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

RE: [civilwarwest] Re: The 'Lost Cause' In Retreat

Expand Messages
  • John Beatty
    ... I did have the largest voundaries in the Confederacy, and was the rail hub for the whole eastern seaboard of the South. Even if it lacked the
    Message 1 of 127 , Aug 3, 2005
      >Would Va. been that high of a token to defend?

      I did have the largest voundaries in the Confederacy,
      and was the rail hub for the whole eastern seaboard of
      the South. Even if it lacked the political/symbolic
      value, it still had industrial and communications

      --- Tom Mix <tmix@...> wrote:

      > I agree 100%.
      > However, I wonder how much emphasis would have been
      > put on Virginia is
      > the CSA capital had been in Atlanta rather than in
      > the more vulnerable
      > Richmond. Would Va. been that high of a token to
      > defend? The emphasis
      > would have been more focused where it should have
      > been all along: in the
      > West. Tennessee would have received a much more
      > vigorous defense. You
      > take VA. out of the quotient and I see an entirely
      > different strategical
      > and tactical map.
      > Tom
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com]
      > On Behalf Of Dick Weeks
      > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:12 PM
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: The 'Lost Cause' In
      > Retreat
      > Rick, I could not agree more. To quote a friend of
      > mine (that I never
      > met
      > except on the Internet) ". . .One of the first key
      > moments of the war
      > was
      > found in the security of the border states and the
      > long wide, rolling
      > transportation conduits known as the Ohio,
      > Tennessee, Cumberland and
      > Mississippi Rivers. These were the grand prizes that
      > would either spell
      > defeat or victory in the eyes of the people who held
      > them. . . ." This
      > is
      > something that Lincoln apparently instinctively knew
      > but I am not sure
      > that
      > Davis ever knew.
      > Dr. Butner, who made the above quote, convinced me
      > that the war was to
      > be
      > won or lost in the West. That is the reason that I
      > started this
      > discussion
      > group. I wanted to find out why. The more these
      > discussions continue
      > on
      > the Western Theater the more I am convinced he was
      > right.
      > I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
      > Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
      > http://www.civilwarhome.com
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Rick Moody" <r_moody@...>
      > To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:41 AM
      > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: The 'Lost Cause' In
      > Retreat
      > > It is in this area that Lincoln shines through.
      > He
      > > seemed to have a knack for waiting until the right
      > > time to make political moves. He saw the
      > importance
      > > of keeping the western states in the union. He
      > saw
      > > the importance of quick and decisive action.
      > >
      > > Lincoln was able to do what Davis could not. Keep
      > all
      > > the pieces together until it was time to place
      > them in
      > > the puzzle.
      > >
      > > For the Union, Lincoln was the right man at the
      > right
      > > time.
      > >
      > >
      > > Rick Moody
      > > r_moody@...
      > >
      > >
      > > When you arise in the morning,
      > > give thanks for the morning light,
      > > for your life and strength.
      > > Give thanks for your food,
      > > and the joy of living.
      > >
      > > If you see no reason for giving thanks,
      > > the fault lies with yourself.
      > >
      > > Tecumseh, Shawnee (The Southern People)
      > >
      > > __________________________________________________
      > > Do You Yahoo!?
      > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
      > protection around
      > > http://mail.yahoo.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links

      John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
      "History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"

      Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
    • josepharose
      ... that I m ... just plain ... but I it seems to ... Dave (I ll call you that, if you ll call me dude ), Burnside made some movements toward Rosecrans. His
      Message 127 of 127 , Aug 11, 2005
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, DPowell334@A... wrote:
        > Sorry, sent the message on without fully replying:
        > >
        > > This is confirmed by the quote: "Your orders before leaving Kentucky,
        > > and frequently repeated since, were to connect your right with General
        > > Rosecrans' left, so that, if the enemy concentrated on one, the other
        > > would be able to assist." Did Burnside assist Rosecrans in light of
        > > the concentration against the latter? No.
        > Dude, you just got through chastizing me, stating, "Stop accusing me
        that I'm
        > asserting that 'Burnside did nothing to help Rosecrans.' That is
        just plain
        > wrong of you."
        > Now, in this paragraph, you are saying that Burnside did not assist
        > Rosecrans. I know that consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds,
        but I it seems to
        > me you just contradicted own post.

        Dave (I'll call you that, if you'll call me "dude"),

        Burnside made some movements toward Rosecrans.

        His movements, in my opinion, were clearly inadequate in light of his
        orders and the situation.

        His movements, furthermore, were so limited that he did not "assist"
        Rosecrans. I cannot think of any action which he took which ended up
        helping Rosecrans or hurting Bragg to any appreciable degree (even if
        he had followed orders completely, he may not have assisted Rosecrans
        depending upon the circumstances). In reality, his movements to
        assist were so little and so late that they did not amount to

        "Assistance" is not congruous with a "movement to assist."

        > In fact, Rosecrans and Burnside's flanks were connected, and they
        were in
        > contact with each other from September 12th on. Burnside fulfilled
        those orders.

        Those were just the orders, if I understand you correctly, to at least
        connect with the cavalry.

        He never fulfilled the later orders to move to Rosecrans with all
        available force.

        > He was also trying to fulfill Halleck's OTHER orders, the ones
        telling him to
        > secure the VA State line and the North Carolina passes. I note that
        you have
        > not commented on those yet.

        Those orders, IIRC, came before the orders to move to Rosecrans' support.

        > More seriously, I suspect the problem you are having here is the
        fact that
        > Rosecrans changed the objective in midstream, and thus left Burnside
        out of
        > position. Originally, when Burnside and Rosecrans discussed this
        operation in
        > June, the objective was Chattanooga. After taking Chattanooga and
        East Tennessee,
        > Rosecrans intended to pause and build up supplies like he did after
        > Once across the Tennessee, however, Rosecrans became convinced that
        Bragg was
        > headed for Rome (another 50 miles south of Chattanooga, and
        completely beyond
        > any support Burnside could project) and entered a pursuit immediately.
        > Crittenden informed Burnside of this move on Sept 13 or so, which
        freed Burnside to
        > concentrate on closing what the Federals all regarded as the rear
        door, i.e.
        > the VA-TN RR connection.

        That's fine and dandy until he got orders which clearly told him to
        support Rosecrans (forgetting for now that Burnside allowed Buckner to
        join Bragg without Burnside doing anything about it).

        > This was a real concern. In fact, Burnside was receiving reports all
        > september that Lee was either sending Ewell's Corps or leading it to
        SW Va to
        > attack Burnside, recapture ETENN, and strike at Rosecrans; rear. In
        fact, Lee
        > himself lamented after the fact that if he had known that Burnside
        was going
        > to occupy East Tenn in strength, he would have sent Longstreet to
        > instead of Chattanooga.

        That's fine and dandy until he got his new orders. His available
        forces included those in the northeast. Instead of putting some of
        them in a defensive posture and moving with the rest to support
        Rosecrans as his orders mandated, he and many of his troops stayed in
        the northeast trying to deal with that enemy.

        > To return to the basic point, however, Rosecrans fundamental
        alteration of
        > the strategic objective also rendered Burnside moot as far as mutual
        > went.

        No. Rosecrans' alteration should have had no effect on Burnsides'
        orders. They were to move all available force to Rosey's support, and
        Burnside didn't do that.

        > > You have yet to respond to my charge that Buckner's leaving East
        > > Tennessee to join Bragg should have caused Burnside to balance that
        > > fact. Burnside didn't and Chattanooga resulted (although many other
        > > blunders were also made).
        > I am not sure what you mean by this. In fact, Buckner's retreat is
        exactly w
        > hat Burnside and Rosey hoped for when they discussed operations in
        > Conversely, Buckner and Bragg most feared the idea that Burnside
        would not join with
        > Rosey, but instead occupy East Tennesse. Burnside's move into East
        > helped Rosecrans in his most important goal, the unimpeded crossing
        of the
        > Tennessee, which proved such a devastating surprise for Bragg by
        Sept 3 or so.
        > However, Buckner moved south to the Athens -Cleveland area, and Hill
        > north towards the Hiwassee specifically to meet a crossing threat above
        > Chattanooga. The unification that you suggest here is exactly what
        Bragg was hoping
        > for, so he could defeat the Federal thrust as it crossed above
        Chattanooga, and
        > while the Federals were still entrapped in crossing the river. Hill and
        > Forrest actually discussed offensive plans along the north bank on
        September 2-3,
        > since Rosecrans did not seem inclined to cross above on his own part.
        > Buckner's retreat created exactly the strategic vacuum Rosey and
        > counted on, and I think they took advantage of it.

        Once Buckner moved away from Burnside's front and joined Bragg,
        Burnside should have realized that Rosecrans would need that much more
        support. If Buckner, instead, stayed in front of Burnside, then
        Burnside would have been responsible for helping Rosecrans counter
        him. Think about this analogy: if Buell knew that the forces which
        just evacuated Nashville moved to Corinth in order to gang up on
        Grant, it was then his responsibility to support Grant.

        > I am curious, however, what you think Burn should have done. Please be
        > specific, in terms of troops, crossings, etc. Random speculation is
        fun, but not
        > really very useful from an operational planning basis.

        As suggestions (but these depend on a number of factors):
        Once Burnside received his emphatic orders, he should have followed
        them. He should have had much of his northeastern forces immediately
        move south by march and rail to Loudon; the remainder should have
        obstructed roads and taken a defensive posture to counter any CSA
        advance; Burnside himself should have been in the South; he should
        have had his engineers immediately obtain boats or bridging for
        crossing around Loudon; he should have stripped much of the garrisons
        in the middle part of E Tenn. and the gap and had the incoming 9th
        Corps take over for them. Once the troops were concentrated in the
        south and a means of crossing obtained, he should have moved quickly
        as ordered.

        Instead he had troops in the northeast move away from the destination
        listed in his orders; troops from Knoxville were ordered further east
        (until countermanded the next day, IIRC), engineers worked on
        fortifications at Knoxville, and his force as a whole did not move
        towards Rosecrans in any great strength or any great hurry.


        > Dave Powell
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.