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

Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion

Expand Messages
  • Bronco
    Hey Everybody! Robert here--joined the list a few weeks back and have been reading with great interest. What--if anything--did the Confederate /
    Message 1 of 56 , Jan 24, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Everybody!
       
      Robert here--joined the list a few weeks back and have been reading with great interest. What--if anything--did the Confederate / Trans-Mississippi theater of command do to lift the siege of Vicksburg? Were they aware of the catostrophic danger?
       
      Robert
       
       
       

      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
      >

    • jlawrence@kc.rr.com
      I enjoy this site and am not going to get tossed. Having said that, there was a five minute pause here and I am backing off because I don t want to get
      Message 56 of 56 , Feb 14, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I enjoy this site and am not going to get tossed.
        Having said that, there was a five minute pause here and I am backing off because I don't want to get shotgunned. Think I'll lay low and figure out what I can say.
        Regards,
        Jack

        Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


        From: chris bryant <paladinsf@...>
        Sender: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:32:38 -0800 (PST)
        To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
        ReplyTo: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Happy 199th Alexander Stephens

        Oh c'mon,Jack.If you're going to say something like that,give us a little more.I'm interested in starting some discussion,not ending it.

        --- On Mon, 2/14/11, jlawrence@... <jlawrence@...> wrote:

        From: jlawrence@... <jlawrence@...>
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Happy 199th Alexander Stephens
        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, February 14, 2011, 1:46 PM

         
        I think the turning point of the war was when Lincoln refused to recognize southern deccession.
        After 1863, they began to realize it (except in South Carolina).

        Regards,
        Jack
        Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

        From: chris bryant <paladinsf@...>
        Sender: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 13:19:30 -0800 (PST)
        To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
        ReplyTo: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Happy 199th Alexander Stephens

        Didn't mean to stir up a "hornet's nest" {see how I bring us back on topic?} but it does sort of make one of my points of recent days.Numbers alone don't win wars;morale can sometimes work wonders for the weaker side.The Confederacy had a real chance to win going in to the war but lost heart eventually.Back to the turning point question:having thought it over,I think Vicksburg,combined with OTHER events of mid-1863 WAS a turning point of sorts;I don't think Southern morale ever quite recovered after that and I'd say that might be a point after which the Union was clearly winning the war.
                                    Chris Bryant

        --- On Sat, 2/12/11, Dick Weeks <shotgun@...> wrote:

        From: Dick Weeks <shotgun@...>
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Happy 199th Alexander Stephens
        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, February 12, 2011, 5:18 PM

         
        Jack, and your friends, I hate to say this but I no idea of you are talking
        about. That being said I had best not see any more of these type posts or
        you will be looking for a new char room. Have a nice day.

        I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
        Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Jack Lawrence" <jlawrence@...>
        To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 7:27 PM
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Happy 199th Alexander Stephens

        > First,
        >
        > Giap was a follower of Minh.
        >
        > Minh was an agrarian reformer.
        >
        > Lee was fighting to maintain white supremacy.
        >
        > Quite a difference.
        >
        > Lee was an enemy of humanity.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Jack
        >
        > ps
        >
        > Like Lee, Giap never won an offensive campaign agaisnt the Union.
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Jason" <generalripper_1999@...>
        > To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 10:54 AM
        > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Happy 199th Alexander Stephens
        >
        >
        > Well, if Giap had been President of the Confederacy and he could have
        > gotten
        > the Northern "media" (for what it was in those days) on board, it would
        > have
        > been worth about 20 divisions to the South. Course Lincoln might have just
        > closed the papers down. ;-)
        >
        > Jason
        >
        > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "william" <banbruner@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> I suppose my favorite counterfactual in the area would not be what if A.
        >> Stepenns had ascended to the presidency of the Confederacy but: What if
        >> Vo
        >> Nguyen Giap had been in charge?
        >> Bill Bruner
        >> ps Newt might consider this as a book project.
        >>
        >> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "banbruner@" <banbruner@> wrote:
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, chris bryant <paladinsf@> wrote:
        >> > >
        >> > >
        >> > > and also 150th anniversery of his taking office as C.S.A. Vice
        >> > > President if my info is correct.Anybody want to comment on whether
        >> > > the
        >> > > premature death of J. Davis and a Stephens presidency might have made
        >> > > any difference?
        >> > > Chris Bryant
        >> > >
        >> > Possibly, but I have no conception of how.
        >> > Would it have been better or worse for the South or better or worse for
        >> > the North? I enjoy counterfactuals but I have no idea which way to go
        >> > on this. I will only say that while I think both men were proven by
        >> > history to be wrongheaded they were both sincere and honorable men.
        >> > Bill Bruner
        >> >
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >



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