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

Re: Why Trans-Miss. ?

Expand Messages
  • William H Keene
    ... Hank I think you are way off with this number. I think it was over twice that.
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 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?

                        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 11 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.