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

Re: Why Trans-Miss. ?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.