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

Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg Campaign)

Expand Messages
  • John Lawrence
    Grant, up until that second charge, had mounted campaign Napoleonic in strategy and operational execution, if not in scope. Like Napoleon on the Iberian
    Message 1 of 52 , Jan 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Grant, up until that second charge, had mounted campaign Napoleonic in strategy and operational execution, if not in scope.
      Like Napoleon on the Iberian peninsula, he launched s massive calvary diversion, bypassed the enemy and turned him back on his himself, forcing him back into a defensive posture.
      The raid, through Mississippi into Louisiana, kept the Confederate forces off balance.
      Landing at Bruinsburg crossing, Grant, in a move that was becoming a Hallmark of his campaigns, then cut himself off from his supply sources and, marching rapidly to contact with concentrated forces, defeated the enemy piecemeal, he moved to the capitol, destroyed it supplies and its distribution center.
      Having disrupted the enemies war making capacity, he then, again through rapid movement, defeated Confederate parts in sequence and, having turned the enemy (on a strategic level), invested Vicksburg and linked up with his supply base.
      Johnston and Pemberton just could not match Grant's or the Federal skill set.

      Regards,
      Jack
      .


      Keith Giordano <keg032461@...> wrote:

      I personally think Johnston was more to blame. 


      Sent from my iPhone

      On Jan 2, 2013, at 1:52 AM, "callicles1" <callicles1@...> wrote:

       

      I am of the opinion that Pemberton acquitted himself well enough during the campaign. He just ran up against Grant. I'm just wondering what you folks think.

      1. Was Grant that good; or

      2. Was Pemberton that bad; or

      3. Is it some where in between?

      I really can't wait to read opinions and to engage in discussion. Thanks.

    • Ned Baldwin
      ... He did receive direction from Halleck; Halleck did not remain Mute. ... Baseless. ... Would there have been a disaster at Holly Springs without the
      Message 52 of 52 , Jan 10, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" wrote:
        > Starting in early October IIRC, Grant asked repeatedly for direction. What am I to do? What is my objective? How should I proceed. Receiving absolutely no direction from Halleck, Grant outlined a plan: consolidate his force against Holly Springs, drive Pemberton south rebuilding the railroad as he went, take Vicksburg from the interior. Still, Halleck remained mute about Grant's objectives, despite the fact that Halleck was aware that McClernand had bent Lincoln's ear towards a riverine campaign.
        >
        >

        He did receive direction from Halleck; Halleck did not remain Mute.



        > So we have Lincoln stabbing Grant in the back, and Halleck feeding him lies.
        >

        Baseless.


        >
        Would there have been a disaster at Holly Springs without the riverine expedition?
        >

        Absolutely.



        > As far as inventing my own history, go bugger yourself in the earhole.
        >

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