As you progress with you paper, I (and I think others here) would
enjoy hearing your findings. Discussion as to the 'decisive point in
the battle' and assessments of generalship are welcomed.
--- In civilwarwest@y..., "CMcC Price" <cmccprice@h...> wrote:
> Hello again. I want to clarify a couple of things. I will graduate
from Mary Washington College next May. I will complete a BLS degree
with a concentration in American Studies following part time
undergraduate work at CCC, San Jacinto College, Northern Virginia
Community College since 1980. I dropped out of High School around 9th
grade (a long time ago). I don't recall ever having Civil War History
and government back then was taught in the senior year at that time
not 7 & 8th grades. I've been fortunate to visit many National
parks, refuges, national historical sites, battlefields, landmarks,
etc throughout the U.S. during month long tent camping trips. I love
our Nation. Anyway, I needed to take a 300 level course to complete
a non core requirement & inadvertently ended up with this one. This
would take far too long to explain!:-)
> The assignment I am working on is a 10 page formal paper that
constitutes a history of a regiment or a major battle. I chose to
work on Shiloh because my great, great-grandfather Leo "Peg Leg"
Craigen and his brothers fought at Shiloh. Leo lost his leg at Shiloh
while his two brothers died. After the war, Leo returned to East
Texas. He taught school to "dipped" African Americans.
> The actual assignment is to evaluate the battle itself: trace out
the movements of the armies, find the decisive point in the battle,
and assess the generalship on both sides. The other major task of the
paper is to evaluate the significance of the battle by placing it in
its true context. Why, when, and where it happened, political,
strategic, or diplomatic significance considered.
> I am not asking you to help me with the assignment.
> My questions about the Southern railroads pertains to a passing
question my professor asked in class but didn't really discuss.
Doesn't really pertain to the assignment, I guess. However, as I sat
in traffic for over 2 hours on Rte 1 while Marines searched every
white vehicle for a Sniper, I thought about his question relating to
Southern Transportation problems and the third part of the course
regarding strategic planning and battles. I guess my brain is trying
to synthesis something. That's it in a nutshell.
> Anyway, the RR thread is interesting to me.
> It appears I have asked the wrong questions.
> Thanks for everyone's insight.
> RallieeeGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
Hank C The South had little chance of succeeding,if the North really tookan interest in a military conquest of the South.The South was out numbered ,out industried,out everythinged.Except the South was fighting a defensive war.To successfully assault a defended position, it took as a rule of thumb 2 times the troops.Everything else being equal.The South had the better field commanders initially,they probably fought harder thinking they were defending their homes from a foreign invader.Initially they were also better trained.But once the North got rolling,and took an interest in the fight,and there was no foreign power France ,England actively siding with the South,it was over.It was over on 7/4/1863 as long as the North maintained the will to fight.There was not a flight of all Kentuckians to the side of the South as they thought or hoped there would be.Perryville though not a smashing Northern victory, was certainly not a CSA victory.Once Ky was lost, that would also mean a lot of Tenn was gone also.A lot of the defensive Southern positions was done with deception and mirrors, and once the North realized this, the task became more manageable,and as long as there was no outside intervention,it was a matter of time.The south with all the defiencies was a very formidable foe,and those that fought on that side should be respected for their determination and bravery.
You have to remember too the USA still had to defend the USA from foreign attack and carry on somewhat of a foreign policy and still fight the internal insurrection.The north should be commended for this also.It should also be pointed out the North suffered more casualties and deaths than the South.If Victory were by body countand not by surrender,there could be an argument that the South won,but didnt.In reality this war produced no Winners only a large body count,a large casualty count and a surrender.
The resposibility that fell on the North(USA) almost strecthed them out too thin.A major foreign power, may have made a successful attack and resulting surrender of the USA,but didnt.I think the USA was very vunerable if England would have attacked en mass from Canada and the Atlantic.the North was almost over extended also.IMO
hank9174 <clarkc@...> wrote:
This and similar, parallel threads help cement MHO that the South was
attempting to maintain an over-extendend and under-manned defensive
Once the frontier contracts, the CSA achieves a critical mass and
conducts an abler defense of it's smaller position.
By then, however, the Mississippi River, it's largest city and the
state of Tennessee are no longer part of the CSA.
The Confederates seemed to revel in defending the undefendable: Polk
at Columbus, Johnston at Ft. Henry, Bragg in central Kentucky,
Pemberton at Vicksburg, Bragg again at Missionary Ridge, always hoping
that the USA will not discover the weakness of their positions and
surprised when it happens.
--- In civilwarwest@y..., "slippymississippi" <slippymississippi@y...>
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., "theme_music" <theme_music@y...> wrote:
> > --- In civilwarwest@y..., David Kowalski <kywddavid@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Louisiana had 708,000 people according to the 1860 census. New
> > Orleans had 116,000 in 1850 and, IIRC160,000 in 1860 (the Almanac
> > doesn't list city populations for 1860 but does for 1850). That
> > would mean nearly 50,000 conscripts could have been reaped from
> > NewOrleans, a larger figure than ASJ's entire army.
> > > What was so wonderful about Albert Sidney Johnston? Well, he
> > personally brave, a long term friend and protege of Jefferson
> > from their time together as colonels in Zachary Taylor's army
> > the Mexican War, and he must have had good people skills.
> > was the senior combat (?) officer to leave the US army when the
> > confederacy was organized.
> > > Johnston's greatest triumph was the Mormon expedition. He also
> > served at Monterey under Taylor. After quitting the army and
> > to Texas he enlisted as a private and became a brigadier general
> > under a year. In Texas, he distinguished himself individually (as
> > Secretary of War) in a battle against the Cherokees but he had no
> > battle field leadership.
> > I agree. By 1861 standards Sidney Johnston was about as
> > distinguished a military man as there was. He also had that
> > like a General, acts like a General" thing going for him. But
> > he handle the increased size of the forces under his command, and
> > increased scope of operations his command required? His
> > Sept-March inidicates he could not. But my opinion is that he
> > pretty darn good showing marshalling his forces at Corinth and
> > setting out to hit Grant. Virtually any other Union general would
> > have been defeated by such an onslaught.
> Daniel provides an excellent analysis which seems to indicate that
> was Beauregard that marshalled the forces, drew up the attack plan,
> and, finally, lit a fire under AS Johnston to get his slow-moving
> self into Corinth (as Daniel points out, Johnston didn't even
> to secure rail transport for his troops until Sherman's "cancelled
> due to rain" raid on the 17th). I'm not sure if Johnston ever had a
> comprehensive plan for the Western Theatre, much less Corinth.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now