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

Re: [civilwarwest] Envelopment

Expand Messages
  • Chet Diestel
    ... From: Patricia Swan Subject: [civilwarwest] Envelopment To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 11:47 AM
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 20, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Patricia Swan <pbswan@...> wrote:

      From: Patricia Swan <pbswan@...>
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Envelopment
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 11:47 AM

       
      All:
      I thought that "envelopment" meant going around the flank(s) to get
      behind the enemy, not just attacking on the flank(s). If this is a
      correct definition, then Grant's plans at Chattanooga would seem to be
      flank attacks, not envelopments. Sherman was to get up on Missionary
      Ridge at the north end and "roll up" Bragg's army from that point.
      Hooker was to do likewise at the south end. Thomas was to hold the
      middle. As it turned out, Thomas' troops broke through the middle,
      aided by a somewhat late attack on the Confederate left flank by
      Hooker. Sherman was stopped by Cleburne's troops and did not "roll up"
      Bragg's army from his right flank. Thus, Grant's plans for attacks on
      Bragg's flanks were not very successful, while Thomas's troops did more
      than their planned part. It seems, therefore, that this battle was not
      a good example of attacks on the flank(s) and certainly not an envelopment.
       
         At Chattanooga, Grant's plans was for a full envelopment of the Confederate right flank (CSA POV) by Sherman and, if possible, a double envelopment of Bragg's Army of Tennessee by Hooker on the left.
          It was Grant's intention not just to hit the flanks but go beyond them until the attacking forces were, in  fact, positioned to the rear of the enemy's main battle line and not just roll up the flanks but trap much of the Southern army as the two forces closed with each other.
          Because, as noted, Sherman was held up by Cleburne's troops around Tunnel Hill and Hooker's lack of aggressiveness, the double envelopment never took place. However, the attack by Thomas' troops did hit not only the Confederate center along Missionary Ridge but both enemy flanks posted on the ridge as well.
          IMHO, there is not really a good example of the classical double envelopment -battle -- as exemplified at Cannae by Hannibal or Cowpens by Daniel Morgan ---  during the Civil War, although there were incidents of it taking place in repulsing various assaults during battles, the most famous being by Union troops during what is popularly known as Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg.
                        With regards,
                               Chet
       

    • edkiniry
      The reason for Hooker s late attack was his necessity of re-building a bridge over Chattanooga Creek, which the rebels had burned on their retreat from Lookout
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 20, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        The reason for Hooker's late attack was his necessity of re-building a bridge over Chattanooga Creek, which the rebels had burned on their retreat from Lookout Mountain.

        David

        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Patricia Swan <pbswan@...> wrote:
        >
        > All:
        > I thought that "envelopment" meant going around the flank(s) to get
        > behind the enemy, not just attacking on the flank(s). If this is a
        > correct definition, then Grant's plans at Chattanooga would seem to be
        > flank attacks, not envelopments. Sherman was to get up on Missionary
        > Ridge at the north end and "roll up" Bragg's army from that point.
        > Hooker was to do likewise at the south end. Thomas was to hold the
        > middle. As it turned out, Thomas' troops broke through the middle,
        > aided by a somewhat late attack on the Confederate left flank by
        > Hooker. Sherman was stopped by Cleburne's troops and did not "roll up"
        > Bragg's army from his right flank. Thus, Grant's plans for attacks on
        > Bragg's flanks were not very successful, while Thomas's troops did more
        > than their planned part. It seems, therefore, that this battle was not
        > a good example of attacks on the flank(s) and certainly not an envelopment.
        >
      • william
        I would think that if you were confronted by a strong force in your front and a strong force on your right that you were able to hold and then a strong force
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 20, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          I would think that if you were confronted by a strong force in your front and a strong force on your right that you were able to hold and then a strong force to your left which threatened to turn your flank and get into your rear and you had no answer except to fatally weaken your front, your only reasonable choice is to retreat like hell.
          Bill Bruner

          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Chet Diestel <agatematt@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Patricia Swan <pbswan@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > From: Patricia Swan <pbswan@...>
          > Subject: [civilwarwest] Envelopment
          > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 11:47 AM
          >
          >
          >  
          >
          >
          >
          > All:
          > I thought that "envelopment" meant going around the flank(s) to get
          > behind the enemy, not just attacking on the flank(s). If this is a
          > correct definition, then Grant's plans at Chattanooga would seem to be
          > flank attacks, not envelopments. Sherman was to get up on Missionary
          > Ridge at the north end and "roll up" Bragg's army from that point.
          > Hooker was to do likewise at the south end. Thomas was to hold the
          > middle. As it turned out, Thomas' troops broke through the middle,
          > aided by a somewhat late attack on the Confederate left flank by
          > Hooker. Sherman was stopped by Cleburne's troops and did not "roll up"
          > Bragg's army from his right flank. Thus, Grant's plans for attacks on
          > Bragg's flanks were not very successful, while Thomas's troops did more
          > than their planned part. It seems, therefore, that this battle was not
          > a good example of attacks on the flank(s) and certainly not an envelopment.
          >  
          >    At Chattanooga, Grant's plans was for a full envelopment of the Confederate right flank (CSA POV) by Sherman and, if possible, a double envelopment of Bragg's Army of Tennessee by Hooker on the left.
          >     It was Grant's intention not just to hit the flanks but go beyond them until the attacking forces were, in  fact, positioned to the rear of the enemy's main battle line and not just roll up the flanks but trap much of the Southern army as the two forces closed with each other.
          >     Because, as noted, Sherman was held up by Cleburne's troops around Tunnel Hill and Hooker's lack of aggressiveness, the double envelopment never took place. However, the attack by Thomas' troops did hit not only the Confederate center along Missionary Ridge but both enemy flanks posted on the ridge as well.
          >     IMHO, there is not really a good example of the classical double envelopment -battle -- as exemplified at Cannae by Hannibal or Cowpens by Daniel Morgan ---  during the Civil War, although there were incidents of it taking place in repulsing various assaults during battles, the most famous being by Union troops during what is popularly known as Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg.
          >                   With regards,
          >                          Chet
          >
          >  
          >
        • william
          I think that that many envelopment moves in th CW were thwarted by a timely and speedy retreat. Bill Bruner
          Message 4 of 15 , Jan 20, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            I think that that many envelopment moves in th CW were thwarted by a timely and speedy retreat.
            Bill Bruner

            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "william" <banbruner@...> wrote:
            >
            > I would think that if you were confronted by a strong force in your front and a strong force on your right that you were able to hold and then a strong force to your left which threatened to turn your flank and get into your rear and you had no answer except to fatally weaken your front, your only reasonable choice is to retreat like hell.
            > Bill Bruner
            >
            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Chet Diestel <agatematt@> wrote:
            > >
            > > --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Patricia Swan <pbswan@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > From: Patricia Swan <pbswan@>
            > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Envelopment
            > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            > > Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 11:47 AM
            > >
            > >
            > >  
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > All:
            > > I thought that "envelopment" meant going around the flank(s) to get
            > > behind the enemy, not just attacking on the flank(s). If this is a
            > > correct definition, then Grant's plans at Chattanooga would seem to be
            > > flank attacks, not envelopments. Sherman was to get up on Missionary
            > > Ridge at the north end and "roll up" Bragg's army from that point.
            > > Hooker was to do likewise at the south end. Thomas was to hold the
            > > middle. As it turned out, Thomas' troops broke through the middle,
            > > aided by a somewhat late attack on the Confederate left flank by
            > > Hooker. Sherman was stopped by Cleburne's troops and did not "roll up"
            > > Bragg's army from his right flank. Thus, Grant's plans for attacks on
            > > Bragg's flanks were not very successful, while Thomas's troops did more
            > > than their planned part. It seems, therefore, that this battle was not
            > > a good example of attacks on the flank(s) and certainly not an envelopment.
            > >  
            > >    At Chattanooga, Grant's plans was for a full envelopment of the Confederate right flank (CSA POV) by Sherman and, if possible, a double envelopment of Bragg's Army of Tennessee by Hooker on the left.
            > >     It was Grant's intention not just to hit the flanks but go beyond them until the attacking forces were, in  fact, positioned to the rear of the enemy's main battle line and not just roll up the flanks but trap much of the Southern army as the two forces closed with each other.
            > >     Because, as noted, Sherman was held up by Cleburne's troops around Tunnel Hill and Hooker's lack of aggressiveness, the double envelopment never took place. However, the attack by Thomas' troops did hit not only the Confederate center along Missionary Ridge but both enemy flanks posted on the ridge as well.
            > >     IMHO, there is not really a good example of the classical double envelopment -battle -- as exemplified at Cannae by Hannibal or Cowpens by Daniel Morgan ---  during the Civil War, although there were incidents of it taking place in repulsing various assaults during battles, the most famous being by Union troops during what is popularly known as Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg.
            > >                   With regards,
            > >                          Chet
            > >
            > >  
            > >
            >
          • Jack Lawrence
            The difference is significant. A flank attack is an attack directly upon the flank of an opposing force. A common description of this is rolling up the flank.
            Message 5 of 15 , Jan 20, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              The difference is significant. A flank attack is an attack directly upon the flank of an opposing force.
              A common description of this is rolling up the flank. Napoleon mandated that an army flank should be attached to a significant geopgraphical feature, such as a mountain or a lake etc,
               
              An envelopment is a maneuver where you actually surrond the opposing force. First you make frontal contact and thus hold the opposing force in place. You then pass your force around the enemy's flank to his rear. This is a single envelopment. If there is a gap on one flank you do a single evelopment. If there is a gap on both flanks, you pass the enemy on each flank to the rear. This is called a double envelopment or "boy, are you dead".
               
              In either event, if you succeed, the opposing force is either captured or withdraws, both events of which present a gap to exploit.
               
              Regards,
               
              Jack
               ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:57 PM
              Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Envelopment

              I believe there is a fine line differance between flank and envelopment attacks.  In appearance, they are often the same with similar results.  It would be my choice of an attack as opposed to a frontal attack.  Everything said, at Chattanooga, the main reason Grant won was General Braxton Bragg/
              Ron 
               
              --- Original Message -----
              Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:47 PM
              Subject: [civilwarwest] Envelopment

               

              All:
              I thought that "envelopment" meant going around the flank(s) to get
              behind the enemy, not just attacking on the flank(s). If this is a
              correct definition, then Grant's plans at Chattanooga would seem to be
              flank attacks, not envelopments. Sherman was to get up on Missionary
              Ridge at the north end and "roll up" Bragg's army from that point.
              Hooker was to do likewise at the south end. Thomas was to hold the
              middle. As it turned out, Thomas' troops broke through the middle,
              aided by a somewhat late attack on the Confederate left flank by
              Hooker. Sherman was stopped by Cleburne's troops and did not "roll up"
              Bragg's army from his right flank. Thus, Grant's plans for attacks on
              Bragg's flanks were not very successful, while Thomas's troops did more
              than their planned part. It seems, therefore, that this battle was not
              a good example of attacks on the flank(s) and certainly not an envelopment.


              No virus found in this message.
              Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3391 - Release Date: 01/19/11

            • chris bryant
              First I want to note that on this day 150 years ago Thomas J. Jackson,soon to be a top General of That Other Army,was celebrating his 37th birthday.   Second
              Message 6 of 15 , Jan 21, 2011
              • 0 Attachment

                First I want to note that on this day 150 years ago Thomas J. Jackson,soon to be a top General of That Other Army,was celebrating his 37th birthday.
                 
                Second I want note that 150 years ago was the month that saw the most states secede from the union;five states leaving in January,following South Carolina's December lead.
                 
                And now I'll talk about myself a bit:I'm a Union sympathizer,though I had ancestors on both sides.One{Ezekiel Chitwood} I believe is buried in the Little Rock National Cemetery,having died during the Civil War while serving with the 4th Arkansas Cavalry.Another{Asa Bryant} served with the 3rd Confederate Cavalry.{which led to my interest in the Western Theatre}A third I'm not sure about:Florian Warth seems to have been killed in an explosion on the transport Mississippi but I've been unable to find his name on any regimental rosters and I've wondered if he might have been serving the Union in a civilan capacity or as a sailor.I haven't been able to find out much about this ship,though I did find some mention of it years ago.
                 
                I have an interest in military history and tend to be interested in those Generals who show particular skill in maneuver,though the Civil war has frustrated me a bit because there seems to have been so little maneuver warfare worth talking about and thus was interested in the talk of envelopments.I like Grant because he seems to have shown some skill in maneuver,and seems to have been one of the clearest thinkers among Civil War Generals.
                 
                I've believed for a while that the Western Theatre was more important than the East,though the East had a psychological importance.I've been going through the archives{so now I feel more that I've earned the right to comment}and I noticed a question way back as to what the turning point of the war was.Vicksburg was the choice at that time and I think I disagree.I think the three events that took place at that time{Bragg's retreat is the third} had a strong effect on Southern Morale but I'm not sure I'd call this the turning point.With regard to Vicksburg,I think its fall was less important because the Mississippi was under effective control of the Union long before that.That "turning point" question is interesting to me and I plan to come back to it.Need to go now but hope to continue this soon,maybe having read some comments from you.
                                               Chris Bryant
                 
                 

                 

                StateDate of Secession
                South CarolinaDecember 20, 1860
                MississippiJanuary 9, 1861
                FloridaJanuary 10, 1861
                AlabamaJanuary 11, 1861
                GeorgiaJanuary 19, 1861
                LouisianaJanuary 26, 1861
                TexasFebruary 1, 1861

              • chris bryant
                My interest in the Civil War gets rekindled every few years;I m not sure what did it recently.It might have been the HALF PRICE BOOKS stores which opened
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 22, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  My interest in the Civil War gets rekindled every few years;I'm not sure what did it recently.It might have been the HALF PRICE BOOKS stores which opened recently here in OkC.My ORIGINAL  interest started,I think, in 1962 when I saw one of the old Marx Civil War playsets.Anyway,I've been reading{often REreading} these books lately:
                  Thomas Lawrence Connelly-
                  Army of the Heartland
                  Autumn of Glory
                  The Politics of Command
                  The Marble Man
                  I read these before but wanted to read them again.
                   
                  Why the South Lost the Civil War
                  I'd seen this before but don't think I read it.I read How the North Won by some of the same authors a fews years back when I was looking for this one.
                   
                  Steven Woodworth-
                  Jefferson Davis and His Generals
                  Read this before but wanted to read it again especially to compare ideas with Connelly.
                   
                  Thunder Along the Mississippi
                  Second Time.
                   
                  Gary Gallagher-
                  Causes Lost and Won
                  Interesting book talking about how Hollywood has treated the Civil War
                   
                  Tom Carhart-
                  Lost Triumph
                  I've had some mixed feelings about Lee;Carhart's book suggests that Lee had a little better plan in mind at Gettysburg,that Stuart was supposed to come in and attack the Union rear that third day.I've changed my mind about Lee recently.I'm come around to thinking that he was a very good General with some weaknesses:in particular that he didn't have the strategic sense to appreciate the Western Theatre,but that he tried to do things that didn't always work so well under the conditions existing during the Civil War.
                   
                  You know I was thinking about a poll question: "What Civil War General did the most to help the Union win the Civil War"?
                   
                  My answer:Leonidas Polk LOL.Well,I don't really believe that, but I think Polk may have been the Confederate General who did the most to HURT the Confederacy.What other General at that level did as much harm to Confederate fortunes?Bragg was bad but might have been much better with more support from his Generals.In the east the Confedaracy had an army that worked as a TEAM to a great degree but Bragg's plans were being undercut by his subordinates.Just a though I had.
                                                 Chris Bryant

                • Jim
                  Hi, I like Chris post. I had thought that Vicksburg was the main turning point because it was a surrender of a Confederate army- wasn t it about 30,000 men
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jan 22, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi,
                    I like Chris' post. I had thought that Vicksburg was the main turning point because it was a surrender of a Confederate army- wasn't it about 30,000 men swept right off the board? But recently, I read those men were all paroled and many got back into the war, decreasing the impact of Grant's victory.. any thoughts on that? Any figures on how many of Pemberton's men got back into the fighting?

                    Jim

                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, chris bryant <paladinsf@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > First I want to note that on this day 150 years ago Thomas J. Jackson,soon to be a top General of That Other Army,was celebrating his 37th birthday.
                    >  
                    > Second I want note that 150 years ago was the month that saw the most states secede from the union;five states leaving in January,following South Carolina's December lead.
                    >  
                    > And now I'll talk about myself a bit:I'm a Union sympathizer,though I had ancestors on both sides.One{Ezekiel Chitwood} I believe is buried in the Little Rock National Cemetery,having died during the Civil War while serving with the 4th Arkansas Cavalry.Another{Asa Bryant} served with the 3rd Confederate Cavalry.{which led to my interest in the Western Theatre}A third I'm not sure about:Florian Warth seems to have been killed in an explosion on the transport Mississippi but I've been unable to find his name on any regimental rosters and I've wondered if he might have been serving the Union in a civilan capacity or as a sailor.I haven't been able to find out much about this ship,though I did find some mention of it years ago.
                    >  
                    > I have an interest in military history and tend to be interested in those Generals who show particular skill in maneuver,though the Civil war has frustrated me a bit because there seems to have been so little maneuver warfare worth talking about and thus was interested in the talk of envelopments.I like Grant because he seems to have shown some skill in maneuver,and seems to have been one of the clearest thinkers among Civil War Generals.
                    >  
                    > I've believed for a while that the Western Theatre was more important than the East,though the East had a psychological importance.I've been going through the archives{so now I feel more that I've earned the right to comment}and I noticed a question way back as to what the turning point of the war was.Vicksburg was the choice at that time and I think I disagree.I think the three events that took place at that time{Bragg's retreat is the third} had a strong effect on Southern Morale but I'm not sure I'd call this the turning point.With regard to Vicksburg,I think its fall was less important because the Mississippi was under effective control of the Union long before that.That "turning point" question is interesting to me and I plan to come back to it.Need to go now but hope to continue this soon,maybe having read some comments from you.
                    >                                Chris Bryant
                    >  
                    >  
                    >  
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > State
                    > Date of Secession
                    >
                    > South Carolina
                    > December 20, 1860
                    >
                    > Mississippi
                    > January 9, 1861
                    >
                    > Florida
                    > January 10, 1861
                    >
                    > Alabama
                    > January 11, 1861
                    >
                    > Georgia
                    > January 19, 1861
                    >
                    > Louisiana
                    > January 26, 1861
                    >
                    > Texas
                    > February 1, 1861
                    >
                  • william
                    It is my understanding that a successful flank attack would overlap the enemy s line and thus put troops in his rear if he doesn t fall back quickly enough.
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jan 22, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      It is my understanding that a successful flank attack would overlap the enemy's line and thus put troops in his rear if he doesn't fall back quickly enough. There is at least one school of thought that believes that Hooker's move from Rossville threatening the confederate left flank (and rear) coupled with Thomas' frontal assault is what caused Stewart's precipitous retreat along with the rest of Bragg's army.


                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Patricia Swan <pbswan@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > All:
                      > I thought that "envelopment" meant going around the flank(s) to get
                      > behind the enemy, not just attacking on the flank(s). If this is a
                      > correct definition, then Grant's plans at Chattanooga would seem to be
                      > flank attacks, not envelopments. Sherman was to get up on Missionary
                      > Ridge at the north end and "roll up" Bragg's army from that point.
                      > Hooker was to do likewise at the south end. Thomas was to hold the
                      > middle. As it turned out, Thomas' troops broke through the middle,
                      > aided by a somewhat late attack on the Confederate left flank by
                      > Hooker. Sherman was stopped by Cleburne's troops and did not "roll up"
                      > Bragg's army from his right flank. Thus, Grant's plans for attacks on
                      > Bragg's flanks were not very successful, while Thomas's troops did more
                      > than their planned part. It seems, therefore, that this battle was not
                      > a good example of attacks on the flank(s) and certainly not an envelopment.
                      >
                    • Sam Elliott
                      Stewart s retreat was caused by several factors. These include the fact that his division was moved on to the ridge out of Chattanooga Valley the night of
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jan 23, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stewart's retreat was caused by several factors.  These include the fact that his division was moved on to the ridge out of Chattanooga Valley the night of Nov. 24/25 without much of a chance to dig in.  Once there, elements of the division were shifted back and forth on top of the ridge. At Braggs direction, Strahls Brigade had to occupy a three tiered defensive line at the bottom, middle and top of the ridge.  Because Stewart did not have enough men to cover the line from Braggs HQ to Rossville Gap, his line on top of the ridge was in a single rank and extended only about a mile, leaving the force at Rossville Gap ( 2 regiments and a battery ) a mile away from the rest of the division. 

                          Seeing Hookers's column advancing across Chattanooga Valley, Bragg and Beckinridge decided Breckinridge would take Claytons Brigade to assist the force at Rossville. By the time they got there, hooker had forced it to retreat, leaving the brigade to take on elements of three divisions and eventually Carlins Brigade of a fourth.  On the main line, when Thomas's assault started, Bragg noticed the line in front of his HQ was unoccupied and directed Adams's Brigade to move over and occupy the gap. A penetration occurred in the area vacated by Adams's Brigade which Stewart unsuccessfully tried to cover with artillery and then the survivors of the 7 th Florida which had retreated from the bottom of the ridge. That penetration forced the division off the ridge, ironically a good thing because Hookers force was a threat to get into Stewarts rear. 

                        Sam Elliott
                          

                        On Jan 22, 2011, at 7:28 PM, "william" <banbruner@...> wrote:

                         

                        It is my understanding that a successful flank attack would overlap the enemy's line and thus put troops in his rear if he doesn't fall back quickly enough. There is at least one school of thought that believes that Hooker's move from Rossville threatening the confederate left flank (and rear) coupled with Thomas' frontal assault is what caused Stewart's precipitous retreat along with the rest of Bragg's army.

                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Patricia Swan <pbswan@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > All:
                        > I thought that "envelopment" meant going around the flank(s) to get
                        > behind the enemy, not just attacking on the flank(s). If this is a
                        > correct definition, then Grant's plans at Chattanooga would seem to be
                        > flank attacks, not envelopments. Sherman was to get up on Missionary
                        > Ridge at the north end and "roll up" Bragg's army from that point.
                        > Hooker was to do likewise at the south end. Thomas was to hold the
                        > middle. As it turned out, Thomas' troops broke through the middle,
                        > aided by a somewhat late attack on the Confederate left flank by
                        > Hooker. Sherman was stopped by Cleburne's troops and did not "roll up"
                        > Bragg's army from his right flank. Thus, Grant's plans for attacks on
                        > Bragg's flanks were not very successful, while Thomas's troops did more
                        > than their planned part. It seems, therefore, that this battle was not
                        > a good example of attacks on the flank(s) and certainly not an envelopment.
                        >

                      • hank9174
                        The capture of Vicksburg gains two clear Union advantages other than the elimination of the CS army of Mississippi: 1) it clears the river for use as a Union
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jan 24, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The capture of Vicksburg gains two clear Union advantages other than the elimination of the CS army of Mississippi:

                          1) it clears the river for use as a Union highway of supply and communication,

                          2) it allows the Union to concentrate forces farther east, particularly in east Tennessee facing Chattanooga and Atlanta. For all intents and purposes, the states of Mississippi and Alabama become civil war backwaters...


                          HankC


                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <chiefjoseph1877@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hi,
                          > I like Chris' post. I had thought that Vicksburg was the main turning point because it was a surrender of a Confederate army- wasn't it about 30,000 men swept right off the board? But recently, I read those men were all paroled and many got back into the war, decreasing the impact of Grant's victory.. any thoughts on that? Any figures on how many of Pemberton's men got back into the fighting?
                          >
                          > Jim
                          >
                          > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, chris bryant <paladinsf@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > First I want to note that on this day 150 years ago Thomas J. Jackson,soon to be a top General of That Other Army,was celebrating his 37th birthday.
                          > >  
                          > > Second I want note that 150 years ago was the month that saw the most states secede from the union;five states leaving in January,following South Carolina's December lead.
                          > >  
                          > > And now I'll talk about myself a bit:I'm a Union sympathizer,though I had ancestors on both sides.One{Ezekiel Chitwood} I believe is buried in the Little Rock National Cemetery,having died during the Civil War while serving with the 4th Arkansas Cavalry.Another{Asa Bryant} served with the 3rd Confederate Cavalry.{which led to my interest in the Western Theatre}A third I'm not sure about:Florian Warth seems to have been killed in an explosion on the transport Mississippi but I've been unable to find his name on any regimental rosters and I've wondered if he might have been serving the Union in a civilan capacity or as a sailor.I haven't been able to find out much about this ship,though I did find some mention of it years ago.
                          > >  
                          > > I have an interest in military history and tend to be interested in those Generals who show particular skill in maneuver,though the Civil war has frustrated me a bit because there seems to have been so little maneuver warfare worth talking about and thus was interested in the talk of envelopments.I like Grant because he seems to have shown some skill in maneuver,and seems to have been one of the clearest thinkers among Civil War Generals.
                          > >  
                          > > I've believed for a while that the Western Theatre was more important than the East,though the East had a psychological importance.I've been going through the archives{so now I feel more that I've earned the right to comment}and I noticed a question way back as to what the turning point of the war was.Vicksburg was the choice at that time and I think I disagree.I think the three events that took place at that time{Bragg's retreat is the third} had a strong effect on Southern Morale but I'm not sure I'd call this the turning point.With regard to Vicksburg,I think its fall was less important because the Mississippi was under effective control of the Union long before that.That "turning point" question is interesting to me and I plan to come back to it.Need to go now but hope to continue this soon,maybe having read some comments from you.
                          > >                                Chris Bryant
                          > >  
                          > >  
                          > >  
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > State
                          > > Date of Secession
                          > >
                          > > South Carolina
                          > > December 20, 1860
                          > >
                          > > Mississippi
                          > > January 9, 1861
                          > >
                          > > Florida
                          > > January 10, 1861
                          > >
                          > > Alabama
                          > > January 11, 1861
                          > >
                          > > Georgia
                          > > January 19, 1861
                          > >
                          > > Louisiana
                          > > January 26, 1861
                          > >
                          > > Texas
                          > > February 1, 1861
                          > >
                          >
                        • William Nolan
                          The loss of the Mississippi cost the South a major supply from Texas and Louisiana. Vicksburg was a moral loss and Pemberton s Army was split between Polk and
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jan 24, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The loss of the Mississippi cost the South a major supply from Texas and Louisiana. Vicksburg was a moral loss and Pemberton's Army was split between Polk and Stephen Dill Lee and Johnston.  These forces were not ever fully consolidated and all Johnson could do was delay Sherman. Getting back 30,000 men with out arms, cloths, cannons, etc., was not a good deal for the South.  It cost every unit in Johnston army.  Sul Ross' Cavalry Brigade was only able to resupply by raid and capture. Other units were not so fortunate. Late in the Atlanta campaign even the Cavalry had to turn in all boodie and captured horses.
                             
                            David Evens' "Sherman's Horsemen" also has some info on the Atlanta Campaign.  I look forward to reading the other books suggested by this site.


                            From: hank9174 <clarkc@...>
                            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 8:54:22 AM
                            Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Me and the rebellion

                             

                            The capture of Vicksburg gains two clear Union advantages other than the elimination of the CS army of Mississippi:

                            1) it clears the river for use as a Union highway of supply and communication,

                            2) it allows the Union to concentrate forces farther east, particularly in east Tennessee facing Chattanooga and Atlanta. For all intents and purposes, the states of Mississippi and Alabama become civil war backwaters...

                            HankC

                            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <chiefjoseph1877@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Hi,
                            > I like Chris' post. I had thought that Vicksburg was the main turning point because it was a surrender of a Confederate army- wasn't it about 30,000 men swept right off the board? But recently, I read those men were all paroled and many got back into the war, decreasing the impact of Grant's victory.. any thoughts on that? Any figures on how many of Pemberton's men got back into the fighting?
                            >
                            > Jim
                            >
                            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, chris bryant <paladinsf@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > First I want to note that on this day 150 years ago Thomas J. Jackson,soon to be a top General of That Other Army,was celebrating his 37th birthday.
                            > >  
                            > > Second I want note that 150 years ago was the month that saw the most states secede from the union;five states leaving in January,following South Carolina's December lead.
                            > >  
                            > > And now I'll talk about myself a bit:I'm a Union sympathizer,though I had ancestors on both sides.One{Ezekiel Chitwood} I believe is buried in the Little Rock National Cemetery,having died during the Civil War while serving with the 4th Arkansas Cavalry.Another{Asa Bryant} served with the 3rd Confederate Cavalry.{which led to my interest in the Western Theatre}A third I'm not sure about:Florian Warth seems to have been killed in an explosion on the transport Mississippi but I've been unable to find his name on any regimental rosters and I've wondered if he might have been serving the Union in a civilan capacity or as a sailor.I haven't been able to find out much about this ship,though I did find some mention of it years ago.
                            > >  
                            > > I have an interest in military history and tend to be interested in those Generals who show particular skill in maneuver,though the Civil war has frustrated me a bit because there seems to have been so little maneuver warfare worth talking about and thus was interested in the talk of envelopments.I like Grant because he seems to have shown some skill in maneuver,and seems to have been one of the clearest thinkers among Civil War Generals.
                            > >  
                            > > I've believed for a while that the Western Theatre was more important than the East,though the East had a psychological importance.I've been going through the archives{so now I feel more that I've earned the right to comment}and I noticed a question way back as to what the turning point of the war was.Vicksburg was the choice at that time and I think I disagree.I think the three events that took place at that time{Bragg's retreat is the third} had a strong effect on Southern Morale but I'm not sure I'd call this the turning point.With regard to Vicksburg,I think its fall was less important because the Mississippi was under effective control of the Union long before that.That "turning point" question is interesting to me and I plan to come back to it.Need to go now but hope to continue this soon,maybe having read some comments from you.
                            > >                                Chris Bryant
                            > >  
                            > >  
                            > >  
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > State
                            > > Date of Secession
                            > >
                            > > South Carolina
                            > > December 20, 1860
                            > >
                            > > Mississippi
                            > > January 9, 1861
                            > >
                            > > Florida
                            > > January 10, 1861
                            > >
                            > > Alabama
                            > > January 11, 1861
                            > >
                            > > Georgia
                            > > January 19, 1861
                            > >
                            > > Louisiana
                            > > January 26, 1861
                            > >
                            > > Texas
                            > > February 1, 1861
                            > >
                            >

                          • Chet Diestel
                                   Worse than even the loss of Mississippi was the disaster that befell the Confederacy in the spring of 1862 when Union forces occupied western and
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jan 24, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                                     Worse than even the loss of Mississippi was the disaster that befell the Confederacy in the spring of 1862 when Union forces occupied western and central Tennessee, which became the staging areas for all the subsequent Union drives both south and east.
                                      In short, there would have been no Vicksburg Campaign --- at least when it happened --- without the Union successes in the Volunteer State the year previous.
                                                    With regards,
                                                          Chet

                              --- On Mon, 1/24/11, William Nolan <sixtxcavrgtcsa@...> wrote:

                              From: William Nolan <sixtxcavrgtcsa@...>
                              Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Me and the rebellion
                              To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                              Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 11:44 AM
                              The loss of the Mississippi cost the South a major supply from Texas and Louisiana. Vicksburg was a moral loss and Pemberton's Army was split between Polk and Stephen Dill Lee and Johnston.  These forces were not ever fully consolidated and all Johnson could do was delay Sherman. Getting back 30,000 men with out arms, cloths, cannons, etc., was not a good deal for the South.  It cost every unit in Johnston army.  Sul Ross' Cavalry Brigade was only able to resupply by raid and capture. Other units were not so fortunate. Late in the Atlanta campaign even the Cavalry had to turn in all boodie and captured horses.
                               
                              David Evens' "Sherman's Horsemen" also has some info on the Atlanta Campaign.  I look forward to reading the other books suggested by this site.


                              From: hank9174 <clarkc@...>
                              To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 8:54:22 AM
                              Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Me and the rebellion

                               
                              The capture of Vicksburg gains two clear Union advantages other than the elimination of the CS army of Mississippi:

                              1) it clears the river for use as a Union highway of supply and communication,

                              2) it allows the Union to concentrate forces farther east, particularly in east Tennessee facing Chattanooga and Atlanta. For all intents and purposes, the states of Mississippi and Alabama become civil war backwaters...

                              HankC

                              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <chiefjoseph1877@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Hi,
                              > I like Chris' post. I had thought that Vicksburg was the main turning point because it was a surrender of a Confederate army- wasn't it about 30,000 men swept right off the board? But recently, I read those men were all paroled and many got back into the war, decreasing the impact of Grant's victory.. any thoughts on that? Any figures on how many of Pemberton's men got back into the fighting?
                              >
                              > Jim
                              >
                              > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, chris bryant <paladinsf@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > First I want to note that on this day 150 years ago Thomas J. Jackson,soon to be a top General of That Other Army,was celebrating his 37th birthday.
                              > >  
                              > > Second I want note that 150 years ago was the month that saw the most states secede from the union;five states leaving in January,following South Carolina's December lead.
                              > >  
                              > > And now I'll talk about myself a bit:I'm a Union sympathizer,though I had ancestors on both sides.One{Ezekiel Chitwood} I believe is buried in the Little Rock National Cemetery,having died during the Civil War while serving with the 4th Arkansas Cavalry.Another{Asa Bryant} served with the 3rd Confederate Cavalry.{which led to my interest in the Western Theatre}A third I'm not sure about:Florian Warth seems to have been killed in an explosion on the transport Mississippi but I've been unable to find his name on any regimental rosters and I've wondered if he might have been serving the Union in a civilan capacity or as a sailor.I haven't been able to find out much about this ship,though I did find some mention of it years ago.
                              > >  
                              > > I have an interest in military history and tend to be interested in those Generals who show particular skill in maneuver,though the Civil war has frustrated me a bit because there seems to have been so little maneuver warfare worth talking about and thus was interested in the talk of envelopments.I like Grant because he seems to have shown some skill in maneuver,and seems to have been one of the clearest thinkers among Civil War Generals.
                              > >  
                              > > I've believed for a while that the Western Theatre was more important than the East,though the East had a psychological importance.I've been going through the archives{so now I feel more that I've earned the right to comment}and I noticed a question way back as to what the turning point of the war was.Vicksburg was the choice at that time and I think I disagree.I think the three events that took place at that time{Bragg's retreat is the third} had a strong effect on Southern Morale but I'm not sure I'd call this the turning point.With regard to Vicksburg,I think its fall was less important because the Mississippi was under effective control of the Union long before that.That "turning point" question is interesting to me and I plan to come back to it.Need to go now but hope to continue this soon,maybe having read some comments from you.
                              > >                                Chris Bryant
                              > >  

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