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

Re: Why Trans-Miss. ?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.