Re: Champion Hill;
- --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@. ..>
>>if a better commander could have taken
>> It was some time ago that I read the book by Timothy Smith and never
>> discussed it here.
>> I guess the biggest surprise to me was that it was no 'rout' or total
>> mismatch as I had thought.
>> Is it fair to imagine that Grant could have lost this battle if the CS
>> side had been better lead? Say
>> over but too late to do something like pick a different place of
>> battle [or no battle at all].
>The only interesting counter-factual in
>that regard is what would have happened if Pemberton had brought one of
>his other two divisions with him.
...or both. Smith offers his opinion that there were a sizeable number of unbrigadedtroops/artillery units in Vicksburg to hold the city against anything less than an all-out assault by Sherman, and that by taking the field at Champion Hill with his entire mobile force Pemberton might have at least reduced the odds.
Of course there are a couple of problems with this scenario: Firstly, it would have required a great deal of boldness to do this very thing, leaving Vicksburg guarded by these rear-echelon units; Pemberton's generalship casts serious doubt as to whether he would ever have opted to go this route; in the end, of course, he didn't. Secondly, those two extra divisions would only benefit Pemberton in battle if they were used with skill---which, when we consider Pemberton, is probably the biggest speculation about their employment.
Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more!
- You mention how Sherman and Grant worked together to prevent the movement of troops between theaters, and many have spoken of how great this plan was, but in reality it did not matter that much. Think about it, the ONLY major battle of the entire war which was influenced by the movement of troops from one major army to another was Chickamauga! Even then most of Longstreets men were late to the party!With only one viable route for the transportation of troops between the two armies, and it was almost worn out by this time, I don't see how any major movement of troops between the two armies was possible, so the "Cooperation" between Grant and Sherman really did not effect the outcome of the conflict.Steve Hall - Commander
Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp #938
Sons of Confederate Veterans
Chatsworth, Georgia----- Original Message -----From: David WallCc: bonnikorn@...Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:41 PMSubject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Champion Hill;
I am not sure what you mean by Cohesion on the east side of the river.
Grant's army certainly acted in concert, except for McClernand at Champion
Hill. But even he did O.K.
Now by east side of the river, you mean the entire area from the Mississippi
to the East Coast, I just don't know enough to comment.
But Grant's movement down the Louisiana border to Bruinsberg to Jackson to
Vicksburg was like a "Ballet for Three Division's". Wow, I've got to use
that phrase again!
Same goes for Sherman on his way from Chattanoga to Atlanta. Except he
conducted a "Ballet for Three Army's". Grant and Sherman actually
co-ordinated their activities so that the Confederates could not transfer
troops from one theater to the other.
edkiniry, who took part in those ballets. No...he did not wear tights. He
shod horses and shot
>Reply-To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
>To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
>Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Champion Hill;
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:34:02 EDT
>Nothing particularly unusual about the lack of cohesion Trans-Mississippi.
>It was barely evident on the east side of the river. In both armies.
>*********** ********* ********* ********* Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL
>http://discover. aol.com/memed/ aolcom30tour