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

Re: Shermans numbers and Shiloh

Expand Messages
  • Jack Ehmer
    Peter, I believe that Baron was referring to European immigrants who were flowing to the North during the years prior to and during the war. IIRC, McPherson
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Peter,

      I believe that Baron was referring to European immigrants who were
      flowing to the North during the years prior to and during the war.
      IIRC, McPherson states that 7/8 of all immigrants came to the North
      because of better opportunities for employment and advancement.

      Think of all of the Irish and German regiments that were recruited.
      There were also a number of Scandanavians who volunteered to fight
      for their adopted country. At this time, the U.S.(the North
      particularly) was seen as the beacon of freedom, which is why it was
      not a favorite of the European monarchies, while the South was seen
      as a more stable, traditional culture.

      Jack Ehmer


      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Peter Mancini" <peter_mancini@m...> wrote:
      > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Baron VonTecumseh" <barontecumseh@b...>
      > wrote:
      > >The point being that one of the Norths big advantages was much
      more
      > man power than the south.From the North and a endless supply from
      > Europe if need be.
      >
      > How do you figure Europe getting involved in the Civil War for the
      > North? Britain is stll P.O.'d about the Trent affair (they would
      > remember it and use it against us in WWI actually) France was
      P.O.d
      > about Texas and the Rio Grande. One doesn't hear much about
      Germany
      > but they must have been up to something. Just a few years later
      they
      > were heavily invovled in the Franco-Prussian war however the U.S.
      was
      > probably P.O.d at them for the Revolutionary War... I think Europe
      > was proably to smart to get invovled in this fight.
      >
      > --Peter
    • Margaret D. Blough
      Message text written by INTERNET:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com ... man power than the south.From the North and a endless supply from Europe if need be. How do
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Message text written by INTERNET:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        >

        --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Baron VonTecumseh" <barontecumseh@b...>
        wrote:
        >The point being that one of the Norths big advantages was much more
        man power than the south.From the North and a endless supply from
        Europe if need be.

        How do you figure Europe getting involved in the Civil War for the
        North? Britain is stll P.O.'d about the Trent affair (they would
        remember it and use it against us in WWI actually) France was P.O.d
        about Texas and the Rio Grande. One doesn't hear much about Germany
        but they must have been up to something. Just a few years later they
        were heavily invovled in the Franco-Prussian war however the U.S. was
        probably P.O.d at them for the Revolutionary War... I think Europe
        was proably to smart to get invovled in this fight.

        --Peter
        <

        Peter,

        Actually, this was a very turbulent period in European history with a
        series of smaller disputes and hostilities leading up to the
        Franco-Prussian war and German reunification. The Trent was actually one
        in a long series of disputes between the US and UK over what boarding,
        inspection, and seizure rights each had, if any, over each other's ships.
        Impressment of seamen from US ships by the British was a major factor in
        bringing about the War of 1812. Once Britain banned the slave trade and
        the Royal Navy began to enforce it, this also led to more disputes re:
        their rights on ships bearing the US flag. However, once the Trent crisis
        cooled down, HM Govt. was not interested in getting bogged down in a land
        war in North America or tying up the Royal Navy either. It didn't object
        to doing as much mischief as possible while pushing the envelope of
        neutrality (a game the US had played during the Napoleonic Wars) and hope
        to broker a peace that would leave it's former problem child divided and
        the troublesome experiment in representative government discredited, but
        HM government didn't seem willing to risk anything significant, especially
        military internvention which might produce another US foray into Canada.
        If recognition had come, it probably would have been of more symbolic than
        practical significance to the Confederacy. While France certainly wanted
        the CW to continue since it knew that a United States intact and at peace
        would never tolerate Napoleon III's Mexican adventure (as proved to be the
        case almost to the minute after the CW ended), it wasn't about to do
        anything without the UK taking the lead.

        Regards,

        Margaret
      • Baron VonTecumseh
        ... man power than the south.From the North and a endless supply from Europe if need be. How do you figure Europe getting involved in the Civil War for the
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          On 30-Mar-01, Peter Mancini <peter_mancini@...> wrote:
          --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Baron VonTecumseh" <barontecumseh@b...>
          wrote:
          >The point being that one of the Norths big advantages was much more
          man power than the south.From the North and a endless supply from
          Europe if need be.

          How do you figure Europe getting involved in the Civil War for the
          North? Britain is stll P.O.'d about the Trent affair (they would
          remember it and use it against us in WWI actually) France was P.O.d
          about Texas and the Rio Grande. One doesn't hear much about Germany
          but they must have been up to something. Just a few years later they
          were heavily invovled in the Franco-Prussian war however the U.S. was
          probably P.O.d at them for the Revolutionary War... I think Europe
          was proably to smart to get invovled in this fight.

          --Peter
          Not European countrys,but immigration,would supply unlimited,man power if need be,to the North The Baron




          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Bob Huddleston
          I agree with your analysis. However, even though I am a fan of Uncle Billy s, there were limits on the ability of *either* side to fully mobilize, even if the
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree with your analysis.

            However, even though I am a fan of Uncle Billy's, there were limits on the
            ability of *either* side to fully mobilize, even if the leadership had
            recognized the need.

            The mobilization of the American armies in 1861 is something of a miracle.
            With the greater industrialization of the 20th Century, we did not come
            anywhere near it. In 1917, there had been for years a general staff and
            staff college which had prepared mobilization plans and there had been a
            partial mobilization the previous year to combat Poncho Villa. But the Army
            only tripled in size in the same length of time that the Civil War United
            States Army increased to 27 times its size.

            At the start of 1861, the army had about 15,000 men and 1,000 officers. The
            first call went out on April 15 and by August 3, the US Army had 460,000 men
            mustered in (122 OR 455-456).

            And at the same time, the PACS, using the same base, had also grown. I can
            not find a strength report to directly compare with the August 3, 1861 US
            one, but on September 30 the Confederates had mustered in 254 regiments --
            probably in excess of 200,000 men, and a report to Samuel Cooper remarked
            that there were numerous other regiments and independent companies. (127 OR
            626-631)

            So the American people increased their army from 16,000 to 3/4 of a million
            men in a space of three months!

            Take care,

            Bob

            Judy and Bob Huddleston
            10643 Sperry Street
            Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
            303.451.6276 Adco@...


            We have been discussing Sherman's numbers, and going in to
            April, my thoughts start to drift towards Shiloh.
            Now lets say they decided to liston to Sherman and send 200000 men to the
            west.100000 for Grant,and 100000 for Buell
            (Sherman still went crazy). How would the battle of Shiloh gone
            with those numbers. The point being that one of the Norths big advantages
            was much more man power than the south.From the North and a endless supply
            from Europe if need be.
            This I think Sherman was talking about,and the North could have shorten the
            war if it had only activated and outragously
            huge Army,that the South could never have compited with, know matter how
            great there Generals were.This was very possible
            from the start. The Baron
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.