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

Re: victory&defeat

Expand Messages
  • melchizedek22
    ... posts. Someone ... because the ... into ... Just marching off ... as a ... away from supply ... qualify it as ... raiding into ... future ... The point
    Message 1 of 27 , May 1, 2006
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > I just got back from a week in Gergia and am catching up on
      posts. Someone
      > said earlier about Brices Crossraods really being a Union victory
      because the
      > goal was to keep Forrest occupied in Mississippi and not raiding
      into
      > Tennessee, etc. This seems like a rather convoluted arguement.
      Just marching off
      > into Mississippi and getting thier hats handed to them qualified
      as a
      > victory? I understand the Union wanted to keep Forrest as far
      away from supply
      > lines and depots but I think they need to do better in a battle to
      qualify it as
      > a victory. Did Brices seriously impair Forrest's ability to go
      raiding into
      > Tennessee? Did Brices impair Forrest's fighting strength so that
      future
      > battles would be more successful?
      > --Nick
      >
      The point of my Brice Crossroads post was,that the unions mission
      was to keep Forrest off of Sherman's supply line.By being defeated
      at Brice Crossroads,the union had,completed their mission.
      By completeing their mission they managed to can a victory by being
      defeated.
      Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and everybody
      gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises
    • nickrelee@aol.com
      So you re basically saying that by Smith marching out of Memphis he had already won victory? Or at least once he convinced Forrest that Forrest should attack
      Message 2 of 27 , May 1, 2006
        So you're basically saying that by Smith marching out of Memphis he had already won victory?  Or at least once he convinced Forrest that Forrest should attack smith he had won?  That if Smith can't make Forrest attack him then its a loss because Forrest can do as he pleases.  All Smith had to do was prevent the total destruction of his army and he was a winner?  Or better yet, if he had surrendered his whole force that would have tied up Forrest with paroles and such, all that paperwork takes time.
        --Nick
         
         
         
        In a message dated 5/1/2006 10:49:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time, melchizedek22@... writes:
        The point of my Brice Crossroads post was,that the unions mission
        was to keep Forrest off of Sherman's supply line.By being defeated
        at Brice Crossroads,the union had,completed their mission.
        By completeing their mission they managed to can a victory by being
        defeated.
        Kind of like  Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and everybody
        gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises
         
      • William H Keene
        Im with you Nick. Seems like weak rationalization to claim there was any US victory in this. The US mission was about more than keeping Forrest off Sherman s
        Message 3 of 27 , May 1, 2006
          Im with you Nick. Seems like weak rationalization to claim there was any US victory in this.
          The US mission was about more than keeping Forrest off Sherman's supply line; the
          mission was about defeating Forrest. Sturgis and both Smiths failed in their mission.


          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > So you're basically saying that by Smith marching out of Memphis he had
          > already won victory? Or at least once he convinced Forrest that Forrest should
          > attack smith he had won? That if Smith can't make Forrest attack him then its
          > a loss because Forrest can do as he pleases. All Smith had to do was
          > prevent the total destruction of his army and he was a winner? Or better yet, if
          > he had surrendered his whole force that would have tied up Forrest with
          > paroles and such, all that paperwork takes time.
          > --Nick
          >
          >
          >
          > In a message dated 5/1/2006 10:49:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
          > melchizedek22@... writes:
          >
          > The point of my Brice Crossroads post was,that the unions mission
          > was to keep Forrest off of Sherman's supply line.By being defeated
          > at Brice Crossroads,the union had,completed their mission.
          > By completeing their mission they managed to can a victory by being
          > defeated.
          > Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and everybody
          > gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises
          >
        • Dan Giallombardo
          - Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and everybody ... Excellent analogy.--Dan -- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, melchizedek22 ...
          Message 4 of 27 , May 1, 2006
            -
            "Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and everybody
            > gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises"------
            Excellent analogy.--Dan


            -- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "melchizedek22"
            <melchizedek22@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@ wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > I just got back from a week in Gergia and am catching up on
            > posts. Someone
            > > said earlier about Brices Crossraods really being a Union
            victory
            > because the
            > > goal was to keep Forrest occupied in Mississippi and not raiding
            > into
            > > Tennessee, etc. This seems like a rather convoluted arguement.
            > Just marching off
            > > into Mississippi and getting thier hats handed to them qualified
            > as a
            > > victory? I understand the Union wanted to keep Forrest as far
            > away from supply
            > > lines and depots but I think they need to do better in a battle
            to
            > qualify it as
            > > a victory. Did Brices seriously impair Forrest's ability to go
            > raiding into
            > > Tennessee? Did Brices impair Forrest's fighting strength so
            that
            > future
            > > battles would be more successful?
            > > --Nick
            > >
            > The point of my Brice Crossroads post was,that the unions mission
            > was to keep Forrest off of Sherman's supply line.By being defeated
            > at Brice Crossroads,the union had,completed their mission.
            > By completeing their mission they managed to can a victory by being
            > defeated.
            > Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and everybody
            > gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises
            >
          • Dan Giallombardo
            Perhaps, it s me, but I read that as meaning as long as Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan ... had ... Forrest should ... him then its
            Message 5 of 27 , May 1, 2006
              Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long as
              Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan

              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
              >
              >
              > So you're basically saying that by Smith marching out of Memphis he
              had
              > already won victory? Or at least once he convinced Forrest that
              Forrest should
              > attack smith he had won? That if Smith can't make Forrest attack
              him then its
              > a loss because Forrest can do as he pleases. All Smith had to do
              was
              > prevent the total destruction of his army and he was a winner? Or
              better yet, if
              > he had surrendered his whole force that would have tied up Forrest
              with
              > paroles and such, all that paperwork takes time.
              > --Nick
              >
              >
              >
              > In a message dated 5/1/2006 10:49:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
              > melchizedek22@... writes:
              >
              > The point of my Brice Crossroads post was,that the unions mission
              > was to keep Forrest off of Sherman's supply line.By being defeated
              > at Brice Crossroads,the union had,completed their mission.
              > By completeing their mission they managed to can a victory by
              being
              > defeated.
              > Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and
              everybody
              > gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises
              >
            • nickrelee@aol.com
              I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from raiding and recruiting, etc. But the idea of just going out there to have Forrest hammer you
              Message 6 of 27 , May 1, 2006
                I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from raiding and recruiting, etc.  But the idea of just going out there to have Forrest hammer you and claim it as a victory seems very odd.  If you just keep sending guys out to get hammered you run the risk of reaching a time when you don't have the guys to stop Forrest from doing what he wants. 
                 
                To put it another way, Forrest had roughly 5000 men and Sturgis had about 8000.  If Forrest wins battles by inflicting 2600 casualties and losing 500 (which was the approximate total at Brice's) then how many such victories can the Union win before they are unable to stop Forrest at all? 
                --Nick
                 
                 
                 
                In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:23:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time, DanGiallo@... writes:
                             Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long as
                Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan
                 
              • Tom Mix
                By that definition of victory I guess Custer had a smashing one at the Little Big Horn. Heck, Reno even held the field while the Indians left. Tom ... From:
                Message 7 of 27 , May 1, 2006

                  By that definition of “victory” I guess Custer had a smashing one at the Little Big Horn. Heck, Reno even held the field while the Indians left.

                  Tom

                   

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nickrelee@...
                  Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:10 PM
                  To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: victory&defeat

                   

                  I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from raiding and recruiting, etc.  But the idea of just going out there to have Forrest hammer you and claim it as a victory seems very odd.  If you just keep sending guys out to get hammered you run the risk of reaching a time when you don't have the guys to stop Forrest from doing what he wants. 

                   

                  To put it another way, Forrest had roughly 5000 men and Sturgis had about 8000.  If Forrest wins battles by inflicting 2600 casualties and losing 500 (which was the approximate total at Brice's) then how many such victories can the Union win before they are unable to stop Forrest at all? 

                  --Nick

                   

                   

                   

                  In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:23:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time, DanGiallo@... writes:

                               Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long as
                  Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan

                   

                   

                • endeavorgot
                  ... raiding and ... Forrest ... keep sending ... you don t have ... had about ... losing 500 ... victories can ... There seems to be a pattern developing
                  Message 8 of 27 , May 1, 2006
                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from
                    raiding and
                    > recruiting, etc. But the idea of just going out there to have
                    Forrest
                    > hammer you and claim it as a victory seems very odd. If you just
                    keep sending
                    > guys out to get hammered you run the risk of reaching a time when
                    you don't have
                    > the guys to stop Forrest from doing what he wants.
                    >
                    > To put it another way, Forrest had roughly 5000 men and Sturgis
                    had about
                    > 8000. If Forrest wins battles by inflicting 2600 casualties and
                    losing 500
                    > (which was the approximate total at Brice's) then how many such
                    victories can
                    > the Union win before they are unable to stop Forrest at all?
                    > --Nick
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:23:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
                    > DanGiallo@... writes:
                    >
                    > Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long as
                    > Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan
                    >


                    There seems to be a pattern developing here. Consider Sand Mountain
                    (Day's Gap) (Streights raid) in addition to examples cited in posts
                    before.

                    It seems to me that that the Union kept sending forces out to
                    destroy, capture, or defeat Forrest. But when Forrest defeated or
                    destroyed those forces, they would claim that this kept him from
                    defeating or destroying even more important forces.

                    Bill Bruner
                  • Steve Saultz
                    ...LMAO......
                    Message 9 of 27 , May 1, 2006
                      ...LMAO......
                    • melchizedek22
                      ... to have defeated Forrest,but their mission was to keep Forrest off of Sherman s supply line,that they did do. ... as ... he ... attack ... do ... Or ...
                      Message 10 of 27 , May 2, 2006
                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Giallombardo"
                        <DanGiallo@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Correct! They completed their mission,sure it would have been great
                        to have defeated Forrest,but their mission was to keep Forrest off of
                        Sherman's supply line,that they did do.


                        > Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long
                        as
                        > Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan
                        >
                        > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@ wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > So you're basically saying that by Smith marching out of Memphis
                        he
                        > had
                        > > already won victory? Or at least once he convinced Forrest that
                        > Forrest should
                        > > attack smith he had won? That if Smith can't make Forrest
                        attack
                        > him then its
                        > > a loss because Forrest can do as he pleases. All Smith had to
                        do
                        > was
                        > > prevent the total destruction of his army and he was a winner?
                        Or
                        > better yet, if
                        > > he had surrendered his whole force that would have tied up
                        Forrest
                        > with
                        > > paroles and such, all that paperwork takes time.
                        > > --Nick
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > In a message dated 5/1/2006 10:49:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
                        > > melchizedek22@ writes:
                        > >
                        > > The point of my Brice Crossroads post was,that the unions mission
                        > > was to keep Forrest off of Sherman's supply line.By being
                        defeated
                        > > at Brice Crossroads,the union had,completed their mission.
                        > > By completeing their mission they managed to can a victory by
                        > being
                        > > defeated.
                        > > Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and
                        > everybody
                        > > gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises
                        > >
                        >
                      • melchizedek22
                        ... at the ... left. ... [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On ... raiding and ... Forrest ... keep ... time when ... about ... losing 500 ... victories ...
                        Message 11 of 27 , May 2, 2006
                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > By that definition of "victory" I guess Custer had a smashing one
                          at the
                          > Little Big Horn. Heck, Reno even held the field while the Indians
                          left.
                          >
                          > Tom
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                          [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
                          > Behalf Of nickrelee@...
                          > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:10 PM
                          > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: victory&defeat
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from
                          raiding and
                          > recruiting, etc. But the idea of just going out there to have
                          Forrest
                          > hammer you and claim it as a victory seems very odd. If you just
                          keep
                          > sending guys out to get hammered you run the risk of reaching a
                          time when
                          > you don't have the guys to stop Forrest from doing what he wants.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > To put it another way, Forrest had roughly 5000 men and Sturgis had
                          about
                          > 8000. If Forrest wins battles by inflicting 2600 casualties and
                          losing 500
                          > (which was the approximate total at Brice's) then how many such
                          victories
                          > can the Union win before they are unable to stop Forrest at all?
                          >
                          > --Nick
                          >
                          > They completed their mission,and the reality is,the Union could
                          afford the 2600 casualties,more than the so called confederacy could
                          afford the 500!
                          Just as the Russians could afford insane losses more than the
                          Germans in WW2
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:23:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
                          > DanGiallo@... writes:
                          >
                          > Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long
                          as
                          > Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > 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.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > _____
                          >
                        • pvtjessett
                          Gentlemen, Compliments I realize I m a little late on this debate but in my small mind the bottom line is that Forrest was turned loose on W.T. Shermans supply
                          Message 12 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                            Gentlemen, Compliments

                            I realize I'm a little late on this debate but in my small mind the
                            bottom line is that Forrest was turned loose on W.T. Shermans supply
                            line several months late. By the time he was sent to do what he
                            could as far as disruption of lines of comm. "Billy" Sherman had
                            already decided to go it alone, "live off the country" so to speak.
                            Grant had proved in the Vicksburg campaign this was possible and the
                            lesson was well learned. Forrest had advocated this disruption
                            earlier but was poo-pooed by Wheeler if not higher up at the time.
                            Another fine move by the CSA Command in the west.
                            Brice's Cross roads whether a distracting move on Forrest or not was
                            a brillantly fought engagement and to this day still taught in any
                            Military Academy worth its salt. West Point included.

                            Paul

                            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > So you're basically saying that by Smith marching out of Memphis
                            he had
                            > already won victory? Or at least once he convinced Forrest that
                            Forrest should
                            > attack smith he had won? That if Smith can't make Forrest attack
                            him then its
                            > a loss because Forrest can do as he pleases. All Smith had to do
                            was
                            > prevent the total destruction of his army and he was a winner?
                            Or better yet, if
                            > he had surrendered his whole force that would have tied up
                            Forrest with
                            > paroles and such, all that paperwork takes time.
                            > --Nick
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > In a message dated 5/1/2006 10:49:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
                            > melchizedek22@... writes:
                            >
                            > The point of my Brice Crossroads post was,that the unions mission
                            > was to keep Forrest off of Sherman's supply line.By being defeated
                            > at Brice Crossroads,the union had,completed their mission.
                            > By completeing their mission they managed to can a victory by
                            being
                            > defeated.
                            > Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and
                            everybody
                            > gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises
                            >
                          • pvtjessett
                            Mr. Nick Compliments, Is it just me or do I detect a small note of sarcasism. No couldn t possibly be. Paul ... he had ... Forrest should ... him then its ...
                            Message 13 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                              Mr. Nick Compliments,

                              Is it just me or do I detect a small note of sarcasism. No couldn't
                              possibly be.

                              Paul


                              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > So you're basically saying that by Smith marching out of Memphis
                              he had
                              > already won victory? Or at least once he convinced Forrest that
                              Forrest should
                              > attack smith he had won? That if Smith can't make Forrest attack
                              him then its
                              > a loss because Forrest can do as he pleases. All Smith had to do
                              was
                              > prevent the total destruction of his army and he was a winner?
                              Or better yet, if
                              > he had surrendered his whole force that would have tied up
                              Forrest with
                              > paroles and such, all that paperwork takes time.
                              > --Nick
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > In a message dated 5/1/2006 10:49:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
                              > melchizedek22@... writes:
                              >
                              > The point of my Brice Crossroads post was,that the unions mission
                              > was to keep Forrest off of Sherman's supply line.By being defeated
                              > at Brice Crossroads,the union had,completed their mission.
                              > By completeing their mission they managed to can a victory by
                              being
                              > defeated.
                              > Kind of like Milo Minderbinder bombing his own base,and
                              everybody
                              > gained,because everybody had a "Share" in M&M enterprises
                              >
                            • pvtjessett
                              Tom Compliments, I detected a little sarcasism in Nicks post but Sir, I believe yours drips it. I wonder if Sitting Bull (or whomever the Chief was) looked at
                              Message 14 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                                Tom Compliments,

                                I detected a little sarcasism in Nicks post but Sir, I believe yours
                                drips it. I wonder if Sitting Bull (or whomever the Chief was)
                                looked at it like that. I can hear him now---"Reno that rascal" got
                                me!!

                                Paul

                                -- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > By that definition of "victory" I guess Custer had a smashing one
                                at the
                                > Little Big Horn. Heck, Reno even held the field while the Indians
                                left.
                                >
                                > Tom
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
                                > Behalf Of nickrelee@...
                                > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:10 PM
                                > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: victory&defeat
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > I can understand wanting to keep Forrest occupied, keep him from
                                raiding and
                                > recruiting, etc. But the idea of just going out there to have
                                Forrest
                                > hammer you and claim it as a victory seems very odd. If you just
                                keep
                                > sending guys out to get hammered you run the risk of reaching a
                                time when
                                > you don't have the guys to stop Forrest from doing what he wants.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > To put it another way, Forrest had roughly 5000 men and Sturgis
                                had about
                                > 8000. If Forrest wins battles by inflicting 2600 casualties and
                                losing 500
                                > (which was the approximate total at Brice's) then how many such
                                victories
                                > can the Union win before they are unable to stop Forrest at all?
                                >
                                > --Nick
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:23:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
                                > DanGiallo@... writes:
                                >
                                > Perhaps, it's me, but I read that as meaning as long
                                as
                                > Forrest was kept occupied the mission was a sucess.--Dan
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > 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+
                                war&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=Un
                                ited+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&w
                                6=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+w
                                ar&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+wa
                                r&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+w
                                ar&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.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > _____
                                >
                              • nickrelee@aol.com
                                Just a bit of sarcasam. A wee tiny bit. --Nick
                                Message 15 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                                  Just a bit of sarcasam.  A wee tiny bit.
                                  --Nick
                                • pvtjessett
                                  Nick Compliments Again Sir, My Spidey senses felt that. LOF Paul
                                  Message 16 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                                    Nick Compliments Again Sir,

                                    My Spidey senses felt that.
                                    LOF

                                    Paul

                                    -- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Just a bit of sarcasam. A wee tiny bit.
                                    > --Nick
                                    >
                                  • Bob Huddleston
                                    Sorry, Paul, it does not appear that there is much interest in the Army on Brice s Crossroads. Civil War staff rides are conducted on Antietam, Gettysburg, and
                                    Message 17 of 27 , May 7, 2006

                                      Sorry, Paul, it does not appear that there is much interest in the Army on Brice's Crossroads.

                                       

                                      Civil War staff rides are conducted on Antietam,Gettysburg , and the Red River Campaign, but at present, there are no staff rides of Brice’s Crossroads. And the Crossroad’s site, http://www.bricescrossroads.com/main.htm does not mention any West Point study of the battle . In times past, the U.S.M.A has run staff rides of Chickamauga/Chattanooga (the US Army’s first staff ride, in 1906, was of Chickamauga ), Cedar Creek and various other battle fields in Virginia . Grabau’s _Ninety-Eight Days _ was originally n Army (but non-U.S.M.A.) staff ride.

                                       

                                      The Army’s Combat Studies  Institute at Leavenworth has prepared a number of staff rides < http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp#staff > but none on Brice’s Crossroads.

                                       

                                      A search of the West Point web site finds no mention of either Forrest or Brice’s Cross Roads, nor does the West Point Atlas even mention Brice’s Crossroads.

                                       

                                      It would appear that the modern Army has no interest in either Bedford Forrest or Brice’s Cross Roads.

                                      Take care,

                                      Bob

                                      Judy and Bob Huddleston
                                      10643 Sperry Street
                                      Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
                                      303.451.6376  Huddleston.r@...

                                      "Don't argue with someone who claims the earth is flat. You haven't given it a second thought, whereas he has spent 20 years thinking about and obsessing over why it is flat."

                                       


                                      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pvtjessett
                                      Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 2:27 PM
                                      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: victory&defeat

                                      Gentlemen, Compliments

                                       SNIP 
                                      Brice's Cross roads whether a distracting move on Forrest or not was a brillantly fought engagement and to this day still taught in any Military Academy worth its salt. West Point included.

                                      Paul

                                    • nickrelee@aol.com
                                      I have a bibliography that lists a 1991 publication of a Brice s Crossroads staff ride. Also there are probably military units that do a staff ride there (or
                                      Message 18 of 27 , May 7, 2006
                                        I have a bibliography that lists a 1991 publication of a Brice's Crossroads staff ride.  Also there are probably military units that do a staff ride there (or any other battlefield) without leaving documents for us to see.  Maybe the Brice's visitor's center keeps records of groups that make a staff ride there.
                                        --Nick
                                      • Tom Mix
                                        Test. Again. Sorry, Tom ... From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Saultz Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:53
                                        Message 19 of 27 , May 12, 2006

                                          Test. Again.

                                          Sorry,

                                          Tom

                                           

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Saultz
                                          Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:53 PM
                                          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: victory&defeat

                                           

                                          ...LMAO......

                                        • hank9174
                                          ... Tom, an even better test is to send a message to mickey_mouse@microsoft.com or mickey_mouse@aol.com. Not only will the message go out but you ll receive a
                                          Message 20 of 27 , May 12, 2006
                                            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Test. Again.
                                            >
                                            > Sorry,
                                            >

                                            Tom,

                                            an even better test is to send a message to mickey_mouse@...
                                            or mickey_mouse@....

                                            Not only will the message go out but you'll receive a return message
                                            along the lines of 'the recipient cannot be found' confirming round-
                                            trip message delivery...


                                            HankC
                                          • Jimmy Bell
                                            worked again. Regards, Jimmy
                                            Message 21 of 27 , May 12, 2006
                                              worked again.

                                              Regards,
                                              Jimmy

                                              --- hank9174 <clarkc@...> wrote:

                                              > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix"
                                              > <tmix@...> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > Test. Again.
                                              > >
                                              > > Sorry,
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > Tom,
                                              >
                                              > an even better test is to send a message to
                                              > mickey_mouse@...
                                              > or mickey_mouse@....
                                              >
                                              > Not only will the message go out but you'll receive
                                              > a return message
                                              > along the lines of 'the recipient cannot be found'
                                              > confirming round-
                                              > trip message delivery...
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > HankC
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.