Re: A different perspective
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...>
> --- In email@example.com, "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:Agreed.
> > 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.
> Rosecrans, in January and February (after Stones River) with openI wouldn't be quite so harsh ;-), but you have a point. Grant didn't
> roads, clear terrain, and lack of water issues like Grant had, did
> I think the simple answer is "nothing." Well, he complained a lot,
> but that's another story.
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
> As a matter fo fact, I think the record shows that Grant solved hisI think that's a fair assessment. Moreover, the end result of Grant's
> problem - engaging Pemberton - faster than Rosecrans did his -
> engaging Bragg.
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 muchI concur fully with this assessment.
> > 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.
> DaveJB Jewell
> Dave Smith
> Villa Hills, KY
- Thanks Dave.
Good points to ponder.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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
> >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