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

[civilwarwest] Re: The Decisive Turning Point

Expand Messages
  • ghm22
    Hi, I have come to believe that the fall of Atlanta was the decisive turning point of the Civil War. If the CSA could have held on to the city, it could very
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 6, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      I have come to believe that the fall of Atlanta was the decisive turning
      point of the Civil War. If the CSA could have held on to the city, it
      could very well have influenced Lincoln's reelection chances in the
      November 1864 elections. The bloody stalemates in the east and west
      that year may have resulted in a peace settlement and the South gaining
      its independence. There was no chance for victory after the fall of
      Atlanta.

      George McCluskey
      Little Rock, Arkansas

      ghm22@...


      REGIMENTALFLAG@... wrote:
      >
      > I feel that Chattanooga,November `63 was the turning point .
      > Would like to hear everyone's opinion on this.
      > Thanks,
      > Regimental Flag
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Unique Valentine gifts, available now at eGroups.
      > http://click.egroups.com/1/1146/1/_/14182/_/949714996/
      >
      > -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
      > -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/civilwarwest/?m=1
    • Don Plezia
      Alfred Castell makes the same point in his Winning and Losing in the Civil War . There were several states with 102 electoral votes, that Lincoln won, in
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 6, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Alfred Castell makes the same point in his "Winning and Losing in the
        Civil War". There were several states with 102 electoral votes, that
        Lincoln won, in some of those states by only 1600 - 3000 votes. He won
        New York by only 6000 votes. Had Atlanta not been won, those votes very
        easily could have gone to McClellan.

        What also seems significant is that Grant gave up trying to supply that
        victory against Lee in the East and told Sherman to try it in the West.

        However, as to a turning point in the war, Atlanta was captured in
        August of 1864 and the war went on for another 9 months. The turning
        point, it seems to me, was the defeat and destruction of the Army of the
        Tennessee at Nashville in December, 1864. After the 2nd largest armed
        force in the Confederacy was eliminated the end was obvious. Even so,
        Lee kept Grant at bay for 4 more months.

        If one seeks a defining moment when comparing the two adversaries,
        probably, the shot fired by Beauregard at Fort Sumter was the beginning
        of the end.

        The South's only hope was a negotiated peace.

        Don Plezia

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "ghm22" <ghm22@...>
        To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 8:55 AM
        Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The Decisive Turning Point


        > Hi,
        >
        > I have come to believe that the fall of Atlanta was the decisive
        turning
        > point of the Civil War. If the CSA could have held on to the city, it
        > could very well have influenced Lincoln's reelection chances in the
        > November 1864 elections. The bloody stalemates in the east and west
        > that year may have resulted in a peace settlement and the South
        gaining
        > its independence. There was no chance for victory after the fall of
        > Atlanta.
        >
        > George McCluskey
        > Little Rock, Arkansas
        >
        > ghm22@...
        >
        >
        > REGIMENTALFLAG@... wrote:
        > >
        > > I feel that Chattanooga,November `63 was the turning point .
        > > Would like to hear everyone's opinion on this.
        > > Thanks,
        > > Regimental Flag
        > >
        >
        > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        --
        > > Unique Valentine gifts, available now at eGroups.
        > > http://click.egroups.com/1/1146/1/_/14182/_/949714996/
        > >
        > > -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
        > > -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/civilwarwest/?m=1
        >
        > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        --
        > If you want to be single again,
        > Don't buy your Valentine a Gift by clicking here.
        > http://click.egroups.com/1/1153/1/_/14182/_/949844813/
        >
        > -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
        > -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=civilwarwest&m=1
        >
        >
        >
      • JackEhmer123@aol.com
        Everyone seems to believe that if McClellan had won the election, that he would have sued for peace and the South would have won their independence. I don t
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 6, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Everyone seems to believe that if McClellan had won the election, that he
          would have sued for peace and the South would have won their independence. I
          don't believe that this theory is supported by the facts.

          First, McClellan was a War Democrat and was an "Union" man. He had already
          repudiated the Peace Democrats' intent to simply let the Southern States go.
          While many War Democrats opposed Lincoln's handling of the war, they had no
          intention of just giving up.

          Second, he would not have been inaugurated for nearly five months. Lincoln
          had stated his intent to do everything possible to win the war before the
          inauguration if he were defeated.

          Third, the capture of Atlanta was simply a matter of time, given the opposing
          forces and opposing generals. Remember that the reason Hood was given the
          command was that Joe Johnston had already given up on Atlanta.

          Fourth, Grant did not sit on his heels and wait for Sherman to win the war.
          He knew that to decisively beat the ANV AND to capture Richmond was to win
          the war. In fact, he intended to accomplish that before Sherman could come
          along and share the glory. Sherman's main contribution in those
          accomplishments was to keep Joe Johnston busy. Sheridan's contributions to
          Lee's surrender were much more significant then Sherman's.

          If McClellan had won, I believe that Sherman would have immediately headed
          for Virginia after the capture of Atlanta. In terms of ending the war,
          Sherman's march to Savannah and up through the Carolinas accomplished little
          except to further destroy Southern morale.

          While what happened to Hood's command at Franklin and Nashville was tragic in
          terms of lives lost, it played little part in the final outcome.

          Just my opinion.

          Jack Ehmer
        • Don Plezia
          ... From: To: Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 1:40 PM Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The Decisive Turning Point
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 6, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <JackEhmer123@...>
            To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 1:40 PM
            Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The Decisive Turning Point


            > Everyone seems to believe that if McClellan had won the election, that
            he
            > would have sued for peace and the South would have won their
            independence. I
            > don't believe that this theory is supported by the facts.
            >
            > First, McClellan was a War Democrat and was an "Union" man. He had
            already
            > repudiated the Peace Democrats' intent to simply let the Southern
            States go.
            > While many War Democrats opposed Lincoln's handling of the war, they
            had no
            > intention of just giving up.

            This is entirely correct.

            > Second, he would not have been inaugurated for nearly five months.
            Lincoln
            > had stated his intent to do everything possible to win the war before
            the
            > inauguration if he were defeated.

            Lincoln had all his cabinet officers sign a "Blind Memorandum" which in
            essence stated that in case of McClellan's election the Union should be
            saved before his (McClellan's) inauguration on 4 March, 1864. He read
            this to the cabinet shortly after his election.

            > Third, the capture of Atlanta was simply a matter of time, given the
            opposing
            > forces and opposing generals. Remember that the reason Hood was given
            the command was that Joe Johnston had already given up on Atlanta.

            You are correct here except, that it was at the time, not a foregone
            conclusion that Atlanta would be taken any time soon. Sherman had in
            late July,expressed his worries that he had not been bold enough and too
            cautious, and had lost three or more opportunities to "break up Joe
            Johnston's army.

            And as of August 23rd Lincoln was thinking about writing Sherman, to ask
            what his chances were of taking Atlanta. While we, with the benefit of
            hindsight know Atlanta was doomed, there were few around with the same
            conviction.

            > Fourth, Grant did not sit on his heels and wait for Sherman to win the
            war.
            > He knew that to decisively beat the ANV AND to capture Richmond was to
            > win the war.

            Correct again, but he was never able to figure out how to beat old
            Bobby. He sat in front of Petersburg for 10 months trying to figure
            that out.

            In fact, he intended to accomplish that before Sherman could come
            > along and share the glory. Sherman's main contribution in those
            > accomplishments was to keep Joe Johnston busy. Sheridan's
            contributions to
            > Lee's surrender were much more significant then Sherman's.

            Your right again! What the hell did vacationing in Savannah do for the
            war.

            > If McClellan had won, I believe that Sherman would have immediately
            headed
            > for Virginia after the capture of Atlanta. In terms of ending the war,

            Interesting conjecture!

            > Sherman's march to Savannah and up through the Carolinas accomplished
            little
            > except to further destroy Southern morale.
            >
            > While what happened to Hood's command at Franklin and Nashville was
            tragic in terms of lives lost, it played little part in the final
            outcome.

            I totally disagree. Without an Army running around Tennessee,
            threatening Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, Grant could
            concentrate on trying to figure out how to beat Lee.

            Remember all the nagging telegrams and orders to remove Thomas for not
            engaging Hood sooner at Nashville! Reading the O.R.'s for that period
            gives you a sence of the panic Washinngton and the north was in
            regarding Hood. And Thomas removed that panic.

            Just my opinions!

            Don Plezia
          • JackEhmer123@aol.com
            In a message dated 02/06/2000 3:10:40 PM Mountain Standard Time, oneplez@earthlink.net writes:
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 6, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 02/06/2000 3:10:40 PM Mountain Standard Time,
              oneplez@... writes:

              << I totally disagree. Without an Army running around Tennessee,
              threatening Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, Grant could
              concentrate on trying to figure out how to beat Lee.

              Remember all the nagging telegrams and orders to remove Thomas for not
              engaging Hood sooner at Nashville! Reading the O.R.'s for that period
              gives you a sence of the panic Washinngton and the north was in
              regarding Hood. And Thomas removed that panic.

              Just my opinions!

              Don Plezia
              >>
              Good Point. The idea of Hood rampaging through Ohio would certainly be
              unsettling to Washington, to say the least. However, it is unlikely that he
              could have accomplished anything that would change the final result,
              particularly with Thomas' replacement, (Logan I believe), on his tail.

              In the meantime, Lee's forces were getting weaker and weaker due to lack of
              supplies and desertions. Eventually, Sherman would have joined Grant and Lee
              would have been doomed.

              Every general had his weaknesses (even Lee) and Thomas' was slowness in
              starting. However, once he got started, he acted decisively and tenaciously.

              As far as the decisive turning point, I still believe that the surrender at
              Vicksburg allowed the North to start closing the noose around the ANV, which
              I believe was the only hope of the Confederacy.

              Jack Ehmer
            • Don Plezia
              ... From: To: Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 10:19 PM Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The Decisive Turning Point
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 7, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: <JackEhmer123@...>
                To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 10:19 PM
                Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The Decisive Turning Point


                > In a message dated 02/06/2000 3:10:40 PM Mountain Standard Time,
                > oneplez@... writes:
                >
                > << I totally disagree. Without an Army running around Tennessee,
                > threatening Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, Grant could
                > concentrate on trying to figure out how to beat Lee.
                >
                > Remember all the nagging telegrams and orders to remove Thomas for
                not
                > engaging Hood sooner at Nashville! Reading the O.R.'s for that
                period
                > gives you a sense of the panic Washington and the north was in
                > regarding Hood. And Thomas removed that panic.
                >
                > Just my opinions!
                >
                > Don Plezia
                > >>
                > Good Point. The idea of Hood rampaging through Ohio would certainly be
                > unsettling to Washington, to say the least. However, it is unlikely
                that he
                > could have accomplished anything that would change the final result,
                > particularly with Thomas' replacement, (Logan I believe), on his tail.

                I missed something here?

                Thomas was never replaced. After he destroyed Hood's Army, he was left
                to wallow in the backwaters of the west.

                >
                > In the meantime, Lee's forces were getting weaker and weaker due to
                lack of
                > supplies and desertions. Eventually, Sherman would have joined Grant
                and Lee
                > would have been doomed.
                >
                > Every general had his weaknesses (even Lee) and Thomas' was slowness
                in
                > starting. However, once he got started, he acted decisively and
                tenaciously.

                Now we are in complete disagreement. Thomas was never slow! The slow
                appelation was tacked on by Sherman and Grant to detract from Thomas's
                accomplishments. Remember Sherman never won a battle. Thomas never
                lost one. According to some definitions, prior preparations are defined
                as slow. If you cite his activities at Nashville as slow then you have
                to read the existing history. Thomas had to start an Army from scratch,
                and train most of it. Devise a plan to beat Forrest who was threatening
                Shermans trip to Savannah, guard the various detachments around the
                state, including the gunboats patrolling the various rivers, find out
                where Hood was going, plan to beat him, which he did handsomely and
                destroyed the second great army of the confederacy. In addition, he did
                this with second rate transportation and material. All the good stuff
                went with Sherman, to be used against old men and boys. And Thomas did
                this in about two months.

                Further info regardng 'slow'. In 1863 Thomas was ordered by Buell to
                march to Pea Ridge (?) KY from Chatannooga TN. He responded by
                immediately marching the 100 + miles in 5 days. He averaged 20 miles
                per day and arrived in time to march into line of battle. At the
                beginning of Sherman's campaign against Johnston, Grant ordered the
                campaing to start on May 2nd. Guess who was there on the 2nd, - Thomas!
                The campaign didn't start until the 5th tho because eveyone had to wait
                for McPherson, who was slow getting started. I can give other examples
                but, not off the top of my head.

                Don Plezia
              • Don Plezia
                ... From: To: Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 10:19 PM Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The Decisive Turning Point
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 7, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: <JackEhmer123@...>
                  To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                  Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 10:19 PM
                  Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The Decisive Turning Point


                  > In a message dated 02/06/2000 3:10:40 PM Mountain Standard Time,
                  > oneplez@... writes:
                  >
                  > << I totally disagree. Without an Army running around Tennessee,
                  > threatening Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, Grant could
                  > concentrate on trying to figure out how to beat Lee.
                  >
                  > Remember all the nagging telegrams and orders to remove Thomas for
                  not
                  > engaging Hood sooner at Nashville! Reading the O.R.'s for that
                  period
                  > gives you a sense of the panic Washington and the north was in
                  > regarding Hood. And Thomas removed that panic.
                  >
                  > Just my opinions!
                  >
                  > Don Plezia
                  > >>
                  > Good Point. The idea of Hood rampaging through Ohio would certainly be
                  > unsettling to Washington, to say the least. However, it is unlikely
                  that he
                  > could have accomplished anything that would change the final result,
                  > particularly with Thomas' replacement, (Logan I believe), on his tail.

                  I missed something here?

                  Thomas was never replaced. After he destroyed Hood's Army, he was left
                  to wallow in the backwaters of the west.

                  >
                  > In the meantime, Lee's forces were getting weaker and weaker due to
                  lack of
                  > supplies and desertions. Eventually, Sherman would have joined Grant
                  and Lee
                  > would have been doomed.
                  >
                  > Every general had his weaknesses (even Lee) and Thomas' was slowness
                  in
                  > starting. However, once he got started, he acted decisively and
                  tenaciously.

                  Now we are in complete disagreement. Thomas was never slow! The slow
                  appelation was tacked on by Sherman and Grant to detract from Thomas's
                  accomplishments. Remember Sherman never won a battle. Thomas never
                  lost one. According to some definitions, prior preparations are defined
                  as slow. If you cite his activities at Nashville as slow then you have
                  to read the existing history. Thomas had to start an Army from scratch,
                  and train most of it. Devise a plan to beat Forrest who was threatening
                  Shermans trip to Savannah, guard the various detachments around the
                  state, including the gunboats patrolling the various rivers, find out
                  where Hood was going, plan to beat him, which he did handsomely and
                  destroyed the second great army of the confederacy. In addition, he did
                  this with second rate transportation and material. All the good stuff
                  went with Sherman, to be used against old men and boys. And Thomas did
                  this in about two months.

                  Further info regardng 'slow'. In 1863 Thomas was ordered by Buell to
                  march to Pea Ridge (?) KY from Chatannooga TN. He responded by
                  immediately marching the 100 + miles in 5 days. He averaged 20 miles
                  per day and arrived in time to march into line of battle. At the
                  beginning of Sherman's campaign against Johnston, Grant ordered the
                  campaing to start on May 2nd. Guess who was there on the 2nd, - Thomas!
                  The campaign didn't start until the 5th tho because eveyone had to wait
                  for McPherson, who was slow getting started. I can give other examples
                  but, not off the top of my head.

                  Don Plezia
                • Dick Weeks
                  ... Interesting about Thomas and his perceived slowness. Some years ago I have the pleasure to participate, almost daily, in a Civil War Chat room, hosted by
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 7, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Don Plezia wrote:
                    Now we are in complete disagreement.  Thomas was never slow!  The slow
                    appelation was tacked on by Sherman and Grant to detract from Thomas's
                    accomplishments.  Remember Sherman never won a battle.  Thomas never
                    lost one.  According to some definitions, prior preparations are defined
                    as slow.  If you cite his activities at Nashville as slow then you have
                    to read the existing history.  Thomas had to start an Army from scratch,
                    and train most of it.  Devise a plan to beat Forrest who was threatening
                    Shermans trip to Savannah, guard the various detachments around the
                    state, including the gunboats patrolling the various rivers, find out
                    where Hood was going, plan to beat him, which he did handsomely and
                    destroyed the second great army of the confederacy.  In addition, he did
                    this with second rate transportation and material.  All the good stuff
                    went with Sherman, to be used against old men and boys.  And Thomas did
                    this in about two months.

                    Further info regardng 'slow'.  In 1863 Thomas was ordered by Buell to
                    march to Pea Ridge (?) KY from Chatannooga TN.  He responded by
                    immediately marching the 100 + miles in 5 days.  He averaged 20 miles
                    per day and arrived in time to march into line of battle.  At the
                    beginning of Sherman's campaign against Johnston, Grant ordered the
                    campaing to start on May 2nd.  Guess who was there on the 2nd, - Thomas!
                    The campaign didn't start until the 5th tho because eveyone had to wait
                    for McPherson, who was slow getting started.  I can give other examples
                    but, not off the top of my head.

                    Don Plezia

                    Interesting about Thomas and his perceived slowness.  Some years ago I have the pleasure to participate, almost daily, in a Civil War Chat room, hosted by WebAmerica, where we counted amongst our members a man who called himself "Irish." Although he had only one arm, Irish was a prolific typist and just loved to discuss the war with everyone he came in contact with in the room. He also would write short essay style papers for us all to ponder and discuss. Irish, was in fact, Dr. Ernest Butner, a well known and respected military history professor out of Pepperdine University.   Well, the good Dr. has since passed away, but his writings for the chat room are still with us on my website.  Among these is pretty good one on Thomas that I think you all might find enlightening in light of the current thread.

                    The Battle of Nashville
                    http://www.civilwarhome.com/nashvilleIrish.htm

                    If you want to read more of Dr. Butner's writing you can go to this section of my website,

                    A Tribute to Irish
                    http://www.civilwarhome.com/irishtribute.htm

                    There are 9 of Dr. Butner's short essays linked from this page. While they are all good, I think this group would be especially interested in two of them, besides the Thomas one I have linked above.  Those are "Key Moments in the Civil War" and "Joe Johnston."  I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I do.

                    I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                    Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                    http://www.civilwarhome.com

                  • Dick Weeks
                    ... Interesting about Thomas and his perceived slowness. Some years ago I have the pleasure to participate, almost daily, in a Civil War Chat room, hosted by
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 7, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Don Plezia wrote:
                      Now we are in complete disagreement.  Thomas was never slow!  The slow
                      appelation was tacked on by Sherman and Grant to detract from Thomas's
                      accomplishments.  Remember Sherman never won a battle.  Thomas never
                      lost one.  According to some definitions, prior preparations are defined
                      as slow.  If you cite his activities at Nashville as slow then you have
                      to read the existing history.  Thomas had to start an Army from scratch,
                      and train most of it.  Devise a plan to beat Forrest who was threatening
                      Shermans trip to Savannah, guard the various detachments around the
                      state, including the gunboats patrolling the various rivers, find out
                      where Hood was going, plan to beat him, which he did handsomely and
                      destroyed the second great army of the confederacy.  In addition, he did
                      this with second rate transportation and material.  All the good stuff
                      went with Sherman, to be used against old men and boys.  And Thomas did
                      this in about two months.

                      Further info regardng 'slow'.  In 1863 Thomas was ordered by Buell to
                      march to Pea Ridge (?) KY from Chatannooga TN.  He responded by
                      immediately marching the 100 + miles in 5 days.  He averaged 20 miles
                      per day and arrived in time to march into line of battle.  At the
                      beginning of Sherman's campaign against Johnston, Grant ordered the
                      campaing to start on May 2nd.  Guess who was there on the 2nd, - Thomas!
                      The campaign didn't start until the 5th tho because eveyone had to wait
                      for McPherson, who was slow getting started.  I can give other examples
                      but, not off the top of my head.

                      Don Plezia

                      Interesting about Thomas and his perceived slowness.  Some years ago I have the pleasure to participate, almost daily, in a Civil War Chat room, hosted by WebAmerica, where we counted amongst our members a man who called himself "Irish." Although he had only one arm, Irish was a prolific typist and just loved to discuss the war with everyone he came in contact with in the room. He also would write short essay style papers for us all to ponder and discuss. Irish, was in fact, Dr. Ernest Butner, a well known and respected military history professor out of Pepperdine University.   Well, the good Dr. has since passed away, but his writings for the chat room are still with us on my website.  Among these is pretty good one on Thomas that I think you all might find enlightening in light of the current thread.

                      The Battle of Nashville
                      http://www.civilwarhome.com/nashvilleIrish.htm

                      If you want to read more of Dr. Butner's writing you can go to this section of my website,

                      A Tribute to Irish
                      http://www.civilwarhome.com/irishtribute.htm

                      There are 9 of Dr. Butner's short essays linked from this page. While they are all good, I think this group would be especially interested in two of them, besides the Thomas one I have linked above.  Those are "Key Moments in the Civil War" and "Joe Johnston."  I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I do.

                      I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                      Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                      http://www.civilwarhome.com

                    • D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D.
                      Also recall that Grant considered the situation at Nashville in Dec. 1864 to be so critical that he actually was on his way to assume command there personally
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 7, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Also recall that Grant considered the situation at Nashville in Dec.
                        1864 to be so critical that he actually was on his way to assume command
                        there personally when he heard of Thomas' victory. Their fear was of
                        the "mortifying spectacle" of a Confederate army appearing on the banks
                        of the Ohio. In hindsight this does not appear to be a real
                        possibility, but it certainly was to those people not "on the ground" in
                        the West. Thomas may well have not seen the situation as being that
                        critical because he had a much clearer picture of what he was facing
                        than did his superiors. It is also fairly clear that his supposed
                        slowness in engaging Hood was fully justified on the grounds of both
                        logistics and weather. It was very unlikely that Hood could have taken
                        Nashville, although he might have if Thomas had suffered a disaster
                        against him.

                        Don Plezia wrote:
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: <JackEhmer123@...>
                        > To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                        > Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 1:40 PM
                        > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The Decisive Turning Point
                        >
                        > > Everyone seems to believe that if McClellan had won the election, that
                        > he
                        > > would have sued for peace and the South would have won their
                        > independence. I
                        > > don't believe that this theory is supported by the facts.
                        > >
                        > > First, McClellan was a War Democrat and was an "Union" man. He had
                        > already
                        > > repudiated the Peace Democrats' intent to simply let the Southern
                        > States go.
                        > > While many War Democrats opposed Lincoln's handling of the war, they
                        > had no
                        > > intention of just giving up.
                        >
                        > This is entirely correct.
                        >
                        > > Second, he would not have been inaugurated for nearly five months.
                        > Lincoln
                        > > had stated his intent to do everything possible to win the war before
                        > the
                        > > inauguration if he were defeated.
                        >
                        > Lincoln had all his cabinet officers sign a "Blind Memorandum" which in
                        > essence stated that in case of McClellan's election the Union should be
                        > saved before his (McClellan's) inauguration on 4 March, 1864. He read
                        > this to the cabinet shortly after his election.
                        >
                        > > Third, the capture of Atlanta was simply a matter of time, given the
                        > opposing
                        > > forces and opposing generals. Remember that the reason Hood was given
                        > the command was that Joe Johnston had already given up on Atlanta.
                        >
                        > You are correct here except, that it was at the time, not a foregone
                        > conclusion that Atlanta would be taken any time soon. Sherman had in
                        > late July,expressed his worries that he had not been bold enough and too
                        > cautious, and had lost three or more opportunities to "break up Joe
                        > Johnston's army.
                        >
                        > And as of August 23rd Lincoln was thinking about writing Sherman, to ask
                        > what his chances were of taking Atlanta. While we, with the benefit of
                        > hindsight know Atlanta was doomed, there were few around with the same
                        > conviction.
                        >
                        > > Fourth, Grant did not sit on his heels and wait for Sherman to win the
                        > war.
                        > > He knew that to decisively beat the ANV AND to capture Richmond was to
                        > > win the war.
                        >
                        > Correct again, but he was never able to figure out how to beat old
                        > Bobby. He sat in front of Petersburg for 10 months trying to figure
                        > that out.
                        >
                        > In fact, he intended to accomplish that before Sherman could come
                        > > along and share the glory. Sherman's main contribution in those
                        > > accomplishments was to keep Joe Johnston busy. Sheridan's
                        > contributions to
                        > > Lee's surrender were much more significant then Sherman's.
                        >
                        > Your right again! What the hell did vacationing in Savannah do for the
                        > war.
                        >
                        > > If McClellan had won, I believe that Sherman would have immediately
                        > headed
                        > > for Virginia after the capture of Atlanta. In terms of ending the war,
                        >
                        > Interesting conjecture!
                        >
                        > > Sherman's march to Savannah and up through the Carolinas accomplished
                        > little
                        > > except to further destroy Southern morale.
                        > >
                        > > While what happened to Hood's command at Franklin and Nashville was
                        > tragic in terms of lives lost, it played little part in the final
                        > outcome.
                        >
                        > I totally disagree. Without an Army running around Tennessee,
                        > threatening Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, Grant could
                        > concentrate on trying to figure out how to beat Lee.
                        >
                        > Remember all the nagging telegrams and orders to remove Thomas for not
                        > engaging Hood sooner at Nashville! Reading the O.R.'s for that period
                        > gives you a sence of the panic Washinngton and the north was in
                        > regarding Hood. And Thomas removed that panic.
                        >
                        > Just my opinions!
                        >
                        > Don Plezia
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > If you want to be single again,
                        > Don’t buy your Valentine a Gift by clicking here.
                        > http://click.egroups.com/1/1161/1/_/14182/_/949874913/
                        >
                        > -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
                        > -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=civilwarwest&m=1
                      • D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D.
                        Also recall that Grant considered the situation at Nashville in Dec. 1864 to be so critical that he actually was on his way to assume command there personally
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 7, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Also recall that Grant considered the situation at Nashville in Dec.
                          1864 to be so critical that he actually was on his way to assume command
                          there personally when he heard of Thomas' victory. Their fear was of
                          the "mortifying spectacle" of a Confederate army appearing on the banks
                          of the Ohio. In hindsight this does not appear to be a real
                          possibility, but it certainly was to those people not "on the ground" in
                          the West. Thomas may well have not seen the situation as being that
                          critical because he had a much clearer picture of what he was facing
                          than did his superiors. It is also fairly clear that his supposed
                          slowness in engaging Hood was fully justified on the grounds of both
                          logistics and weather. It was very unlikely that Hood could have taken
                          Nashville, although he might have if Thomas had suffered a disaster
                          against him.

                          Don Plezia wrote:
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: <JackEhmer123@...>
                          > To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                          > Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 1:40 PM
                          > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The Decisive Turning Point
                          >
                          > > Everyone seems to believe that if McClellan had won the election, that
                          > he
                          > > would have sued for peace and the South would have won their
                          > independence. I
                          > > don't believe that this theory is supported by the facts.
                          > >
                          > > First, McClellan was a War Democrat and was an "Union" man. He had
                          > already
                          > > repudiated the Peace Democrats' intent to simply let the Southern
                          > States go.
                          > > While many War Democrats opposed Lincoln's handling of the war, they
                          > had no
                          > > intention of just giving up.
                          >
                          > This is entirely correct.
                          >
                          > > Second, he would not have been inaugurated for nearly five months.
                          > Lincoln
                          > > had stated his intent to do everything possible to win the war before
                          > the
                          > > inauguration if he were defeated.
                          >
                          > Lincoln had all his cabinet officers sign a "Blind Memorandum" which in
                          > essence stated that in case of McClellan's election the Union should be
                          > saved before his (McClellan's) inauguration on 4 March, 1864. He read
                          > this to the cabinet shortly after his election.
                          >
                          > > Third, the capture of Atlanta was simply a matter of time, given the
                          > opposing
                          > > forces and opposing generals. Remember that the reason Hood was given
                          > the command was that Joe Johnston had already given up on Atlanta.
                          >
                          > You are correct here except, that it was at the time, not a foregone
                          > conclusion that Atlanta would be taken any time soon. Sherman had in
                          > late July,expressed his worries that he had not been bold enough and too
                          > cautious, and had lost three or more opportunities to "break up Joe
                          > Johnston's army.
                          >
                          > And as of August 23rd Lincoln was thinking about writing Sherman, to ask
                          > what his chances were of taking Atlanta. While we, with the benefit of
                          > hindsight know Atlanta was doomed, there were few around with the same
                          > conviction.
                          >
                          > > Fourth, Grant did not sit on his heels and wait for Sherman to win the
                          > war.
                          > > He knew that to decisively beat the ANV AND to capture Richmond was to
                          > > win the war.
                          >
                          > Correct again, but he was never able to figure out how to beat old
                          > Bobby. He sat in front of Petersburg for 10 months trying to figure
                          > that out.
                          >
                          > In fact, he intended to accomplish that before Sherman could come
                          > > along and share the glory. Sherman's main contribution in those
                          > > accomplishments was to keep Joe Johnston busy. Sheridan's
                          > contributions to
                          > > Lee's surrender were much more significant then Sherman's.
                          >
                          > Your right again! What the hell did vacationing in Savannah do for the
                          > war.
                          >
                          > > If McClellan had won, I believe that Sherman would have immediately
                          > headed
                          > > for Virginia after the capture of Atlanta. In terms of ending the war,
                          >
                          > Interesting conjecture!
                          >
                          > > Sherman's march to Savannah and up through the Carolinas accomplished
                          > little
                          > > except to further destroy Southern morale.
                          > >
                          > > While what happened to Hood's command at Franklin and Nashville was
                          > tragic in terms of lives lost, it played little part in the final
                          > outcome.
                          >
                          > I totally disagree. Without an Army running around Tennessee,
                          > threatening Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, Grant could
                          > concentrate on trying to figure out how to beat Lee.
                          >
                          > Remember all the nagging telegrams and orders to remove Thomas for not
                          > engaging Hood sooner at Nashville! Reading the O.R.'s for that period
                          > gives you a sence of the panic Washinngton and the north was in
                          > regarding Hood. And Thomas removed that panic.
                          >
                          > Just my opinions!
                          >
                          > Don Plezia
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > If you want to be single again,
                          > Don’t buy your Valentine a Gift by clicking here.
                          > http://click.egroups.com/1/1161/1/_/14182/_/949874913/
                          >
                          > -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
                          > -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=civilwarwest&m=1
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.