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

Re: victory&defeat

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 27 , May 1 11:51 AM
      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 2 of 27 , May 1 12:07 PM
        -
        "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 3 of 27 , May 1 12:09 PM
          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 4 of 27 , May 1 1:09 PM
            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 5 of 27 , May 1 1:19 PM

              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 6 of 27 , May 1 5:38 PM
                --- 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 7 of 27 , May 1 5:53 PM
                  ...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 8 of 27 , May 2 11:55 AM
                    --- 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 9 of 27 , May 2 11:59 AM
                      --- 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 10 of 27 , May 6 1:26 PM
                        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 11 of 27 , May 6 1:33 PM
                          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 12 of 27 , May 6 1:42 PM
                            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 13 of 27 , May 6 5:32 PM
                              Just a bit of sarcasam.  A wee tiny bit.
                              --Nick
                            • pvtjessett
                              Nick Compliments Again Sir, My Spidey senses felt that. LOF Paul
                              Message 14 of 27 , May 6 5:39 PM
                                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 15 of 27 , May 7 4:17 PM

                                  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 16 of 27 , May 7 8:50 PM
                                    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 17 of 27 , May 12 12:56 PM

                                      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 18 of 27 , May 12 1:06 PM
                                        --- 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 19 of 27 , May 12 1:23 PM
                                          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.