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

Re: More On Mississippi Rate-of-Flow &c in 1863

Expand Messages
  • hank9174
    ... at ... the ... from ... I seem to recall Porter telling Grant that the trip downstream would be one-way past Vicksburg. Of course, the CSA batteries may
    Message 1 of 30 , Nov 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@ wrote:
      > >
      > > In a message dated 10/31/2006 3:56:45 PM Central Standard Time,
      > > nickrelee@ writes:
      > > would think though that the upriver dams probably evens out the
      > effect of the
      > > levees forcing into into a channel. I would guess that the river
      > is roughly
      > > the same as it once was, but I could be worng.
      > > And you could be right. Levee's control high water and promote
      > channel
      > > maintenance -- faster flow. Dam's even out the seasonal flow --
      > slower water.
      > > Keeping in mind that the Mississippi drains an enormous area from
      > the Alleghenies to
      > > the Rockies, what happens upstream dictates the river condition
      at
      > Memphis
      > > and Vicksburg. The river may have borne a totally different
      > character in the
      > > spring of '62 than it did in '63, but it remains that 8 knots is
      > not enough to
      > > beat upstream and maneuver.
      >
      > What this suggests is that the city class ironclads of the Union
      > Navy, with a top speed of 6 knots, could not navigate upstream on
      the
      > Mississippi River during the Civil War. I have trouble accepting
      > this because of reports that these vessels moved back and forth
      from
      > Memphis to just above Vicksburg.
      >
      > However, I suppose it's possible the Union Navy could have been
      > towing these vessels back upstream.

      I seem to recall Porter telling Grant that the trip downstream would
      be one-way past Vicksburg.

      Of course, the CSA batteries may have had something to do with that
      conclusion...


      HankC
    • Carl Williams
      Hank, for sure, Porter was referring to the batteries... it would have been suicidal for the transports to try to go back, and basically he told Grant to *be
      Message 2 of 30 , Nov 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hank, for sure, Porter was referring to the batteries... it would have
        been suicidal for the transports to try to go back, and basically he
        told Grant to "*be sure* this is what you want to do" [paraphrasing].
        Really points out what a disaster a Grant failure would have been.

        >
        > I seem to recall Porter telling Grant that the trip downstream would
        > be one-way past Vicksburg.
        >
        > Of course, the CSA batteries may have had something to do with that
        > conclusion...
        >
        >
        > HankC
        >
      • Carl Williams
        This is also why Farragut fizzled at Port Hudson in 1863, getting only his flagship [IIRC]past those batteries in a night run... suffering at least one
        Message 3 of 30 , Nov 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          This is also why Farragut fizzled at Port Hudson in 1863, getting only
          his flagship [IIRC]past those batteries in a night run... suffering at
          least one outright sinking, an ocean-going cruiser at that


          >
          > At any rate, upstream travel was possible but would have been
          painfully slow.
          > Part of the reason Farragut couldn't take Vicksburg (aside from
          falling water
          > levels) would have been the difficulty of holding and maneuvering
          against the
          > current.
          > Ken
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.