Re: Three factors in the repulse of the CSA on 4/6
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "josepharose"
> --- In email@example.com, "bjer50010"
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "josepharose"
> > <josepharose@> wrote:
> > > Nelson's men were important.
> > In Buell's mind definitely. As a morale raiser for Grant's
> > probably. As a factor in the repulses they are not mentionedby
> > the Confederates. Both Jackson (who wasn't anywhere neardoes not
> > where Ammen was put in line) and Chalmers, mention
> > gunboats and artillery as the major factors in the repulses.
> Chalmers, who is led the attack which Ammen helped repulse,
> make the distinction which you claim.the
> Instead, his OR reads: "My brigade, together with that of
> Brigadier-General Jackson, filed to the right and formed facing
> river and endeavored to press forward to the water's edge, butin
> attempting to mount the last ridge we were met by a fire from awhole
> line of batteries protected by infantry and assisted by shellsfrom
> the gunboats. Our men struggled vainly to ascend the hill,which was
> very steep, making charge after charge without success, butcontinued
> to fight until night closed hostilities on both sides."elements
> You can't interpret this in the way that you want; all three
> (artillery, infantry, gunboats) are mentioned,He says artillery "protected by infantry", but does not specify
which artillery, nor what infantry, nor even the strength of the
infantry support. That hardly proves your assertion that Nelson's
single regiment was a major factor. He also mentions how
steep the slope was, so obviously that was a factor as well. Yet
you have consistently failed to recognize how difficult a position it
was to attack, despite the fact that it has been described ad
nauseum. Not only by quoted material but by personal
observation. Note the following from Chalmers' OR: "Our men
struggled vainly to ascend the hill, which was very steep, making
charge after charge, ... without success..." Note the "struggled
vainly to ascend the hill, ... without success." There is no
mention of turning a battery, overrunning it or flanking it. There is
simply no corroboration for Nelson's claim that the enemy had
turned a battery.
Furthermore, you miss the point of Ammen's OR in which he
says his regiment was going into line just minutes before the
attack started. Hard to believe they played a major role if they
had just gotten into line. You also fail to acknowledge that,
according to Ammen, it was Grant who directed him to the battery
he was to support.
> and the lack of amajor
> specific mention of musket-fire does not mean that it wasn't a
> factor.That's the extent of your argument? This is the problem with your
entire argument. It is open to interpretation and therefore
inconclusive. I do not accept your interpretation of Chalmers'
OR. He mentions infantry in a support role, not as a major factor
in the failure of the attacks. But he also mentions artillery,
gunboats and the nature of the ravine as factors. But nowhere
does he claim he turned a battery;in fact, his OR makes it clear
that they never really got to the top of the ravine.
> > You also overlook the fact that Ammen claimed it was Grant,not
> > Buell, who ordered his 36th IN to support the artillery. In facthad
> > Nelson outright lied in his OR, stating that the Confederates
> > turned a battery on the Union left flank that had to be rescuedby
> > Ammen. Ammen states that his troops came up, beingdirected
> > by Grant, as the attack was starting. That doesn't sound likethe
> > battery had been overrun and the Confederates don'tmention
> > overrunning any batteries.Nelson said the battery was turned. In order to be turned the
> Your argument confuses being flanked with being overrun.
battery either had to be outflanked or overrun; and I refuse to get
into another counterproductive semantic argument. The fact is
that noone, except Nelson, claimed that a battery was turned; so
Nelson's account appears to be just bluster on his part. In fact
Ammen's OR contradicts Nelson: "Reaching the top of the bank
with the 36th IN, General Grant directed me to send that
regiment to support a battery less than a quarter of a mile from
the landing. The 36th marched promptly, and had been placed
in position but a few minutes when the enemy attacked the
battery and was repulsed." Strange that Ammen, the
commanding officer of the brigade fails to mention that the
battery had been turned, flanked, overrun or whatever. Ammen
clearly stated that the battery was attacked and the enemy
repulsed within minutes of his arrival. Doesn't sound like the
battery was turned to me.
> Beingthat your
> flanked merely means that you have an enemy to your side so
> force is vulnerable.Nelson claimed the battery was turned, not that there were
enemy troops on it's flank. In fact, in order to flank the battery that
Ammen was directed to support the enemy would have to have
broken the Union line. In order to turn the battery the
Confederates would have to outflank it. They never did so. In
fact, according to the unit markers on the Trailhead Graphics
Map they never got close to the Union line; and all of them
remained in front of the Union line. Difficult to turn a battery if you
don't get within 0.25 miles of it (that's the distance on the
Trailhead Graphics map for farthest point reached by Chalmers).
Furthermore, according to the map in Daniel (and also that in the
regimental history of the 50th IL), the infantry support mentioned
by Chalmers could just as likely have been the 50th IL. The 50th
IL was in support of Stone's battery, which was near the junction
of Jackson and Chalmers brigades. Yet you have claimed there
was no infantry support in this part of the field.
And finally, the Confederates certainly never claimed that they
had the kind of success that Nelson claims for them. Certainly
Jackson doesn't even claim his men attacked several times.
And Chalmers makes no mention of turning a battery, only that
he encountered heavy fire from artillery supported by infantry and
by gunboat fire. None of this is conclusive evidence of the
involvement of Nelson's men in the fighting. In fact, Chalmers'
account is rather short on detail. But certainly they never got near
enough to the Union line to turn a battery, as Nelson claimed.
> You offer no meaningful argument to all of the individuals'
>On the contrary, you have offered no meaningful argument that
the quoted comments were accurate. Certainly the
Confederates never mentioned the sort of successes you have
claimed for them. Both Jackson and Chalmers reported being
held below the crest of the slope (Jackson) or to repeatedly
failing to reach to top of the slope (Chalmers). That hardly
sounds like the kind of success you have claimed.
> JosephJB Jewell