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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: There should have been no Shiloh? [was shiloh]

Expand Messages
  • James Fish
    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
    Message 1 of 95 , Nov 1, 2002

      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
      perimeter.

      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.


      HankC

      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "slippymississippi" <slippymississippi@y...>
      wrote:
      > --- 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
      was
      > > personally brave, a long term friend and protege of Jefferson
      Davis
      > > from their time together as colonels in Zachary Taylor's army
      > during
      > > the Mexican War, and he must have had good people skills. 
      Johnston
      > > 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
      > moving
      > > to Texas he enlisted as a private and became a brigadier general
      in
      > > 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
      "looks
      > > like a General, acts like a General" thing going for him.  But
      > could
      > > he handle the increased size of the forces under his command, and
      > the
      > > increased scope of operations his command required?  His
      > performance
      > > Sept-March inidicates he could not.  But my opinion is that he
      made
      > a
      > > 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
      it
      > 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
      attempt
      > 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

    • James Fish
      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
      Message 95 of 95 , Nov 1, 2002

        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
        perimeter.

        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.


        HankC

        --- In civilwarwest@y..., "slippymississippi" <slippymississippi@y...>
        wrote:
        > --- 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
        was
        > > personally brave, a long term friend and protege of Jefferson
        Davis
        > > from their time together as colonels in Zachary Taylor's army
        > during
        > > the Mexican War, and he must have had good people skills. 
        Johnston
        > > 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
        > moving
        > > to Texas he enlisted as a private and became a brigadier general
        in
        > > 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
        "looks
        > > like a General, acts like a General" thing going for him.  But
        > could
        > > he handle the increased size of the forces under his command, and
        > the
        > > increased scope of operations his command required?  His
        > performance
        > > Sept-March inidicates he could not.  But my opinion is that he
        made
        > a
        > > 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
        it
        > 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
        attempt
        > 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

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.