Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg Campaign)
- Grant had his moments. what made the second attack at Vicksburg appalling was that, in retrospect, it was a warm up for the second attack at Cold Harbor.In both cases, and all I can think is that these were callous demonstrations to his opponents that he had men to waste, he left his wounded on the field rather than a truce.Regards,'jack----- Original Message -----From: Ronald blackSent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:37 PMSubject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg Campaign)Mr. Baquero,When you imply that Grant was a murderer because of civilian casualties incurred during the 47 day siege as you state, you are judging him using today's standards and not those of mid-nineteenth centaury. The standards of today and that of the era of the civil war are not the same. It was much harder to care for battle casualties, the wounded, the hospital care of soldiers and also the welfare of civilians trapped in sectors of military operations. Both armies simply did not have the means to provide meaningful resources, food and medical personnel. It was common practice to allow wounded soldiers to lay on the battlefield until they were finally retrieved if they were not dead yet. The medical staffs after a large battle were overwhelmed by the numbers of the wounded. This applies to the situation during the siege of Vicksburg. Grant pressed the confederates and civilians got in the way. He should not be blamed if they suffered (they did) because the confederates choose to fight a battle here even after several rebel leaders advised the field army be withdrawn. Grant was successful in his operations and plans. If he had blame for civilian casualties, then the confederates are equally to blame.The jury of popular opinion has rendered a verdict, one of NOT GUILTY.Ron----- Original Message -----From: rbaquero@...Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:38 AMSubject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg Campaign)The RIGHT questions is; " was Grant a murder or a genocide after 47 days of Vicksburg's city bombardment ?
- --- 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.