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

What won the war?

Expand Messages
  • Laurence D. Schiller
    Dear tlind (does anybody sign their name on this list?): No question that the South had problems with their leadership in the west, but to suggest that
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 19 3:16 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear tlind (does anybody sign their name on this list?):

      No question that the South had problems with their leadership
      in the west, but to suggest that changing the department structure
      would have somehow won the war for them is rather a stretch.
      In-fighting hurt them, but they were hurt a lot more by superior
      Federal leadership, manpower, and resources. Does anyone think that
      the South had ANY chance to defend the vast border from Texas to the
      Appalachians? Not enough privates is precisely right. Now a question
      - Davis gets criticized for not paying enough attention to the West -
      I agree but on the other hand, what should he have done? How much
      more manpower could he have put in? I curious to hear what others
      have to say.

      Best,

      Laurie Schiller

      At 6:28 PM +0000 8/19/04, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      >I have to agree somewhat that Davis and Johnston both were at fault
      >along with their political allies in the cabinet and the Confederate
      >Congress. The backbiting between the Davis and Anti-Davis factions
      >led to not only the indecison during Johnston's first tenure in the
      >west but deepened when he assumed command after Bragg.
      >
      >It was probably true that Johnston never got over losing command of
      >the Army of Northern Virginia. Sort of like a quarterback losing his
      >starting job because of injury.
      >
      >In my opinion (and that's all it is), the whole reason the War was
      >lost is due to the Departmental process the Southern Government used
      >and the inflexibility of the department leadership to unify against
      >a common enemy. Too many generals, not enough privates.
      >
      >Davis' biggest blunder is not paying enough attention to the west,
      >you can get a sense from various writers that he was just too close
      >to the war in the East.
      >
      >tlind1

      --
      Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller 19th Century Personalities
      Maitre d'Armes William Bradshaw, Co. F 2nd WI
      Head Fencing Coach George Hammitt, Co. H 104th Ill
      Department of History
      Northwestern University
      lds307@...
      847-491-4654 (Athletics)
      847-467-5344 (History)
      FAX 847-467-1406
      Official Sports site: http://nusports.ocsn.com/
      Student web site: http://groups.northwestern.edu/fencing/
    • Tom Mix
      Well, for a somewhat simplistic answer, leadership was an issue. I think Joe Johnston did the best he could with what was left after Bragg wasted the AoT at
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 19 6:52 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, for a somewhat simplistic answer, leadership was an issue. I think
        Joe Johnston did the best he could with what was left after Bragg wasted
        the AoT at Chattanooga. I have always wondered what would have occurred
        if Longstreet had not been sent off and instead was told to replace
        Bragg. At that time he had good numbers. Lee had enough strength to
        continue his holding action in the VA. and Longstreet would have had his
        corps plus the remainder of the AoT. He could have reorganized after the
        retreat from Chattanooga and then ... well, that is the question.
        Tom Mix

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Laurence D. Schiller [mailto:LDS307@...]
        Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 5:17 PM
        To: Civilwarwest
        Subject: [civilwarwest] What won the war?

        Dear tlind (does anybody sign their name on this list?):

        No question that the South had problems with their leadership
        in the west, but to suggest that changing the department structure
        would have somehow won the war for them is rather a stretch.
        In-fighting hurt them, but they were hurt a lot more by superior
        Federal leadership, manpower, and resources. Does anyone think that
        the South had ANY chance to defend the vast border from Texas to the
        Appalachians? Not enough privates is precisely right. Now a question
        - Davis gets criticized for not paying enough attention to the West -
        I agree but on the other hand, what should he have done? How much
        more manpower could he have put in? I curious to hear what others
        have to say.

        Best,

        Laurie Schiller

        At 6:28 PM +0000 8/19/04, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com wrote:
        >I have to agree somewhat that Davis and Johnston both were at fault
        >along with their political allies in the cabinet and the Confederate
        >Congress. The backbiting between the Davis and Anti-Davis factions
        >led to not only the indecison during Johnston's first tenure in the
        >west but deepened when he assumed command after Bragg.
        >
        >It was probably true that Johnston never got over losing command of
        >the Army of Northern Virginia. Sort of like a quarterback losing his
        >starting job because of injury.
        >
        >In my opinion (and that's all it is), the whole reason the War was
        >lost is due to the Departmental process the Southern Government used
        >and the inflexibility of the department leadership to unify against
        >a common enemy. Too many generals, not enough privates.
        >
        >Davis' biggest blunder is not paying enough attention to the west,
        >you can get a sense from various writers that he was just too close
        >to the war in the East.
        >
        >tlind1

        --
        Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller 19th Century Personalities
        Maitre d'Armes William Bradshaw, Co. F 2nd WI
        Head Fencing Coach George Hammitt, Co. H 104th Ill
        Department of History
        Northwestern University
        lds307@...
        847-491-4654 (Athletics)
        847-467-5344 (History)
        FAX 847-467-1406
        Official Sports site: http://nusports.ocsn.com/
        Student web site: http://groups.northwestern.edu/fencing/




        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • GnrlJEJohnston@aol.com
        In a message dated 8/19/2004 6:51:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, LDS307@northwestern.edu writes: Davis gets criticized for not paying enough attention to the
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 19 7:46 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 8/19/2004 6:51:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, LDS307@... writes:
          Davis gets criticized for not paying enough attention to the West -
          I agree but on the other hand, what should he have done? How much
          more manpower could he have put in? I curious to hear what others
          have to say.
          Laurie,
          Both the ANV and the AOT had a manpower shortage in comparison to the Federal armies.  One area however that Davis showed bias was in the area of logistics.  Food direly needed by the AOT and grown in GA, AL, and MS went to the ANV instead.  The same thing is true for clothing, shoes, weaponry, and animals. It appears for the most part, the AOT got mostly hand-me-downs, in other words, the AOT got what the ANV did not have a dire need for.
           
          There were many brigade and division commander who were just as victorious as those in the ANV, but their names have been lost in history, but we still hear about Pelham, Stuart, Longstreet, et. al.  How often do you hear anything about the excellent service of Lucious Polk, Wirt Adams, et. al.
           
          Davis ignored the service of these fine soldiers.  Look how long it took A,P. Stewart to get his commission as a Brigadier.  I could go on, but I will step aside and let those that are more erudite than I to continue on this strain.
           
          JEJ.
        • tlind1@yahoo.com
          Thank you so much for your kind, respectful reply..the main reason I mentioned the departmental structure as leading to a cause of the war lost is due mainly
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 20 6:41 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Thank you so much for your kind, respectful reply..the main reason I
            mentioned the departmental structure as leading to a cause of the
            war lost is due mainly to the book "Two Great Rebel Armies An Essay
            on Confederate Military History" by Richard McMurray. He stated that
            the departmental Generals were very reluctant to "send" their troops
            where the need was greatest or where a crisis developed. The
            departmental Generals always felt that their areas were the most
            important and were always under the threat of constant attacks(so
            they thought.) President Davis' departmental structure may have
            suceeded if more co-operation and a better rail infrastructure had
            existed in the West. Certainly some of the battle outcomes could
            have been different if only some re-enforements had been available.
            Is this the only cause of loss of the war? No just one.

            By the way if you have never read this book, it is a very good book
            comparing the disparity between the two rebel armies with believe it
            or not the focus on the Army of Tennessee. I believe it gives a good
            illustration of President Davis' one sided poilices concerning men,
            supplies, even generals.

            Again, thanks for the reply, the War in the West is an often
            overlooked subject and I am thankful for this group and being able
            to discuss my favorite topic.

            Tracey



            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Laurence D. Schiller"
            <LDS307@n...> wrote:
            > Dear tlind (does anybody sign their name on this list?):
            >
            > No question that the South had problems with their
            leadership
            > in the west, but to suggest that changing the department structure
            > would have somehow won the war for them is rather a stretch.
            > In-fighting hurt them, but they were hurt a lot more by superior
            > Federal leadership, manpower, and resources. Does anyone think
            that
            > the South had ANY chance to defend the vast border from Texas to
            the
            > Appalachians? Not enough privates is precisely right. Now a
            question
            > - Davis gets criticized for not paying enough attention to the
            West -
            > I agree but on the other hand, what should he have done? How much
            > more manpower could he have put in? I curious to hear what others
            > have to say.
            >
            > Best,
            >
            > Laurie Schiller
            >
            > At 6:28 PM +0000 8/19/04, civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com wrote:
            > >I have to agree somewhat that Davis and Johnston both were at
            fault
            > >along with their political allies in the cabinet and the
            Confederate
            > >Congress. The backbiting between the Davis and Anti-Davis factions
            > >led to not only the indecison during Johnston's first tenure in
            the
            > >west but deepened when he assumed command after Bragg.
            > >
            > >It was probably true that Johnston never got over losing command
            of
            > >the Army of Northern Virginia. Sort of like a quarterback losing
            his
            > >starting job because of injury.
            > >
            > >In my opinion (and that's all it is), the whole reason the War was
            > >lost is due to the Departmental process the Southern Government
            used
            > >and the inflexibility of the department leadership to unify
            against
            > >a common enemy. Too many generals, not enough privates.
            > >
            > >Davis' biggest blunder is not paying enough attention to the west,
            > >you can get a sense from various writers that he was just too
            close
            > >to the war in the East.
            > >
            > >tlind1
            >
            > --
            > Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller 19th Century Personalities
            > Maitre d'Armes William Bradshaw,
            Co. F 2nd WI
            > Head Fencing Coach George Hammitt, Co. H 104th
            Ill
            > Department of History
            > Northwestern University
            > lds307@n...
            > 847-491-4654 (Athletics)
            > 847-467-5344 (History)
            > FAX 847-467-1406
            > Official Sports site: http://nusports.ocsn.com/
            > Student web site: http://groups.northwestern.edu/fencing/
          • Bob Huddleston
            One of the faults of the Confederacy was the need to defend *all* of their territory, something that was impossible to do, especially in the west. A good
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 20 8:18 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              One of the faults of the Confederacy was the need to defend *all* of their
              territory, something that was impossible to do, especially in the west.

              A good example would be the name of the Eastern Army. It actually was North
              of the Rappahannock for about six weeks from Cedar Mt until after Antietam.
              Most of the War it was the Army of Southern Virginia.

              And the CS problems were compounded in the west by the reality that the US
              had the rivers in their favor as invasion routes.

              This is in marked contrast to the Revolution (the leaders of which the
              secessionists were fond of comparing themselves), where George Washington
              really did not worry about holding land. All he wanted was to keep his army
              together and outlast the Enemy.

              Of course the real reason the Southern leadership felt the need to maintain
              control of all their claimed territory was that wherever the US Army marched
              slavery was doomed, something that happened form the very earliest days of
              the war, long before the average man in blue realized that slavery would be
              a casualty of the war. There is a good discussion of this in Cooling, Forts
              Henry and Donelson and his Fort Donelson's Legacy. See also McDonough's War
              in Ky.

              Take care,

              Bob

              Judy and Bob Huddleston
              10643 Sperry Street
              Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
              303.451.6376 Huddleston.r@...

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Laurence D. Schiller [mailto:LDS307@...]
              Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 4:17 PM
              To: Civilwarwest
              Subject: [civilwarwest] What won the war?

              Dear tlind (does anybody sign their name on this list?):

              No question that the South had problems with their leadership in the
              west, but to suggest that changing the department structure would have
              somehow won the war for them is rather a stretch.
              In-fighting hurt them, but they were hurt a lot more by superior Federal
              leadership, manpower, and resources. Does anyone think that the South had
              ANY chance to defend the vast border from Texas to the Appalachians? Not
              enough privates is precisely right. Now a question
              - Davis gets criticized for not paying enough attention to the West - I
              agree but on the other hand, what should he have done? How much more
              manpower could he have put in? I curious to hear what others have to say.

              Best,

              Laurie Schiller
            • ron
              Just for fun, here s my favorite list of why the South lost: 1. The death of Stonewall Jackson. He, by God, woulda taken that hill [at G-burg] and
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 20 10:33 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Just for fun, here's my favorite list of why the South lost:

                1. The death of Stonewall Jackson. "He, by God, woulda taken that hill [at G-burg] and Gettysburg would have been a southern rout.

                2. Robert E. Lee's refusal to follow Longstreet's advice at Gettysburg and disengage for better ground after the first and/or second day.

                3. Johnson's refusal to attack Grants rear at Vicksburg and destroy him.

                4. Jeff Davis' replacement of Johnson with Hood during the Atlanta campaign. "Johnson, by God, woulda held 'em off until the election of 1864 which would surely have gone against Lincoln!"

                Ron Wright


                ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
                From: "Bob Huddleston" <huddleston.r@...>
                Reply-To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:18:53 -0600

                ><html><body>
                >
                >
                ><tt>
                > One of the faults of the Confederacy was the need to defend *all* of their<BR>
                >territory, something that was impossible to do, especially in the west.<BR>
                ><BR>
                >A good example would be the name of the Eastern Army. It actually was North<BR>
                >of the Rappahannock for about six weeks from Cedar Mt until after Antietam.<BR>
                >Most of the War it was the Army of Southern Virginia.<BR>
                ><BR>
                >And the CS problems were compounded in the west by the reality that the US<BR>
                >had the rivers in their favor as invasion routes.<BR>
                ><BR>
                >This is in marked contrast to the Revolution (the leaders of which the<BR>
                >secessionists were fond of comparing themselves), where George Washington<BR>
                >really did not worry about holding land. All he wanted was to keep his army<BR>
                >together and outlast the Enemy.<BR>
                ><BR>
                >Of course the real reason the Southern leadership felt the need to maintain<BR>
                >control of all their claimed territory was that wherever the US Army marched<BR>
                >slavery was doomed, something that happened form the very earliest days of<BR>
                >the war, long before the average man in blue realized that slavery would be<BR>
                >a casualty of the war. There is a good discussion of this in Cooling, Forts<BR>
                >Henry and Donelson and his Fort Donelson's Legacy. See also McDonough's War<BR>
                >in Ky. <BR>
                ><BR>
                >Take care,<BR>
                ><BR>
                >Bob<BR>
                ><BR>
                >Judy and Bob Huddleston<BR>
                >10643 Sperry Street<BR>
                >Northglenn, CO  80234-3612<BR>
                >303.451.6376  Huddleston.r@...<BR>
                > <BR>
                >-----Original Message-----<BR>
                >From: Laurence D. Schiller [mailto:LDS307@...] <BR>
                >Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 4:17 PM<BR>
                >To: Civilwarwest<BR>
                >Subject: [civilwarwest] What won the war?<BR>
                ><BR>
                >Dear tlind (does anybody sign their name on this list?):<BR>
                ><BR>
                >      No question that the South had problems with their leadership in the<BR>
                >west, but to suggest that changing the department structure would have<BR>
                >somehow won the war for them is rather a stretch. <BR>
                >In-fighting hurt them, but they were hurt a lot more by superior Federal<BR>
                >leadership, manpower, and resources. Does anyone think that the South had<BR>
                >ANY chance to defend the vast border from Texas to the Appalachians? Not<BR>
                >enough privates is precisely right. Now a question<BR>
                >- Davis gets criticized for not paying enough attention to the West - I<BR>
                >agree but on the other hand, what should he have done? How much more<BR>
                >manpower could he have put in? I curious to hear what others have to say.<BR>
                ><BR>
                >Best,<BR>
                ><BR>
                >Laurie Schiller<BR>
                ><BR>
                ><BR>
                ></tt>
                >
                >
                ><br>
                >
                ><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                >
                ><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                ><tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                ><td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
                ></tr>
                ><tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                ><td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129a5jkg8/M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=groups/S=1705126278:HM/EXP=1093104112/A=2319501/R=0/SIG=11tq0u909/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60185353&partid=5285298" alt=""><img src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ne/netflix/81804_0804_c_300250a.gif" alt="click here" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table> </td>
                ></tr>
                ><tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2319501/rand=475244051"></td></tr>
                ></table>
                >
                ><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                >
                >
                >
                ><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                >
                ><br>
                ><tt><hr width="500">
                ><b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b><br>
                ><ul>
                ><li>To visit your group on the web, go to:<br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/</a><br> 
                ><li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br><a href="mailto:civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br> 
                ><li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
                ></ul>
                ></tt>
                ></br>
                >
                ><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                >
                >
                ></body></html>
                >
                >





                ________________________________________________________________
                Sent via the WebMail system at sailsoutheast.org
              • John Beatty
                ... send their troops where the need was greatest or where a crisis developed. The departmental Generals always felt that their areas were the most important
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 23 4:28 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  >the departmental Generals were very reluctant to
                  "send" their troops where the need was greatest or
                  where a crisis developed. The departmental Generals
                  always felt that their areas were the most important
                  and were always under the threat of constant
                  attacks(so they thought.)

                  I've always thought it interesting that the eastern
                  armies sent troops west (on both sides), but precious
                  few western troops were sent east on a "loan" basis.


                  =====
                  _________________________________
                  John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
                  AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
                  "History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"



                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
                  http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                • tlind1@yahoo.com
                  While many western troops were not loaned to the Eastern army..an interesting fact arises...at the end of the Seven Days battle in June 1862, The ANV
                  Message 8 of 9 , Aug 23 9:56 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    While many western troops were not "loaned" to the Eastern army..an
                    interesting fact arises...at the end of the Seven Days' battle in
                    June 1862, The ANV contained 275 units that bore state designation.
                    Of these units, 176 (64%) were eastern, 51(18.5%) were western, and
                    48(17.5%) were from the central South. At the same time the AOTN,
                    operating in Mississippi, contained a total of 169 units. the
                    western states furnished 154(91.1%) the eastern states provided 2
                    units(1.2%, both from South Carolina) and the Central states sent 4
                    units(2.4 %) The designations of 9 units were unknown. This shows
                    that there were always far more western units serving in Virginia
                    than there were eastern units serving with the Army of Tennesse.

                    As far as supplies,much of the supplies in western depots were ear
                    maked for the east, rarely did the Virginia - Tennessee railway in
                    Eastern Tennessee bring supplies or reinforcements to the Army of
                    Tennesee.

                    Kindest Regards,
                    Tracey
                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, John Beatty <jdbeatty.geo@y...>
                    wrote:
                    > >the departmental Generals were very reluctant to
                    > "send" their troops where the need was greatest or
                    > where a crisis developed. The departmental Generals
                    > always felt that their areas were the most important
                    > and were always under the threat of constant
                    > attacks(so they thought.)
                    >
                    > I've always thought it interesting that the eastern
                    > armies sent troops west (on both sides), but precious
                    > few western troops were sent east on a "loan" basis.
                    >
                    >
                    > =====
                    > _________________________________
                    > John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
                    > AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
                    > "History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > __________________________________
                    > Do you Yahoo!?
                    > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
                    > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                  • hank9174
                    What pops into my mind is that the units organized prior to the secession of the last 4 CSA states were were divided up pretty evenly between the western and
                    Message 9 of 9 , Aug 23 10:30 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      What pops into my mind is that the units organized prior to the
                      secession of the last 4 CSA states were were divided up pretty evenly
                      between the western and eastern theater.

                      Then as Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia and NC troops were mustered,
                      they were kept close to 'home' and the other troops not 'returned'.

                      I've always found it interesting that the Texas Brigade was in Lee's
                      army and that Georgia and Virginia infantry were pretty much equally
                      represented in the ANV.


                      HankC

                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, tlind1@y... wrote:
                      > While many western troops were not "loaned" to the Eastern army..an
                      > interesting fact arises...at the end of the Seven Days' battle in
                      > June 1862, The ANV contained 275 units that bore state designation.
                      > Of these units, 176 (64%) were eastern, 51(18.5%) were western, and
                      > 48(17.5%) were from the central South. At the same time the AOTN,
                      > operating in Mississippi, contained a total of 169 units. the
                      > western states furnished 154(91.1%) the eastern states provided 2
                      > units(1.2%, both from South Carolina) and the Central states sent 4
                      > units(2.4 %) The designations of 9 units were unknown. This shows
                      > that there were always far more western units serving in Virginia
                      > than there were eastern units serving with the Army of Tennesse.
                      >
                      > As far as supplies,much of the supplies in western depots were ear
                      > maked for the east, rarely did the Virginia - Tennessee railway in
                      > Eastern Tennessee bring supplies or reinforcements to the Army of
                      > Tennesee.
                      >
                      > Kindest Regards,
                      > Tracey
                      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, John Beatty
                      <jdbeatty.geo@y...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > >the departmental Generals were very reluctant to
                      > > "send" their troops where the need was greatest or
                      > > where a crisis developed. The departmental Generals
                      > > always felt that their areas were the most important
                      > > and were always under the threat of constant
                      > > attacks(so they thought.)
                      > >
                      > > I've always thought it interesting that the eastern
                      > > armies sent troops west (on both sides), but precious
                      > > few western troops were sent east on a "loan" basis.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > =====
                      > > _________________________________
                      > > John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
                      > > AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
                      > > "History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > __________________________________
                      > > Do you Yahoo!?
                      > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
                      > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.