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

[civilwarwest] Voting Results: Turning point in the Civil War

Expand Messages
  • eGroups.com Poll Results
    Here are the results of the vote: 1. Death of Stonewall Jackson 1 2. Emancipation Proclamation 1 3. Grant s promotion to commanding general 2 4.
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 28, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Here are the results of the vote:

      1. Death of Stonewall Jackson 1
      2. Emancipation Proclamation 1
      3. Grant's promotion to commanding general 2
      4. Vicksburg 6
    • eGroups.com Poll Results
      Here are the results of the vote: 1. Death of Stonewall Jackson 1 2. Emancipation Proclamation 1 3. Grant s promotion to commanding general 2 4.
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 28, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Here are the results of the vote:

        1. Death of Stonewall Jackson 1
        2. Emancipation Proclamation 1
        3. Grant's promotion to commanding general 2
        4. Vicksburg 6
      • JackEhmer123@aol.com
        In a message dated 10/28/1999 3:19:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time, neho69@hotmail.com writes:
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 10/28/1999 3:19:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
          neho69@... writes:

          << ubj: [civilwarwest] Voting Results: Turning point in the Civil War
          Date: 10/28/1999 3:19:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time
          From: neho69@... (eGroups.com Poll Results)
          Reply-to: civilwarwest@egroups.com
          To: civilwarwest@egroups.com

          Here are the results of the vote:

          1. Death of Stonewall Jackson 1
          2. Emancipation Proclamation 1
          3. Grant's promotion to commanding general 2
          4. Vicksburg 6
          >>


          Although I was one of the two votes for Grant's promotion, upon reflection I
          think that event was directly precipitated by Vicksburg. In addition to it's
          strategic importance, the victory at Vicksburg gave Grant the prominence
          which allowed Lincoln to give him command of the armies. Even more
          importantly, it freed up a large number of troops to move eastward to close
          the noose around Lee and Johnson. It also freed up Sherman, Sheridan and
          McPherson to provide the leadership which was so lacking in the Federal Army
          in the East.

          I have often wondered what qualities that Grant possessed that made him the
          right man at the right time. Although seemingly a good man, he was a failure
          at everything else in his life, including the presidency. It seems that the
          only thing that distinguished him from all the rest of the Federal Commanding
          Generals was that he actually believed that he could and should win with the
          resources at hand.

          Jack Ehmer
        • JackEhmer123@aol.com
          In a message dated 10/28/1999 3:19:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time, neho69@hotmail.com writes:
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 10/28/1999 3:19:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
            neho69@... writes:

            << ubj: [civilwarwest] Voting Results: Turning point in the Civil War
            Date: 10/28/1999 3:19:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time
            From: neho69@... (eGroups.com Poll Results)
            Reply-to: civilwarwest@egroups.com
            To: civilwarwest@egroups.com

            Here are the results of the vote:

            1. Death of Stonewall Jackson 1
            2. Emancipation Proclamation 1
            3. Grant's promotion to commanding general 2
            4. Vicksburg 6
            >>


            Although I was one of the two votes for Grant's promotion, upon reflection I
            think that event was directly precipitated by Vicksburg. In addition to it's
            strategic importance, the victory at Vicksburg gave Grant the prominence
            which allowed Lincoln to give him command of the armies. Even more
            importantly, it freed up a large number of troops to move eastward to close
            the noose around Lee and Johnson. It also freed up Sherman, Sheridan and
            McPherson to provide the leadership which was so lacking in the Federal Army
            in the East.

            I have often wondered what qualities that Grant possessed that made him the
            right man at the right time. Although seemingly a good man, he was a failure
            at everything else in his life, including the presidency. It seems that the
            only thing that distinguished him from all the rest of the Federal Commanding
            Generals was that he actually believed that he could and should win with the
            resources at hand.

            Jack Ehmer
          • The Coys
            I have been holding onto this message hoping someone else might chime in. :) As some of you might know I am not the greatest of Grant s fans. But I must tell
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 7, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              I have been holding onto this message hoping someone else might chime in. :) As some of you might know I am not the greatest of Grant's fans.  But I must tell you that Grant possessed some qualities of 'soldiering' that most did not at the time.  First of all, Grant took responsibility for his actions. He did not look to blame others for the failures or mistakes. Grant recognized that he was in charge and thus had ultimate responsibility.  After Shiloh Grant could very easily placed blame for the 'surprise' on numerous of others. But he did not.  Compare that to any of McClellan's performances and post-perfromances. Secondly, Grant didn't constanly harangue the chain of command for more men and supplies.  Grant formulated his plans and operations with what he had. Again compare that to Little Mac and his constant shouts for reenforcements and horses.  Even the GREAT William S. Rosecrans was noted for sending a few more telegrams of requests for supplies than he sent telegrams of actions and plans. :)  Another thing Grant did was to immediately into action.  After Vicksburg, Grant already had plans formulated and submitted for movements to Mobile.  How long did it take Meade to get into action after that little scrap in Pennsylvania?  Finally, Grant kept fighting in one direction.....the direction of his foes.  Grant might not have been good at nothing else but he was a soldier.

              Your obedient servant,

              Kevin S. Coy

              P.S. Do y'all realize how hard it was for me not to say HUG *ptooey* at least once. :)
               
               

              JackEhmer123@... wrote:

              <snip>
              I have often wondered what qualities that Grant possessed that made him the
              right man at the right time. Although seemingly a good man, he was a failure
              at everything else in his life, including the presidency. It seems that the
              only thing that distinguished him from all the rest of the Federal Commanding
              Generals was that he actually believed that he could and should win with the
              resources at hand.

              Jack Ehmer

              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              The Mental Health Practitioner’s Instant
              Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set
              of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a
              $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at
              http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1364

              eGroup Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/
              http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

            • The Coys
              I have been holding onto this message hoping someone else might chime in. :) As some of you might know I am not the greatest of Grant s fans. But I must tell
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 7, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                I have been holding onto this message hoping someone else might chime in. :) As some of you might know I am not the greatest of Grant's fans.  But I must tell you that Grant possessed some qualities of 'soldiering' that most did not at the time.  First of all, Grant took responsibility for his actions. He did not look to blame others for the failures or mistakes. Grant recognized that he was in charge and thus had ultimate responsibility.  After Shiloh Grant could very easily placed blame for the 'surprise' on numerous of others. But he did not.  Compare that to any of McClellan's performances and post-perfromances. Secondly, Grant didn't constanly harangue the chain of command for more men and supplies.  Grant formulated his plans and operations with what he had. Again compare that to Little Mac and his constant shouts for reenforcements and horses.  Even the GREAT William S. Rosecrans was noted for sending a few more telegrams of requests for supplies than he sent telegrams of actions and plans. :)  Another thing Grant did was to immediately into action.  After Vicksburg, Grant already had plans formulated and submitted for movements to Mobile.  How long did it take Meade to get into action after that little scrap in Pennsylvania?  Finally, Grant kept fighting in one direction.....the direction of his foes.  Grant might not have been good at nothing else but he was a soldier.

                Your obedient servant,

                Kevin S. Coy

                P.S. Do y'all realize how hard it was for me not to say HUG *ptooey* at least once. :)
                 
                 

                JackEhmer123@... wrote:

                <snip>
                I have often wondered what qualities that Grant possessed that made him the
                right man at the right time. Although seemingly a good man, he was a failure
                at everything else in his life, including the presidency. It seems that the
                only thing that distinguished him from all the rest of the Federal Commanding
                Generals was that he actually believed that he could and should win with the
                resources at hand.

                Jack Ehmer

                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                The Mental Health Practitioner’s Instant
                Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set
                of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a
                $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at
                http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1364

                eGroup Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/
                http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

              • Stephen D Wakefield
                Dear Sir- Could not agree with you more. Grant s most unfavorable traits IMHO were his reluctance to give credit to Thomas and Rosey... much of this was
                Message 7 of 10 , Nov 7, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Sir-
                  Could not agree with you more. Grant's most unfavorable traits IMHO were his reluctance to give credit to Thomas and Rosey... much of this was Sherman's doing IMO. But he was the right man for the time,
                  Wakfield a/k/a AoT
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: The Coys <thecoys@...>
                  To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                  Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 5:03 PM
                  Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Voting Results: Turning point in the Civil War

                  I have been holding onto this message hoping someone else might chime in. :) As some of you might know I am not the greatest of Grant's fans.  But I must tell you that Grant possessed some qualities of 'soldiering' that most did not at the time.  First of all, Grant took responsibility for his actions. He did not look to blame others for the failures or mistakes. Grant recognized that he was in charge and thus had ultimate responsibility.  After Shiloh Grant could very easily placed blame for the 'surprise' on numerous of others. But he did not.  Compare that to any of McClellan's performances and post-perfromances. Secondly, Grant didn't constanly harangue the chain of command for more men and supplies.  Grant formulated his plans and operations with what he had. Again compare that to Little Mac and his constant shouts for reenforcements and horses.  Even the GREAT William S. Rosecrans was noted for sending a few more telegrams of requests for supplies than he sent telegrams of actions and plans. :)  Another thing Grant did was to immediately into action.  After Vicksburg, Grant already had plans formulated and submitted for movements to Mobile.  How long did it take Meade to get into action after that little scrap in Pennsylvania?  Finally, Grant kept fighting in one direction.....the direction of his foes.  Grant might not have been good at nothing else but he was a soldier.

                  Your obedient servant,

                  Kevin S. Coy

                  P.S. Do y'all realize how hard it was for me not to say HUG *ptooey* at least once. :)
                   
                   

                  JackEhmer123@... wrote:

                  <snip>
                  I have often wondered what qualities that Grant possessed that made him the
                  right man at the right time. Although seemingly a good man, he was a failure
                  at everything else in his life, including the presidency. It seems that the
                  only thing that distinguished him from all the rest of the Federal Commanding
                  Generals was that he actually believed that he could and should win with the
                  resources at hand.

                  Jack Ehmer

                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  The Mental Health Practitioner’s Instant
                  Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set
                  of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a
                  $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at
                  http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1364

                  eGroup Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/
                  http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications


                  click here
                  Click here!
                  eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                  www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                • Stephen D Wakefield
                  Dear Sir- Could not agree with you more. Grant s most unfavorable traits IMHO were his reluctance to give credit to Thomas and Rosey... much of this was
                  Message 8 of 10 , Nov 7, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Sir-
                    Could not agree with you more. Grant's most unfavorable traits IMHO were his reluctance to give credit to Thomas and Rosey... much of this was Sherman's doing IMO. But he was the right man for the time,
                    Wakfield a/k/a AoT
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: The Coys <thecoys@...>
                    To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                    Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 5:03 PM
                    Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Voting Results: Turning point in the Civil War

                    I have been holding onto this message hoping someone else might chime in. :) As some of you might know I am not the greatest of Grant's fans.  But I must tell you that Grant possessed some qualities of 'soldiering' that most did not at the time.  First of all, Grant took responsibility for his actions. He did not look to blame others for the failures or mistakes. Grant recognized that he was in charge and thus had ultimate responsibility.  After Shiloh Grant could very easily placed blame for the 'surprise' on numerous of others. But he did not.  Compare that to any of McClellan's performances and post-perfromances. Secondly, Grant didn't constanly harangue the chain of command for more men and supplies.  Grant formulated his plans and operations with what he had. Again compare that to Little Mac and his constant shouts for reenforcements and horses.  Even the GREAT William S. Rosecrans was noted for sending a few more telegrams of requests for supplies than he sent telegrams of actions and plans. :)  Another thing Grant did was to immediately into action.  After Vicksburg, Grant already had plans formulated and submitted for movements to Mobile.  How long did it take Meade to get into action after that little scrap in Pennsylvania?  Finally, Grant kept fighting in one direction.....the direction of his foes.  Grant might not have been good at nothing else but he was a soldier.

                    Your obedient servant,

                    Kevin S. Coy

                    P.S. Do y'all realize how hard it was for me not to say HUG *ptooey* at least once. :)
                     
                     

                    JackEhmer123@... wrote:

                    <snip>
                    I have often wondered what qualities that Grant possessed that made him the
                    right man at the right time. Although seemingly a good man, he was a failure
                    at everything else in his life, including the presidency. It seems that the
                    only thing that distinguished him from all the rest of the Federal Commanding
                    Generals was that he actually believed that he could and should win with the
                    resources at hand.

                    Jack Ehmer

                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    The Mental Health Practitioner’s Instant
                    Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set
                    of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a
                    $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at
                    http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1364

                    eGroup Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/
                    http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications


                    click here
                    Click here!
                    eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                    www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                  • Mark Wiggin
                    Kevin, I agree with you. But, Grant possessed many fine strategic qualities as well. His move down the Mississippi and crossing to invest Vicksburg from the
                    Message 9 of 10 , Nov 8, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Kevin,
                      I agree with you.  But, Grant possessed many fine strategic qualities as well.  His move down the Mississippi and crossing to invest Vicksburg from the rear is a classic and highly underrated historically.  The reason I say underrated is that it seems that the eastern theater of the war holds a higher place of significance in people's minds.
                      Even though Thomas deserves much of the credit for the victory at Chattanooga, Grant's presence instilled confidence in officers and men.  Which is important in war.  I'll only make a few comments on the eastern theater since this isn't the venue, but is relevant to the discussion on Grant.  When Grant took command of all the armies of the United States the war had been raging for three long years.  Grant brought the war to a close in one year.  I believe this was because he understood the grand strategy of the war.  Which was to attack the confederacy on all fronts so as their armies could not reinforce each other, thus grinding each one down to end the war.  This is only a basic and not an in depth view on my part.
                      respectfully submitted
                      Mark Wiggin

                      The Coys wrote:

                      I have been holding onto this message hoping someone else might chime in. :) As some of you might know I am not the greatest of Grant's fans.  But I must tell you that Grant possessed some qualities of 'soldiering' that most did not at the time.  First of all, Grant took responsibility for his actions. He did not look to blame others for the failures or mistakes. Grant recognized that he was in charge and thus had ultimate responsibility.  After Shiloh Grant could very easily placed blame for the 'surprise' on numerous of others. But he did not.  Compare that to any of McClellan's performances and post-perfromances. Secondly, Grant didn't constanly harangue the chain of command for more men and supplies.  Grant formulated his plans and operations with what he had. Again compare that to Little Mac and his constant shouts for reenforcements and horses.  Even the GREAT William S. Rosecrans was noted for sending a few more telegrams of requests for supplies than he sent telegrams of actions and plans. :)  Another thing Grant did was to immediately into action.  After Vicksburg, Grant already had plans formulated and submitted for movements to Mobile.  How long did it take Meade to get into action after that little scrap in Pennsylvania?  Finally, Grant kept fighting in one direction.....the direction of his foes.  Grant might not have been good at nothing else but he was a soldier.

                      Your obedient servant,

                      Kevin S. Coy

                      P.S. Do y'all realize how hard it was for me not to say HUG *ptooey* at least once. :)
                       
                       

                      JackEhmer123@... wrote:

                      <snip>
                      I have often wondered what qualities that Grant possessed that made him the
                      right man at the right time. Although seemingly a good man, he was a failure
                      at everything else in his life, including the presidency. It seems that the
                      only thing that distinguished him from all the rest of the Federal Commanding
                      Generals was that he actually believed that he could and should win with the
                      resources at hand.

                      Jack Ehmer

                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      The Mental Health Practitioner’s Instant
                      Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set
                      of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a
                      $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at
                      http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1364

                      eGroup Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/
                      http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications


                      click here
                      Click here!
                      eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                      www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                    • Mark Wiggin
                      Kevin, I agree with you. But, Grant possessed many fine strategic qualities as well. His move down the Mississippi and crossing to invest Vicksburg from the
                      Message 10 of 10 , Nov 8, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Kevin,
                        I agree with you.  But, Grant possessed many fine strategic qualities as well.  His move down the Mississippi and crossing to invest Vicksburg from the rear is a classic and highly underrated historically.  The reason I say underrated is that it seems that the eastern theater of the war holds a higher place of significance in people's minds.
                        Even though Thomas deserves much of the credit for the victory at Chattanooga, Grant's presence instilled confidence in officers and men.  Which is important in war.  I'll only make a few comments on the eastern theater since this isn't the venue, but is relevant to the discussion on Grant.  When Grant took command of all the armies of the United States the war had been raging for three long years.  Grant brought the war to a close in one year.  I believe this was because he understood the grand strategy of the war.  Which was to attack the confederacy on all fronts so as their armies could not reinforce each other, thus grinding each one down to end the war.  This is only a basic and not an in depth view on my part.
                        respectfully submitted
                        Mark Wiggin

                        The Coys wrote:

                        I have been holding onto this message hoping someone else might chime in. :) As some of you might know I am not the greatest of Grant's fans.  But I must tell you that Grant possessed some qualities of 'soldiering' that most did not at the time.  First of all, Grant took responsibility for his actions. He did not look to blame others for the failures or mistakes. Grant recognized that he was in charge and thus had ultimate responsibility.  After Shiloh Grant could very easily placed blame for the 'surprise' on numerous of others. But he did not.  Compare that to any of McClellan's performances and post-perfromances. Secondly, Grant didn't constanly harangue the chain of command for more men and supplies.  Grant formulated his plans and operations with what he had. Again compare that to Little Mac and his constant shouts for reenforcements and horses.  Even the GREAT William S. Rosecrans was noted for sending a few more telegrams of requests for supplies than he sent telegrams of actions and plans. :)  Another thing Grant did was to immediately into action.  After Vicksburg, Grant already had plans formulated and submitted for movements to Mobile.  How long did it take Meade to get into action after that little scrap in Pennsylvania?  Finally, Grant kept fighting in one direction.....the direction of his foes.  Grant might not have been good at nothing else but he was a soldier.

                        Your obedient servant,

                        Kevin S. Coy

                        P.S. Do y'all realize how hard it was for me not to say HUG *ptooey* at least once. :)
                         
                         

                        JackEhmer123@... wrote:

                        <snip>
                        I have often wondered what qualities that Grant possessed that made him the
                        right man at the right time. Although seemingly a good man, he was a failure
                        at everything else in his life, including the presidency. It seems that the
                        only thing that distinguished him from all the rest of the Federal Commanding
                        Generals was that he actually believed that he could and should win with the
                        resources at hand.

                        Jack Ehmer

                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        The Mental Health Practitioner’s Instant
                        Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set
                        of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a
                        $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at
                        http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1364

                        eGroup Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/
                        http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications


                        click here
                        Click here!
                        eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest
                        www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.