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

Re: A different perspective

Expand Messages
  • bjer50010
    ... Agreed. ... I wouldn t be quite so harsh ;-), but you have a point. Grant didn t seem to be a guy to sit around doing nothing. And given some of the
    Message 1 of 74 , May 1, 2003
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...>
      wrote:
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:
      >
      > > This is garbage. As has been pointed out, he had no choice.
      > > Military movements could not be easily made in the mud until it
      > > started to dry up a bit; so what you expect him to have done I
      > > don't know and since you don't seem to suggest any alternatives I
      > > find your argument hardly persuasive. You also fail to point out
      > > that in that time Grant decided on his final strategy. The canals
      > > and the other false starts all indicate that he realized he would
      > > have to strike from below Vicksburg.
      >
      >
      > I find it interesting that here we have poor Grant wallowing in mud,
      > attempting at least four projects aimed at solving his problem - to
      > get at Pemberton - during January and February. Grant had obvious
      > limits of movement, etc.
      >

      Agreed.

      > Rosecrans, in January and February (after Stones River) with open
      > roads, clear terrain, and lack of water issues like Grant had, did
      > what?
      >
      > I think the simple answer is "nothing." Well, he complained a lot,
      > but that's another story.
      >

      I wouldn't be quite so harsh ;-), but you have a point. Grant didn't
      seem to be a guy to sit around doing nothing. And given some of the
      problems he encountered it would have been easy enough for him to
      complain.

      > As a matter fo fact, I think the record shows that Grant solved his
      > problem - engaging Pemberton - faster than Rosecrans did his -
      > engaging Bragg.
      >

      I think that's a fair assessment. Moreover, the end result of Grant's
      campaign was the fall of Vicksburg and the reopening of the Mississippi
      River. The end result of Rosecrans strategy was Chickamauga.

      > > Until the roads were dry enough to march over he couldn't do much
      > > else, however. But overall this entire assertion on your part is
      > > simply another unprovoked and unsupported bash at Grant. I would
      > > suggest you read Eric's commentary on what was going on during this
      > > period.
      >
      > Indeed. During the January to March period, as well as the April to
      > July period, Grant clearly outperformed Rosecrans. As well as any
      > other Union general anyone would care to name.
      >

      I concur fully with this assessment.

      > Dave
      >
      > Dave Smith
      > Villa Hills, KY

      JB Jewell
    • Will
      Thanks Dave. Good points to ponder. ~Will ... better
      Message 74 of 74 , May 6, 2003
        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.