--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "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?
Can I answer this in multiple parts? :)
Grant's Yazoo Pass raid, though turned back at Fort Pemberton, had a major impact on Pemberton's ability to defend the interior of Mississippi. When Pemberton learned troops were sailing south through Yazoo pass, he deployed his scouts into the Yazoo River delta where they could not easily be recalled. As a consequence, Pemberton was forced to utilize amateur scouts against Grant's seasoned veterans between Port Gibson / Jackson / Edward's Station. As a result, Gregg assumed he was facing only a brigade at Raymond. This resulted in a complete rout at Raymond, which took Gregg's brigade off the table at Jackson and meant Johnston only had roughly 4000 men to defend Jackson. Complicating matters, Pemberton's cavalry was run ragged and his rail infratructure was compromised by Grierson's raid.
GOOD: Grant kept Pemberton on his toes, launching multiple efforts to strike at Pemberton's ability to wage war and open up a path south of Vicksburg. Yazoo Pass Raid, Grierson's raid, Sherman's feigned assault at Snyder's Bluff, Grant's canal, and Lake Providence all kept Pemberton guessing as to Grant's intent and direction of attack.
BAD: Pemberton really should have spent some energy developing intel on the area south of the railroad. When the sh*t hit the fan, Pemberton's troops acted like they were the visiting team, often taking the wrong roads and failing to understand the location and direction of Grant's movements.