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

Re: Grimsley's blog

Expand Messages
  • Dave Smith
    I m catching up on some older posts. I think that s a reasonable point, Tom, but I m not sure exactly how JEJ ever demonstrated what he would do with the time
    Message 1 of 68 , Jan 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm catching up on some older posts.

      I think that's a reasonable point, Tom, but I'm not sure exactly how
      JEJ ever demonstrated what he would do with the time he bought. At
      some point, one has to execute a war aim to bring about some
      satisfactory conclusion.

      To carry out an analogy that has been used before, when JEJ retreated
      from Atlanta, kept his army intact, and finally surrendered in the
      Dry Tortugas, what was left to negotiate?

      The historical record is clear that Lee constantly looked for ways to
      attack and defeat Grant all during the Overland campaign. Outside of
      a half-hearted effort at Cassville, and the trigger-that-never-got-
      pulled at Peachtree Creek, when did JEJ realiably look to do
      something with his army during the Atlanta campaign.

      For that matter, what did he do with his 30,000-man "Army of Relief"
      during the Vicksburg Campaign?

      Dave

      Dave Smith
      Crestview Hills, KY

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
      >
      > Napoleon said that he could always get the land back, it was time
      that he
      > could not recover. That is what JEJ and eventually Lee were doing,
      trying
      > to save time. The CSA needed time to survive and the army was the
      CSA it
      > needed to be kept alive to maintain the needed time , not the
      needed land.
      > To win the war they needed time not the land, it would come in final
      > negotiations. Or so they thought.
      >
      > Tom
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of Harry Smeltzer
      > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:00 PM
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Grimsley's blog
      >
      >
      >
      > Sam,
      >
      >
      >
      > I'm not really questioning the validity of the criticism. I'm
      looking for
      > feedback from anyone who holds both views simultaneously - that
      Tullahoma
      > was no big deal because it did not significantly damage an army,
      and that
      > Johnston's willingness to sacrifice territory for maintenance of
      his army
      > was wrongheaded.
      >
      >
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of SDE80@a...
      > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:50 AM
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Grimsley's blog
      >
      >
      >
      > In a message dated 12/13/2005 11:37:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      > hjs21@c... writes:
      >
      >
      >
      > How do we reconcile criticisms of Rosecans' Tullahoma Campaign
      (what good is
      > real estate, the enemy army should be the objective) with criticism
      of
      > Johnston, who seemed to value the survival of his army over the
      maintenance
      > of territory?
      >
      >
      >
      > That particular criticism of the Tullahoma Campaign is not valid.
      > Rosecrans intended to destroy Bragg's army, and was hindered from
      cutting
      > him off and forcing the AOT into the dead zone of northern Alabama
      by a 500
      > year rain.
      >
      > Sam Elliott
      >
      >
      >
      > SPONSORED LINKS
      >
      >
      > American
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
      t=ms&k=American+civil+war&w1=American+civil+wa
      >
      r&w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+w
      ar&w6=
      > United+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=PLhSD0RGhooh2tXWQrpA1w> civil war
      >
      > Civil
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
      t=ms&k=Civil+war&w1=American+civil+war&w2=Civi
      >
      l+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+war&w6=Uni
      ted+st
      > ate+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=rEnWOoAzy2uXEjwEqbvKQw> war
      >
      > United
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
      t=ms&k=United+states&w1=American+civil+war&w2=
      >
      Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+war&w6
      =Unite
      > d+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=iLfklVD4PyvX0P-TPXBdyQ> states
      >
      >
      > Civil
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
      t=ms&k=Civil+war+history&w1=American+civil+war
      >
      &w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+wa
      r&w6=U
      > nited+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=5ubNl6PEd3y2Dmlp5shYpg> war
      history
      >
      > Of
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
      t=ms&k=Of+the+civil+war&w1=American+civil+war&
      >
      w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+war
      &w6=Un
      > ited+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=xGDN2KXuQrheRYzvZoUVcQ> the civil
      war
      >
      > United
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
      t=ms&k=United+state+army&w1=American+civil+war
      >
      &w2=Civil+war&w3=United+states&w4=Civil+war+history&w5=Of+the+civil+wa
      r&w6=U
      > nited+state+army&c=6&s=126&.sig=yF_kwbpG9O-0SNRFfNB27g> state army
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      >
      >
      > * Visit your group "civilwarwest
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest> " on the web.
      >
      >
      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
      subject=Unsubscribe>
      >
      >
      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
    • SDE80@aol.com
      In a message dated 1/6/2006 1:02:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... I wouldn t dispute Newton s numbers. 11-7 is pretty close to 10-7 Sam Elliott
      Message 68 of 68 , Jan 6, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 1/6/2006 1:02:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, wh_keene@... writes:

        4/30          110,123    55,100    50%
        5/31-6/10     112,819    69,946    62%


        I wouldn't dispute Newton's numbers. 11-7 is pretty close to 10-7 <g>

        Sam Elliott
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.