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 9:33 AM
    • 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 3:52 PM
      • 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 3 of 20 , Apr 6 7:26 AM
        • 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 4 of 20 , Apr 6 10:39 AM
          • 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 5 of 20 , Apr 6 11:33 AM
            • 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 6 of 20 , Apr 6 11:35 AM
              • 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 7 of 20 , Apr 6 12:41 PM
                • 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 8 of 20 , Apr 6 12:41 PM
                  • 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 9 of 20 , Apr 7 9:43 AM
                    • 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 10 of 20 , Apr 7 9:43 AM
                      • 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 11 of 20 , Apr 7 10:41 AM
                        • 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 12 of 20 , Apr 7 10:41 AM
                          • 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 13 of 20 , Apr 7 10:47 AM
                            • 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 14 of 20 , Apr 7 10:47 AM
                              • 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.