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.
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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.