Re: Latest Edition of Blue
- Let's see. Did Grant order Sherman to Memphis to take the troops that
McClernand was gathering there down to Vicksburg? Did Grant plan to
keep up pressure on Pemberton and fix him in position, preventing his
going to Vicksburg? Did Grant thus envision a coordinated action
between his troops and those with Sherman? Did Grant ever order Sherman
to terminate his action down the river? If some messengers got to
Sherman, but without orders from Grant, what should Sherman have done?
Disobeyed Grant's orders? Please enlighten us.
- Grant intended for his forces to advance through the center of the state down towards Vicksburg and Sherman's forces forces to approach Vicksburg from the Mississippi river. Because of the wide seperation of the two forces, Sherman had greater freedom of action then he would have had as part of a united field army.Yes, Grant tried to fix Pemberton's forces in the center of the state and away from Sherman but these efforts were not successful when Grant's overland efforts had to retire. Instead of Sherman terminating efforts on the rivers, when repulsed, he tried another water way. Evidence the several efforts of Sherman to transport troops on the Yazoo and other waterways. Both Grant and Sherman tried repeated attacks, when repulsed, they shifted to another route.Ron
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Patricia Swan <pbswan@...> wrote:
>Grant was ordered to do so by Halleck.
> Let's see. Did Grant order Sherman to Memphis to take the
> troops that McClernand was gathering there down to Vicksburg?
> Did Grant plan to keep up pressure on Pemberton and fix himYes, which Grant did. Only two brigades reached Vicksburg before Sherman's assault, both of them were ordered south before Pemberton knew that Grant was withdrawing back to Vicksburg. Neither brigade participated appreciably in the fighting at Chickasaw Bayou.
> in position, preventing his going to Vicksburg?
> Did Grant thus envision a coordinated actionNo. If Sherman's movement had been successful in carrying Vicksburg or causing Pemberton to abandon Grenada, then Grant would have followed Pemberton closely and rendezvoused with Sherman on the Yazoo at some point. However, Sherman's movement failed to do either.
> between his troops and those with Sherman?
> Please enlighten us.Done. Any other questions? :D
- --- In email@example.com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...> wrote:
>Grant intended to use his entire force to move on Jackson via Grenada. Halleck, Lincoln, and McClernand conspired to divert a large portion of Grant's force down the river.
> Grant intended for his forces to advance through the center
> of the state down towards Vicksburg and Sherman's forces forces
> to approach Vicksburg from the Mississippi river.
> Both Grant and Sherman tried repeated attacks, when repulsed,Actually, Grant suggested moving south of the city when he landed at Milliken's Bend in January. The Lake Providence canal was actually part of that plan, and succeeded in opening a route to the Red River. However, the war department failed to provide Grant with the small river transports needed to take advantage of that route.
> they shifted to another route.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@...> wrote:
>The article suggests that Grant concocted the Chickasaw Bayou scheme as a way to subvert McClernand, without analyzing the bumbling and backstabbing by Lincoln, Halleck, and McClernand.
> if this is two different versions of intentions etc, what does the magazine article seem to say?
The blame for Chickasaw Bayou needs to be evenly distributed between Lincoln, McClernand, and Halleck. Lincoln, for micro-managing the campaign for Vicksburg and for allowing McClernand to ignore the chain of command. Halleck, for failing to inform Grant of the political parameters that should determine his actions, and for allowing Grant to get halfway to Vicksburg before telling him "go no farther." McClernand for scheming to win an independent command.