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

east vs west

Expand Messages
  • tnhistorybuff@aol.com
    I would like some of the experts,,or people that know more than I to answer a question. It seems to me that the western theater, seems to have gotten the
    Message 1 of 38 , Dec 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I would like some of  the experts,,or people that know more than I to answer
      a question. It seems to me that the western theater, seems to have gotten the
      short end of the stick. It seems to me that Lee was limited to a strategic
      vision of Virginia, and the Confederate government neglected the West. I
      would appreciate your input. Roger
    • garbear801@hotmail.com
      Phil- No rebuke from me. You have a point. Jackson was Lee s offense and Longstreet the defense. Lee still nearly won at Gettysburg. I think that is forgotten
      Message 38 of 38 , Dec 15, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Phil-
        No rebuke from me. You have a point. Jackson was Lee's offense
        and Longstreet the defense. Lee still nearly won at Gettysburg. I
        think that is forgotten about how close he actually came without
        Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart to having a clear path to Washington.
        Vicksburg didn't have to fall as soon as it did nor did they have to
        wait as long as they did. What I mean by that is that Pemberton
        (C.S.A.) should have got everything he could have out and simply let
        the north have the city. It would have saved quite a few guns and
        quite a few men. Had the South simply given up the city it also would
        not have doubled the blow of Gettysburg.

        -Garrett Dittfurth
        --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, "philip engle jr." <phil21@e...>
        wrote:
        > Garrett,
        >
        > I agree with that to a point, and I'm not saying they were
        insignificant.
        > However, Chancellorsville made Lee winning an OFFENSIVE battle
        nearly
        > impossible since he lost his best Offensive general in Stonewall in
        > May...two months before Gettysburg. Vicksburg was going to fall
        once Island
        > #10 and New Orleans did. The Union controlled the river with the
        exception
        > of Vicksburg since 1862. The fall of Vicksburg was inevitable.
        > I agree that those victories, coming on top of each other, re-
        doubled the
        > North's stomach for the war, but Chancellorsville and Jeb Stuart
        riding
        > everywhere but where Lee wanted him on the final day at Gettysburg
        assured a
        > northern victory there. New Orleans and Island #10 assured Union
        control of
        > the Mississippi. I think the Union navy gets way too little credit
        and did
        > more to win the war than any 1 general or army did. Jefferson
        Davis did too
        > by letting the cotton crop waste away on CSA docks because he
        wanted to show
        > how much it meant to European markets. In the meantime, Egypt and
        India had
        > bumper crops during the Civil War so the Brits didn't need CSA
        cotton and it
        > crushed the CSA economy....nice more Jefferson. The best thing he
        ever did
        > was choose the statue at the top of the Capitol's dome.
        > Thanks for your opinion. I'd love to hear your rebuke.
        >
        > Phil Engle
        > ----------
        > >From: garbear801@h...
        > >To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
        > >Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: east vs west
        > >Date: Sun, Dec 10, 2000, 11:05 PM
        > >
        >
        > > Vicksburg was a deathblow. You have to understand the importance
        of
        > > the loss of Vicksburg and the loss of Gettysburg. Gettysburg was
        the
        > > defeat of an undefeatable army. Vicksburg was the defeat of an
        > > undefeatable city. The North was struggling with their will to
        fight
        > > on. There were calls to make peace with the South. When Meade won
        at
        > > Gettysburg and then a day later they recieved news that Vicksburg
        had
        > > fallen to Grant and the Mississippi was theirs you have to
        understand
        > > the signifigance of that. It revitalized the North to keep on
        > > fighting. In a sense it is like gambling. If you win a couple of
        big
        > > hands you'll stay in just to see if you can get lucky again and
        win
        > > it all. These two victories were those two big hands that the
        north
        > > won. If Meade had been beat at Gettysburg coupled with a Grant
        loss
        > > at Vicksburg the people who wanted peace with the South would have
        > > been screaming at Lincoln. With the vicotry at Gettysburg and
        > > Vicksburg falling it ended the aura of the South being unbeatable.
        > >
        > > -Garrett Dittfurth
        > > --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, "philip engle jr." <phil21@e...>
        > > wrote:
        > >> I am not as convinced that Vicksburg was the deathblow to the
        south
        > > that I
        > >> have seen it portrayed in recent pieces. Vicksburg's fall was
        > > preordained,
        > >> not by the Union army, but by the heroics of the Union navy. The
        > > shallow
        > >> water fleet dominated the northern Mississippi after taking
        Island
        > > No. 10,
        > >> and, what I would consider the death blow to the west, was the
        > > Union navy's
        > >> taking of New Orleans in 1862 under Admiral Farragut. Once New
        > > Orleans
        > >> fell, the Mississippi was controlled from the mouth and nothing
        was
        > > going
        > >> out to sea. Taking New Orleans meant the Mississippi River was
        now
        > > only a
        > >> small highway for confederate supplies, but nothing from the Gulf
        > > and Europe
        > >> was going to enter the CSA, nor would anything of value (COTTON)
        > > leave it.
        > >> Don't underestimate the taking of Galveston Bay in 1863 or the
        fall
        > > of
        > >> Mobile Bay. Once they fell, nearly all CSA overseas trade was
        > > crippled, but
        > >> New Orleans meant Vicksburg was just a matter of time.
        > >>
        > >> As for Gettysburg being the turning point, the significance of
        > > Gettysburg
        > >> was Lee could no longer go on the offensive so HE COULDN'T WIN
        the
        > > war, but
        > >> the NORTH COULD LOSE IT, if they continued their blunders in
        > > Virginia under
        > >> assassine past leaders like Hooker, McClellan, Burnside and
        > > others. I think
        > >> Chancellorsville was more significant to the CSA than Gettysburg
        > > simply
        > >> because Stonewall was lost to Lee. Stonewall was the offense and
        > > Longstreet
        > >> was the defense. It is no wonder once Stonewall bought it that
        Lee
        > > had all
        > >> kinds of difficulties with offensive movements.
        > >>
        > >> ----------
        > >> >From: "Ron Wright" <rwright1@c...>
        > >> >To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
        > >> >Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: east vs west
        > >> >Date: Wed, Dec 6, 2000, 7:40 PM
        > >> >
        > >>
        > >> > Andy and Margaret:
        > >> >
        > >> > My conviction over the Vicksburg campaign has little to do with
        > > the value of
        > >> > Vicksburg. It is about the opportunity at hand. Johnston was
        > > fully aware
        > >> > that he had, at least, even odds to attack Grant and pinch him
        > > between
        > >> > himself and Pemberton. Consider the possibilities of a Union
        > > loss the
        > >> > magintude of the CSA loss at Gettysburg. Picture a devastated
        > > Grant trying
        > >> > to extricate his Army, or worse yet, having to surrender
        > > HIMSELF. The blow
        > >> > to the North may have been insurmountable. The value of
        > > Vicksburg is
        > >> > irrelevant. It was the opportunity to deal a death blow to
        Grant.
        > >> >
        > >> > Ron in SC
        > >> >
        > >> > "...in the most gallant, dashing, fearless manner, officers and
        > > men With
        > >> > loud cheers threw themselves forward against the enemies
        hitherto
        > > victorious
        > >> > lines."
        > >> > General Francis Marion Cockrell, Missouri Brigade, CSA.
        > >> > ----- Original Message -----
        > >> > From: "Margaret D. Blough" <102505.271@C...>
        > >> > To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
        > >> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:14 AM
        > >> > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: east vs west
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >> Message text written by INTERNET:civilwarwest@egroups.com
        > >> >> >
        > >> >> I would agree that control of the Mississippi was very
        valuable
        > > to the
        > >> >> North as a transportation route, especially for economic
        reasons.
        > >> >> However, the popular view of having cut the South into two
        parts
        > > doesn't
        > >> >> convince me. What percent of CSA resources were thereby
        trapped
        > > in the
        > >> >> Trans-Mississippi? I ask because I just don't know. It
        doesn't
        > > seem
        > >> >> like the loss was as dire as, say, the loss of Middle
        Tennessee,
        > > with
        > >> >> its farms and industry being sorely needed (particularly the
        > > furnaces
        > >> >> and ironworks). I would like to see the numbers (scientists
        love
        > >> >> numbers, don't you know!), as I might then be convinced that
        the
        > > loss of
        > >> >> Vicksburg was much more than an issue of morale (which is a
        very
        > > serious
        > >> >> issue unto itself) as well as the loss of an army (an even
        more
        > > serious
        > >> >> issue). Do any of the Trans-Mississippi enthusiasts out there
        > > have
        > >> >> those numbers or know where they can be obtained? Somebody
        > > somewhere
        > >> >> must have studied this in the past. Of course, my stance is
        an
        > > opinion
        > >> >> not backed by those numbers since I obviously don't have them
        > > myself.
        > >> >> Please, somebody straighten me out on this one way or the
        other.
        > >> >> Andy
        > >> >> <
        > >> >>
        > >> >> Andy,
        > >> >>
        > >> >> One of the major things it did was cut off access to the
        crucial
        > >> >> transshipment railroad corridors, such as Jackson,
        Mississippi.
        > > I once
        > >> > had
        > >> >> someone tell me, with pride, that the Union had never
        captured a
        > > port in
        > >> >> Confederate Texas. I said that it would have been a
        ridiculous
        > >> > expenditure
        > >> >> of resources if they'd even tried since, without the ability
        to
        > > transport
        > >> >> goods unloaded from blockade runners in those ports, those
        > > ports were
        > >> >> worthless to the Confederacy as a whole..
        > >> >>
        > >> >> In addition, control of the Mississippi has had immense
        symbolic
        > >> > importance
        > >> >> to the United States almost from the beginning, once expansion
        > > began in
        > >> >> earnest from the original 13, including in terms of security.
        > > It's one
        > >> > of
        > >> >> the reasons that the US wanted to acquire New Orleans in the
        > > first place
        > >> >> and that Congress, after a struggle, went along with the
        > > Louisiana
        > >> >> Purchase.
        > >> >>
        > >> >> Finally, the ability to maintain control over the territory
        > > which one
        > >> >> claims is also of great symbolic significance. There are
        > > exceptions where
        > >> >> another goal is seen as more important, such as Washington
        > > protecting his
        > >> >> army from destruction or the traditional Russian willingness
        to
        > > give up
        > >> >> territory to sucker an invader into the depths of Russia
        > > where "General
        > >> >> Winter" can take command.
        > >> >>
        > >> >> Regards,
        > >> >>
        > >> >> Margaret
        > >> >>
        > >> >>
        > >> >>
        > >> >>
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.