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

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

Expand Messages
  • tsalagibra@aol.com
    Mr. Plezia, Reading back on what I wrote, I too find it inexplicable .
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 6, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • tsalagibra@aol.com
      Mr. Plezia, Reading back on what I wrote, I too find it inexplicable .
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 6, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.