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

Re: Grant's alternatives before Vicksburg

Expand Messages
  • bjer50010
    ... Will, Very well done. This clearly removes the foundations upon which Mr. Rose has based his assertions. Your posts in this thread have been extremely
    Message 1 of 206 , Aug 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene" <wh_keene@y...>
      wrote:
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > ...
      > > Was that really so? As Halleck conferred with Welles about
      > > McClernand's expedition in mid-November, why didn't he tell Grant
      > > about it?
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > Was that really so? As Halleck conferred with Welles about
      > > McClernand's expedition in mid-November, why didn't he tell Grant
      > > about it?

      Will,

      Very well done. This clearly removes the foundations upon which Mr. Rose
      has based his assertions. Your posts in this thread have been extremely
      helpful in understanding what various characters knew and when they knew it
      and how the entire tangled mess resolved itself as it did.

      Interestingly you touch upon McClernand's insistence that thetroops be
      organized and drilled as being against Lincoln's wishes that a campaign be
      quickly launched. ISTM that McClernand flouted Lincoln's wishes at every
      step. He ordered the wild goose chase to Arkansas Post (against orders
      which specified Vicksburg as the target for "his" expedition). He set up "his"
      command under a grandiose title and complained to Grant about too many
      commanders (against orders that he act "under Grant's direction"). He was
      planning to take "his" army even farther afield from Vicksburg when Grant
      reeled him in, in accordance with orders to the latter from Halleck. How a
      case can be made that Grant flouted the president's wishes while ignoring
      McClernand's gross disobedience of both the letter and the spirit of his orders
      is beyond my comprehension.

      JB Jewell

      >
      >
      > He did tell Grant that there would be an expedition. Halleck told
      > Grant that he hoped for "an active campaing on the Mississippi this
      > fall" and that there would be a "joint military and naval expedition
      > on Vicksburg" based from Memphis "as soon as sufficient force can be
      > collected". Meanwhile, all tropps in his Department are under his
      > control. The orders issued to McClernand by Stanton stated that the
      > troops raised would first be used as "required by the operations of
      > General Grant's command" and that they would be "subject to the
      > designation of the general-in-chief, and be employed according to
      > such exigencies as the service in his judgment may require." So what
      > Halleck is telling Grant is precisely in accordance with the wishes
      > of Lincoln as expressed in the order from Stanton.
      >
      >
      > About the same time Halleck was giving information to Welles,
      > McClernand seemed to be getting cold feet since he told Stanton
      > that "if...the expedition has become an uncertainty or must be long
      > delayed I trust you will cut my supposed connection with it and order
      > me to other duty in the field at once." Then after asking to have his
      > connection with the expedition ended, McClernand was silent. Porter,
      > after being instructed by Wells to be "ready at the time indicated by
      > General McClernand", reported that over the course of the next month
      > McClernand never communicated with him at all. On December 1
      > McClernand broke his silence with a request to Lincoln that he be
      > sent to Memphis so he could get started on "the more advanced work of
      > organizing, drilling, and disciplining". Hmmmm, Lincoln was hoping
      > for a campaign against Vicksburg, not more time spent drilling. Time
      > was a wasting as the game clock had already started: Banks had set
      > sail for New Orleans with orders telling him that there would be an
      > expedition coming down the river at the same time he was going up the
      > river. Then on December 2nd McClernand wrote to Stanton to present
      > new ideas for outfitting and equipment. This was not promising since
      > such "proposed change of organization and equipment", according to
      > Stanton, "requires careful consideration and consultation" and thus
      > meant more delay.
      >
      >
      > While McClernand was waffling, Grant had been achieving actual
      > results, advancing further into Mississippi than Halleck had expected
      > such it "may change our plans in regard to Vicksburg." Now Halleck
      > directed Grant to contact Porter, who was fruitlessly waiting for
      > McClernand to call on him, in order to set up army-navy
      > cooperation. Halleck told Grant that the "President may insist upon
      > designating a separate commander". And though it was commonly
      > rhought that the President might designated McCLernand, so far the he
      > HAD NOT DONE SO. Since such was the case, Grant was left to his own
      > judgement, though Halleck recommended Sherman. Grant agreed and set
      > about organizing a move led by Sherman down the river.
      >
      >
      > But by mid December McClernand started agitating about being left
      > out. He asked Lincoln "May I not ask therefore to be sent forward
      > immediately?" and informed Stanton "I am anxiously awaiting your
      > order sending me forward for duty". The result was the order
      > creating Corps within the Department of the Tennessee and assigning
      > McClernand to one that was to "form a part of the expedition on
      > Vicksburg."[this is from Grant's order assigning McClernand to the
      > expedition. Grant's order!] As a result of the order he received
      > from Halleck and from Stanton, Grant issued the appropriate order to
      > McClernand. And so Grant placed McClernand in command of the
      > expedition on Vicksburg.
      >
      >
      > I want to repeat that last part, because you keep repeating your
      > falsehood about Grant: Grant placed McClernand in command of the
      > expedition on Vicksburg, exactly as ordered and exactly as the
      > President wished it.
      >
      > -Will
      >
      > ps: All quotes from the Official Records. Ask if you want citations.
    • pbjdesigns
      My yahoo email is appearing only sporadically at present. I sent a message on this matter earlier. I m now going to send one via the board, so please excuse
      Message 206 of 206 , Aug 31, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        My yahoo email is appearing only sporadically at present. I sent a
        message on this matter earlier. I'm now going to send one via the
        board, so please excuse me if it comes through twice.

        The tone here has becoming increasingly unpleasant. Please cease
        with the personal attacks. Any further commentary on the matter
        should be done via PRIVATE EMAIL.

        Thank you.

        Pat

        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
        <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
        > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose"
        <josepharose@y...>
        > wrote:
        > > Mr. Keene:
        > >
        > > We obviously don't agree on what the historical record contains.
        > > There seems little reason to continue discussing this topic.
        > >
        > > Joe
        >
        > I am sorry that you seem unwilling to engage in honest discussion
        nor
        > to explain what you disagree on about what is in the historical
        > record.
        >
        >
        > > P.S. I take great exception, however, to some of your verbiage.
        > >
        > > Here, you have just accused me of, "repeating [my] falsehood
        about
        > > Grant." In effect you are asserting that I am lying. I am not.
        > > Whether or not I have misstated the case is a far different
        > question.
        >
        > In the past you have indicated awareness that Grant issued orders
        > placing McClernand in command of the expedition. But now you are
        > claiming that he did not do so. This looks like blantantly like a
        > lie to me. You have accussed others of lies based on much less
        > evidence.
        >
        >
        > > You have recently written that I was, "making up lies about
        Grant"
        > > and making other false accusations. There is no need to accuse
        me
        > of
        > > such things.
        >
        > I thought there was a need.
        >
        >
        > > I didn't see any of my recent posts containing similar language.
        > If
        > > I have done so, to you or anyone else, I apologize now and will,
        of
        > > course, try not to impugn anyone's motives in future posts.
        >
        > Since impugning the motives of others has been your modus operandi
        > for several years, excuse me if I find it hard to take you
        seriously.
        >
        > -Will
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.