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

RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion

Expand Messages
  • David Wall
    Grant actually relieved Rosecrans at Chattanooga. Lincoln had given him two choices and that is the one he chose. I don t remember the story about Grant being
    Message 1 of 56 , Feb 7, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Grant actually relieved Rosecrans at Chattanooga. Lincoln had given him two choices and that is the one he chose.
      I don't remember the story about Grant being told to get down at Chattanooga. I know that a similar incident happened
      at Vicksburg when Ulysses climbed "Coonskins Tower" at Vicksburg. That structure had been built right behind one section
      of my grandfathers 1st Illinois Light Artillery Battery D, which was then named Hickenloopers Battery. The Illinois Monument
      stands there today.
      The poor rebel who warned Grant to get down, was called out, not for warning Grant but for the impolite manner in which 
      he addressed the General. At least that is what was rumored.
       
      David Edward Wall 

      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      From: jlawrence@...
      Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:07:16 +0000
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion

       
      The plan was in place. They were waiting for Grant to get there as Rosecreans had been relieved. At least that is how I recall it.
      Grant reviewed the plan and the terrain before he hauthorized it. There is a story that confederate pickers sent a warning at one point to tell "that officer" to get down or they mould have to shoot him.
      Dunnoo. I do know that during the river crossing, they picketts were commanded by Oates of that big battle back east of the previous summer. Bit of irony, that.
      Regards,
      Jack
      Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

      -----Original Message-----
      From: "hank9174" <clarkc@...>
      Sender: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:26:23
      To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      Reply-To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion

      I recall that Grant, on arriving in Chattanooga, commented that the plan was in place but he wondered why it had not yet happened given the desperate situation...


      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Patricia B. Swan" <pbswan@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hank, I suspect you are right about the morale element. The plan was formed
      > before the A of P units arrived and the A of C was constructing the boats. I
      > suspect it was important, in part for morale, to let the plan be carried out
      > and, if successful, it would be more conservative of troop strength (i.e. a
      > surprise attack) than would a "brute force" attack by the 11th and 12th Corps.
      > It's good that Hazen and his men were on the alert and pulled in at the right
      > spot!
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: hank9174 <clarkc@...>
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:41:35 AM
      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion
      >
      >
      > Perhaps there is an morale element of having the AotC (Hazen) break out rather
      > then Hooker (AotP) break in?
      >
      > The Army of the Cumberland has a chip on its shoulder with both the AotT and a
      > large portion of the eastern army coming to its 'rescue'...
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Patricia B. Swan" <pbswan@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hank, Yes it seems that Hooker took a chance by using so few troops. Luckily
      > > the operation didn't fail. Had it failed, however, he had the additional troop
      > >
      > > strength to make what probably would have been a successful attack, albeit
      > >under
      > >
      > > more difficult conditions, his target having been revealed. Thus, it seems
      > >that
      > >
      > > this was not really a good opportunity to capture the A of C; i.e. with the
      > >11th
      > >
      > > and 12th Corps there they had the means to open up the Cracker Line.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > From: hank9174 <clarkc@>
      > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 9:54:41 AM
      > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Which is a good point but raises the question: if 2 corps are waiting to attack
      > >
      > > why use a fairly complex operation with one brigade?
      > >
      > >
      > > It's failure then alerts the defense to the operation's target...
      > >
      > > HankC
      > >
      > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Patricia B. Swan" <pbswan@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hank, If the taking of Brown's Ferry by Hazen et al. had failed, would not
      > >have
      > >
      > > >
      > > > the 11th and 12th Corps moved in for another and, probably successful,
      > >attempt?
      > >
      > > >
      > > > I'm not certain that the A of C would have starved if the first attempt had
      > > > failed. So, was it a "good opportunity?" I'm not certain that it was.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________
      > > > From: hank9174 <clarkc@>
      > > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 9:06:41 AM
      > > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > If Bragg wins the battle of Browns Ferry, union forces in Chattanooga are
      > >soon
      > >
      > >
      > > > starved into surrender.
      > > >
      > > > The army of the cumberland is lost and the main US position reverts to
      > > >Nashville
      > > >
      > > > if not Louisville.
      > > >
      > > > The chances of replacing the army and retaking lost territory, much less
      > > > advancing to Atlanta before the 1864 election, is zero.
      > > >
      > > > Browns Ferry is the biggest little battle of the war...
      > > >
      > > > HankC
      > > >
      > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Patricia B. Swan" <pbswan@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Off course I meant "after Vicksburg."
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ________________________________
      > > > > From: Patricia B. Swan <pbswan@>
      > > > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 7:29:31 AM
      > > > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > What were the "good opportunities" that the Confederates had to win the war
      > >
      > > >in
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > > the West after Gettysburg?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ________________________________
      > > > > From: Bronco <21stcentury@>
      > > > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Sent: Thu, January 27, 2011 10:35:34 PM
      > > > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > I hope I didn't kill the discussion..
      > > > >
      > > > > Robert
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ________________________________
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Chris is correct. That was an overstatement on my behalf. The Confederacy
      > > > > squandered/missed several subsequent opportunities that might have
      > > > > politically brought the war to an end via a strategic stalemate.
      > >However,
      > >
      > > >I
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > > think Vicksburg dramatically weakened, and maybe ended, all Southern
      > > >chances
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > for a military victory.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >Robert
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>I don't at all buy the notion that it was over after Vicksburg;If
      > > > >you
      > > > >
      > > > > >>think that,then I think you don't understand much about the
      > > > > >>psychology of the war.Point here that has been made by better minds
      > > > > >>then mine is that the Confederacy could win the war by NOT LOSING.If
      > > > > >>they could raise morale again{which they did to some degree}and
      > > > > >>continue the war,then the Union might eventually give up,regardless of
      > > > > >>its advantages.
      > > > > >> Chris
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>Thanks Chet,
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>What could they have done? Jumping into a time machine and
      >
      > > > >taking
      > > > >
      > > > > >>>charge, what could have been done?
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>Why didn't every Confederate unit in the Trans-Mississippi
      >
      > > >head
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > >>>towards Vicksburg? EVERYBODY... in Arkansas, Texas,
      > > >Tennessee,
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > > >>>Mississippi and Oklahoma...including the Partisan Rangers
      > > > >operating
      > > > >
      > > > > >>>in Missouri and Kansas??
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>The war is basically over after Vicksburg--all but the
      > > > > >>>dying--strategically, it was like Stalingrad.
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >




      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links




    • 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
      View Source
      • 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.