >
                                                            >>From: Nonums@...
                                                            >>Reply-To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                                            >>To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                                                            >>Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Did Lincoln really need Atlanta?
                                                            >>Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:50:01 EST
                                                            >>
                                                            >>
                                                            >>This post relates to my long-held skepticism of the subject. Firstly,
                                                            with
                                                            >>part of the country's polling booths under armed guard and the great
                                                            voting
                                                            >>turnout of Federal troops, has anyone addressed the subject of "hanky
                                                            >>panky"
                                                            >>whether in the form of army muscle or extensive free booze for the troops?
                                                            >>It's hard to imagine how "Little Macs" popularity with the troops would
                                                            >>have
                                                            >>dissipated as it did.
                                                            >>Your extended comments would be appreciated.
                                                            >> Yr.obt.svt.
                                                            >> Jack O'Connor
                                                            >>
                                                            >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            >>WEMedia.com empowers persons with disabilities to build a strong and
                                                            >>vibrant community.
                                                            >>http://click.egroups.com/1/682/1/_/14182/_/948829887/
                                                            >>
                                                            >>-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
                                                            >>-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=civilwarwest&m=1
                                                            >>
                                                            >
                                                            >______________________________________________________
                                                            >
                                                            >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            >For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them from
                                                            >anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance to win a
                                                            >digital camera.
                                                            >http://click.egroups.com/1/337/1/_/14182/_/948838297/
                                                            >
                                                            >eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/
                                                            >http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                          • richthofen@buckeyeinet.com
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Aug 7, 2001
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              yes ,Lincoln very much needed Atlanta The Barom--- In civilwarwest@y..., "L.A. Chambliss" <xanthipp@u...> wrote:
                                                              > Dear Karen, Stewart, and group,
                                                              >
                                                              > One of the hardest things to do, at least for me, is to study the War or any
                                                              > other historical event from the perspective of those who were there IN that
                                                              > time, blocking out everything that we now know came after that.
                                                              >
                                                              > I think that Lincoln THOUGHT that he needed Atlanta, or some other major
                                                              > battlefield victory, and preferably a consistent string of them, very very
                                                              > badly. What we now think of as the "turning point" victories of Gettysburg and
                                                              > Vicksburg were now a long time in the past. Chickamauga had been a dreadful
                                                              > setback to what seemed at the time like an inexorable sweep by Rosecrans. The
                                                              > war in the east had settled into the siege around Petersburg that must have
                                                              > seemed to the public to be going absolutely nowhere in terms of bringing the
                                                              > war to a swift conclusion.
                                                              >
                                                              > The example I will cite here as far as battlefield reality vs. political
                                                              > reality is the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. The action was a near
                                                              > total loss for the North Vietnamese. They lost huge amounts of materiel and
                                                              > manpower, held none of the objectives that they tried to take. From a military
                                                              > perspective it was the last desperate gasp of a force on the verge of losing.
                                                              >
                                                              > From a POLITICAL perspective though it was an unmitigated loss for Lyndon
                                                              > Johnson, simply because the enemy was not supposed to be anywhere NEAR able to
                                                              > attempt such a thing. The shock that went through the American people (I was
                                                              > about 17 at the time and remember it well) was palpable. Commentators like
                                                              > Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey, who had previously taken the attitude of "we
                                                              > must stay the course", started giving editorials to the effect of "We have
                                                              > spent all this time, money and blood, and these people are just not giving up,
                                                              > it's time to cut our losses and get out."
                                                              >
                                                              > To return to the War that we are discussing here though, I can see a very
                                                              > similar situation happening if Jefferson Davis had ordered that Atlanta be
                                                              > defended to the last man, and then pumped in every man and boy capable of
                                                              > firing a gun. Heck, if he had had a 20-century attitude towards propaganda he
                                                              > would have staged some photos of women drilling with rifles, followed by one of
                                                              > armed slaves going to the defense of their country! Can you imagine THOSE
                                                              > pictures running in Harper's Weekly, or the London Times? ;)
                                                              >
                                                              > Could they have held out from Sept. 1 till Election Day? Who knows? But the
                                                              > constant attitude of Johnston, and then Hood, that "I must save my army to
                                                              > fight another day" accomplished nothing but saving them to surrender at
                                                              > Bentonville or Appomatox.
                                                              >
                                                              > Laurie Chambliss
                                                              > Civil War Interactive
                                                              > www.almshouse.com
                                                              >
                                                              > Karen Hall wrote:
                                                              >
                                                              > > I really don't think that Lincoln needed Atlanta to win re-election. The
                                                              > > North was on a winning role and the war looked like it was going to be over
                                                              > > soon. By appointing Grant to lead the Army Lincoln had finally found someone
                                                              > > who knew how to defeat Lee. Although people were getting tired of the war I
                                                              > > think they knew that only Lincoln would be able to see them through to the
                                                              > > end. I also think that most people were thinking about what to do with the
                                                              > > South after the war and felt that Lincoln was a good leader to bring the
                                                              > > country back together.
                                                              > > Just my thoughts.
                                                              > > Karen Hall
                                                              > > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:38:55 -0500, Stewart L Bennett wro
                                                              > > > Question to any and all out there.
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > > Did Lincoln really need Sherman's "gift" of the city of Atlanta in order
                                                              > > > for him to be re-elected?I read and hear from others that the taking of
                                                              > > > Atlanta assured Lincoln's re-election.The more I think about it the more
                                                              > > > uncomfortable I am with it.What do you think..? Even if Atlanta did hold
                                                              > > > out until after the election did Lincoln really have anything to worry
                                                              > > > about?
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > > Stewart
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > > ___________________________________________________________________
                                                              > > > Get the Internet just the way you want it.
                                                              > > > Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
                                                              > > > Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                                                              > > > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > > ________________________________________________________________
                                                              > > Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
                                                              > > Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
                                                              > >
                                                              > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              > >
                                                              > > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                                                              > > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.