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

Re: Why Trans-Miss. ?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 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?

              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 6 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.