Re: Nathaniel Banks [east vs west]
- --- In civilwarwest@y..., "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...> wrote:
> -as far as the disposition of troops in 1862, the fact is that theAs you pointed out, the responsibility was not Banks--he had been
> Union made the classic military mistake in VA of splitting up into
> small groups that could be defeated independently. I don't care if
> group A was northwest or southeast of group B, the fact is they were
> all in the same general area and could have been combined. Banks,
> however, bore no responsibility for that mistake, but did fail to
> realize the impact on himself.
ordered to send Sheilds away and he had no control over Fremont.
> -What happened to Banks vs Jackson in a nutshell: Banks was pushingup
> [going south] the Shenandoah valley with great ambition to press thecavalry
> left flank of the overall CS defence of Richmond. Jackson used
> to screen the fact that he was stealing a march, using the mountainsSO
> also as a screen, and came in on Banks' rear. Now it is true that
> Banks reacted in time, but barely so, and WAS ADVISED TO HAVE DONE
> MUCH EARLIER BY HIS MILITARY AIDE; Banks foolishly refused to admitlate,
> the mortal danger he had put his army in till it was almost too
> narrowly avoided disaster, and trailing elements in the rush northhe
> took a beating. As David notes, this impacted his later stand, and
> wound up getting routed, leaving Virginia altogether behind theOnce again--routed by a force twice his size commanded by Jackson.
> Potomac River in Maryland.
Name the generals who would not have been routed?
> -In the Red River Campaign, I can't say that I would be the guy toone
> really explain all that happened there, but to interpret the federal
> Victory at Pleasant Hill as an opportunity to rally and defeat the
> Rebs just ignores the fact that the Yanks were stunned, suffering
> defeat, and viewing the P.H. victory as more of a "here we narrowlyto
> avoided disaster." Taylor criticized his own generalship, comparing
> himself to someone in a chess match who cannot envision the changed
> board after the moves have been made. Hopefully someone was around
> point out that he had accomplished a lot without the 3 to 1advantage
> usually advised for someone undertaking an attack; the Yanks hadirreversible
> gotten a bloody nose they hadn't anticipated, were in an
> state of collapsed morale, and couldn't get out of the area fastBanks ambition? He had been ordered to make the expedition over his
> enough. Shreveport was out of danger and Banks' last grand ambition,
> the Genius that scared Napolean [ok, the third] with his invasion of
> Texas, was gone for good.
- Will, you always do your homework and make good points. Certainly I
didn't know that the Red River Campaign was over Banks' objections.
Lincoln needed Banks, it seems, as you point out he wasn't the worst
general he ever had, although I clearly believe he was more "in the
running" for that spot than you do. And I guess he was very much
needed for raising troops [and for political reasons in general];
seems like it was too bad such high profile assignments needed to be
given him, though.
- Suddenly the key point from the Jackson Valley
campaign as it transfers to the Red River snaps into
focus: Taylor was a brigadier general at Winchester.
He charged Banks' line, got good resistance but
suddenly Banks' forces melted. I suspose Taylor's
notion was that if pressure were applied to Banks, his
army would eventually fold.
True or not, I suspect that Taylor's taste of glory as
a Brigadier played a part in the mental game played
out in the Red River campaign.
--- carlw4514 <carlw4514@...> wrote:
> Will, you always do your homework and make good__________________________________________________
> points. Certainly I
> didn't know that the Red River Campaign was over
> Banks' objections.
> Lincoln needed Banks, it seems, as you point out he
> wasn't the worst
> general he ever had, although I clearly believe he
> was more "in the
> running" for that spot than you do. And I guess he
> was very much
> needed for raising troops [and for political reasons
> in general];
> seems like it was too bad such high profile
> assignments needed to be
> given him, though.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
- I suspect you may be right.
I am certain that the loss of the availability of troops from the most
populous part of Louisiana was sorely felt in 1864; the very troops
Taylor was commanding in VA had basically come from there IIRC.
--- In civilwarwest@y..., David Kowalski <kywddavid@y...> wrote:
> Suddenly the key point from the Jackson Valley
> campaign as it transfers to the Red River snaps into
> focus: Taylor was a brigadier general at Winchester.
> He charged Banks' line, got good resistance but
> suddenly Banks' forces melted. I suspose Taylor's
> notion was that if pressure were applied to Banks, his
> army would eventually fold.
> True or not, I suspect that Taylor's taste of glory as
> a Brigadier played a part in the mental game played
> out in the Red River campaign.