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

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

Expand Messages
  • jlawrence@kc.rr.com
    Which is really ironic considering that Vicksburg voted not to secede ........ Regards, Jack Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ... From: Pamela Kirklin
    Message 1 of 56 , Feb 8, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Which is really ironic considering that Vicksburg voted not to secede ........
      Regards,
      Jack

      Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


      From: Pamela Kirklin <pamelakirklin@...>
      Sender: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 03:24:00 -0800 (PST)
      To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      ReplyTo: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion

      Hi...
        The seige of Vicksburg "took-out" almost every structure except the Court House....because the Union prisoners and wounded were being held there.  Ask any Daughter of the Confederacy in Vicksburg.....
      On another note....also ask why "ill feelings" existed between Natchez and Vicksburg for years..........
       
      Have a wonderful day....


      From: Jack Lawrence <jlawrence@...>
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 10:07:25 PM
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion

       

      I have Grant's memoirs.

      Noncomittal at best.

      Regards,

      Jack

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "william" <banbruner@...>
      To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:38 PM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the rebellion

      > Here is Grant's description of his arrival at Chattanooga: "The next day
      > we reached Chattanooga a little before dark. I went directly to General
      > Thonas's headquarters, and remaining there a few days, until I could
      > establish my own.
      > During the evening most of the general officers called in to pay their
      > respects and to talk about the condition of affairs." (Grant's Memoirs;
      > kindle location 10824-32)
      >
      > Bill Bruner
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, jlawrence@... wrote:
      >>
      >> There is a school of thought that Grant was wary of Thomas because Thomas
      >> might upstage him.
      >> There is another theory that Thomas resented Grant because he thought he,
      >> not Grant, should have relieved Rosecreans.
      >> When Grant arrived in Chartanooga, he was cold, wet and tired. He wasn't
      >> even offered a fire, even after Thomas was au.moned. Grant's staff had to
      >> request it.
      >> Bad blood there somewhere.
      >> Regards,
      >> Jack
      >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
      >>
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: "Patricia B. Swan" <pbswan@...>
      >> Sender: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      >> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:36:25
      >> To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      >> Reply-To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      >> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the
      >> rebellion
      >>
      >> Is it possible that Grant said he didn't know why the plan had been
      >> executed
      >> before he arrived because of his concern (prejudice?) that Thomas was
      >> always
      >> slow. I believe that Rosecrans was gone and Thomas was in charge when
      >> Grant
      >> arrived.
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> ________________________________
      >> From: william <banbruner@...>
      >> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      >> Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 11:14:40 AM
      >> Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Siege of Vicksburg / was: Me and the
      >> rebellion
      >>
      >>
      >> It is my understanding that the Plan was progressing before Grant
      >> arrived. The
      >> pontoon boats had to be built. Grant observed them being caulked as he
      >> arrived
      >> at Chattanooga.
      >>
      >> Bill Bruner
      >>
      >> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, jlawrence@ wrote:
      >> >
      >> > 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
      >> >
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > 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
      • 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.