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

[civilwarwest] Turning Point of the War

Expand Messages
  • Anna Howland
    Hello All, My name is Anna and I m the new kid on the Block! I wish to answer the query as to when was the turning point of the War. I will answer this
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 5, 2000
      Hello All, My name is Anna and I'm the new kid on the Block! I wish to
      answer the query as to when was the turning point of the War. I will
      answer this question by quoting liberally one of the premeire
      historians of the western theater, Richard McMurry. The round table I'm
      associated with invited him to speak and his talk ws called the
      "Gettysburg Splash". He asked, when was the best time for the
      Confederacy to win? He used the metaphor of a pond and the physics of
      water rising to illustrate his answer. In 1862 you had the physics of
      true high tide, the water level was rising simultaneously. You had Lee
      and the Maryland invasion, the Confederate invasion of the American
      Southwest, Earl Van Dorn and co. in Mississippi and Bragg and Kirby
      Smith in Kentucky. Was 1863truly a high-tide as many historian's would
      argue. He said if you look at the physics, the water was at different
      levels that year. The eastern side of the pond was surely rising but
      the western side (Vicksburg) was sinking fast. He will argue that in
      1863 the Confederates best chance at winning this thing called
      independence was in the Eastern theater. But, if ou look at Gettysburg
      in the grand scheme of things it was nothing more than a "Splash" in
      that pond. He argues that the war in the west was nothing more than
      perpetual stalemate. In the West, occupation by Union forces deep into
      the South. I know this is getting long-winded but to throw in my two
      cents worth... the turning point was 1862.

      Regards-Anna Howland
    • Anna Howland
      anna howland wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?star He (McMurry) argues that the war in the west
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 5, 2000
        "anna howland" <civilwarkoo-@...> wrote:
        original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?star

        "He (McMurry) argues that the war in the west was nothing more than
        perpetual stalemate."

        Oops!, I goofed. I meant to say that according to MCMurry the War in
        the EAST was nothing more than perpetual stalemate. Sorry about that!
        Anna
      • Anna Howland
        anna howland wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?star He (McMurry) argues that the war in the west
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 5, 2000
          "anna howland" <civilwarkoo-@...> wrote:
          original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?star

          "He (McMurry) argues that the war in the west was nothing more than
          perpetual stalemate."

          Oops!, I goofed. I meant to say that according to MCMurry the War in
          the EAST was nothing more than perpetual stalemate. Sorry about that!
          Anna
        • Don Plezia
          I agree that the war in the east was a stalemate. Does Mr. McMurry give any reason? My own rational is that Grant was overmatched by Lee. And Lee fought him
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 6, 2000
            I agree that the war in the east was a stalemate. Does Mr. McMurry give
            any reason? My own rational is that Grant was overmatched by Lee. And
            Lee fought him to a standstill with about half to a third less at times.

            By the way, what does this have to do with Sherman's war Record?

            Don Plezia

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Anna Howland" <civilwarkook@...>
            To: <civilwarwest@...>
            Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 12:37 AM
            Subject: [civilwarwest] Re:oops!Turning point--


            > "anna howland" <civilwarkoo-@...> wrote:
            > original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?star
            >
            > "He (McMurry) argues that the war in the west was nothing more than
            > perpetual stalemate."
            >
            > Oops!, I goofed. I meant to say that according to MCMurry the War in
            > the EAST was nothing more than perpetual stalemate. Sorry about that!
            > Anna
            >
            >
            > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            --
            > Body Paint, Chocolates, & Roses Oh My!
            > http://click.egroups.com/1/1151/1/_/14182/_/949815492/
            >
            > -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
            > -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=civilwarwest&m=1
            >
            >
            >
          • Don Plezia
            I agree that the war in the east was a stalemate. Does Mr. McMurry give any reason? My own rational is that Grant was overmatched by Lee. And Lee fought him
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 6, 2000
              I agree that the war in the east was a stalemate. Does Mr. McMurry give
              any reason? My own rational is that Grant was overmatched by Lee. And
              Lee fought him to a standstill with about half to a third less at times.

              By the way, what does this have to do with Sherman's war Record?

              Don Plezia

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Anna Howland" <civilwarkook@...>
              To: <civilwarwest@...>
              Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 12:37 AM
              Subject: [civilwarwest] Re:oops!Turning point--


              > "anna howland" <civilwarkoo-@...> wrote:
              > original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?star
              >
              > "He (McMurry) argues that the war in the west was nothing more than
              > perpetual stalemate."
              >
              > Oops!, I goofed. I meant to say that according to MCMurry the War in
              > the EAST was nothing more than perpetual stalemate. Sorry about that!
              > Anna
              >
              >
              > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
              --
              > Body Paint, Chocolates, & Roses Oh My!
              > http://click.egroups.com/1/1151/1/_/14182/_/949815492/
              >
              > -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
              > -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=civilwarwest&m=1
              >
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.