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

Re: Why Trans-Miss. ?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Nov 3, 2005
      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 2 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
        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 3 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
          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 4 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
            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 5 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
              --- 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 6 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                --- 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 7 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                  --- 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 8 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                    --- 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 9 of 16 , Nov 4, 2005
                      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.