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

Re: General Shelby

Expand Messages
  • guitarmandanga
    ... out: a ... maximum ... William C. Davis mentioned a figure like this in an essay in The Cause Lost: Myths and Realities of the Confederacy , concerning
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 12, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > well, if we've slowed down a bit, reading a book about Shelby and
      > > looks like will be able to post here some stuff. ["General Jo
      Shelby:
      > > Undefeated Rebel"]
      > >
      > > Already have come across a statement that I'll have to check
      out: a
      > > claim that the CS Army of the Trans-miss was 60,000 strong at its
      > > peak. That sound right?
      > >
      >
      > That may be a count of the number on the rolls; I'd suspect the
      maximum
      > ever in the field to be about 12,000 and that was early...
      >
      >
      > HankC
      >
      William C. Davis mentioned a figure like this in an essay in "The
      Cause Lost: Myths and Realities of the Confederacy", concerning the
      Trans-Mississippi Theater. The argument he was addressing was
      whether or not the Confederacy could---or should---have abandoned it
      and at least attempteded to move these forces east of the
      Mississippi to help with the more decisive campaigns. He pointed
      out that, of the 60,000 men, likely less than half were present for
      duty, and of the remaining 30,000, even assuming that the majority
      of them would have wanted to leave to help their comrades in arms
      across the River---a far-from-foregone conclusion---the means to
      concentrate them effectively into a large fighting force, even
      within the Trans-MS, were simply not there (very little
      infrastructure, almost no consolidation of supply departments,
      etc.), to say nothing of trying to get them into Mississippi or
      Louisiana. Plus there was the political fallout that would likely
      have resulted from this sort of "abandonment". So they were sort of
      stuck: they had a sizeable army in the Trans-MS in terms of numbers,
      but they couldn't bring it altogether in one place for a campaign
      there, nor could they move it elsewhere.
    • Carl Williams
      INteresting that this seems to have been a well circulated myth. Historians would certainly know it was wrong, so probably survived with other writers like
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 14, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        INteresting that this seems to have been a well circulated myth.
        Historians would certainly know it was wrong, so probably survived
        with other writers like this author.

        Sometimes shows its age ... written in 1954 by a Richmond writer, some
        statements aren't too PC for today. But readability is good.

        > William C. Davis mentioned a figure like this in an essay in "The
        > Cause Lost: Myths and Realities of the Confederacy", concerning the
        > Trans-Mississippi Theater. The argument he was addressing was
        > whether or not the Confederacy could---or should---have abandoned it
        > and at least attempteded to move these forces east of the
        > Mississippi to help with the more decisive campaigns. He pointed
        > out that, of the 60,000 men, likely less than half were present for
        > duty, and of the remaining 30,000, even assuming that the majority
        > of them would have wanted to leave to help their comrades in arms
        > across the River---a far-from-foregone conclusion---the means to
        > concentrate them effectively into a large fighting force, even
        > within the Trans-MS, were simply not there (very little
        > infrastructure, almost no consolidation of supply departments,
        > etc.), to say nothing of trying to get them into Mississippi or
        > Louisiana. Plus there was the political fallout that would likely
        > have resulted from this sort of "abandonment". So they were sort of
        > stuck: they had a sizeable army in the Trans-MS in terms of numbers,
        > but they couldn't bring it altogether in one place for a campaign
        > there, nor could they move it elsewhere.
        >
      • Carl Williams
        Pretty good book to read, so far. Not an uninterrupted string of dubious statements, in other words. But another assertion that I will have to check out,
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 14, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Pretty good book to read, so far. Not an uninterrupted string of
          dubious statements, in other words. But another assertion that I will
          have to check out, though, is that Lincoln and advisors , hoping for a
          "new war" that would unite all Americans, did not oppose Shelby's
          cavalry going into Mexico well armed. Supposedly stopped Sheridan from
          interfering for that reason. The assumption being that Shelby would
          agree to cooperate with the "republican" forces trying to get rid of
          Maximillian.

          all this was an opening teaser, though... I have to get further into
          the book to get more on that
        • guitarmandanga
          Uh...are we talking about the same thing here? ... some ... in The ... the ... abandoned it ... pointed ... for ... majority ... arms ... likely ... sort of
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 14, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Uh...are we talking about the same thing here?

            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > INteresting that this seems to have been a well circulated myth.
            > Historians would certainly know it was wrong, so probably survived
            > with other writers like this author.
            >
            > Sometimes shows its age ... written in 1954 by a Richmond writer,
            some
            > statements aren't too PC for today. But readability is good.
            >
            > > William C. Davis mentioned a figure like this in an essay
            in "The
            > > Cause Lost: Myths and Realities of the Confederacy", concerning
            the
            > > Trans-Mississippi Theater. The argument he was addressing was
            > > whether or not the Confederacy could---or should---have
            abandoned it
            > > and at least attempteded to move these forces east of the
            > > Mississippi to help with the more decisive campaigns. He
            pointed
            > > out that, of the 60,000 men, likely less than half were present
            for
            > > duty, and of the remaining 30,000, even assuming that the
            majority
            > > of them would have wanted to leave to help their comrades in
            arms
            > > across the River---a far-from-foregone conclusion---the means to
            > > concentrate them effectively into a large fighting force, even
            > > within the Trans-MS, were simply not there (very little
            > > infrastructure, almost no consolidation of supply departments,
            > > etc.), to say nothing of trying to get them into Mississippi or
            > > Louisiana. Plus there was the political fallout that would
            likely
            > > have resulted from this sort of "abandonment". So they were
            sort of
            > > stuck: they had a sizeable army in the Trans-MS in terms of
            numbers,
            > > but they couldn't bring it altogether in one place for a
            campaign
            > > there, nor could they move it elsewhere.
            > >
            >
          • Carl Williams
            I think so. I have gone back to referring to the book that quoted the 60,000 man army bit; you may have missed that original message, and of course it is bad
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 15, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I think so. I have gone back to referring to the book that quoted the
              60,000 man army bit; you may have missed that original message, and of
              course it is bad form on my part not to make it clear what I am
              referring to, sorry.

              That book is "General Jo Shelby: Undefeated Rebel" by Daniel O'Flaherty

              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "guitarmandanga"
              <iceman1977_01@...> wrote:
              >
              > Uh...are we talking about the same thing here?
              >
            • William H Keene
              ... Sounds right for the entire force in the Trans-Miss, including all garrisons and subcommands. In the spring of 1864, the number was 41,000 as enumerated
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 15, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > well, if we've slowed down a bit, reading a book about Shelby and
                > looks like will be able to post here some stuff. ["General Jo Shelby:
                > Undefeated Rebel"]
                >
                > Already have come across a statement that I'll have to check out: a
                > claim that the CS Army of the Trans-miss was 60,000 strong at its
                > peak. That sound right?


                Sounds right for the entire force in the Trans-Miss, including all
                garrisons and subcommands. In the spring of 1864, the number was
                41,000 as enumerated by Steven Newton in the book "Lost For The
                Cause". Problem was that the force was so widely distributed that
                around 15,000 was the most ever brought into any battle in the tRans-
                Miss.
              • Carl Williams
                Reading Jo Shelby, Undefeated Rebel, now adding to the list of I didn t know that is Shelby s capture of the QUEEN CITY tinclad, reminiscent of some of
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Reading "Jo Shelby, Undefeated Rebel," now adding to the list of "I
                  didn't know that" is Shelby's capture of the QUEEN CITY tinclad,
                  reminiscent of some of Forrest's feats (I always enjoy reading about
                  the surprise capture of Fed gunboats).

                  here is an account:
                  http://tinyurl.com/2vaarf

                  see also:
                  http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-q/quen-cty.htm

                  Seems the White River in Arkansas was an unlucky place for the Union
                  Navy, they also lost the City Class MOUND CITY there IIRC.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.