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

Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston had replaced Pemberton at vicksburg?

Expand Messages
  • jwolf
    I believe that Johnston would have abandoned Vicksburg earlier, rather than hang on to the bitter end. Johnston always favored sacrificing territory over
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 5, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I believe that Johnston would have abandoned Vicksburg earlier, rather than
      hang on to the bitter end. Johnston always favored sacrificing territory
      over sacrificing his soldiers, as evidenced by his retreat from the Manassas
      area earlier in the war, leaving behind big guns, and burning all sorts of
      stores to lighten his load, and prevent his intentions of retreat from being
      detected, and also by his "dance with Sherman"......In hindsight, Vicksburg
      was lost, and the CSA might have been better off if Pemberton had abandoned
      the city, although this may not be strictly true in terms of manpower: One
      of Grant's objections to exchanging prisoners was that the captured
      Confederates paroled at Vicksburg, showed up in the fighting again long
      before being formally exchanged. (Correct me if I'm wrong) At any rate,
      Pemberton felt that Johnston had abandoned him, and refused to shake his
      hand upon their next(final?) meeting. Please forgive and correct any
      inaccuracies I may have included.......

      Breck
    • aero1485@aol.com
      I believe that if Johnston would have replaced Pemberton at Vicksburg, he would ve abandoned earlier. This is based on the basic fact that Johnston has been
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 5, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        I believe that if Johnston would have replaced Pemberton at Vicksburg, he
        would've abandoned earlier. This is based on the basic fact that Johnston
        has been known for fighting and running if it meant he would fight another
        day. This maneuver would've saved many men at Vicksburg, and the Confederacy
        would've probably lasted a little longer than it did. Someone correct any
        mistakes I have made or any flaws in the logic I used (I'm still fairly new
        to the more advanced Civil War discussion).
      • aero1485@aol.com
        I believe that if Johnston would have replaced Pemberton at Vicksburg, he would ve abandoned earlier. This is based on the basic fact that Johnston has been
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 5, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          I believe that if Johnston would have replaced Pemberton at Vicksburg, he
          would've abandoned earlier. This is based on the basic fact that Johnston
          has been known for fighting and running if it meant he would fight another
          day. This maneuver would've saved many men at Vicksburg, and the Confederacy
          would've probably lasted a little longer than it did. Someone correct any
          mistakes I have made or any flaws in the logic I used (I'm still fairly new
          to the more advanced Civil War discussion).
        • hvonbork@aol.com
          Hello Group: With all the Pemberton critiques to date considered, may I offer these thoughts: He was not the first overly confident (some might prefer
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 6, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Group:
            With all the Pemberton critiques to date considered, may I offer these
            thoughts:
            He was not the first overly confident (some might prefer arrogant)
            General, Blue or Grey.
            He did rather well holding Vicksburg despite previous lapses.
            He was up against one helluva persistent General.
            He served out the balance of the War as a desk-job light Colonel in
            Richmond which tells something of the heart and character of the man.
            Just idle thoughts on the preceding posts.
            Heros
          • hvonbork@aol.com
            Hello Group: With all the Pemberton critiques to date considered, may I offer these thoughts: He was not the first overly confident (some might prefer
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 6, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Group:
              With all the Pemberton critiques to date considered, may I offer these
              thoughts:
              He was not the first overly confident (some might prefer arrogant)
              General, Blue or Grey.
              He did rather well holding Vicksburg despite previous lapses.
              He was up against one helluva persistent General.
              He served out the balance of the War as a desk-job light Colonel in
              Richmond which tells something of the heart and character of the man.
              Just idle thoughts on the preceding posts.
              Heros
            • averygacav@aol.com
              Everyone may as well wade in on this.....Pemberton owed his loyalty as a MILITARY officer to his immediate superior, Johnston. It seems he may have been
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 6, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Everyone may as well wade in on this.....Pemberton owed his loyalty as a
                MILITARY officer to his immediate superior, Johnston. It seems he may have
                been looking ahead to the end of the war and a political plum when he decided
                to superceed commands from the chain of command on his own initiative. It
                really doesn't matter if Vicksburg was well defended if his orders were to
                move out and attack. Davis' redress if he disagreed as C-in-C would have been
                with Johnston.
              • averygacav@aol.com
                Everyone may as well wade in on this.....Pemberton owed his loyalty as a MILITARY officer to his immediate superior, Johnston. It seems he may have been
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 6, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Everyone may as well wade in on this.....Pemberton owed his loyalty as a
                  MILITARY officer to his immediate superior, Johnston. It seems he may have
                  been looking ahead to the end of the war and a political plum when he decided
                  to superceed commands from the chain of command on his own initiative. It
                  really doesn't matter if Vicksburg was well defended if his orders were to
                  move out and attack. Davis' redress if he disagreed as C-in-C would have been
                  with Johnston.
                • Don Plezia
                  I agree the blame belongs to Davis. Grant did divide his army and sent Sherman with about 40,000 troops to Jackson to take on Johnston and his 30,000+/-. At
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 6, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I agree the blame belongs to Davis.

                    Grant did divide his army and sent Sherman with about 40,000 troops to
                    Jackson to take on Johnston and his 30,000+/-. At the same time he
                    kept about 30,000 employed in the siege of Vicksburg.

                    Johnston's idea to save the army and its munitions and stores was the
                    correct one. You don't fight wars without armies.

                    Don Plezia

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: <bobwatt@...>
                    To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                    Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 10:41 AM
                    Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston had replaced Pemberton at
                    vicksburg?


                    > The orders were to hold Vicksburg.
                    > Any commander would have to obay that standing order, I don't care
                    who
                    > he was. The loss of Vicksburg was a disaster to the Southern Cause. I
                    > tend to put the blame on Pres. Davis himself for not giving more
                    support
                    > for the defence of the city. If Johnston had put his army motion,
                    Grant
                    > may have been forced to divide his army and move on Johnston. Who
                    knows
                    > for sure. Jreb (Bob)
                    >
                    >
                    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    --
                    > Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
                    > Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
                    > Install today:
                    > http://click.egroups.com/1/2344/2/_/14182/_/955032079/
                    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    --
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Don Plezia
                    I agree the blame belongs to Davis. Grant did divide his army and sent Sherman with about 40,000 troops to Jackson to take on Johnston and his 30,000+/-. At
                    Message 9 of 20 , Apr 6, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I agree the blame belongs to Davis.

                      Grant did divide his army and sent Sherman with about 40,000 troops to
                      Jackson to take on Johnston and his 30,000+/-. At the same time he
                      kept about 30,000 employed in the siege of Vicksburg.

                      Johnston's idea to save the army and its munitions and stores was the
                      correct one. You don't fight wars without armies.

                      Don Plezia

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: <bobwatt@...>
                      To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                      Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 10:41 AM
                      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston had replaced Pemberton at
                      vicksburg?


                      > The orders were to hold Vicksburg.
                      > Any commander would have to obay that standing order, I don't care
                      who
                      > he was. The loss of Vicksburg was a disaster to the Southern Cause. I
                      > tend to put the blame on Pres. Davis himself for not giving more
                      support
                      > for the defence of the city. If Johnston had put his army motion,
                      Grant
                      > may have been forced to divide his army and move on Johnston. Who
                      knows
                      > for sure. Jreb (Bob)
                      >
                      >
                      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                      --
                      > Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
                      > Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
                      > Install today:
                      > http://click.egroups.com/1/2344/2/_/14182/_/955032079/
                      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                      --
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Don Plezia
                      Yes, he did! Then tried to shift the blame to Johnston, which Davis was only too happy to accept. Don Plezia ... From: David Woodbury
                      Message 10 of 20 , Apr 6, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yes, he did! Then tried to shift the blame to Johnston, which Davis was
                        only too happy to accept.

                        Don Plezia
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "David Woodbury" <woodbury@...>
                        To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                        Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 12:55 PM
                        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston had replaced Pemberton at
                        vicksburg?


                        > At 10:41 AM -0400 4/6/00, bobwatt@... wrote:
                        > >The orders were to hold Vicksburg.
                        > >Any commander would have to obay that standing order, I don't care
                        who
                        > >he was.
                        >
                        > Davis's was not an order, though Pemberton saw it that way. On the
                        > other hand, Pemberton disobeyed the direct orders of his superior
                        > (Johnston), did he not?
                        >
                        > David
                        >
                        >
                        > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                        --
                        > Win $1000 at eGroups!
                        > Click here to find out how:
                        > http://click.egroups.com/1/2861/2/_/14182/_/955040352/
                        > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                        --
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Don Plezia
                        Yes, he did! Then tried to shift the blame to Johnston, which Davis was only too happy to accept. Don Plezia ... From: David Woodbury
                        Message 11 of 20 , Apr 6, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yes, he did! Then tried to shift the blame to Johnston, which Davis was
                          only too happy to accept.

                          Don Plezia
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "David Woodbury" <woodbury@...>
                          To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                          Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 12:55 PM
                          Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston had replaced Pemberton at
                          vicksburg?


                          > At 10:41 AM -0400 4/6/00, bobwatt@... wrote:
                          > >The orders were to hold Vicksburg.
                          > >Any commander would have to obay that standing order, I don't care
                          who
                          > >he was.
                          >
                          > Davis's was not an order, though Pemberton saw it that way. On the
                          > other hand, Pemberton disobeyed the direct orders of his superior
                          > (Johnston), did he not?
                          >
                          > David
                          >
                          >
                          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          --
                          > Win $1000 at eGroups!
                          > Click here to find out how:
                          > http://click.egroups.com/1/2861/2/_/14182/_/955040352/
                          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          --
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • aero1485@aol.com
                          Whether or not direct orders were given, Pemberton interpreted them that way. And no general would disobey orders like this without feeling the effect. I now
                          Message 12 of 20 , Apr 6, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Whether or not direct orders were given, Pemberton interpreted them that way.
                            And no general would disobey orders like this without feeling the effect. I
                            now believe that if Johnston replaced Pemberton, he would've done the same
                            thing...to an extent. He had to hold VIcksburg, and unless Johnston (if he
                            replaced Pemberton) thought it was ABSOLUTELY hopeless, he wouldn't abandon
                            Vicksburg.
                            Aero
                          • aero1485@aol.com
                            Whether or not direct orders were given, Pemberton interpreted them that way. And no general would disobey orders like this without feeling the effect. I now
                            Message 13 of 20 , Apr 6, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Whether or not direct orders were given, Pemberton interpreted them that way.
                              And no general would disobey orders like this without feeling the effect. I
                              now believe that if Johnston replaced Pemberton, he would've done the same
                              thing...to an extent. He had to hold VIcksburg, and unless Johnston (if he
                              replaced Pemberton) thought it was ABSOLUTELY hopeless, he wouldn't abandon
                              Vicksburg.
                              Aero
                            • Don Plezia
                              Why? Don Plezia ... From: To: Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston
                              Message 14 of 20 , Apr 7, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Why?

                                Don Plezia

                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: <bobwatt@...>
                                To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 12:09 PM
                                Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston had replaced Pemberton at
                                vicksburg?


                                > Control of the river was vital to the South. Jreb
                                >
                                >
                                > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                --
                                > Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
                                > Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
                                > Install today:
                                > http://click.egroups.com/1/2344/2/_/14182/_/955123792/
                                > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                --
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • Don Plezia
                                Why? Don Plezia ... From: To: Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston
                                Message 15 of 20 , Apr 7, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Why?

                                  Don Plezia

                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: <bobwatt@...>
                                  To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                  Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 12:09 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston had replaced Pemberton at
                                  vicksburg?


                                  > Control of the river was vital to the South. Jreb
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  --
                                  > Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
                                  > Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
                                  > Install today:
                                  > http://click.egroups.com/1/2344/2/_/14182/_/955123792/
                                  > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  --
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • aero1485@aol.com
                                  I remember being taught (or it seemed like it) that the Civil War was fought for the freedom of slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation freed them. It
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Apr 7, 2000
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I remember being taught (or it seemed like it) that the Civil War was fought
                                    for the freedom of slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation freed them. It
                                    wasn't until 8th grade that I learned the truth and really got interested in
                                    the Civil War. Don't get me wrong, Lincoln is my favorite president, but the
                                    Emancipation Proclamation was a good way to work the system. However, we are
                                    not here to discuss politics in the East.
                                    Aero
                                  • aero1485@aol.com
                                    I remember being taught (or it seemed like it) that the Civil War was fought for the freedom of slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation freed them. It
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Apr 7, 2000
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I remember being taught (or it seemed like it) that the Civil War was fought
                                      for the freedom of slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation freed them. It
                                      wasn't until 8th grade that I learned the truth and really got interested in
                                      the Civil War. Don't get me wrong, Lincoln is my favorite president, but the
                                      Emancipation Proclamation was a good way to work the system. However, we are
                                      not here to discuss politics in the East.
                                      Aero
                                    • Don Plezia
                                      I answered a post earlier in which I debated the significance of Vicksburg s fall. In it I recited the large quantities of confederate stores captured by
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Apr 7, 2000
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I answered a post earlier in which I debated the significance of
                                        Vicksburg's fall. In it I recited the large quantities of confederate
                                        stores captured by Union forces at and after the end of the war (two
                                        years later).

                                        I would like to continue the argument by stating the the Confederacy was
                                        not "Cut in Half", but cut by a Fourth. Only Texas, Arkansas and
                                        Louisiana plus a couple of provisional territories (not counted) were on
                                        the wrong side of the river. The eight other states on the eastern bank
                                        of the Mississippi had most of the population, most of the cotton, most
                                        of the food growing capabilities and etc.

                                        I'm not aware of any printed sources to give you but most of my
                                        statistics came from "Battles and Leaders"

                                        Don Plezia


                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D." <daburden@...>
                                        To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                        Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:37 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston had replaced Pemberton at
                                        vicksburg?


                                        > Can anyone provide (or direct me to) some hard information with
                                        regards
                                        > to the significance of Vicksburg? Just how much of the CSA resources
                                        > were stranded in the Trans-Mississippi? If it wasn't doomed from the
                                        > outset, was Vicksburg really what sealed the fate of the CSA? I ask
                                        not
                                        > to argue, but rather because I remain unconvinced it was as
                                        significant
                                        > an event as it is usually portrayed and would like to know what to
                                        read
                                        > to convince me.
                                        > Andy
                                        >
                                        > tsalagibra@... wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > Mr. Plezia,
                                        > >
                                        > > << I find your statement that 'Johnston would have surrendered
                                        sooner'
                                        > > inexplicable >>
                                        > > Reading back on what I wrote, I too find it "inexplicable".
                                        What I meant
                                        > > to say was that he would have "surrendered *Vicksburg* sooner" by
                                        vacating
                                        > > the area with his command.
                                        > >
                                        > > <<As to Vicksburg being the turning point of the war; we must
                                        remember
                                        > > that it (the war) went on vigorously for another two years. Turning
                                        > > points imply to me that the end is in sight.>>
                                        > > I believe, sir, we using the some phrase to indicate two
                                        different
                                        > > meanings.
                                        > > Turning Point is generally considered as that point in a war,
                                        battle, or
                                        > > skirmish when one side gains a strategic or tactical advantage which
                                        far
                                        > > outweighs the corresponding loss to the other side.
                                        > > Also, I believe what you are referring to is generally known in
                                        chess
                                        > > circles as "endgame". This is the phase of the game to which you
                                        have the
                                        > > power and position to force the checkmate. However, in order to
                                        achieve that
                                        > > power and position there was some move or series of moves during the
                                        "middle
                                        > > game" which gave birth to your advantage. This move or series would
                                        be the
                                        > > "turning point".
                                        > > During the actual course of a war or battle you will never know
                                        when the
                                        > > "turning point" was achieved without, of course, the benefit of
                                        psychic
                                        > > abilities. Therefore, it would necessarily follow that this moment
                                        can only
                                        > > be observed from the vantage point of history when you can review
                                        the entire
                                        > > event in context and, hopefully, determine the move or series of
                                        moves which
                                        > > turned the fortunes of war to your favor.
                                        > > Looking back from our vantage point of history one can readily
                                        see that
                                        > > when the Federals regained complete and unmolested access to the
                                        Mississippi
                                        > > River; that when the Confederacy was divided (which, by the way, is
                                        Step 1 in
                                        > > the classic maneuver called "divide and conquer") and had lost
                                        access (even
                                        > > mail/telegraph contact) with half of their country; I believe it
                                        would be a
                                        > > fair assessment to say it was the turning point of the war. A major
                                        > > objective had been gained for the Union and it's corresponding loss
                                        to the
                                        > > Confederacy was overwhelming.
                                        > > All that remained for the Federals to accomplish after this
                                        division was
                                        > > Step 2 (conquer). Which they performed to an exacting degree.
                                        > >
                                        > > <<You must read some considered opinions of the battle before you
                                        make
                                        > > statements such as you did. >>
                                        > > Thank you for the advice. However, "considered opinions" could
                                        be a
                                        > > relative term in this case.
                                        > >
                                        > > Respectfully,
                                        > >
                                        > > Steve McGraw
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        --
                                        > > Save up to 54% on Quest & Kelty tents, backpacks, sleeping bags and
                                        > > outdoor gear. FREE Shipping and a 30 Day Money-Back Guarantee at
                                        > > screaminghotdeals.com
                                        > > http://click.egroups.com/1/2716/2/_/14182/_/955049348/
                                        >
                                        > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        --
                                        >
                                        > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        --
                                        > @Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.
                                        > Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:
                                        > http://click.egroups.com/1/2345/2/_/14182/_/955117567/
                                        > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        --
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • Don Plezia
                                        I answered a post earlier in which I debated the significance of Vicksburg s fall. In it I recited the large quantities of confederate stores captured by
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Apr 7, 2000
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I answered a post earlier in which I debated the significance of
                                          Vicksburg's fall. In it I recited the large quantities of confederate
                                          stores captured by Union forces at and after the end of the war (two
                                          years later).

                                          I would like to continue the argument by stating the the Confederacy was
                                          not "Cut in Half", but cut by a Fourth. Only Texas, Arkansas and
                                          Louisiana plus a couple of provisional territories (not counted) were on
                                          the wrong side of the river. The eight other states on the eastern bank
                                          of the Mississippi had most of the population, most of the cotton, most
                                          of the food growing capabilities and etc.

                                          I'm not aware of any printed sources to give you but most of my
                                          statistics came from "Battles and Leaders"

                                          Don Plezia


                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: "D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D." <daburden@...>
                                          To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                                          Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:37 AM
                                          Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] What if Johnston had replaced Pemberton at
                                          vicksburg?


                                          > Can anyone provide (or direct me to) some hard information with
                                          regards
                                          > to the significance of Vicksburg? Just how much of the CSA resources
                                          > were stranded in the Trans-Mississippi? If it wasn't doomed from the
                                          > outset, was Vicksburg really what sealed the fate of the CSA? I ask
                                          not
                                          > to argue, but rather because I remain unconvinced it was as
                                          significant
                                          > an event as it is usually portrayed and would like to know what to
                                          read
                                          > to convince me.
                                          > Andy
                                          >
                                          > tsalagibra@... wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > Mr. Plezia,
                                          > >
                                          > > << I find your statement that 'Johnston would have surrendered
                                          sooner'
                                          > > inexplicable >>
                                          > > Reading back on what I wrote, I too find it "inexplicable".
                                          What I meant
                                          > > to say was that he would have "surrendered *Vicksburg* sooner" by
                                          vacating
                                          > > the area with his command.
                                          > >
                                          > > <<As to Vicksburg being the turning point of the war; we must
                                          remember
                                          > > that it (the war) went on vigorously for another two years. Turning
                                          > > points imply to me that the end is in sight.>>
                                          > > I believe, sir, we using the some phrase to indicate two
                                          different
                                          > > meanings.
                                          > > Turning Point is generally considered as that point in a war,
                                          battle, or
                                          > > skirmish when one side gains a strategic or tactical advantage which
                                          far
                                          > > outweighs the corresponding loss to the other side.
                                          > > Also, I believe what you are referring to is generally known in
                                          chess
                                          > > circles as "endgame". This is the phase of the game to which you
                                          have the
                                          > > power and position to force the checkmate. However, in order to
                                          achieve that
                                          > > power and position there was some move or series of moves during the
                                          "middle
                                          > > game" which gave birth to your advantage. This move or series would
                                          be the
                                          > > "turning point".
                                          > > During the actual course of a war or battle you will never know
                                          when the
                                          > > "turning point" was achieved without, of course, the benefit of
                                          psychic
                                          > > abilities. Therefore, it would necessarily follow that this moment
                                          can only
                                          > > be observed from the vantage point of history when you can review
                                          the entire
                                          > > event in context and, hopefully, determine the move or series of
                                          moves which
                                          > > turned the fortunes of war to your favor.
                                          > > Looking back from our vantage point of history one can readily
                                          see that
                                          > > when the Federals regained complete and unmolested access to the
                                          Mississippi
                                          > > River; that when the Confederacy was divided (which, by the way, is
                                          Step 1 in
                                          > > the classic maneuver called "divide and conquer") and had lost
                                          access (even
                                          > > mail/telegraph contact) with half of their country; I believe it
                                          would be a
                                          > > fair assessment to say it was the turning point of the war. A major
                                          > > objective had been gained for the Union and it's corresponding loss
                                          to the
                                          > > Confederacy was overwhelming.
                                          > > All that remained for the Federals to accomplish after this
                                          division was
                                          > > Step 2 (conquer). Which they performed to an exacting degree.
                                          > >
                                          > > <<You must read some considered opinions of the battle before you
                                          make
                                          > > statements such as you did. >>
                                          > > Thank you for the advice. However, "considered opinions" could
                                          be a
                                          > > relative term in this case.
                                          > >
                                          > > Respectfully,
                                          > >
                                          > > Steve McGraw
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          --
                                          > > Save up to 54% on Quest & Kelty tents, backpacks, sleeping bags and
                                          > > outdoor gear. FREE Shipping and a 30 Day Money-Back Guarantee at
                                          > > screaminghotdeals.com
                                          > > http://click.egroups.com/1/2716/2/_/14182/_/955049348/
                                          >
                                          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          --
                                          >
                                          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          --
                                          > @Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.
                                          > Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:
                                          > http://click.egroups.com/1/2345/2/_/14182/_/955117567/
                                          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          --
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.