Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg Campaign)
- A combination of seige warfare wearing down the men and taking the war to the people.From: Keith Giordano <keg032461@...>
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg Campaign)
I personally think Johnston was more to blame.
Sent from my iPhoneOn 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.
- --- In email@example.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?
> As far as inventing my own history, go bugger yourself in the earhole.Truth hurts huh.