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

Re: Fifteen Most Under Rated Battles of the Civil War

Expand Messages
  • wakefield1952@msn.com
    Mr. Smith- I had the same reaction as you when I saw Vicksburg make the list. I think the inclusion of the Battle of Vicksburg shows just how little is
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 12, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Mr. Smith-
      I had the same reaction as you when I saw Vicksburg make the list.
      I think the inclusion of the "Battle of Vicksburg" shows just how
      little is generally known of the particulars of this campaign, by
      even modestly well-read Civil War buffs.
      It is my humble belief, that the definitive 'readable' Vicksburg
      Campaign work remains to be written. While I am sure you would agree
      that Bearss' three volumn work is a monumental research work and a
      treasure trove of information somehow it somewhat misses the mark.
      I think that at times it is too detailed and the result becomes that
      the reader can not seem to see and understand the forest for the
      trees. At least this seemed to occur with me.
      Although much time and effort is spent by us 'buffs' discussing
      and analyizing the Grant and Sherman characters and to a lesser
      degree Pemberton and Joe Johnston, I think that written history has
      failed to give due attention, credit or blame to the many other
      leaders of this critical campaign - Bowen, Porter, McPherson,
      Loring, Grierson, Stevenson, Oglesby, Steele, Gregg, McClernand,
      Walker, Logan - just to name a few.
      It seems to me that the Vicksburg, rather than Gettysburg
      Campaign, is a much better demonstration of the underlying themes
      that resulted in ultimate Union victory in the war.

      Just my opinion I could be wrong-
      Wakefield
    • carlw4514@yahoo.com
      I agree about Bearss, he seems to be a writer that is an odd comination of good readability combined with often over-dense detail; he can t seem to cull out
      Message 2 of 28 , Nov 12, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree about Bearss, he seems to be a writer that is an odd
        comination of good readability combined with often over-dense detail;
        he can't seem to cull out stuff that is interesting to him but would
        not be so fascinating to the average reader.
        What was fascinating was to see his enthusiasm - and
        eccentric style - when he was included in the Ken Burns and other
        documentaries. I know some of you know him.
        Carl
        --- In civilwarwest@y..., wakefield1952@m... wrote:
        > Mr. Smith-
        > I had the same reaction as you when I saw Vicksburg make the list.
        > I think the inclusion of the "Battle of Vicksburg" shows just how
        > little is generally known of the particulars of this campaign, by
        > even modestly well-read Civil War buffs.
        > It is my humble belief, that the definitive 'readable' Vicksburg
        > Campaign work remains to be written. While I am sure you would agree
        > that Bearss' three volumn work is a monumental research work and a
        > treasure trove of information somehow it somewhat misses the mark.
        > I think that at times it is too detailed and the result becomes that
        > the reader can not seem to see and understand the forest for the
        > trees. At least this seemed to occur with me.
        > Although much time and effort is spent by us 'buffs' discussing
        > and analyizing the Grant and Sherman characters and to a lesser
        > degree Pemberton and Joe Johnston, I think that written history has

        > failed to give due attention, credit or blame to the many other
        > leaders of this critical campaign - Bowen, Porter, McPherson,
        > Loring, Grierson, Stevenson, Oglesby, Steele, Gregg, McClernand,
        > Walker, Logan - just to name a few.
        > It seems to me that the Vicksburg, rather than Gettysburg
        > Campaign, is a much better demonstration of the underlying themes
        > that resulted in ultimate Union victory in the war.
        >
        > Just my opinion I could be wrong-
        > Wakefield
      • Dave Smith
        ... I tend to agree. ... I agree again. Ed s work is monumental, but is first and foremost a military treatment. And let s face it - Bruce Catton, or Shelby
        Message 3 of 28 , Nov 13, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In civilwarwest@y..., wakefield1952@m... wrote:
          > Mr. Smith-
          > I had the same reaction as you when I saw Vicksburg make the
          > list. I think the inclusion of the "Battle of Vicksburg" shows just
          > how little is generally known of the particulars of this campaign,
          > by even modestly well-read Civil War buffs.

          I tend to agree.

          > It is my humble belief, that the definitive 'readable' Vicksburg
          > Campaign work remains to be written. While I am sure you would
          > agree that Bearss' three volumn work is a monumental research work
          > and a treasure trove of information somehow it somewhat misses the
          > mark. I think that at times it is too detailed and the result
          > becomes that the reader can not seem to see and understand the
          > forest for the trees. At least this seemed to occur with me.

          I agree again. Ed's work is monumental, but is first and foremost a
          military treatment. And let's face it - Bruce Catton, or Shelby
          Foote, Ed isn't.

          I think the best single-volume work is the somewhat obscure, and out-
          of-print, work by Samuel Carter III titled "Vicksburg: The Final
          Fortress."

          The problem, I think, is simply the question of how to condense
          everything, Union and Confederate military issues, Union and
          Confederate political issues, and Vicksburg civilians into one single
          volume. It reminds me of the relative degree of disappointment I
          felt when reading Sears' work on the Peninsula Campaign.

          > Although much time and effort is spent by us 'buffs' discussing
          > and analyizing the Grant and Sherman characters and to a lesser
          > degree Pemberton and Joe Johnston, I think that written history
          > has failed to give due attention, credit or blame to the many
          > other leaders of this critical campaign - Bowen, Porter, McPherson,
          > Loring, Grierson, Stevenson, Oglesby, Steele, Gregg, McClernand,
          > Walker, Logan - just to name a few.

          I've also thought that perhaps a Gordon Rhea-style approach - a
          series of relative standalone books, which encompasses the whole,
          might well work. The problem is, I think, that the part people want
          to get to - post Bruinsburg - comes later in such a series. Perhaps
          they'd have to be written out of order.

          I'd be interested to hear Brooks's thoughts on this.

          > It seems to me that the Vicksburg, rather than Gettysburg
          > Campaign, is a much better demonstration of the underlying themes
          > that resulted in ultimate Union victory in the war.

          If you subscribe to the belief that the Confederacy lost the war in
          the west, it certainly does. And let's face it, the farther one
          moves west from Jefferson Davis's desk in Richmond, the weaker his
          performance as Commander-in-Chief becomes.

          Dave
        • Dave Smith
          ... snip ... Ed was kind enough to do several things for me with the Pemberton manuscript - not only read it, and write the foreword for it, but also
          Message 4 of 28 , Nov 13, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In civilwarwest@y..., carlw4514@y... wrote:

            snip

            > What was fascinating was to see his enthusiasm - and
            > eccentric style - when he was included in the Ken Burns and other
            > documentaries. I know some of you know him.

            Ed was kind enough to do several things for me with the Pemberton
            manuscript - not only read it, and write the foreword for it, but
            also painstakingly catch a number of mistakes I'd made in my section
            of writing. It's simply amazing how many ways you can
            mispell "Yalobusha" and not even realize it.

            The other thing about Ed is that for Historian Emeritus of the NPS,
            you will not find a more down-to-earth guy. Many times, scholars at
            Civil War conferences tend to be somewhat aloof, keeping to
            themselves and not mingling with the audience. Not Ed. He is always
            out in the crowd, introducing himself, and making the life of the
            conference coordinators a heck of a lot easier.

            Dave

            Dave Smith
            Villa Hills, KY
          • Aurelie1999@aol.com
            I agree that the Samuel Carter book published in 1980 is quite good and very readable. For me it was a solid basis to begin understanding the Vicksburg
            Message 5 of 28 , Nov 13, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              I agree that the Samuel Carter book published in 1980 is quite good and very
              readable. For me it was a solid basis to begin understanding the Vicksburg
              campaign. Carter does a pretty good job weaving all the elements into one
              panorama. He may not be Bearss equal in knowledge or presenting detail, but
              I thought it was still good. My problem with Bearss is the same as everyone
              else, I can't get through the mire of his minutiae. His articles in Blue and
              Gray persuaded me to avoid his more extensive work as I don't have the
              chessboard facility for conquering microscopic smidgens and assembling iota
              into a comprehensive whole.

              Connie
            • brooksdsimpson@yahoo.com
              ... want ... Perhaps ... I think that it is true that the lead-up to the April movements would be slow going for some people -- I know that I found myself
              Message 6 of 28 , Nov 13, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:

                > I've also thought that perhaps a Gordon Rhea-style approach - a
                > series of relative standalone books, which encompasses the whole,
                > might well work. The problem is, I think, that the part people
                want
                > to get to - post Bruinsburg - comes later in such a series.
                Perhaps
                > they'd have to be written out of order.
                >
                > I'd be interested to hear Brooks's thoughts on this.

                I think that it is true that the lead-up to the April movements would
                be slow going for some people -- I know that I found myself impatient
                to get on to the crossing when I wrote my chapter on Vicksburg -- and
                that the period after May 22 is largely ignored (which is one reason
                the Yazoo bender story gets so much play -- the assumption is that
                nothing was going on, when in fact a great deal was going on).

                There's probably room for two solid single-volume studies. One would
                be primarily a military study, not as detailed as that offered in
                Ed's OR-bound narrative; I found the recent James Arnold book to be a
                disappointment in that it simply reoffered what was offered before.
                The second would be a study that took a larger view of the campaign,
                complete with its relation to politics and social change -- life
                inside Vicksburg, what happened along the line of march, the
                induction and training of black soldiers, and so on.

                The military study might also shift the camera from Grant to
                Pemberton once in a while. Too often the Confederate leaders are
                treated as objects, awaiting Grant's next decision. Put yourself in
                Pemberton's place on April 15, 1863, and tell me what you do for the
                next five weeks.

                Finally, I don't think people appreciate how this was truly Grant's
                finest hour. We give that notion lip service, but the fact is that
                Grant was simply brilliant during the campaign. Not flawless, but
                brilliant -- with a good bit of guts thrown in.
              • Michael Mason
                Grant was at his finest hour,but there was little or no margin of error in this campaign. The Baron On 13-Nov-01, brooksdsimpson@yahoo.com wrote:
                Message 7 of 28 , Nov 13, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Grant was at his finest hour,but there was little or no margin
                  of error in this campaign. The Baron


                  On 13-Nov-01, brooksdsimpson@... wrote:
                  <html><body>
                  <tt>
                  --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:<BR>
                  <BR>
                  > I've also thought that perhaps a Gordon Rhea-style approach - a <BR>
                  > series of relative standalone books, which encompasses the whole, <BR>
                  > might well work.� The problem is, I think, that the part people <BR>
                  want <BR>
                  > to get to - post Bruinsburg - comes later in such a series.� <BR>
                  Perhaps <BR>
                  > they'd have to be written out of order.<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > I'd be interested to hear Brooks's thoughts on this.<BR>
                  <BR>
                  I think that it is true that the lead-up to the April movements would <BR>
                  be slow going for some people -- I know that I found myself impatient <BR>
                  to get on to the crossing when I wrote my chapter on Vicksburg -- and <BR>
                  that the period after May 22 is largely ignored (which is one reason <BR>
                  the Yazoo bender story gets so much play -- the assumption is that <BR>
                  nothing was going on, when in fact a great deal was going on).� <BR>
                  <BR>
                  There's probably room for two solid single-volume studies.� One would <BR>
                  be primarily a military study, not as detailed as that offered in <BR>
                  Ed's OR-bound narrative; I found the recent James Arnold book to be a <BR>
                  disappointment in that it simply reoffered what was offered before.� <BR>
                  The second would be a study that took a larger view of the campaign, <BR>
                  complete with its relation to politics and social change -- life <BR>
                  inside Vicksburg, what happened along the line of march, the <BR>
                  induction and training of black soldiers, and so on. <BR>
                  <BR>
                  The military study might also shift the camera from Grant to <BR>
                  Pemberton once in a while.� Too often the Confederate leaders are <BR>
                  treated as objects, awaiting Grant's next decision.� Put yourself in <BR>
                  Pemberton's place on April 15, 1863, and tell me what you do for the <BR>
                  next five weeks. <BR>
                  <BR>
                  Finally, I don't think people appreciate how this was truly Grant's <BR>
                  finest hour.� We give that notion lip service, but the fact is that <BR>
                  Grant was simply brilliant during the campaign.� Not flawless, but <BR>
                  brilliant -- with a good bit of guts thrown in.��� <BR>
                  <BR>
                  </tt>

                  <br>

                  <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

                  <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                  <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                  <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
                  </tr>
                  <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                  <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
                  <tr>
                  <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D=egroupweb/S=1705126278:HM/A=817985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=1005688069?"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=1005688069?" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td>
                  </tr>
                  </table></td>
                  </tr>
                  <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D=egroupmail/S=1705126278:HM/A=817985/rand=637546915"></td></tr>
                  </table>

                  <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->



                  <br>
                  <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
                  </br>

                  </body></html>
                • carlw4514@yahoo.com
                  I do think, though, that Grant had an exit strategy, should things not go so well; no one seems to know or say what that was, to my knowledge. I have my own
                  Message 8 of 28 , Nov 14, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I do think, though, that Grant had an exit strategy, should things
                    not go so well; no one seems to know or say what that was, to my
                    knowledge. I have my own guesses - pure speculations - that at one
                    point he could fall back and join Banks, or at one point actually go
                    north and crush Fort Pemberton and be back to getting regular
                    supplies. Both scenarios would have meant a longer war as his
                    noted brilliance shortened it.
                    carl
                    --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Michael Mason" <richthofen@b...> wrote:
                    > Grant was at his finest hour,but there was little or no margin
                    > of error in this campaign. The Baron
                    >
                    >
                    > On 13-Nov-01, brooksdsimpson@y... wrote:
                    > <html><body>
                    > <tt>
                    > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > > I've also thought that perhaps a Gordon Rhea-style approach - a
                    <BR>
                    > > series of relative standalone books, which encompasses the whole,
                    <BR>
                    > > might well work.  The problem is, I think, that the part people
                    <BR>
                    > want <BR>
                    > > to get to - post Bruinsburg - comes later in such a series.  <BR>
                    > Perhaps <BR>
                    > > they'd have to be written out of order.<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > I'd be interested to hear Brooks's thoughts on this.<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > I think that it is true that the lead-up to the April movements
                    would <BR>
                    > be slow going for some people -- I know that I found myself
                    impatient <BR>
                    > to get on to the crossing when I wrote my chapter on Vicksburg --
                    and <BR>
                    > that the period after May 22 is largely ignored (which is one reason
                    <BR>
                    > the Yazoo bender story gets so much play -- the assumption is that
                    <BR>
                    > nothing was going on, when in fact a great deal was going on).  <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > There's probably room for two solid single-volume studies.  One
                    would <BR>
                    > be primarily a military study, not as detailed as that offered in
                    <BR>
                    > Ed's OR-bound narrative; I found the recent James Arnold book to be
                    a <BR>
                    > disappointment in that it simply reoffered what was offered before. 
                    <BR>
                    > The second would be a study that took a larger view of the campaign,
                    <BR>
                    > complete with its relation to politics and social change -- life
                    <BR>
                    > inside Vicksburg, what happened along the line of march, the <BR>
                    > induction and training of black soldiers, and so on. <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > The military study might also shift the camera from Grant to <BR>
                    > Pemberton once in a while.  Too often the Confederate leaders are
                    <BR>
                    > treated as objects, awaiting Grant's next decision.  Put yourself in
                    <BR>
                    > Pemberton's place on April 15, 1863, and tell me what you do for the
                    <BR>
                    > next five weeks. <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > Finally, I don't think people appreciate how this was truly Grant's
                    <BR>
                    > finest hour.  We give that notion lip service, but the fact is that
                    <BR>
                    > Grant was simply brilliant during the campaign.  Not flawless, but
                    <BR>
                    > brilliant -- with a good bit of guts thrown in.    <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > </tt>
                    >
                    > <br>
                    >
                    > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                    >
                    > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                    > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                    > <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
                    Sponsor</b></font></td>
                    > </tr>
                    > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                    > <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0
                    cellspacing=0>
                    > <tr>
                    > <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
                    href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D=egroupweb
                    /S=1705126278:HM/A=817985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N2870.yh
                    /B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=1005688069?"><img
                    src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=10
                    05688069?" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td>
                    > </tr>
                    > </table></td>
                    > </tr>
                    > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
                    src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D
                    =egroupmail/S=1705126278:HM/A=817985/rand=637546915"></td></tr>
                    > </table>
                    >
                    > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > <br>
                    > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
                    href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
                    Service</a>.</tt>
                    > </br>
                    >
                    > </body></html>
                  • Michael Mason
                    I doubt if thru the whole campaign,the thought of falling back ever once entered Grants mind,thats what sets Grant apart,do you think Grant ever once thought
                    Message 9 of 28 , Nov 14, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I doubt if thru the whole campaign,the thought of falling
                      back ever once entered Grants mind,thats what sets Grant
                      apart,do you think Grant ever once thought of falling back
                      after The two days of Wilderness,The only time Grant
                      fell back was the very first attempt at Vicksburg,when
                      his supply line was cut,he never did that again,I think
                      thats when he felt he made a mistake by,falling back
                      and should have kept going and live off the land'
                      The Baron



                      On 14-Nov-01, carlw4514@... wrote:
                      <html><body>
                      <tt>
                      I do think, though, that Grant had an exit strategy, should things <BR>
                      not go so well; no one seems to know or say what that was, to my <BR>
                      knowledge. I have my own guesses - pure speculations - that at one <BR>
                      point he could fall back and join Banks, or at one point actually go <BR>
                      north and crush Fort Pemberton and be back to getting regular <BR>
                      supplies. Both scenarios would have meant a longer war as his <BR>
                      noted brilliance shortened it.<BR>
                      carl<BR>
                      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Michael Mason" <richthofen@b...> wrote:<BR>
                      > Grant was at his finest hour,but there was little or no margin<BR>
                      > of error in this campaign.� The Baron<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > On 13-Nov-01, brooksdsimpson@y... wrote:<BR>
                      > <html><body><BR>
                      > <tt><BR>
                      > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > > I've also thought that perhaps a Gordon Rhea-style approach - a <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > > series of relative standalone books, which encompasses the whole, <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > > might well work.� The problem is, I think, that the part people <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > want <BR><BR>
                      > > to get to - post Bruinsburg - comes later in such a series.� <BR><BR>
                      > Perhaps <BR><BR>
                      > > they'd have to be written out of order.<BR><BR>
                      > > <BR><BR>
                      > > I'd be interested to hear Brooks's thoughts on this.<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > I think that it is true that the lead-up to the April movements <BR>
                      would <BR><BR>
                      > be slow going for some people -- I know that I found myself <BR>
                      impatient <BR><BR>
                      > to get on to the crossing when I wrote my chapter on Vicksburg -- <BR>
                      and <BR><BR>
                      > that the period after May 22 is largely ignored (which is one reason <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > the Yazoo bender story gets so much play -- the assumption is that <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > nothing was going on, when in fact a great deal was going on).� <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > There's probably room for two solid single-volume studies.� One <BR>
                      would <BR><BR>
                      > be primarily a military study, not as detailed as that offered in <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > Ed's OR-bound narrative; I found the recent James Arnold book to be <BR>
                      a <BR><BR>
                      > disappointment in that it simply reoffered what was offered before.� <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > The second would be a study that took a larger view of the campaign, <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > complete with its relation to politics and social change -- life <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > inside Vicksburg, what happened along the line of march, the <BR><BR>
                      > induction and training of black soldiers, and so on. <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > The military study might also shift the camera from Grant to <BR><BR>
                      > Pemberton once in a while.� Too often the Confederate leaders are <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > treated as objects, awaiting Grant's next decision.� Put yourself in <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > Pemberton's place on April 15, 1863, and tell me what you do for the <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > next five weeks. <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Finally, I don't think people appreciate how this was truly Grant's <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > finest hour.� We give that notion lip service, but the fact is that <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > Grant was simply brilliant during the campaign.� Not flawless, but <BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > brilliant -- with a good bit of guts thrown in.��� <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > </tt><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <br><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2><BR>
                      > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC><BR>
                      > <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups <BR>
                      Sponsor</b></font></td><BR>
                      > </tr><BR>
                      > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF><BR>
                      > <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 <BR>
                      cellspacing=0><BR>
                      > <tr><BR>
                      > <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a <BR>
                      href="<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D=egroupweb">http://rd.yahoo.com/M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D=egroupweb</a><BR>
                      /S=1705126278:HM/A=817985/R=0/*<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N2870.yh">http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N2870.yh</a><BR>
                      /B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=1005688069?"><img <BR>
                      src="<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=10">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=10</a><BR>
                      05688069?" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td><BR>
                      > </tr><BR>
                      > </table></td><BR>
                      > </tr><BR>
                      > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 <BR>
                      src="<a href="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D">http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D</a><BR>
                      =egroupmail/S=1705126278:HM/A=817985/rand=637546915"></td></tr><BR>
                      > </table><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <br><BR>
                      > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a <BR>
                      href="<a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>">Yahoo! Terms of <BR>
                      Service</a>.</tt><BR>
                      > </br><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > </body></html><BR>
                      <BR>
                      </tt>

                      <br>

                      <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

                      <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                      <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                      <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
                      </tr>
                      <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                      <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
                      <tr>
                      <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D=egroupweb/S=1705126278:HM/A=817985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=1005752956?"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=1005752956?" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td>
                      </tr>
                      </table></td>
                      </tr>
                      <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D=egroupmail/S=1705126278:HM/A=817985/rand=308943218"></td></tr>
                      </table>

                      <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->



                      <br>
                      <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
                      </br>

                      </body></html>
                    • Bob Huddleston
                      I also think that the Holly Springs debacle, and the ease with which Grant was able to live off the Mississippi land provided the proof -- and the confidence
                      Message 10 of 28 , Nov 14, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I also think that the Holly Springs debacle, and the ease with which Grant
                        was able to live off the Mississippi land provided the proof -- and the
                        confidence -- to forget bases and strike out overland.

                        One of the secrets of USG was that he was always learning and always willing
                        to try something new.

                        Take care,

                        Bob

                        Judy and Bob Huddleston
                        10643 Sperry Street
                        Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                        303.451.6276 Adco@...



                        I doubt if thru the whole campaign,the thought of falling
                        back ever once entered Grants mind,thats what sets Grant apart,do you think
                        Grant ever once thought of falling back after The two days of
                        Wilderness,The only time Grant fell back was the very first attempt at
                        Vicksburg,when his supply line was cut,he never did that again,I think thats
                        when he felt he made a mistake by,falling back and should have kept going
                        and live off the land' The Baron
                      • Bob Huddleston
                        Which is why VB is still an object of study by the Military. Grabau s book started as a Second Army Commander s Staff Ride in 1989. Take care, Bob Judy and Bob
                        Message 11 of 28 , Nov 14, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Which is why VB is still an object of study by the Military.

                          Grabau's book started as a Second Army Commander's Staff Ride in 1989.

                          Take care,

                          Bob

                          Judy and Bob Huddleston
                          10643 Sperry Street
                          Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                          303.451.6276 Adco@...

                          SNIP

                          Finally, I don't think people appreciate how this was truly Grant's
                          finest hour. We give that notion lip service, but the fact is that
                          Grant was simply brilliant during the campaign. Not flawless, but
                          brilliant -- with a good bit of guts thrown in.
                        • Bob Huddleston
                          I would also suggest that Grierson s Raid was the finest strategic cavalry raid of the Civil War, overshadowing anything that either Forrest or Stuart did in
                          Message 12 of 28 , Nov 14, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I would also suggest that Grierson's Raid was the finest strategic cavalry
                            raid of the Civil War, overshadowing anything that either Forrest or Stuart
                            did in its impact on the course of the war.

                            One of the hard parts of doing a campaign -- or a battle -- is keeping
                            everything in perspective, things happening at the same time, often
                            scattered apart by miles. How many think of Morgan's Raid into Ohio as being
                            part of the Gettysburg Campaign?

                            Take care,

                            Bob

                            Judy and Bob Huddleston
                            10643 Sperry Street
                            Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                            303.451.6276 Adco@...

                            SNIP
                            Finally, I don't think people appreciate how this was truly Grant's
                            finest hour. We give that notion lip service, but the fact is that
                            Grant was simply brilliant during the campaign. Not flawless, but
                            brilliant -- with a good bit of guts thrown in.
                          • M. E. Heatherington
                            Yessss!!!! Not the least aspect of Grant s brilliance in the Vbg campaign was his ordering of what came to be called Grierson s Raid -- and the selection of
                            Message 13 of 28 , Nov 14, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Yessss!!!!

                              Not the least aspect of Grant's brilliance in the Vbg campaign was his
                              ordering of what came to be called Grierson's Raid -- and the selection of
                              Grierson to lead it. Anyone interested in more details on this magnificent
                              two-week-long foray through Mississippi and Louisiana should read D.
                              Alexander Brown's definitive, and thoroughly enjoyable, GRIERSON'S RAID.

                              Regards from your Union-cavalry-in-the-West & all-'round Grierson person,
                              Madelon

                              PS: From Robert Novak's column of 11/14/2001, headlined "The cavalry rides
                              again": "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld . . . revealed [at] a recent
                              private . . . dinner that . . . . . he had flown over the rugged terrain
                              [in Afghanistan] . . . , where U.S. [special operations] troops were in
                              combat -- riding horses."



                              >From: "Bob Huddleston" <adco12@...>
                              >Reply-To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                              >To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
                              >Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Understanding Vicksburg
                              >Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:17:10 -0700
                              >
                              >I would also suggest that Grierson's Raid was the finest strategic cavalry
                              >raid of the Civil War, overshadowing anything that either Forrest or Stuart
                              >did in its impact on the course of the war.
                              >
                              >One of the hard parts of doing a campaign -- or a battle -- is keeping
                              >everything in perspective, things happening at the same time, often
                              >scattered apart by miles. How many think of Morgan's Raid into Ohio as
                              >being
                              >part of the Gettysburg Campaign?
                              >
                              >Take care,
                              >
                              >Bob

                              _________________________________________________________________
                              Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                            • Dave Smith
                              ... Carl, With all due respect, Fort Pemberton was not going to work - especially a movement north through hostile country - no supply line, no way to
                              Message 14 of 28 , Nov 15, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In civilwarwest@y..., carlw4514@y... wrote:
                                > I do think, though, that Grant had an exit strategy, should things
                                > not go so well; no one seems to know or say what that was, to my
                                > knowledge. I have my own guesses - pure speculations - that at one
                                > point he could fall back and join Banks, or at one point actually
                                > go
                                > north and crush Fort Pemberton and be back to getting regular
                                > supplies. Both scenarios would have meant a longer war as his
                                > noted brilliance shortened it.

                                Carl,

                                With all due respect, Fort Pemberton was not going to work -
                                especially a movement north through hostile country - no supply line,
                                no way to replenish ammunition, and no way to use the rail lines. He
                                would have been dead meat.

                                Fall back and join Banks? And become subordinate to Banks? I doubt
                                that, too. A portion of the movement on Jackson was simply to avoid
                                doing that.

                                Dave

                                Dave Smith
                                Villa Hills, KY
                              • Thomas A Hardy
                                Bob, et al, An interesting note from my Masters Degree studies is that Grant learned how to do this from Winfield Scott in Mexico. Scott cut himself off from
                                Message 15 of 28 , Nov 15, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Bob, et al,

                                  An interesting note from my Masters Degree studies is that Grant learned
                                  how to do this from Winfield Scott in Mexico. Scott cut himself off from
                                  the coast and Vera Cruz, then advanced and captured Mexico City. It was
                                  a very near run thing.

                                  Grant served as a quartermaster and saw how the army supplied itself. He
                                  also stuck his nose into the combat and learned how to operate on a
                                  battlefield.

                                  Tom Hardy
                                  Kansas City


                                  On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:17:10 -0700 "Bob Huddleston"
                                  <adco12@...> writes:
                                  > I also think that the Holly Springs debacle, and the ease with which
                                  > Grant
                                  > was able to live off the Mississippi land provided the proof -- and
                                  > the
                                  > confidence -- to forget bases and strike out overland.
                                  >
                                  > One of the secrets of USG was that he was always learning and always
                                  > willing
                                  > to try something new.
                                  >
                                  > Take care,
                                  >
                                  > Bob
                                  >
                                  > Judy and Bob Huddleston
                                  > 10643 Sperry Street
                                  > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                                  > 303.451.6276 Adco@...
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I doubt if thru the whole campaign,the thought of falling
                                  > back ever once entered Grants mind,thats what sets Grant apart,do
                                  > you think
                                  > Grant ever once thought of falling back after The two days of
                                  > Wilderness,The only time Grant fell back was the very first attempt
                                  > at
                                  > Vicksburg,when his supply line was cut,he never did that again,I
                                  > think thats
                                  > when he felt he made a mistake by,falling back and should have kept
                                  > going
                                  > and live off the land' The Baron
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  ________________________________________________________________
                                  GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
                                  Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
                                  Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
                                  http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
                                • carlw4514@yahoo.com
                                  I guess I knew that I was going to get clobbered LOL. Since it s pure speculation I can t really defend myself except to say that in military matters it seems
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Nov 16, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I guess I knew that I was going to get clobbered LOL. Since it's pure
                                    speculation I can't really defend myself except to say that in
                                    military matters it seems that there are certain things that just
                                    aren't overlooked by professionals. One always has reserves. One does
                                    not get himself into a situation where retreat is impossible, even if
                                    fully confident that retreat is not in the cards. One does
                                    not try to "live off the land" indefinitely. Certainly "living off the
                                    land" gives the appearance that one has thrown caution to the winds,
                                    but I sincerely doubt that this was the case with Grant. There is a
                                    point at which "living off the land" is no longer possible; he simply
                                    couldn't allow it to happen that he would get stalemated east of the
                                    Big Black. Subordinate to Banks, say, beats being out of ammo and
                                    starving; Porter had warned him that the transports were not making
                                    the trip back up the Mississippi; would he have blown this off as "who
                                    cares?" This bothering anybody else?

                                    --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:
                                    > --- In civilwarwest@y..., carlw4514@y... wrote:
                                    > > I do think, though, that Grant had an exit strategy, should things
                                    > > not go so well; no one seems to know or say what that was, to my
                                    > > knowledge. I have my own guesses - pure speculations - that at one
                                    > > point he could fall back and join Banks, or at one point actually
                                    > > go
                                    > > north and crush Fort Pemberton and be back to getting regular
                                    > > supplies. Both scenarios would have meant a longer war as his
                                    > > noted brilliance shortened it.
                                    >
                                    > Carl,
                                    >
                                    > With all due respect, Fort Pemberton was not going to work -
                                    > especially a movement north through hostile country - no supply
                                    line,
                                    > no way to replenish ammunition, and no way to use the rail lines.
                                    He
                                    > would have been dead meat.
                                    >
                                    > Fall back and join Banks? And become subordinate to Banks? I doubt
                                    > that, too. A portion of the movement on Jackson was simply to avoid
                                    > doing that.
                                    >
                                    > Dave
                                    >
                                    > Dave Smith
                                    > Villa Hills, KY
                                  • Michael Mason
                                    Who cares ,isn t what Grant felt.Grant s role model,Zach Taylor always got by with what he had,Grant was doing the same.But had anything gone wrong,this
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Nov 16, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      "Who cares",isn't what Grant felt.Grant's role model,Zach
                                      Taylor always got by with what he had,Grant was doing the same.But had anything gone wrong,this campaign could
                                      have been a disaster.By the way 137yrs ago.The Western
                                      Army headed east,on Sherman's March to the Sea.
                                      The Baron




                                      On 16-Nov-01, carlw4514@... wrote:
                                      <html><body>
                                      <tt>
                                      I guess I knew that I was going to get clobbered LOL. Since it's pure <BR>
                                      speculation I can't really defend myself except to say that in <BR>
                                      military matters it seems that there are certain things that just <BR>
                                      aren't overlooked by professionals. One always has reserves. One does <BR>
                                      not get himself into a situation where retreat is impossible, even if <BR>
                                      fully confident that retreat is not in the cards. One does <BR>
                                      not try to "live off the land" indefinitely. Certainly "living off the <BR>
                                      land" gives the appearance that one has thrown caution to the winds, <BR>
                                      but I sincerely doubt that this was the case with Grant. There is a <BR>
                                      point at which "living off the land" is no longer possible; he simply <BR>
                                      couldn't allow it to happen that he would get stalemated east of the <BR>
                                      Big Black. Subordinate to Banks, say, beats being out of ammo and <BR>
                                      starving; Porter had warned him that the transports were not making <BR>
                                      the trip back up the Mississippi; would he have blown this off as "who <BR>
                                      cares?" This bothering anybody else?<BR>
                                      <BR>
                                      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:<BR>
                                      > --- In civilwarwest@y..., carlw4514@y... wrote:<BR>
                                      > > I do think, though, that Grant had an exit strategy, should things <BR>
                                      > > not go so well; no one seems to know or say what that was, to my <BR>
                                      > > knowledge. I have my own guesses - pure speculations - that at one <BR>
                                      > > point he could fall back and join Banks, or at one point actually <BR>
                                      > > go <BR>
                                      > > north and crush Fort Pemberton and be back to getting regular <BR>
                                      > > supplies. Both scenarios would have meant a longer war as his <BR>
                                      > > noted brilliance shortened it.<BR>
                                      > <BR>
                                      > Carl,<BR>
                                      > <BR>
                                      > With all due respect, Fort Pemberton was not going to work - <BR>
                                      > especially a movement north through hostile country - no supply <BR>
                                      line, <BR>
                                      > no way to replenish ammunition, and no way to use the rail lines.� <BR>
                                      He <BR>
                                      > would have been dead meat.<BR>
                                      > <BR>
                                      > Fall back and join Banks?� And become subordinate to Banks?� I doubt <BR>
                                      > that, too.� A portion of the movement on Jackson was simply to avoid <BR>
                                      > doing that.<BR>
                                      > <BR>
                                      > Dave<BR>
                                      > <BR>
                                      > Dave Smith<BR>
                                      > Villa Hills, KY<BR>
                                      <BR>
                                      </tt>

                                      <br>

                                      <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

                                      <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                                      <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                                      <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
                                      </tr>
                                      <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                                      <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
                                      <tr>
                                      <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D=egroupweb/S=1705126278:HM/A=817985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=1005934384?"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N2870.yh/B42626.15;sz=300x250;ord=1005934384?" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td>
                                      </tr>
                                      </table></td>
                                      </tr>
                                      <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=206662.1711183.3234967.1501206/D=egroupmail/S=1705126278:HM/A=817985/rand=932034783"></td></tr>
                                      </table>

                                      <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->



                                      <br>
                                      <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
                                      </br>

                                      </body></html>
                                    • Dave Smith
                                      ... Well, I can only hope there wasn t a sense of clobbering going on in my response . . . :-) ... This is an interesting point. Grant was indeed living
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Nov 21, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In civilwarwest@y..., carlw4514@y... wrote:
                                        > I guess I knew that I was going to get clobbered LOL.

                                        Well, I can only hope there wasn't a sense of "clobbering" going on
                                        in my response . . . :-)


                                        > Since it's
                                        > pure speculation I can't really defend myself except to say that in
                                        > military matters it seems that there are certain things that just
                                        > aren't overlooked by professionals. One always has reserves. One
                                        > does not get himself into a situation where retreat is impossible,
                                        > even if fully confident that retreat is not in the cards. One does
                                        > not try to "live off the land" indefinitely. Certainly "living off
                                        > the land" gives the appearance that one has thrown caution to the
                                        > winds, but I sincerely doubt that this was the case with Grant.

                                        This is an interesting point. Grant was indeed "living off the
                                        land," to a fairly large degree. But he wasn't living that way,
                                        exclusively; he had cut and curderoyed (sp?) roads through Louisiana
                                        in order to facilitate the movement of supplies down the western bank
                                        of the Mississippi. Those transport vessels were unloading at Grand
                                        Gulf while the campaign was unfolding.

                                        It was a slow, laborious process - but it was a process.

                                        When Pemberton attempted his ill-fated move to Dillon's Plantation to
                                        attack Blair's division, it was to attempt to cut that very supply
                                        line. Not that it would have mattered much, because it wasn't a
                                        supply line in the more traditional sense . . .

                                        > There is a
                                        > point at which "living off the land" is no longer possible; he
                                        > simply couldn't allow it to happen that he would get stalemated
                                        > east of the Big Black.

                                        I realize what you're saying, and agree that there is a point where
                                        such "living off the land" becomes pointless. Grant had that problem
                                        rapidly approaching him in mid-May, 1863. That things nicely
                                        resolved themselves by Confederate stumbling and bumbling at Champion
                                        Hill and Big Black Bridge, and opened the Big Black River to him,
                                        made the issue moot. But I think Grant was closer to having to move
                                        back towards his base at Grand Gulf, or hastily attack Pemberton,
                                        then we often think, given the known results.

                                        > Subordinate to Banks, say, beats being out of ammo and
                                        > starving; Porter had warned him that the transports were not making
                                        > the trip back up the Mississippi; would he have blown this off
                                        > as "who cares?" This bothering anybody else?

                                        I suspect (and of course I may be wrong) that much of the inland move
                                        by Grant was more a response to the recgonition that he needed to do
                                        something about Halleck and Banks, and the options were few and
                                        undesired. So he improvised, realizing that some good could come out
                                        of such a move. He rolled the dice, and came up sevens - repeatedly.

                                        Dave

                                        Dave Smith
                                        Villa Hills, KY
                                      • carlw4514@yahoo.com
                                        Dave, you are the man when it comes to Vicksburg and you have proved it again; you get the lion s share of credit for getting me so interested in Vicksburg.
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Nov 24, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Dave, you are "the man" when it comes to Vicksburg and you have proved
                                          it again; you get the lion's share of credit for getting me so
                                          interested in Vicksburg. You are undoubtedly correct that a stymied
                                          Grant could have fallen back and functioned at Grand Gulf, not that
                                          there was any real doubt in Grant's mind that he was going to pull
                                          this thing off.
                                          I wonder what sort of situation the Federals would have had, had
                                          they moved back to Grand Gulf. Would it have been similar to
                                          Chattanooga before the "cracker line" was opened? I have to assume
                                          that 1) Porter's warning had some meaning 2) the famous 7 attempts to
                                          crack the Vicksburg nut outlined by Foote and others showed that the
                                          situation of having "some" kind of supply situation through the
                                          Louisiana side was not considered the answer; Grant's last move before
                                          this one was to try another failed canal (IIRC). There must have been
                                          a reason to try these canals etc. Am I all wet?
                                          Carl
                                          --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:
                                          [snips]

                                          > This is an interesting point. Grant was indeed "living off the
                                          > land," to a fairly large degree. But he wasn't living that way,
                                          > exclusively; he had cut and curderoyed (sp?) roads through Louisiana
                                          > in order to facilitate the movement of supplies down the western
                                          bank
                                          > of the Mississippi. Those transport vessels were unloading at Grand
                                          > Gulf while the campaign was unfolding.
                                          >
                                          > It was a slow, laborious process - but it was a process.
                                          >
                                          > When Pemberton attempted his ill-fated move to Dillon's Plantation
                                          to
                                          > attack Blair's division, it was to attempt to cut that very supply
                                          > line. Not that it would have mattered much, because it wasn't a
                                          > supply line in the more traditional sense . . . [...] But I think
                                          Grant was closer to having to move
                                          > back towards his base at Grand Gulf, or hastily attack Pemberton,
                                          > then we often think, given the known results.
                                        • Dave Smith
                                          ... Here s the situation vis-a-vis Grand Gulf. The key to the Confederate defense of Vicksburg was the Big Black River, period. As long as the Union forces
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Nov 26, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In civilwarwest@y..., carlw4514@y... wrote:
                                            > Dave, you are "the man" when it comes to Vicksburg and you have
                                            > proved
                                            > it again; you get the lion's share of credit for getting me so
                                            > interested in Vicksburg. You are undoubtedly correct that a stymied
                                            > Grant could have fallen back and functioned at Grand Gulf, not that
                                            > there was any real doubt in Grant's mind that he was going to pull
                                            > this thing off.

                                            Here's the situation vis-a-vis Grand Gulf.

                                            The key to the Confederate defense of Vicksburg was the Big Black
                                            River, period. As long as the Union forces were south and east of
                                            the Big Black River, the Confederate defenses at Haine's Bluff
                                            (Drumgould / Snyder's Bluffs) remain intact, and the potential Yazoo
                                            supply base remains denied to Grant.

                                            And as long as supplies for a 55,000-man army have to be carted down
                                            the western bank of the Mississippi, it's a recipe for disaster.
                                            Remember Milliken's Bend? Disrupt those supplies by Confederates
                                            operating in Louisiana, and Grant's in trouble.

                                            Did Grant ever doubt? I don't know, but I know he had some doubts
                                            vis-a-vis Johnston, once the siege had started.

                                            > I wonder what sort of situation the Federals would have had,
                                            > had
                                            > they moved back to Grand Gulf. Would it have been similar to
                                            > Chattanooga before the "cracker line" was opened?

                                            It would have been much worse, IMO. It may well could have spelled
                                            the end of Grant's command, as well.

                                            > I have to assume
                                            > that 1) Porter's warning had some meaning 2) the famous 7 attempts
                                            > to crack the Vicksburg nut outlined by Foote and others showed that
                                            > the situation of having "some" kind of supply situation through the
                                            > Louisiana side was not considered the answer; Grant's last move
                                            > before this one was to try another failed canal (IIRC). There must
                                            > have been a reason to try these canals etc. Am I all wet?

                                            Grant knew he had to try some means to get to Vicksburg - sitting
                                            still with an army would smack of McClellanism. And if Gtant didn't
                                            know of the relationship between Lincoln and McClellan, he doubtless
                                            understood the general aspects of it.

                                            Dang - don't check in for a Holiday weekend, and all heck breaks
                                            loose.

                                            Dave

                                            Dave Smith
                                            Villa Hills, KY
                                          • Aurelie1999@aol.com
                                            In a message dated 11/26/01 2:25:39 PM, dmsmith001@yahoo.com writes:
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Nov 26, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              In a message dated 11/26/01 2:25:39 PM, dmsmith001@... writes:

                                              << Grant knew he had to try some means to get to Vicksburg - sitting
                                              still with an army would smack of McClellanism. >>

                                              Grant was very much aware of this and explained it to Sherman who opposed the
                                              idea completely. Gettysburg had not yet been won, the AoP was a mess and the
                                              public was restless. Grant was well apprised through men such as Washbourne
                                              and John Sherman, Charles Dana and Sylvanus Cadwallader of what was happening
                                              and the goings on in Washington. Grant may have been taciturn and
                                              undemonstrative, but he was a keen observer of men and events. Sherman urged
                                              him to return to Memphis to restructure his campaign and while Grant was
                                              certain that it was the "book" thing to do, he was equally certain that any
                                              backward movement no matter what the reason would be perceived as retreat or
                                              even worse defeat. He felt that the administration was in trouble and that
                                              it needed a win to stay afloat. He decided to wage his career on the outcome.

                                              Connie
                                            • Dave Smith
                                              Very well put. I think we often lose sight on exactly how great Grant s gamble really was. DAve ... sitting ... opposed the ... mess and the ... Washbourne
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Nov 26, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Very well put. I think we often lose sight on exactly how great
                                                Grant's gamble really was.

                                                DAve

                                                --- In civilwarwest@y..., Aurelie1999@a... wrote:
                                                >
                                                > In a message dated 11/26/01 2:25:39 PM, dmsmith001@y... writes:
                                                >
                                                > << Grant knew he had to try some means to get to Vicksburg -
                                                sitting
                                                > still with an army would smack of McClellanism. >>
                                                >
                                                > Grant was very much aware of this and explained it to Sherman who
                                                opposed the
                                                > idea completely. Gettysburg had not yet been won, the AoP was a
                                                mess and the
                                                > public was restless. Grant was well apprised through men such as
                                                Washbourne
                                                > and John Sherman, Charles Dana and Sylvanus Cadwallader of what was
                                                happening
                                                > and the goings on in Washington. Grant may have been taciturn and
                                                > undemonstrative, but he was a keen observer of men and events.
                                                Sherman urged
                                                > him to return to Memphis to restructure his campaign and while
                                                Grant was
                                                > certain that it was the "book" thing to do, he was equally certain
                                                that any
                                                > backward movement no matter what the reason would be perceived as
                                                retreat or
                                                > even worse defeat. He felt that the administration was in trouble
                                                and that
                                                > it needed a win to stay afloat. He decided to wage his career on
                                                the outcome.
                                                >
                                                > Connie
                                              • Michael Mason
                                                McClellanism isn t that something like acute constipation?? The Baron On 26-Nov-01, Dave Smith wrote: ...
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Nov 26, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  "McClellanism" isn't that something like acute constipation??
                                                  The Baron


                                                  On 26-Nov-01, Dave Smith <dmsmith001@...> wrote:
                                                  <html><body>
                                                  <tt>
                                                  --- In civilwarwest@y..., carlw4514@y... wrote:<BR>
                                                  > Dave, you are "the man" when it comes to Vicksburg and you have <BR>
                                                  > proved <BR>
                                                  > it again; you get the lion's share of credit for getting me so <BR>
                                                  > interested in Vicksburg. You are undoubtedly correct that a stymied <BR>
                                                  > Grant could have fallen back and functioned at Grand Gulf, not that <BR>
                                                  > there was any real doubt in Grant's mind that he was going to pull <BR>
                                                  > this thing off. <BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  Here's the situation vis-a-vis Grand Gulf.� <BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  The key to the Confederate defense of Vicksburg was the Big Black <BR>
                                                  River, period.� As long as the Union forces were south and east of <BR>
                                                  the Big Black River, the Confederate defenses at Haine's Bluff <BR>
                                                  (Drumgould / Snyder's Bluffs) remain intact, and the potential Yazoo <BR>
                                                  supply base remains denied to Grant.<BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  And as long as supplies for a 55,000-man army have to be carted down <BR>
                                                  the western bank of the Mississippi, it's a recipe for disaster.� <BR>
                                                  Remember Milliken's Bend?� Disrupt those supplies by Confederates <BR>
                                                  operating in Louisiana, and Grant's in trouble.<BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  Did Grant ever doubt?� I don't know, but I know he had some doubts <BR>
                                                  vis-a-vis Johnston, once the siege had started.<BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  >������ I wonder what sort of situation the Federals would have had, <BR>
                                                  > had <BR>
                                                  > they moved back to Grand Gulf. Would it have been similar to <BR>
                                                  > Chattanooga before the "cracker line" was opened? <BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  It would have been much worse, IMO.� It may well could have spelled <BR>
                                                  the end of Grant's command, as well.<BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  > I have to assume <BR>
                                                  > that 1) Porter's warning had some meaning 2) the famous 7 attempts <BR>
                                                  > to crack the Vicksburg nut outlined by Foote and others showed that <BR>
                                                  > the situation of having "some" kind of supply situation through the <BR>
                                                  > Louisiana side was not considered the answer; Grant's last move <BR>
                                                  > before this one was to try another failed canal (IIRC). There must <BR>
                                                  > have been a reason to try these canals etc. Am I all wet?<BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  Grant knew he had to try some means to get to Vicksburg - sitting <BR>
                                                  still with an army would smack of McClellanism.� And if Gtant didn't <BR>
                                                  know of the relationship between Lincoln and McClellan, he doubtless <BR>
                                                  understood the general aspects of it.<BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  Dang - don't check in for a Holiday weekend, and all heck breaks <BR>
                                                  loose.<BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  Dave<BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  Dave Smith<BR>
                                                  Villa Hills, KY<BR>
                                                  <BR>
                                                  </tt>



                                                  <br>
                                                  <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
                                                  </br>

                                                  </body></html>
                                                • carlw4514@yahoo.com
                                                  well, Dave, that s something, I thought you would say it wouldn t be as bad as Chatanooga pre-cracker line. It s really something to sit here and think that
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Nov 26, 2001
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    well, Dave, that's something, I thought you would say it wouldn't be
                                                    as bad as Chatanooga pre-cracker line. It's really something to sit
                                                    here and think that the whole campaign could have turned into some
                                                    kind of quagmire; the success of it was essential to Union war aims
                                                    IMHO.
                                                    carl

                                                    --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:
                                                    [Would it have been similar to Chattanooga before the "cracker line"
                                                    was opened? ]

                                                    > It would have been much worse, IMO. It may well could have spelled
                                                    > the end of Grant's command, as well.
                                                  • Michael Mason
                                                    It could have ended up like Napolean in Moscow,without the snow! Longest chance taken in the war! The Baron On 26-Nov-01, carlw4514@yahoo.com wrote:
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Nov 26, 2001
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      It could have ended up like Napolean in Moscow,without the snow! Longest chance taken in the war!
                                                      The Baron

                                                      On 26-Nov-01, carlw4514@... wrote:
                                                      <html><body>
                                                      <tt>
                                                      well, Dave, that's something, I thought you would say it wouldn't be <BR>
                                                      as bad as Chatanooga pre-cracker line. It's really something to sit <BR>
                                                      here and think that the whole campaign could have turned into some <BR>
                                                      kind of quagmire; the success of it was essential to Union war aims <BR>
                                                      IMHO.<BR>
                                                      carl<BR>
                                                      <BR>
                                                      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:<BR>
                                                      [Would it have been similar to Chattanooga before the "cracker line" <BR>
                                                      was opened? ]<BR>
                                                      <BR>
                                                      > It would have been much worse, IMO.� It may well could have spelled <BR>
                                                      > the end of Grant's command, as well.<BR>
                                                      <BR>
                                                      <BR>
                                                      </tt>

                                                      <br>

                                                      <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

                                                      <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                                                      <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                                                      <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
                                                      </tr>
                                                      <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                                                      <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacaaing=0>
                                                      <tr>
                                                      <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=178320.1681224.3212089.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705126278:HM/A=766844/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/yahoo-57f"><img src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/fa/fastweb/300x250.gif" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td>
                                                      </tr>
                                                      </table></td>
                                                      </tr>
                                                      <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=178320.1681224.3212089.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705126278:HM/A=766844/rand=122673408"></td></tr>
                                                      </table>

                                                      <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->



                                                      <br>
                                                      <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
                                                      </br>

                                                      </body></html>
                                                    • Dave Smith
                                                      ... Indeed. Of course it s all speculation, since it didn t happen, but one wonders what the course of events would have been had Grant found himself at Grand
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Nov 26, 2001
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        --- In civilwarwest@y..., carlw4514@y... wrote:
                                                        > well, Dave, that's something, I thought you would say it wouldn't
                                                        > be
                                                        > as bad as Chatanooga pre-cracker line. It's really something to sit
                                                        > here and think that the whole campaign could have turned into some
                                                        > kind of quagmire; the success of it was essential to Union war aims
                                                        > IMHO.

                                                        Indeed. Of course it's all speculation, since it didn't happen, but
                                                        one wonders what the course of events would have been had Grant found
                                                        himself at Grand Gulf, on the wrong side of the Big Black River, on
                                                        May 21.

                                                        Brooks?

                                                        Dave
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.