Re: Latest Edition of Blue
- --- 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.