Re: Was Pemberton Wrong, Bad, Incompetent (Vicksburg Campaign)
- --- In email@example.com, John Lawrence wrote:
>Historically, secondary resources have all claimed that the Lake Providence canal was a failure (with the sole exception of Brooks Simpson). In fact, Ed Bearss called it the "Lake Providence Boondoggle." However, we now know that the Lake Providence canal was a viable bypass.
> Not sure we are going here.
> Historically, Grant tried seven different ways into Vicksburg.
> If you want to call it two, OK.
Just because a handful of historians have claimed in the past it was seven attempts, doesn't mean we have to repeat their errors going forward.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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.