Re: Joseph E. Johnston
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
> They had a developing one, yes. True growth would come in the later
> but it was clearly on its way in New England and else where, likethe steel
> mills in Pennsylvania and Indiana for example. They providedlivable wages
> so a middle class could develop as opposed to slave labor in theSouth.
> When, T.R. took over as President his trust busting effortsincreased this
> growth. The advent of the assembly line affording more workopportunities
> in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Illinois created employmentopportunities and
> enhanced the growth of the middle class and was a great part of themass
> exodus of black southerners to the north for these better payingjobs. It
> all started around this time period. The South on the other wouldnot have a
> fully developed middle class until after WW II.Tom, you damned the South for having no middle class prior to the
war. Yet you say that New England had a "developing one" and it
would not be until TR that this happens in much of the nation. The
South had a higher average income than the North in 1860. Slave
ownership, a major sign of wealth, was more common than ownership of
stock was in the 1950s. The shops, businesses and factories were
owned and managed by the middle class just as they were in the rest
of the nation.
- Carl, feel free to make comparisons between the eastern and western
theaters. They were clearly two different theaters of operation and lend
themselves to comparison. What I don't want to happen is have the
discussion centered on the east and then after about 20-30 posts look around
and wonder how in the heck we got into a discussion on Gettysburg. This is
a very easy trap to fall into.
In my own mind I often make comparisons between east and west. While I live
in the battlefield country of Northern Virginia (about 25 west of
Washington, D.C.) and have devoted most of my studies to the war in the
east, I found myself wondering about the war in the west. That is why I
started this discussion group. Before the group I often wondered why Lee
was so successful in the east and the western generals such as Johnston
weren't as good in their theater of operation. As the discussions in the
group progressed over the years I think I know, at least in my own mind,
The war in the east covered territory that was about 100 miles wide by about
150 miles long. This lent itself to Lee's style of fighting. That is,
maneuver for position, consolidate the army, and attack when the opportunity
presented itself. I am not so sure Lee could have done as well in the west.
There was just too much territory to cover. The west was more campaigns
than battles. The two campaigns that Lee conducted, the Maryland Campaign
in September 1862 and the Gettysburg Campaign June/July 1863, were both
failures. Lee was extremely adapt at identifying the enemy's mistakes and
capitalizing on them, such as Chancellorsville. Johnston on the other hand
could maneuver his army but couldn't seem to identify the time nor place
where to attack and destroy his opponent's army.
The bottom line is, to make a football analogy, I think Joe Johnston was
playing not to lose. He was not playing to win. Whereas Lee was playing to
win all the time. Johnston's style will get you through several mediocre
seasons, but it will never get you to the Super Bowl. Having said that, I
think had Lee been in the west, the war would probably not have lasted as
long as it did. Lee, in my personal opinion, was every bit as lucky as he
was good. He was facing inept commanders in the Union army most of the
time. This might not have been true in the west. Just something to ponder
and just my personal opinion..
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:16 AM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Joseph E. Johnston
> Perhaps we will be allowed to mention eastern theater on a 'comparison
> to the west' basis.
> Tom, surely it is valid to include battles in 1861 and 1862? If
> including such CSA generals were pretty impressive... well, maybe not
> in the western theater [g]. That's just the problem, the South just
> kept losing in the West. As far as the East, you can find some battles
> after Antietam that the CSA won, you know, The Wilderness and Cold
> Harbor come to mind quickly.
> If you look at battles rather than campaigns, some other battles were
> won by the CS side in the west... Sherman lost a few I'm thinking, our
> boy JEJ handed it to him at Kennesaw Mountain for example... but the
> US always won the campaigns.
> --- In email@example.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
>> Beginning with Antietam, where did this great job take place outside of
>> Chancellorsville? Longstreet was great at Chickamauga but the others
>> fairly well stopped, not across the board but it was Pete's break
>> allowed by a Union foul up, that won there. So, where did this
> "great job"
>> take place? Gettysburg? Vicksburg? Chattanooga? Atlanta? Franklin?
> Yahoo! Groups Links