Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Orders to occupy Paducah
- In a message dated 4/1/2005 6:09:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, theme_music@... writes:
Fremont's written orders of the 28th do not mention Paducah
"It is intended with all these movements to occupy Columbus in
Kentucky as soon as possible." OR,I, iii, pg141-42
though Grant met with Fremont in St Louis on or about the 28th, and
they may have discussed Paducah, as well, or perhaps even through
intermediaries travelling during the intervening week.Yet, according to Fremont himself in your original post, "and in
> accordance his instructions of the 28th immediately moved on
> with and adequate force and two gun-boats.>> The question is now, did Fremont transmit orders to Grant on the 28th either mentioning either Paducah or a broad approval of entering Kentucky, or when in St Louis, did Grant receive oral orders to that effect. Apparently, according to the instructions, if there was a certain condition or conditions, Grant was to immediately move on Paducah. You mentioned the OR's but one must remember that the OR's were assembled years after the war and not every message or order made it into the volumes. This too can drive a historian crazy. Grant moved on Paducah on the 6th and by the 8th, he had the mouth of the Tennessee river covered so that no Confederate vessel could either enter or leave the river.JEJ
- 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 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.