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

Re: victory&defeat

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 27 , May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 27 , May 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 27 , May 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment

          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 4 of 27 , May 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 5 of 27 , May 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              ...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 6 of 27 , May 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- 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 7 of 27 , May 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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 8 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Just a bit of sarcasam.  A wee tiny bit.
                          --Nick
                        • pvtjessett
                          Nick Compliments Again Sir, My Spidey senses felt that. LOF Paul
                          Message 12 of 27 , May 6, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 27 , May 7, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment

                              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 14 of 27 , May 7, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 27 , May 12, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  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 16 of 27 , May 12, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- 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 17 of 27 , May 12, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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.