Re: [civilwarwest] Big Dogs
- In a message dated Thu, 31 May 2001 8:19:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, andyburden@... writes:
What should Hood have done? Or Johnston, for that matter. I am not a fan of Johnston's, as he seemed to be one who would give up every bit of ground the CSA had just to keep his army intact. Obviously, a destroyed army is a worthless army, but a medium has to be struck between recklessness and refusal to fight. An army that isn't used is useless except as a deterrent, and in 1864 the time for deterrence was long gone.
Along these same lines, to what extent should the enemy army have been considered the objective versus strategic locations? Was the Atlanta campaign a failure for the Union because the AOT survived?
Again, we have to ask ourselves, how could the Confederacy have won, and what did the Union need to do to win? The Union needed to conquer the entire south. They had to snuff out all traces of armed resistance. This is a huge undertaking, requiring the detachment of troops to garrison towns that had been taken and to protect lines of communications against raids. This requirement negates the manpower advantage the Federals held because they are constantly siphoning off manpower. Had Davis sustained Johnston there would have been an intact army in the field able to attack weak points. They wouldn't have been a deterrent. They would have been a striking force able to take advantage of the fact that the roles would have been reversed and the Union then would have had to defend at all points. The view that Johnston refused to fight ignores the counterattack he had planned and Hood botched at Peachtree Creek. Johnston picked his fights, choosing to strike when he had the a!
To win, all the confederates needed to do was to outlast the Federals. You can't do that if you don't have an army. Hood's reckless attacks did more harm to his own army than he did to the Federals.
You asked if the Atlanta campaign was a failure since the AoT escaped. No, it wasn't a failure because the two forces had separate goals, but had Johnston still been in command the victory Sherman achieved would have been a hollow one. For one thing he would have lost more troops because Johnston would have attacked at Peachtree Creek earlier, before the Army of the Cumberland had a chance to concentrate on one side of the river, and he would have had a more powerful assault because he wouldn't have made the alterations in the plan that Hood made. Secondly, Johnston wouldn't have had the casualties Hood had, so the AoT would have come out of the Atlanta campaign with higher numbers and more striking power. The March to the Sea would have been difficult to contemplate because Johnston would have contested it, forcing Sherman to move much slower than he actually moved. This would have made living off the land far more difficult for Uncle Billy. Had Sherman stayed in Atlant!
a he could very well have found
it a trap, with Johnston cutting off supplies and forcing Sherman to attack him in entrenched positions, rather than what Hood did.
- I would second Carl. Grandpa's knee is a wonderful place to learn to
love history but often a terrible place to learn accurate history.
I do not recall any mention of anyone telling Scott how to run a war.
And he was an experienced general -- I doubt that anyone needed to give
him ideas about how to run a war.
There were similar claims for a Marylander named Anna Carroll (? I may
have the name wrong) who claimed that she gave Lincoln the idea for the
But some things are so obvious -- John Sherman recalled going to visit
his brother early in the war and finding Cump and Thomas crawling around
on the floor on a huge map of the United States, "talking shop" about
how *they* would defeat the Rebels. As the senator remembered the story,
his brother and Thomas basically outlined the way the war turned out.
The secret was not in figuring out the strategy, but in finding the man
or men who would be able to carry out the plan. It took a while but
Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Sheridan and a few others, Lincoln finally found
the men who imposed their will on the armies.
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
Hello addison, please do share that. I'll caution you, tho', that
family traditions are a bit touchy, you know, everyone in the family
cherishes them and all; but sometimes they are a bit hard to confirm.
Carl aka Unre, etc
--- In civilwarwest@y..., jaaah@t... wrote:
> Well, if this isn't too late, I want too add something.
> Family history records that we are related to the Scotts, and that
my Great Great Grandmother was the one to actually give General Scott
the idea for the 'Anaconda Plan'. My Grandfather has the full
details, but from what I remember, she was at a dinner party with
him, and he was telling her about the plans for the war against the
Confederacy. She then asked "well why don't you just cut them off
from everything?" When he asked what she meant, she gave him the
basic idea for what became the 'Anaconda Plan.' If you want the full
details, my Grandfather has them all!
> A. Hart
> > ** Original Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] The Anaconda Myth