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

RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Big Dogs

Expand Messages
  • Bob Huddleston
    Missing in these discussions is the presence of slavery. Everywhere the Union Army marched, from April 61 to the end, slavery died. *That* was why the
    Message 1 of 127 , Jun 1, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Missing in these discussions is the presence of slavery.

      Everywhere the Union Army marched, from April '61 to the end, slavery
      died.

      *That* was why the Confederates had to keep trying to preserve territory
      and refused to give up an inch. And they did not have enough men to do
      that.

      Guerilla warfare or an army in being, like Washington's, was not a
      feasible alternative for the Confederacy, trying to preserve slavery.

      Take care,

      Bob

      Judy and Bob Huddleston
      10643 Sperry Street
      Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
      303.451.6276 Adco@...

      In a message dated Thu, 31 May 2001 5:31:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      aldrichr@... writes:

      << We probably have been over this ground before, but now that you
      mention it, what *was* the correct grand strategy for the Confederates
      in the West? They had such a long border to defend, that I keep
      thinking about somebody's aphorism that "he who defends
      everything, defends nothing." I'm not clear what is the correct
      alternative to defending everything, at least in this case.

      Bob

      ----------------------------

      I would take a look at what the Federals needed to happen to win and
      what the Rebels needed to happen to win. The Rebels basically needed
      the Federals to tire of the war, or they needed a peace imposed by
      foreign powers. The Emancipation Proclamation, in my opinion, along
      with the diplomacy of the Lincoln Administration and Charles F. Adams,
      the US Ambassador to Great Britain, probably ended hope of foreign
      intervention. That left the Federals getting tired of the war and
      quitting. For the Federals to win they had to subjugate the entire
      confederacy. If the Rebels kept their armies in the field, raiding and
      attacking as necessary to keep creating Union casualties but avoiding a
      pitched battle and remaining intact, they could have gone on for years,
      IMO. This would have led to their being able to wrest control of areas
      from the Federal forces because then the Federals would have been forced
      to defend everywhere. Eventually, I believe, the Federals would have
      tired of the! war and the people would have f orced a settlement.

      In other words, I think Joe Johnston had it right.

      Regards,
      Cash



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Bob Huddleston
      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
      Message 127 of 127 , Jul 7, 2001
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        Tennessee/Cumberland Campaign.

        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.

        Take care,

        Bob

        Judy and Bob Huddleston
        10643 Sperry Street
        Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
        303.451.6276 Adco@...


        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.