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

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

Expand Messages
  • Tony
    ... *shrug* The troops were in Grant s department, they were allegedly his to fight with when and where he pleased. Except, over half of them had to go down
    Message 1 of 52 , Jan 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ned Baldwin" wrote:
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" wrote:
      > >...
      > > Forgot 5) 25,000 men were sent against Vicksburg, 10,000 of which were detached to Grant from Curtis' department. I was including those 10,000 which I can admit is invalid since their status was dependent on cooperating with a riverine campaign. But that's still 15,000 men taken from Grant as he sits halfway to his objective, not quite half but more than one third. What man in his right mind doesn't complain about that kind of incompetent interference from his bosses?
      > >
      >
      > Only Sherman's single division was "taken" from Grant. In addition to the division from Helena, there were two divisions transferred from outside Grant's department for the express purpose of the riverine campaign. This idea that orders were given to "steal" half of Grant's army is absurd.
      >

      *shrug* The troops were in Grant's department, they were allegedly his to fight with when and where he pleased. Except, over half of them had to go down the river in a separate command.

      > Here is something from the correspondence regarding the campaign:
      > "Would it not be well to hold the enemy south of Yalabusha and move a force from Memphis and Helena on Vicksburg? ... it would not be safe to go beyond Grenada and attempt to hold present lines of communication."
      > Gosh, must be "incompetent interference" from those bosses again.
      > Nope, that was Grant.
      >

      The context of that message being that Grant has already been told multiple times to send a force down the river. And yet, after Halleck tells him to do so yet again, we see him call Sherman to his HQ to discuss ignoring the order, breaking free of his supply lines, and moving on Jackson overland.
    • 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.