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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: The viability of Attack in the West versus the East

Expand Messages
  • Ronald black
    Successful? Yes, by all measure. The confederate raids, skirmishes and the battle of Farmington encouraged Halleck to take all the time he wanted, and he
    Message 1 of 109 , Jan 1, 2008
      Successful?  Yes, by all measure.  The confederate raids, skirmishes and the battle of Farmington encouraged Halleck to take all the time he wanted, and he did.  Beauregard bought time, time for planning, raising troops and preparing positions down the track at Baldwin and Tupelo.  Northern Mississippi were denied to the northern forces in the summer and fall of 1862.  Only when Grant began the overland approach to Vicksburg did they acquire some of northern Mississippi.  By the way, Grant was pushed back by Pemberton's forces and did not get to Jackson except by the river approach.  
      Ron    
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 4:10 PM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The viability of Attack in the West versus the East

      --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@ ...>
      wrote:
      >
      > I think that some are getting their facts confused . Cities are
      mentioned such as Tupelo, Jackson, Holly Springs, Corinth, Shiloh,
      Iuka and Corinth again. Add to the list Meridan and Columbus.
      These cities and towns are parts of three different campaigns, The
      Shiloh-Corinth campaign, The campaign of Price and Van Dorn in
      northern Mississippi (Iuka and Corinth) and the start of the
      Vicksburg campaign (Holly Springs). Some need to get their train on
      the right track.
      >
      > As to Corinth after Shiloh, Corinth was the rebel concentration
      point and Halleck needlessly allowed Beauregard to occupy it until
      early June. The point is that he tried to retain it AS LONG AS
      POSSIBLE. That was the south's campaign, to occupy, defend and
      prevent the use of to the federal forces.

      all well and good, except he made no attempt to
      prevent,delay, deny,defend corinth. he abandoned it and destroyed all
      the material he couldn't there as halleck approached.
      if halleck had moved at even a semi-rasonable rate corinth falls in
      three days. nothing the CSA did delayed halleck one second. halleck
      moved at the rate he picked.
      the length of beauregard's sojorn at corinth was determined by
      halleck

      There was fighting during this time but, yes, of a small scale. DO
      YOU EVER HEAR OF THE BATTLE OF FARMINGTON? Beauregard was
      successful in this campaign and finished it with an evacuation of
      the city done in a very good manner, yes, again, the fault of
      Halleck. Grant would have had a lot to say about Corinth except
      Halleck shut him up. Yes, it is true that Corinth was the main
      objective of the union advance down the Tennessee River after Fort
      Henry. That campaign was in January and February 1862 and ended in
      June when Corinth was captured. THE QUESTION OF WHAT NEXT STARTED
      THE PLANNING AND MOVEMENT TOWARDS TUPELO AND A NEW CAMPAIGN.
      >

      successful? how? by the fact he left before helleck got there?

      and the CSA after shiloh WAS UNABLE TO STAND UNTIL THEY GOT TO THE
      JACKSON/VICKSBURG LNE.

      the next major union offensive was against viscksburg and jackson.
      where did the CSA stand and defend north of jackson after shiloh?
      nowhere. and no matter how much you prove it was a slow retreat the
      fact remains after shiloh the CSA was unable to make any stand until
      they got to jackson.

      > The retreat south to Tupelo was the start of the next phase of the
      war and a new commander, Bragg. The time spent by both armies in
      Corinth and vicinity were a separate phase of the war. Look at the
      objectives and the conditions of the armies during these three
      separate campaigns. They were different, these factors caused the
      tacticial deployments and goals to be different. The Iuka/ Corinth
      campaign starting in September was a completely new campaign with
      new commanders, forces and goals.
      > Ron
      >
      > From: ngreadermail
      > To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
      > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 6:10 PM
      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The viability of Attack in the West
      versus the East
      >
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "raymondohara" <raymond-
      > ohara@> wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > > Forgive me, but I always thought there was an advance after
      > Shiloh
      > > by
      > > > the Union against the Confederates at Corinth, and that
      > Beauregard
      > > > evaluated the city on the eve of a Union assault. I never
      heard
      > > of
      > > > this notion of a continuous retreat before. Does any
      reputable
      > > > history make the same claim? Thanks, Ken.
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > several here seem to think that stopping for a while until the
      > union
      > > got near before continueing to fall back is somehow not the
      same
      > > retreat.
      >
      > I think that's quite reasonable. When did Corinth fall? End of
      > May? Seven, eight weeks after Shiloh?
      >
      > > yeah they lingered at corinth. and when the union approached
      > > continued south.
      >
      > Have you read anything about the May 1862 event?
      >
      > > that all was the result of shiloh. the CSA was unable to draw
      up a
      > > viable defense line until they made jackson. that was the
      result of
      > > shiloh.use all the word tricks you want.
      >
      > Word tricks? Is "reputable history" a word trick? Do you happen
      to
      > know where Jackson is? Are you confusing it with Tupelo? Have
      you
      > read about Grant's 1862 drive against Vicksburg? Are you aware
      of
      > the battles at Corinth and Iuka in later 1862?
      >
      > > but the fact is after being defeated at shiloh, the next
      places the
      > > CSA was able to contest were jackson and vicksburg.
      >
      > I recall something about battles at Iuka and Corinth. Were they
      word
      > tricks, too? Was Holly Springs a myth? Can someone help me out
      on
      > this? Maybe it was all due to those problems with hearing the
      battle
      > at Iuka.
      >
      > Does any other contributor agree with this contention about the
      > aftermath of Shiloh? Wouldn't someone agree that the taking of
      > Island No. 10 helped crack the Confederate line in northern
      > Mississippi? Thanks, Ken
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
      -----------
      >
      >
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.12/1203 - Release
      Date: 12/30/2007 11:27 AM
      >


      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1205 - Release Date: 12/31/2007 3:32 PM
    • ngreadermail
      I was asking Ray for a source on Jackson. ... versus the East ... ohara@ ... ... 1/2/2008 11:29 AM
      Message 109 of 109 , Jan 2, 2008
        I was asking Ray for a source on Jackson.

        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Ray;
        > How many sources do you want? Take your pick.
        > Ron
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: ngreadermail
        > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:45 PM
        > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The viability of Attack in the West
        versus the East
        >
        >
        > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "raymondohara" <raymond-
        ohara@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald black"
        <rblack0981@>
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Ray:
        > > > They didn't go to Jackson.
        > > > Ron
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > when grant began the next campaign. they were at jackson.
        >
        > Source?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
        ----------
        >
        >
        > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date:
        1/2/2008 11:29 AM
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.