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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Confeds to the west

Expand Messages
  • DPowell334@AOL.COM
    In a message dated 9/1/2004 12:29:49 PM Central Standard Time, ... Yes, I agree. The point I wanted to stress, however, was that in neither case did those
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 1, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 9/1/2004 12:29:49 PM Central Standard Time, wh_keene@... writes:

      However, Bragg went from being outnumbered at Tullahoma to having the advantage at
      Chickamauga becuase troops had been sent west under Longstreet and becuase of the
      shifting of troops back from Mississippi to Tennessee.  Likewise the size of the force
      facing Grant was achieved by borrowing from Bragg and Beauregard. 




      Yes, I agree. The point I wanted to stress, however, was that in neither case did those troop transfers produce victory. Nothing was done at Vicksburg, despite numeric parity, because of leadership failings.

      Chickamauga, despite the numeric advantage and a signal tactical success, was completely wasted - two months later Bragg had completely frittered away that manpower advantage, sending commands off on useless side missions, and was soundly defeated on Nov 25th.

      Let me be clear. I saw people commenting that Davis should have reinforced the west more strongly and more quickly. From Davis' perspective, however, each time he sent troops they failed to stem the problems. Force levels were not, in fact, the problem. When forces were equal or to the CSA advantage, they still were defeated. What advantages were gained were promptly thrown away.

      At the same time, Lee was accomplishing significant acheivements against sometimes rediculous odds, and I do not think it unreasonable for Davis to choose to reinforce success instead of failure.

      Dave Powell
    • William H Keene
      Dave, Understood and agreed with. Will
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 1, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave,

        Understood and agreed with.

        Will

        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, DPowell334@A... wrote:
        > In a message dated 9/1/2004 12:29:49 PM Central Standard Time,
        > wh_keene@y... writes:
        >
        > > However, Bragg went from being outnumbered at Tullahoma to having the
        > > advantage at
        > > Chickamauga becuase troops had been sent west under Longstreet and becuase
        > > of the
        > > shifting of troops back from Mississippi to Tennessee. Likewise the size of
        > > the force
        > > facing Grant was achieved by borrowing from Bragg and Beauregard.
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > Yes, I agree. The point I wanted to stress, however, was that in neither case
        > did those troop transfers produce victory. Nothing was done at Vicksburg,
        > despite numeric parity, because of leadership failings.
        >
        > Chickamauga, despite the numeric advantage and a signal tactical success, was
        > completely wasted - two months later Bragg had completely frittered away that
        > manpower advantage, sending commands off on useless side missions, and was
        > soundly defeated on Nov 25th.
        >
        > Let me be clear. I saw people commenting that Davis should have reinforced
        > the west more strongly and more quickly. From Davis' perspective, however, each
        > time he sent troops they failed to stem the problems. Force levels were not,
        > in fact, the problem. When forces were equal or to the CSA advantage, they
        > still were defeated. What advantages were gained were promptly thrown away.
        >
        > At the same time, Lee was accomplishing significant acheivements against
        > sometimes rediculous odds, and I do not think it unreasonable for Davis to choose
        > to reinforce success instead of failure.
        >
        > Dave Powell
      • carlw4514
        Lee, I have heard this before but never understood what it was that L. did or did not do exactly [meaning I am just ignorant, not arguing] at Chattanooga.
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 1, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Lee, I have heard this before but never understood what it was that L.
          did or did not do exactly [meaning I am just ignorant, not arguing] at
          Chattanooga. Could you elaborate?



          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, LWhite64@a... wrote:
          > Well also remember that by the time JEJ came into the picture
          Longstreet had
          > a lot of mud on his face due to events during the siege of Chattanooga
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.