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

Re: victory&defeat

Expand Messages
  • melchizedek22
    ... at the ... left. ... [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On ... raiding and ... Forrest ... keep ... time when ... about ... losing 500 ... victories ...
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.