- Bob, I must agree. The pre-emptive invasion to use contemporary terms, did absolutely no favors for the CSA.---Dan ... Kentucky, correct? ... nearly so ...Message 1 of 121 , Apr 1, 2005View SourceBob,
I must agree. The "pre-emptive invasion" to use contemporary
terms, did absolutely no favors for the CSA.---Dan
--- In email@example.com, huddleston.r@c... wrote:
> >Yet, there's no question that Polk beat the Federals into
> >> P.S. Grant may also have been wrong about how closely he beat
>>the Rebels to Paducah, as I don't think that their arrival was
> >> imminent.
> Of all the stupid moves made by either side in the Civil War,
this "preemptive strike" ranks right behind the attack on Fort
Sumter: all it did make certain that Kentucky not only remained loyal
but also contributed large numbers to the Union Army.
> Take care,
> Judy and Bob Huddleston
> 10643 Sperry Street
> Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
- I found it. OR Vol 7 Pg 571 McCellan to Halleck and Buell A deserter just in from the rebels, says that .... he heard officers say that Beauregaed wasMessage 121 of 121 , Apr 14, 2005View SourceI found it. OR Vol 7 Pg 571 McCellan to Halleck and Buell " A deserter just
in from the rebels, says that .... he heard officers say that Beauregaed was
under orders to go to
Kentucky with fifteen regiments from the Army of the Potomac.(Jan.29, 1862).
Halleck replied on Jan 30. "Your telegraph regarding Beauregard is received.
General Grant and Commodore Foote will be ordered to immediately advance, and
to reduce and hold Fort Henry, on the Tennessee river.
I remain, Sir, your most humble servant.