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

Why Trans-Miss. ?

Expand Messages
  • Norm Mikalac
    I don t understand why the Union spent a lot of military resources fighting in the trans-mississippi region. Once it had gained control of the Miss. R. and
    Message 1 of 16 , Nov 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't understand why the Union spent a lot of military resources
      fighting in the trans-mississippi region. Once it had gained control
      of the Miss. R. and cut off supplies and men from that area, why not
      focus on driving the CSA forces towards to east to end the war sooner?
      Then the trans. Miss. CSA would have had to surrender.

      Any thoughts on these ideas?

      Norm
    • hank9174
      ... control ... not ... sooner? ... The trans-Mississippi encompassed the states of Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, most of Louisiana and Texas. That s a
      Message 2 of 16 , Nov 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...> wrote:
        >
        > I don't understand why the Union spent a lot of military resources
        > fighting in the trans-mississippi region. Once it had gained
        control
        > of the Miss. R. and cut off supplies and men from that area, why
        not
        > focus on driving the CSA forces towards to east to end the war
        sooner?
        > Then the trans. Miss. CSA would have had to surrender.
        >
        > Any thoughts on these ideas?
        >

        The trans-Mississippi encompassed the states of Minnesota, Iowa,
        Missouri, Arkansas, most of Louisiana and Texas. That's a pretty fair
        chunk of territory.

        Robert L. Kerby, author of 'Kirby Smith's Confederacy: The Trans-
        Mississippi South, 1863-1865', describes Missouri as the "garden" of
        the trans-Mississippi. The state produces more tobacco, wool, hemp,
        wheat, rye, corn and oats, and supports more mines, and has more
        railroad miles than the rest of the trans-Mississippi states
        combined. Missouri raises more horses and swine than either Texas or
        Arkansas, while only Texas cattle and Louisiana mules outnumbered
        Missouri livestock. In nearly every category, including industrial
        production, mining, agricultural productivity, and population
        Missouri has no peer west of the Mississippi. Much of the fighting
        takes place in Missouri. A lot of it is basic military police work
        against guerillas (think Quantrill) but many military campaigns are
        aimed at capturing, or denying, these resources. St. Louis is the 8th
        largest city in the country with a population of 160,000.

        Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas cotton is sold over the border in
        Mexico. This is a major source of foreign exchange and hard currency
        for the CSA. The Texas border is also a possible target of adventure
        for Mexico.

        Louisiana is the major producer of sugar and salt in the South and
        Texas is the prime supplier of beef.

        My guess is that total US forces west of the river topped out at
        25,000, excluding such anomalies as Arkansas Post and the Red River
        campaign...


        Hope this helps,
        HankC
      • Steve Saultz
        The trans-Mississippi encompassed the states of Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, most of Louisiana and Texas. That s a pretty fair chunk of territory.
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          The trans-Mississippi encompassed the states of Minnesota, Iowa,
          Missouri, Arkansas, most of Louisiana and Texas. That's a pretty fair
          chunk of territory.

                                   Quite a few back doors...As well as Mexico......
           
                                             Respectfully Your Humble Servant,
                                             Capt. McCracken  /  Partisan

          hank9174 <clarkc@...> wrote:
          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...> wrote:
          >
          > I don't understand why the Union spent a lot of military resources
          > fighting in the trans-mississippi region.  Once it had gained
          control
          > of the Miss. R. and cut off supplies and men from that area, why
          not
          > focus on driving the CSA forces towards to east to end the war
          sooner? 
          > Then the trans. Miss. CSA would have had to surrender.
          >
          > Any thoughts on these ideas?
          >

          The trans-Mississippi encompassed the states of Minnesota, Iowa,
          Missouri, Arkansas, most of Louisiana and Texas. That's a pretty fair
          chunk of territory.

          Robert L. Kerby, author of 'Kirby Smith's Confederacy: The Trans-
          Mississippi South, 1863-1865', describes Missouri as the "garden" of
          the trans-Mississippi. The state produces more tobacco, wool, hemp,
          wheat, rye, corn and oats, and supports more mines, and has more
          railroad miles than the rest of the trans-Mississippi states
          combined. Missouri raises more horses and swine than either Texas or
          Arkansas, while only Texas cattle and Louisiana mules outnumbered
          Missouri livestock. In nearly every category, including industrial
          production, mining, agricultural productivity, and population
          Missouri has no peer west of the Mississippi. Much of the fighting
          takes place in Missouri. A lot of it is basic military police work
          against guerillas (think Quantrill) but many military campaigns are
          aimed at capturing, or denying, these resources. St. Louis is the 8th
          largest city in the country with a population of 160,000.

          Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas cotton is sold over the border in
          Mexico. This is a major source of foreign exchange and hard currency
          for the CSA. The Texas border is also a possible target of adventure
          for Mexico.

          Louisiana is the major producer of sugar and salt in the South and
          Texas is the prime supplier of beef.

          My guess is that total US forces west of the river topped out at
          25,000, excluding such anomalies as Arkansas Post and the Red River
          campaign...


          Hope this helps,
          HankC




        • Norm Mikalac
          Yes, very informative. I didn t realize that only 25,000 Union troops were committed there, which doesn t seem like a lot against the total Union forces. Norm
          Message 4 of 16 , Nov 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes, very informative. I didn't realize that only 25,000 Union
            troops were committed there, which doesn't seem like a lot against
            the total Union forces.

            Norm

            ===================================================

            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...>
            wrote:
            > >
            > > I don't understand why the Union spent a lot of military
            resources
            > > fighting in the trans-mississippi region. Once it had gained
            > control
            > > of the Miss. R. and cut off supplies and men from that area, why
            > not
            > > focus on driving the CSA forces towards to east to end the war
            > sooner?
            > > Then the trans. Miss. CSA would have had to surrender.
            > >
            > > Any thoughts on these ideas?
            > >
            >
            > The trans-Mississippi encompassed the states of Minnesota, Iowa,
            > Missouri, Arkansas, most of Louisiana and Texas. That's a pretty
            fair
            > chunk of territory.
            >
            > Robert L. Kerby, author of 'Kirby Smith's Confederacy: The Trans-
            > Mississippi South, 1863-1865', describes Missouri as the "garden"
            of
            > the trans-Mississippi. The state produces more tobacco, wool,
            hemp,
            > wheat, rye, corn and oats, and supports more mines, and has more
            > railroad miles than the rest of the trans-Mississippi states
            > combined. Missouri raises more horses and swine than either Texas
            or
            > Arkansas, while only Texas cattle and Louisiana mules outnumbered
            > Missouri livestock. In nearly every category, including industrial
            > production, mining, agricultural productivity, and population
            > Missouri has no peer west of the Mississippi. Much of the fighting
            > takes place in Missouri. A lot of it is basic military police work
            > against guerillas (think Quantrill) but many military campaigns
            are
            > aimed at capturing, or denying, these resources. St. Louis is the
            8th
            > largest city in the country with a population of 160,000.
            >
            > Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas cotton is sold over the border in
            > Mexico. This is a major source of foreign exchange and hard
            currency
            > for the CSA. The Texas border is also a possible target of
            adventure
            > for Mexico.
            >
            > Louisiana is the major producer of sugar and salt in the South and
            > Texas is the prime supplier of beef.
            >
            > My guess is that total US forces west of the river topped out at
            > 25,000, excluding such anomalies as Arkansas Post and the Red
            River
            > campaign...
            >
            >
            > Hope this helps,
            > HankC
            >
          • hank9174
            ... 25,000 is just a SWAG on my part, but they were spread pretty thin... HankC
            Message 5 of 16 , Nov 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...> wrote:
              >
              > Yes, very informative. I didn't realize that only 25,000 Union
              > troops were committed there, which doesn't seem like a lot against
              > the total Union forces.
              >

              25,000 is just a SWAG on my part, but they were spread pretty thin...


              HankC
            • William H Keene
              ... Hank I think you are way off with this number. I think it was over twice that.
              Message 6 of 16 , Nov 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...> wrote:
                >...
                > My guess is that total US forces west of the river topped out at
                > 25,000, excluding such anomalies as Arkansas Post and the Red River
                > campaign...

                Hank I think you are way off with this number. I think it was over twice that.
              • William H Keene
                ... twice that. ... Did some looking at data for early 1864. The Union forces in the transmissippi were from 4 departments -- Gulf, Arkansas, Missouri and
                Message 7 of 16 , Nov 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene" <wh_keene@y...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...> wrote:
                  > >...
                  > > My guess is that total US forces west of the river topped out at
                  > > 25,000, excluding such anomalies as Arkansas Post and the Red River
                  > > campaign...
                  >
                  > Hank I think you are way off with this number. I think it was over
                  twice that.
                  >

                  Did some looking at data for early 1864. The Union forces in the
                  transmissippi were from 4 departments -- Gulf, Arkansas, Missouri and
                  Kansas. [There was a little bit from the Department of the Tennessee,
                  but I wont count that for now; I will also leave out the small force in
                  the upper midwest (Minnesota/Iowa)]. In March these Departments
                  reported the following (rounded down to the nearest 1,000): Gulf --
                  47,000; Arkansas -- 21,000; Missouri -- 15,000; Kansas -- 6,000. I
                  would knock of close to 20,000 from the Gulf as garrisons at positions
                  east of the river (New Orleans, Port Hudson, Baton Rouge, Pensacola,
                  Key West). That still leaves almost 70,000 men. There was a decrease
                  later in the year when the 19th Corps was sent to Virginia and other
                  reductions from campainging, but it never got as low as you suggested.
                • Norm Mikalac
                  So at peak, 70,000 Union troops west of Miss. R. Maybe slightly less than that on the average after Miss. R. was under Union control? Now I want to get back
                  Message 8 of 16 , Nov 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    So at peak, 70,000 Union troops west of Miss. R. Maybe slightly
                    less than that on the average after Miss. R. was under Union
                    control? Now I want to get back to my original question. After the
                    Union troops and navy sealed off the Miss. R. and the Gulf from
                    supplies, arms and men from western states and territories and
                    Mexico, so that they could not reach the CSA armies east of Miss.
                    R., why not use those 70,000 troops to finish off the CSA armies and
                    end the war sooner? IOW, what was the thinking in DC that made
                    fighting in the west so important as to divert all those troops from
                    east to west?

                    Norm

                    ==============================================

                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
                    <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
                    <wh_keene@y...>
                    > wrote:
                    > >
                    > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...>
                    wrote:
                    > > >...
                    > > > My guess is that total US forces west of the river topped out
                    at
                    > > > 25,000, excluding such anomalies as Arkansas Post and the Red
                    River
                    > > > campaign...
                    > >
                    > > Hank I think you are way off with this number. I think it was
                    over
                    > twice that.
                    > >
                    >
                    > Did some looking at data for early 1864. The Union forces in the
                    > transmissippi were from 4 departments -- Gulf, Arkansas, Missouri
                    and
                    > Kansas. [There was a little bit from the Department of the
                    Tennessee,
                    > but I wont count that for now; I will also leave out the small
                    force in
                    > the upper midwest (Minnesota/Iowa)]. In March these Departments
                    > reported the following (rounded down to the nearest 1,000): Gulf --

                    > 47,000; Arkansas -- 21,000; Missouri -- 15,000; Kansas -- 6,000.
                    I
                    > would knock of close to 20,000 from the Gulf as garrisons at
                    positions
                    > east of the river (New Orleans, Port Hudson, Baton Rouge,
                    Pensacola,
                    > Key West). That still leaves almost 70,000 men. There was a
                    decrease
                    > later in the year when the 19th Corps was sent to Virginia and
                    other
                    > reductions from campainging, but it never got as low as you
                    suggested.
                    >
                  • carlw4514
                    assuming that this map is correct: http://americancivilwar.com/tl/1864_west_large.jpg basically the red river and the Steele campaigns [whatever their proper
                    Message 9 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      assuming that this map is correct:
                      http://americancivilwar.com/tl/1864_west_large.jpg
                      basically the red river and the Steele campaigns [whatever their
                      proper names] are the 1864 actions. From what I know about it, the
                      trans-miss had a certain amount of potential to cause trouble;
                      supplies were coming in from Mexico and Texas ports. So the picture
                      that it sometimes painted that these CSA forces were totally incapable
                      of staying in the game is not accurate IMO. Military strategists
                      always worry about their flanks. That's a broad flank to just dismiss.

                      Remember at this time it was not known that the surrender of the CS
                      forces of the west and east would automatically mean that the
                      trans-miss forces would also surrender. That fairly much happened, but
                      as far as anyone knew at the time, these areas would be CSA until all
                      eternity until federal boots were on the ground to coerce a difference.

                      Additionally, it is alleged that the cotton that could be confiscated
                      motivated some Federal planners.

                      Final point: the failure of both campaigns is a testimony to the fact
                      that the forces had potency and were not to be ignored.



                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...> wrote:
                      >
                      > So at peak, 70,000 Union troops west of Miss. R. Maybe slightly
                      > less than that on the average after Miss. R. was under Union
                      > control? Now I want to get back to my original question. After the
                      > Union troops and navy sealed off the Miss. R. and the Gulf from
                      > supplies, arms and men from western states and territories and
                      > Mexico, so that they could not reach the CSA armies east of Miss.
                      > R., why not use those 70,000 troops to finish off the CSA armies and
                      > end the war sooner? IOW, what was the thinking in DC that made
                      > fighting in the west so important as to divert all those troops from
                      > east to west?
                      >
                      > Norm
                      >
                      > ==============================================
                      >
                      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
                      > <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
                      > <wh_keene@y...>
                      > > wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > > >...
                      > > > > My guess is that total US forces west of the river topped out
                      > at
                      > > > > 25,000, excluding such anomalies as Arkansas Post and the Red
                      > River
                      > > > > campaign...
                      > > >
                      > > > Hank I think you are way off with this number. I think it was
                      > over
                      > > twice that.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > Did some looking at data for early 1864. The Union forces in the
                      > > transmissippi were from 4 departments -- Gulf, Arkansas, Missouri
                      > and
                      > > Kansas. [There was a little bit from the Department of the
                      > Tennessee,
                      > > but I wont count that for now; I will also leave out the small
                      > force in
                      > > the upper midwest (Minnesota/Iowa)]. In March these Departments
                      > > reported the following (rounded down to the nearest 1,000): Gulf --
                      >
                      > > 47,000; Arkansas -- 21,000; Missouri -- 15,000; Kansas -- 6,000.
                      > I
                      > > would knock of close to 20,000 from the Gulf as garrisons at
                      > positions
                      > > east of the river (New Orleans, Port Hudson, Baton Rouge,
                      > Pensacola,
                      > > Key West). That still leaves almost 70,000 men. There was a
                      > decrease
                      > > later in the year when the 19th Corps was sent to Virginia and
                      > other
                      > > reductions from campainging, but it never got as low as you
                      > suggested.
                      > >
                      >
                    • Norm Mikalac
                      I can accept all your answers except the supplies from Mexico. I assume the Fed Navy blockades those supplies by sea. If they were to come by land somewhere
                      Message 10 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I can accept all your answers except the supplies from Mexico. I
                        assume the Fed Navy blockades those supplies by sea. If they were
                        to come by land somewhere near the coast, then the 2 expeditions you
                        cite would not do anything to stop those.

                        Norm

                        ===============================================

                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > assuming that this map is correct:
                        > http://americancivilwar.com/tl/1864_west_large.jpg
                        > basically the red river and the Steele campaigns [whatever their
                        > proper names] are the 1864 actions. From what I know about it, the
                        > trans-miss had a certain amount of potential to cause trouble;
                        > supplies were coming in from Mexico and Texas ports. So the picture
                        > that it sometimes painted that these CSA forces were totally
                        incapable
                        > of staying in the game is not accurate IMO. Military strategists
                        > always worry about their flanks. That's a broad flank to just
                        dismiss.
                        >
                        > Remember at this time it was not known that the surrender of the CS
                        > forces of the west and east would automatically mean that the
                        > trans-miss forces would also surrender. That fairly much happened,
                        but
                        > as far as anyone knew at the time, these areas would be CSA until
                        all
                        > eternity until federal boots were on the ground to coerce a
                        difference.
                        >
                        > Additionally, it is alleged that the cotton that could be
                        confiscated
                        > motivated some Federal planners.
                        >
                        > Final point: the failure of both campaigns is a testimony to the
                        fact
                        > that the forces had potency and were not to be ignored.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...>
                        wrote:
                        > >
                        > > So at peak, 70,000 Union troops west of Miss. R. Maybe slightly
                        > > less than that on the average after Miss. R. was under Union
                        > > control? Now I want to get back to my original question. After
                        the
                        > > Union troops and navy sealed off the Miss. R. and the Gulf from
                        > > supplies, arms and men from western states and territories and
                        > > Mexico, so that they could not reach the CSA armies east of
                        Miss.
                        > > R., why not use those 70,000 troops to finish off the CSA armies
                        and
                        > > end the war sooner? IOW, what was the thinking in DC that made
                        > > fighting in the west so important as to divert all those troops
                        from
                        > > east to west?
                        > >
                        > > Norm
                        > >
                        > > ==============================================
                        > >
                        > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
                        > > <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
                        > > <wh_keene@y...>
                        > > > wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174"
                        <clarkc@m...>
                        > > wrote:
                        > > > > >...
                        > > > > > My guess is that total US forces west of the river topped
                        out
                        > > at
                        > > > > > 25,000, excluding such anomalies as Arkansas Post and the
                        Red
                        > > River
                        > > > > > campaign...
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Hank I think you are way off with this number. I think it
                        was
                        > > over
                        > > > twice that.
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Did some looking at data for early 1864. The Union forces in
                        the
                        > > > transmissippi were from 4 departments -- Gulf, Arkansas,
                        Missouri
                        > > and
                        > > > Kansas. [There was a little bit from the Department of the
                        > > Tennessee,
                        > > > but I wont count that for now; I will also leave out the small
                        > > force in
                        > > > the upper midwest (Minnesota/Iowa)]. In March these
                        Departments
                        > > > reported the following (rounded down to the nearest 1,000):
                        Gulf --
                        > >
                        > > > 47,000; Arkansas -- 21,000; Missouri -- 15,000; Kansas --
                        6,000.
                        > > I
                        > > > would knock of close to 20,000 from the Gulf as garrisons at
                        > > positions
                        > > > east of the river (New Orleans, Port Hudson, Baton Rouge,
                        > > Pensacola,
                        > > > Key West). That still leaves almost 70,000 men. There was a
                        > > decrease
                        > > > later in the year when the 19th Corps was sent to Virginia and
                        > > other
                        > > > reductions from campainging, but it never got as low as you
                        > > suggested.
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • carlw4514
                        correct, the federal approach was to finish off Arkansas and Louisiana with a combined effect... the steele and red river campaigns were coordinated
                        Message 11 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          correct, the federal approach was to finish off Arkansas and Louisiana
                          with a combined effect... the steele and red river campaigns were
                          coordinated campaigns... then go into Texas [I'm sure what was to be
                          next was not fleshed out very well]. The blockade, never 100%
                          effective, was doing what it could independently of the overland
                          campaigns. Matamoros Mexico, across the Rio Grande from Brownsville
                          TX, apparently was a dilemma. Mexico generally was a big concern at
                          the time.


                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I can accept all your answers except the supplies from Mexico. I
                          > assume the Fed Navy blockades those supplies by sea. If they were
                          > to come by land somewhere near the coast, then the 2 expeditions you
                          > cite would not do anything to stop those.
                          >
                          > Norm
                          >
                        • hank9174
                          ... ... at ... River ... over ... and ... Tennessee, ... force in ... I ... positions ... Pensacola, ... decrease ... other ... suggested. ...
                          Message 12 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
                            <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
                            <wh_keene@y...>
                            > wrote:
                            > >
                            > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...>
                            wrote:
                            > > >...
                            > > > My guess is that total US forces west of the river topped out
                            at
                            > > > 25,000, excluding such anomalies as Arkansas Post and the Red
                            River
                            > > > campaign...
                            > >
                            > > Hank I think you are way off with this number. I think it was
                            over
                            > twice that.
                            > >
                            >
                            > Did some looking at data for early 1864. The Union forces in the
                            > transmissippi were from 4 departments -- Gulf, Arkansas, Missouri
                            and
                            > Kansas. [There was a little bit from the Department of the
                            Tennessee,
                            > but I wont count that for now; I will also leave out the small
                            force in
                            > the upper midwest (Minnesota/Iowa)]. In March these Departments
                            > reported the following (rounded down to the nearest 1,000): Gulf --
                            > 47,000; Arkansas -- 21,000; Missouri -- 15,000; Kansas -- 6,000.
                            I
                            > would knock of close to 20,000 from the Gulf as garrisons at
                            positions
                            > east of the river (New Orleans, Port Hudson, Baton Rouge,
                            Pensacola,
                            > Key West). That still leaves almost 70,000 men. There was a
                            decrease
                            > later in the year when the 19th Corps was sent to Virginia and
                            other
                            > reductions from campainging, but it never got as low as you
                            suggested.
                            >


                            sounds good... thanks for your effort.


                            HankC
                          • hank9174
                            ... the ... and ... from ... At this moment, showing the flag was a big part of their mission. Primary tasks are enforcing martial law, propping up the new
                            Message 13 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...> wrote:
                              >
                              > So at peak, 70,000 Union troops west of Miss. R. Maybe slightly
                              > less than that on the average after Miss. R. was under Union
                              > control? Now I want to get back to my original question. After
                              the
                              > Union troops and navy sealed off the Miss. R. and the Gulf from
                              > supplies, arms and men from western states and territories and
                              > Mexico, so that they could not reach the CSA armies east of Miss.
                              > R., why not use those 70,000 troops to finish off the CSA armies
                              and
                              > end the war sooner? IOW, what was the thinking in DC that made
                              > fighting in the west so important as to divert all those troops
                              from
                              > east to west?
                              >

                              At this moment, 'showing the flag' was a big part of their mission.
                              Primary tasks are enforcing martial law, propping up the new state
                              governments in Arkansas and Louisiana and protecting public and
                              private property from guerrillas and ative forces. Scanning
                              corrspondence in the OR would give good clues as to what was on their
                              mind.

                              Another ambiguity is the number of men enrolled and the number
                              in 'active' operations. The 70,000 accounted for probably distills
                              way down...


                              HankC
                            • William H Keene
                              ... The US was not blockading Mexican ports.
                              Message 14 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I can accept all your answers except the supplies from Mexico. I
                                > assume the Fed Navy blockades those supplies by sea.

                                The US was not blockading Mexican ports.
                              • William H Keene
                                ... the ... and ... from ... The thinking in DC went something like this: - Troops were continually needed to maintain order in Missouri; - Troops were
                                Message 15 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > So at peak, 70,000 Union troops west of Miss. R. Maybe slightly
                                  > less than that on the average after Miss. R. was under Union
                                  > control? Now I want to get back to my original question. After
                                  the
                                  > Union troops and navy sealed off the Miss. R. and the Gulf from
                                  > supplies, arms and men from western states and territories and
                                  > Mexico, so that they could not reach the CSA armies east of Miss.
                                  > R., why not use those 70,000 troops to finish off the CSA armies
                                  and
                                  > end the war sooner? IOW, what was the thinking in DC that made
                                  > fighting in the west so important as to divert all those troops
                                  from
                                  > east to west?

                                  The thinking in DC went something like this:
                                  - Troops were continually needed to maintain order in Missouri;
                                  - Troops were continually needed to protect the frontier in Kansas;
                                  - Troops were needed for the invasion and occupation of Arkanss, with
                                  the objective of controlling additional territoriy, try to restablish
                                  a Union goverment in Arakansas; and defeating the confederate forces
                                  in Arkansas.
                                  - Troops were needed in the gulf to control parts of Louisiaina; to
                                  attmept to drive the Confederates from the rest of Louisiana; and to
                                  occupy a part of Texas for reasons having mostly to do with the
                                  situation in Mexico.

                                  Halleck beleived it was worth trying to defeat the confederate forces
                                  in the west and he also beleived in the imporantce of siimply holding
                                  more territoriy; Lincoln hoped to be able to begin political
                                  reconstruction of Arkansas and Louisiana.
                                • Norm Mikalac
                                  I didn t say it was. I referred to the blockage in the western Gulf, which would be in international waters. Norm
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I didn't say it was. I referred to the blockage in the western Gulf,
                                    which would be in international waters.

                                    Norm

                                    =========================================

                                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene" <wh_keene@y...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Norm Mikalac" <789@m...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > I can accept all your answers except the supplies from Mexico. I
                                    > > assume the Fed Navy blockades those supplies by sea.
                                    >
                                    > The US was not blockading Mexican ports.
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.