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

Re: [civilwarwest] The Battle of the West that could have won the war for the...

Expand Messages
  • GnrlJEJohnston@aol.com
    In a message dated 12/5/2003 11:27:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, davidowens24@yahoo.com writes: The first Union victory of the the Civil War was a now
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 12/5/2003 11:27:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, davidowens24@... writes:
      The first Union victory of the the Civil War was a now overlooked battle in Kentucky on October 21, 1861
      And the only time the Confederacy totally destroyed a Union Army was at the Battle of Richmond - Kentucky.   That too has been much overlooked.
       
      JEJ
    • hank9174
      ... Were the USA forces at Richmond an army in word and deed? HankC ... was at the
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, GnrlJEJohnston@a... wrote:

        Were the USA forces at Richmond an army in word and deed?

        HankC

        > And the only time the Confederacy totally destroyed a Union Army
        was at the
        > Battle of Richmond - Kentucky. That too has been much overlooked.
        >
        > JEJ
      • carlw4514
        Ummmm, seemed to me more like Bull Nelson s Militia. Although I agree that the battle gets scant attention.
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Ummmm, seemed to me more like Bull Nelson's Militia. Although I agree that the
          battle gets scant attention.

          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...> wrote:

          > Were the USA forces at Richmond an army in word and deed?
        • hank9174
          ... wrote: Division of recruits is the tidiest description I have found. Nothing about an army ... HankC ... agree that the
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 8, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
            wrote:

            'Division of recruits' is the tidiest description I have found.

            Nothing about an 'army'...


            HankC

            > Ummmm, seemed to me more like Bull Nelson's Militia. Although I
            agree that the
            > battle gets scant attention.
            >
            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...> wrote:
            >
            > > Were the USA forces at Richmond an army in word and deed?
          • hartshje
            When is an army really an army? According to the battle summary at CWSAC web site http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/civil.htm the U.S. force involved was the 1st
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 11, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              When is an army really an army?

              According to the battle summary at CWSAC web site
              http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/civil.htm
              the U.S. force involved was the 1st & 2nd Brigades, Army of
              Kentucky. They suffered about 900 k&w, and 4000 missing.

              Bragg captured about 4,000 at Munfordville. The Rebs captured 10,000
              at Harper's Ferry. Do these count as "destroying an enemy army"?

              Joe H.

              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...> wrote:
              >
              > Were the USA forces at Richmond an army in word and deed?
              >
              > HankC
              >
              >
              > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, GnrlJEJohnston@a... wrote:
              > > And the only time the Confederacy totally destroyed a Union Army
              > was at the
              > > Battle of Richmond - Kentucky. That too has been much
              overlooked.
              > >
              > > JEJ
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.