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

Re: A different perspective

Expand Messages
  • slippymississippi
    ... Post ... support ... It seems this would only fully apply if there were any indication that Rosecrans would have aggressively pursued Bragg in January. As
    Message 1 of 74 , May 1 7:48 AM
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...>
      wrote:
      > I think, too, trying to somehow compare the capture of Arkansas
      Post
      > (a basically defenseless position with no means of receiving
      support
      > once reached) with solving the dilemma of Vicksburg (a for the most
      > part unreachable fortress) is kind of silly.
      >
      > Since we're trying to fathom the minds of Halleck et al here, I'd
      > also suggest that while Grant was doing the "wallowing," he had
      > Lincoln's tacit approval. Lincoln, right or wrong, wanted
      > Vicksburg. Jeff Davis, parenthetically, wanted it held.
      >
      > As far as Rosecrans is concerned, I think you're spot on.

      It seems this would only fully apply if there were any indication
      that Rosecrans would have aggressively pursued Bragg in January. As
      it was, Rosecrans' 40,000 men did exactly what they needed to do:
      repulsed Bragg's assault and forced him to retire to Murfreesboro,
      drawing attention away from the strategic target of choice.

      Unless you're willing to suggest that Rosecrans, with 10,000 to
      20,000 more men, would have taken Atlanta in Spring 1863 without
      stumbling into some kind of Chickamauga.
    • Will
      Thanks Dave. Good points to ponder. ~Will ... better
      Message 74 of 74 , May 6 8:34 AM
        Thanks Dave.
        Good points to ponder.
        ~Will
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Dave Gorski <bigg@m...> wrote:
        > >
        > >Good points. I was thinking that long-term encampments would have
        > >better sanitary and shelter arrangements and the men would be
        better
        > >rested than encampents of men campaigning.
        >
        > Secretary Olmsted of the Sanitary Commission issued a
        > "Circular to the Colonels of the Army," in which he stated
        > that "It is well known that when a considerable body of men
        > have been living together in camp a few weeks a peculiar
        > subtle poison is generated..."
        > Another factor was that many soldiers were from rural areas
        > where they had not had exposure to common illnesses, and had
        > not built up any immunities. Groups in garrison were exposed to
        > and often died of childhood diseases.
        > Often soldiers who were hospitalized for wounds, died of some
        > disease that they had been exposed to while in the hospital,
        > especially typhoid.
        > Yet, another point is that a soldier on the move was likely to
        > have had occasion to have fresh fruits and vegetables than the
        > soldier stuck in camp for weeks on end. A better diet made
        > for a healthier soldier.
        >
        > Regards, Dave Gorski
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.