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

Re: Vicksburg

Expand Messages
  • carlw4514
    Re your point below, OK, perhaps. Certainly there seems to be no emphasis from historians that control of the Louisiana side was a priority, as far as I know.
    Message 1 of 131 , Apr 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Re your point below, OK, perhaps. Certainly there seems to be no
      emphasis from historians that control of the Louisiana side was a
      priority, as far as I know. I only ask you to consider that:
      -Both in the case of Port Hudson and Vicksburg, such a step was taken.
      -In the case of Vicksburg, Halleck [I think we are learning here
      recently] seems to have directed it as a militiary necessity. I can't
      quite imagine what that necessity was if not to gain Federal control;
      Grant set to work trying a multitude of ways to to accomplish creating
      proper supply south of Vicksburg, canals and such, but the notorious
      string of failed attempts to accomplish this strongly suggests that
      this was not the main purpose. In other words, how could the case be
      made that "you must go down river to the L. side" in order to "figure
      out what you are going to do once you get there." Am I missing
      something here?
      -In the case of Vicksburg, Federal forces, under Sherman IIRC, stayed
      on the Louisiana side while Grant made his famous move back in to
      Mississippi. Why leave any?

      By "communications" largely this is used to emphasize the ability to
      send in reinforcements and the like, not so much having courier
      service. I think it can be imagined that the supply/communications
      situation would have really been less than ideal, a picture you paint
      below pretty well; certainly it would not haven been as good as the
      RR supply would provide on the land side, but should it be discounted?
      The failed Arkansas and Red River expeditions in '64 certainly found
      out that if it was true that the Trans-Miss Rebs had supply problems,
      they managed such well enough to basically turn the tables on two
      substantial Federal forces and a Yankee fleet to boot.
      -I can imagine that if Vicksburg had successfully been cut off and
      sieged purely from the land side with no US control of the L. side,
      that we would not have had the fairly quick collapse that occured.
      Obviously if I'm right, then this would not be a militarily sound
      operation, considering that it would be possible to do it right. I
      think now this is where Halleck was coming from. Just IMHO.
      Carl

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "slippymississippi"
      <slippymississippi@y...> wrote:
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > It should not be missed that to attack a fortress on a river, you
      > > can't allow the opposite bank to be in enemy hands complete with
      > > supply and communications, otherwise you have not completed phase
      > > one of encirclement.
      >
      > I think you're attributing more strategic value to the Louisiana
      side
      > of the river than it deserves. Domination of the river by federal
      > gunboats would have prevented all but a minimum of resupply because
      > it would have prevented large supply boats from docking. Resupply
      > would have to come via night-time forays in small boats. Regular
      > raids by marines would have reduced this even further.
      > Communications? Pemberton was in constant communication with Kirby
      > Smith, Joe Johnston, etc... only problem was nobody was listening.
    • Mike Peters
      Will and Ole, Thanks for your replies! Mike Peters Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ... From: keeno2@aol.com Sender: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com Date:
      Message 131 of 131 , Jun 24, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Will and Ole,

        Thanks for your replies!

        Mike Peters

        Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


        From: keeno2@...
        Sender: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:29:48 EDT
        To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
        ReplyTo: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Vicksburg - Grabau

         

        In a message dated 6/23/2010 10:17:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time, wh_keene@yahoo. com writes:
        Enjoyed it very much.  The style is quite different than other campaign studies.  He split each chapter into a US section and a CSA section, discussing the knowledge and decision making for each side.  Compared to other books, he devotes more attention to geography and logistics and less to personalities and anecdotes. 
        What he said. Grabau added depth and another dimension to the campaign for Vicksburg. Scads of maps and geological and topographical detail.
         
        Highly recommended.
         
        Ole
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.