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

Re: [civilwarwest] Perseverance (was Lee)

Expand Messages
  • cob2mo
    Xan, Maybe Vicksburg held out simply because that was the Victorian Way. Or maybe the Southern way. Let try to put the question in some perspective. These were
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 4, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Xan, Maybe Vicksburg held out simply because that was the Victorian Way. Or
      maybe the Southern way. Let try to put the question in some perspective.
      These were southerners fighting on southern soil. It's difficult to "give
      up" something that you perceive is "yours". If I may take a modern day
      example or two? Ruby Ridge in Idaho or Waco in Texas. I am not condoning
      either, just attempting to lay some parallels. All of these people were
      willing to fight over-whelming odds for something they believed in.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: L.A. Chambliss <xanthipp@...>
      To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
      Date: Sunday, June 04, 2000 8:49 PM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Perseverance (was Lee)


      >Cob makes a good point (we ARE supposed to be talking about "The Other
      Civil
      >War" here) but that does not mean we have to dump this topic entirely.
      There
      >are plenty of examples in the West of generals who shouldered on despite
      heavy
      >odds, seemingy-impossible situations, etc.
      >
      >One such situation that has always puzzled me is Pemberton in Vicksburg.
      Once
      >he got backed into the town, why did he not just surrender his forces
      >immediately? What was the point of putting not only his men, but a fair
      sized
      >civilian population, through the kind of privations they endured under the
      >siege? Did he think he was tying Grant down and buying time for either
      relief
      >to arrive or for Confederate forces to accomplish something elsewhere?
      >
      >Just wonderin'..... :-)
      >
      >Laurie "Xan" Chambliss
      >
      >
      >cob2mo wrote:
      >
      >> As much as I admire Lee. Lets not forget that this forum is supposed to
      be
      >> western theater. Lets talk about the real war not the war in the east.
      Lets
      >> discuss the JO Shelby's and the Prices and the Lyon the Fremont. The
      Battle
      >> at Wilson Creek aka Oak Hill. Shiloh, or Cornith Mobile etc. Now I will
      >> shut up! Cobber
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: aero1485@... <aero1485@...>
      >> To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
      >> Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 10:12 PM
      >> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: LEE
      >>
      >> >Looking at the human side of Lee, I would agree that he could have been
      >> >thinking about Washington at Valley Forge. Many times in history, men
      have
      >> >persevered over impossible odds. So...why would a man like Lee just
      give
      >> up
      >> >without trying to overcome the odds?
      >> >
      >> >Victor
      >> >
      >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >> >Missing old school friends? Find them here:
      >> >http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/3/_/14182/_/960088358/
      >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >> >
      >> >
      >>
      >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >> How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. -
      >> or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which
      >> fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
      >> http://click.egroups.com/1/3820/3/_/14182/_/960169034/
      >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >BeMANY, where eGroups members SAVE on long distance.
      >http://click.egroups.com/1/4121/3/_/14182/_/960169781/
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
    • cob2mo
      Xan, Maybe Vicksburg held out simply because that was the Victorian Way. Or maybe the Southern way. Let try to put the question in some perspective. These were
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 4, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Xan, Maybe Vicksburg held out simply because that was the Victorian Way. Or
        maybe the Southern way. Let try to put the question in some perspective.
        These were southerners fighting on southern soil. It's difficult to "give
        up" something that you perceive is "yours". If I may take a modern day
        example or two? Ruby Ridge in Idaho or Waco in Texas. I am not condoning
        either, just attempting to lay some parallels. All of these people were
        willing to fight over-whelming odds for something they believed in.
        -----Original Message-----
        From: L.A. Chambliss <xanthipp@...>
        To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
        Date: Sunday, June 04, 2000 8:49 PM
        Subject: [civilwarwest] Perseverance (was Lee)


        >Cob makes a good point (we ARE supposed to be talking about "The Other
        Civil
        >War" here) but that does not mean we have to dump this topic entirely.
        There
        >are plenty of examples in the West of generals who shouldered on despite
        heavy
        >odds, seemingy-impossible situations, etc.
        >
        >One such situation that has always puzzled me is Pemberton in Vicksburg.
        Once
        >he got backed into the town, why did he not just surrender his forces
        >immediately? What was the point of putting not only his men, but a fair
        sized
        >civilian population, through the kind of privations they endured under the
        >siege? Did he think he was tying Grant down and buying time for either
        relief
        >to arrive or for Confederate forces to accomplish something elsewhere?
        >
        >Just wonderin'..... :-)
        >
        >Laurie "Xan" Chambliss
        >
        >
        >cob2mo wrote:
        >
        >> As much as I admire Lee. Lets not forget that this forum is supposed to
        be
        >> western theater. Lets talk about the real war not the war in the east.
        Lets
        >> discuss the JO Shelby's and the Prices and the Lyon the Fremont. The
        Battle
        >> at Wilson Creek aka Oak Hill. Shiloh, or Cornith Mobile etc. Now I will
        >> shut up! Cobber
        >> -----Original Message-----
        >> From: aero1485@... <aero1485@...>
        >> To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
        >> Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 10:12 PM
        >> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: LEE
        >>
        >> >Looking at the human side of Lee, I would agree that he could have been
        >> >thinking about Washington at Valley Forge. Many times in history, men
        have
        >> >persevered over impossible odds. So...why would a man like Lee just
        give
        >> up
        >> >without trying to overcome the odds?
        >> >
        >> >Victor
        >> >
        >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >> >Missing old school friends? Find them here:
        >> >http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/3/_/14182/_/960088358/
        >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >> >
        >> >
        >>
        >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >> How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. -
        >> or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which
        >> fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
        >> http://click.egroups.com/1/3820/3/_/14182/_/960169034/
        >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        >
        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >BeMANY, where eGroups members SAVE on long distance.
        >http://click.egroups.com/1/4121/3/_/14182/_/960169781/
        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        >
      • Don Plezia
        I don t understand this rationale! The Union forces already controlled the mouth of the Mississippi up into Shreveport, Louisiana, I believe. Memphis, north
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 5, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't understand this rationale!

          The Union forces already controlled the mouth of the Mississippi up into
          Shreveport, Louisiana, I believe. Memphis, north of Vicksburg, was also
          controlled by the Feds. Arkansas, and Missouri were in most instances
          controlled by the Union.

          What was being shipped by the Confederates in that stretch? What could
          be shipped?

          I think Vicksburg was too high on the list of Confederate priorities and
          Davis's desire to protect 'all' of the confederacy.

          Cordially,


          D. W. Plezia
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Larry McGibben" <rebky@...>
          To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 3:26 PM
          Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Perseverance (was Lee)


          > Afternoon Xan. As to your question of why Pemberton just did'nt
          surrender his
          > troops immediately at Vicksburg thus compelling Grant to lay siege to
          the city
          > etc. Beside's Pemberton expecting reenforcements, I believe he
          understood the
          > importance of trying to keep Vicksburg from falling and knew if it
          did, that not
          > only would the Confederacy be cut in half, but one of the last major
          supply routes
          > for the South would be severed which would eventually lead to the down
          fall of the
          > Confederacy.
          >
          > KyReb
          >
          > "L.A. Chambliss" wrote:
          >
          > > Cob makes a good point (we ARE supposed to be talking about "The
          Other Civil
          > > War" here) but that does not mean we have to dump this topic
          entirely. There
          > > are plenty of examples in the West of generals who shouldered on
          despite heavy
          > > odds, seemingy-impossible situations, etc.
          > >
          > > One such situation that has always puzzled me is Pemberton in
          Vicksburg. Once
          > > he got backed into the town, why did he not just surrender his
          forces
          > > immediately? What was the point of putting not only his men, but a
          fair sized
          > > civilian population, through the kind of privations they endured
          under the
          > > siege? Did he think he was tying Grant down and buying time for
          either relief
          > > to arrive or for Confederate forces to accomplish something
          elsewhere?
          > >
          > > Just wonderin'..... :-)
          > >
          > > Laurie "Xan" Chambliss
          > >
          > > cob2mo wrote:
          > >
          > > > As much as I admire Lee. Lets not forget that this forum is
          supposed to be
          > > > western theater. Lets talk about the real war not the war in the
          east. Lets
          > > > discuss the JO Shelby's and the Prices and the Lyon the Fremont.
          The Battle
          > > > at Wilson Creek aka Oak Hill. Shiloh, or Cornith Mobile etc. Now
          I will
          > > > shut up! Cobber
          > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > From: aero1485@... <aero1485@...>
          > > > To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
          > > > Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 10:12 PM
          > > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: LEE
          > > >
          > > > >Looking at the human side of Lee, I would agree that he could
          have been
          > > > >thinking about Washington at Valley Forge. Many times in
          history, men have
          > > > >persevered over impossible odds. So...why would a man like Lee
          just give
          > > > up
          > > > >without trying to overcome the odds?
          > > > >
          > > > >Victor
          > > > >
          > > >
          >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          -
          > > > >Missing old school friends? Find them here:
          > > > >http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/3/_/14182/_/960088358/
          > > >
          >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          -
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          --
          > > > How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. -
          > > > or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which
          > > > fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
          > > > http://click.egroups.com/1/3820/3/_/14182/_/960169034/
          > >
          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          --
          > >
          >
          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          --
          > > BeMANY, where eGroups members SAVE on long distance.
          > > http://click.egroups.com/1/4121/3/_/14182/_/960169781/
          >
          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          --
          >
          >
          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          --
          > Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
          > http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/3/_/14182/_/960222175/
          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          --
          >
          >
          >
        • Don Plezia
          I don t understand this rationale! The Union forces already controlled the mouth of the Mississippi up into Shreveport, Louisiana, I believe. Memphis, north
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 5, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            I don't understand this rationale!

            The Union forces already controlled the mouth of the Mississippi up into
            Shreveport, Louisiana, I believe. Memphis, north of Vicksburg, was also
            controlled by the Feds. Arkansas, and Missouri were in most instances
            controlled by the Union.

            What was being shipped by the Confederates in that stretch? What could
            be shipped?

            I think Vicksburg was too high on the list of Confederate priorities and
            Davis's desire to protect 'all' of the confederacy.

            Cordially,


            D. W. Plezia
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Larry McGibben" <rebky@...>
            To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
            Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 3:26 PM
            Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Perseverance (was Lee)


            > Afternoon Xan. As to your question of why Pemberton just did'nt
            surrender his
            > troops immediately at Vicksburg thus compelling Grant to lay siege to
            the city
            > etc. Beside's Pemberton expecting reenforcements, I believe he
            understood the
            > importance of trying to keep Vicksburg from falling and knew if it
            did, that not
            > only would the Confederacy be cut in half, but one of the last major
            supply routes
            > for the South would be severed which would eventually lead to the down
            fall of the
            > Confederacy.
            >
            > KyReb
            >
            > "L.A. Chambliss" wrote:
            >
            > > Cob makes a good point (we ARE supposed to be talking about "The
            Other Civil
            > > War" here) but that does not mean we have to dump this topic
            entirely. There
            > > are plenty of examples in the West of generals who shouldered on
            despite heavy
            > > odds, seemingy-impossible situations, etc.
            > >
            > > One such situation that has always puzzled me is Pemberton in
            Vicksburg. Once
            > > he got backed into the town, why did he not just surrender his
            forces
            > > immediately? What was the point of putting not only his men, but a
            fair sized
            > > civilian population, through the kind of privations they endured
            under the
            > > siege? Did he think he was tying Grant down and buying time for
            either relief
            > > to arrive or for Confederate forces to accomplish something
            elsewhere?
            > >
            > > Just wonderin'..... :-)
            > >
            > > Laurie "Xan" Chambliss
            > >
            > > cob2mo wrote:
            > >
            > > > As much as I admire Lee. Lets not forget that this forum is
            supposed to be
            > > > western theater. Lets talk about the real war not the war in the
            east. Lets
            > > > discuss the JO Shelby's and the Prices and the Lyon the Fremont.
            The Battle
            > > > at Wilson Creek aka Oak Hill. Shiloh, or Cornith Mobile etc. Now
            I will
            > > > shut up! Cobber
            > > > -----Original Message-----
            > > > From: aero1485@... <aero1485@...>
            > > > To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
            > > > Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 10:12 PM
            > > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: LEE
            > > >
            > > > >Looking at the human side of Lee, I would agree that he could
            have been
            > > > >thinking about Washington at Valley Forge. Many times in
            history, men have
            > > > >persevered over impossible odds. So...why would a man like Lee
            just give
            > > > up
            > > > >without trying to overcome the odds?
            > > > >
            > > > >Victor
            > > > >
            > > >
            >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
            -
            > > > >Missing old school friends? Find them here:
            > > > >http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/3/_/14182/_/960088358/
            > > >
            >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
            -
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            --
            > > > How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. -
            > > > or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which
            > > > fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
            > > > http://click.egroups.com/1/3820/3/_/14182/_/960169034/
            > >
            > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            --
            > >
            >
            > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            --
            > > BeMANY, where eGroups members SAVE on long distance.
            > > http://click.egroups.com/1/4121/3/_/14182/_/960169781/
            >
            > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            --
            >
            >
            > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            --
            > Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
            > http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/3/_/14182/_/960222175/
            > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            --
            >
            >
            >
          • Larry McGibben
            Afternoon Xan. As to your question of why Pemberton just did nt surrender his troops immediately at Vicksburg thus compelling Grant to lay siege to the city
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 5, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Afternoon Xan. As to your question of why Pemberton just did'nt surrender his
              troops immediately at Vicksburg thus compelling Grant to lay siege to the city
              etc. Beside's Pemberton expecting reenforcements, I believe he understood the
              importance of trying to keep Vicksburg from falling and knew if it did, that not
              only would the Confederacy be cut in half, but one of the last major supply routes
              for the South would be severed which would eventually lead to the down fall of the
              Confederacy.

              KyReb

              "L.A. Chambliss" wrote:

              > Cob makes a good point (we ARE supposed to be talking about "The Other Civil
              > War" here) but that does not mean we have to dump this topic entirely. There
              > are plenty of examples in the West of generals who shouldered on despite heavy
              > odds, seemingy-impossible situations, etc.
              >
              > One such situation that has always puzzled me is Pemberton in Vicksburg. Once
              > he got backed into the town, why did he not just surrender his forces
              > immediately? What was the point of putting not only his men, but a fair sized
              > civilian population, through the kind of privations they endured under the
              > siege? Did he think he was tying Grant down and buying time for either relief
              > to arrive or for Confederate forces to accomplish something elsewhere?
              >
              > Just wonderin'..... :-)
              >
              > Laurie "Xan" Chambliss
              >
              > cob2mo wrote:
              >
              > > As much as I admire Lee. Lets not forget that this forum is supposed to be
              > > western theater. Lets talk about the real war not the war in the east. Lets
              > > discuss the JO Shelby's and the Prices and the Lyon the Fremont. The Battle
              > > at Wilson Creek aka Oak Hill. Shiloh, or Cornith Mobile etc. Now I will
              > > shut up! Cobber
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: aero1485@... <aero1485@...>
              > > To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
              > > Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 10:12 PM
              > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: LEE
              > >
              > > >Looking at the human side of Lee, I would agree that he could have been
              > > >thinking about Washington at Valley Forge. Many times in history, men have
              > > >persevered over impossible odds. So...why would a man like Lee just give
              > > up
              > > >without trying to overcome the odds?
              > > >
              > > >Victor
              > > >
              > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > > >Missing old school friends? Find them here:
              > > >http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/3/_/14182/_/960088358/
              > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > > How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. -
              > > or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which
              > > fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
              > > http://click.egroups.com/1/3820/3/_/14182/_/960169034/
              > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > BeMANY, where eGroups members SAVE on long distance.
              > http://click.egroups.com/1/4121/3/_/14182/_/960169781/
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            • Larry McGibben
              Afternoon Xan. As to your question of why Pemberton just did nt surrender his troops immediately at Vicksburg thus compelling Grant to lay siege to the city
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 5, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Afternoon Xan. As to your question of why Pemberton just did'nt surrender his
                troops immediately at Vicksburg thus compelling Grant to lay siege to the city
                etc. Beside's Pemberton expecting reenforcements, I believe he understood the
                importance of trying to keep Vicksburg from falling and knew if it did, that not
                only would the Confederacy be cut in half, but one of the last major supply routes
                for the South would be severed which would eventually lead to the down fall of the
                Confederacy.

                KyReb

                "L.A. Chambliss" wrote:

                > Cob makes a good point (we ARE supposed to be talking about "The Other Civil
                > War" here) but that does not mean we have to dump this topic entirely. There
                > are plenty of examples in the West of generals who shouldered on despite heavy
                > odds, seemingy-impossible situations, etc.
                >
                > One such situation that has always puzzled me is Pemberton in Vicksburg. Once
                > he got backed into the town, why did he not just surrender his forces
                > immediately? What was the point of putting not only his men, but a fair sized
                > civilian population, through the kind of privations they endured under the
                > siege? Did he think he was tying Grant down and buying time for either relief
                > to arrive or for Confederate forces to accomplish something elsewhere?
                >
                > Just wonderin'..... :-)
                >
                > Laurie "Xan" Chambliss
                >
                > cob2mo wrote:
                >
                > > As much as I admire Lee. Lets not forget that this forum is supposed to be
                > > western theater. Lets talk about the real war not the war in the east. Lets
                > > discuss the JO Shelby's and the Prices and the Lyon the Fremont. The Battle
                > > at Wilson Creek aka Oak Hill. Shiloh, or Cornith Mobile etc. Now I will
                > > shut up! Cobber
                > > -----Original Message-----
                > > From: aero1485@... <aero1485@...>
                > > To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                > > Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 10:12 PM
                > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: LEE
                > >
                > > >Looking at the human side of Lee, I would agree that he could have been
                > > >thinking about Washington at Valley Forge. Many times in history, men have
                > > >persevered over impossible odds. So...why would a man like Lee just give
                > > up
                > > >without trying to overcome the odds?
                > > >
                > > >Victor
                > > >
                > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > > >Missing old school friends? Find them here:
                > > >http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/3/_/14182/_/960088358/
                > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > > How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. -
                > > or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which
                > > fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
                > > http://click.egroups.com/1/3820/3/_/14182/_/960169034/
                > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > BeMANY, where eGroups members SAVE on long distance.
                > http://click.egroups.com/1/4121/3/_/14182/_/960169781/
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              • mobile_96
                ... could ... priorities and ... Vicksburg s control of the river prevented commerce from the upper Mississippi to the Gulf,which states like Illinios,Michigan
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 5, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, "Don Plezia" <oneplez@e...> wrote:
                  >
                  > What was being shipped by the Confederates in that stretch? What
                  could
                  > be shipped?
                  >
                  > I think Vicksburg was too high on the list of Confederate
                  priorities
                  and
                  > Davis's desire to protect 'all' of the confederacy.
                  >
                  > Cordially,
                  >
                  >
                  > D. W. Plezia

                  Vicksburg's control of the river prevented commerce from the upper
                  Mississippi to the Gulf,which states like Illinios,Michigan and
                  Indiana were telling Lincoln they wanted open so they could move
                  their products. With the Union taking Vicksburg they would split the
                  south in two, and prevent the movement of foodstuffs, manpower and
                  material, including Mercury for "caps" and horses, which the south
                  needed very badly, from Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. Also the
                  Southern Railroad of Mississippi made the city a strategic importance.
                  Therefore, Vicksburg was a political, economic and military prize
                  for Lincoln.
                  Pemberton was picked by J.Davis especially to defend Vicksburg with
                  Johnston assigned to command a area encompassing Vicksburg but did
                  not specifically include Pemberton and his forces. The 2 were supposed
                  to work together to protect all the approaches to the city and the
                  city itself. But it appears as if Johnston was not sure of his duties
                  and failed to direct all his forces in a effective direction, and
                  that
                  probably contributed to the downfall of Vicksburg. (IMHO)
                • mobile_96
                  ... could ... priorities and ... Vicksburg s control of the river prevented commerce from the upper Mississippi to the Gulf,which states like Illinios,Michigan
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 5, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In civilwarwest@egroups.com, "Don Plezia" <oneplez@e...> wrote:
                    >
                    > What was being shipped by the Confederates in that stretch? What
                    could
                    > be shipped?
                    >
                    > I think Vicksburg was too high on the list of Confederate
                    priorities
                    and
                    > Davis's desire to protect 'all' of the confederacy.
                    >
                    > Cordially,
                    >
                    >
                    > D. W. Plezia

                    Vicksburg's control of the river prevented commerce from the upper
                    Mississippi to the Gulf,which states like Illinios,Michigan and
                    Indiana were telling Lincoln they wanted open so they could move
                    their products. With the Union taking Vicksburg they would split the
                    south in two, and prevent the movement of foodstuffs, manpower and
                    material, including Mercury for "caps" and horses, which the south
                    needed very badly, from Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. Also the
                    Southern Railroad of Mississippi made the city a strategic importance.
                    Therefore, Vicksburg was a political, economic and military prize
                    for Lincoln.
                    Pemberton was picked by J.Davis especially to defend Vicksburg with
                    Johnston assigned to command a area encompassing Vicksburg but did
                    not specifically include Pemberton and his forces. The 2 were supposed
                    to work together to protect all the approaches to the city and the
                    city itself. But it appears as if Johnston was not sure of his duties
                    and failed to direct all his forces in a effective direction, and
                    that
                    probably contributed to the downfall of Vicksburg. (IMHO)
                  • philip@twinoaks.org
                    To: From: Don Plezia Date sent: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:45:46 -0400 Send reply
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 5, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                      From: "Don Plezia" <oneplez@...>
                      Date sent: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:45:46 -0400
                      Send reply to: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Perseverance (was Lee)

                      > I don't understand this rationale!
                      >
                      > The Union forces already controlled the mouth of the Mississippi up
                      > into Shreveport, Louisiana, I believe. Memphis, north of Vicksburg,
                      > was also controlled by the Feds. Arkansas, and Missouri were in most
                      > instances controlled by the Union.
                      >
                      > What was being shipped by the Confederates in that stretch? What
                      > could be shipped?
                      >
                      > I think Vicksburg was too high on the list of Confederate priorities
                      > and Davis's desire to protect 'all' of the confederacy.
                      >
                      A few thoughts: First, while I have repeatedly read in this
                      discussion group that there was little of signifcance in the Trans-
                      Mississippi, I have read elsewhere that there were cattle and other
                      resources that continued to be shipped out of Texas and Lousiana
                      down the Red River until the Mississippi was finally closed. But
                      let's assume for the sake of argument that this was not a
                      significant factor. Secondly, hope springs eternal or some such
                      thing. There was talk of the possibility of reinforcements coming
                      from the Eastern theatre, to combine with Johnston and make the
                      attempt to relieve Pemberton's army. Either way, it would make no
                      sense to bottle yourself up in Vicksburg, and then turn right around
                      and surrender. He should have never gone in there in the first
                      place. If, as you say that the strategic significance was minimal,
                      then the political signifcance must have loomed large. The
                      Anaconda Plan to encircle the Confederacy and slowly strangle it
                      was a real factor in the war. To lose Vicksburg was to see the
                      circle completed (aside from the holes in the blockade). It must
                      have been very demoralizing. Losing the Trans-Mississippi must
                      not have gone down so well with the folks from that area, either. A
                      government's first pledge in war is to protect all of its citizens, and
                      the government in Richmond could hardly have written off Texas
                      and others without repercussions in the rest of the Confederacy. It
                      is probably a bit like amputation: you know it has to go, but can't
                      let go. One other political factor may have been the dreams and
                      aspirations of the Confederacy. Before the war, a great deal was
                      made about the expansion of slavery into new territories in the
                      West, possible expansion into Mexico, Central America and Cuba.
                      Some would say that one of the main causes of the war was the
                      demand that they be allowed to expand slavery into those areas,
                      while the resistance to those ideas was increasing in the North. To
                      lose the Trans-Mississippi may have been to see those dreams
                      crushed. They may have felt that they would never again have
                      access to those regions.
                      Just a few thoughts.
                      Philip Callen
                    • philip@twinoaks.org
                      To: From: Don Plezia Date sent: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:45:46 -0400 Send reply
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 5, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To: <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                        From: "Don Plezia" <oneplez@...>
                        Date sent: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:45:46 -0400
                        Send reply to: civilwarwest@egroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Perseverance (was Lee)

                        > I don't understand this rationale!
                        >
                        > The Union forces already controlled the mouth of the Mississippi up
                        > into Shreveport, Louisiana, I believe. Memphis, north of Vicksburg,
                        > was also controlled by the Feds. Arkansas, and Missouri were in most
                        > instances controlled by the Union.
                        >
                        > What was being shipped by the Confederates in that stretch? What
                        > could be shipped?
                        >
                        > I think Vicksburg was too high on the list of Confederate priorities
                        > and Davis's desire to protect 'all' of the confederacy.
                        >
                        A few thoughts: First, while I have repeatedly read in this
                        discussion group that there was little of signifcance in the Trans-
                        Mississippi, I have read elsewhere that there were cattle and other
                        resources that continued to be shipped out of Texas and Lousiana
                        down the Red River until the Mississippi was finally closed. But
                        let's assume for the sake of argument that this was not a
                        significant factor. Secondly, hope springs eternal or some such
                        thing. There was talk of the possibility of reinforcements coming
                        from the Eastern theatre, to combine with Johnston and make the
                        attempt to relieve Pemberton's army. Either way, it would make no
                        sense to bottle yourself up in Vicksburg, and then turn right around
                        and surrender. He should have never gone in there in the first
                        place. If, as you say that the strategic significance was minimal,
                        then the political signifcance must have loomed large. The
                        Anaconda Plan to encircle the Confederacy and slowly strangle it
                        was a real factor in the war. To lose Vicksburg was to see the
                        circle completed (aside from the holes in the blockade). It must
                        have been very demoralizing. Losing the Trans-Mississippi must
                        not have gone down so well with the folks from that area, either. A
                        government's first pledge in war is to protect all of its citizens, and
                        the government in Richmond could hardly have written off Texas
                        and others without repercussions in the rest of the Confederacy. It
                        is probably a bit like amputation: you know it has to go, but can't
                        let go. One other political factor may have been the dreams and
                        aspirations of the Confederacy. Before the war, a great deal was
                        made about the expansion of slavery into new territories in the
                        West, possible expansion into Mexico, Central America and Cuba.
                        Some would say that one of the main causes of the war was the
                        demand that they be allowed to expand slavery into those areas,
                        while the resistance to those ideas was increasing in the North. To
                        lose the Trans-Mississippi may have been to see those dreams
                        crushed. They may have felt that they would never again have
                        access to those regions.
                        Just a few thoughts.
                        Philip Callen
                      • D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D.
                        Hello all I hate to keep this thread going, since we have covered V burg before, but I find myself again unconvinced that loss of V burg was as significant an
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jun 6, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello all
                          I hate to keep this thread going, since we have covered V'burg before,
                          but I find myself again unconvinced that loss of V'burg was as
                          significant an event as, say, the loss of Donelson or the Tullahoma
                          campaign. On the other hand, I really don't know this. I'm just too
                          doggone lazy to get up off my bum and go looking for hard numbers, i.e.,
                          how many troops were in the Trans-Mississippi when V'burg fell, how many
                          resources were really provided by this region, etc. One must also
                          consider that if the loss of V'burg was perceived by virtually everyone
                          at the time as monumental, then whether it objectively was or not, the
                          effect on morale would still be the same. While hard number comparisons
                          would be nice (and surely if in no other place somebody out there has
                          written a master's thesis or doctoral dissertation on this question of
                          hard numbers, but again I must confess I haven't looked), this question
                          of the effect on morale should not be underestimated. Lastly, weren't
                          there rumors of Pemberton's disloyalty? I don't know that there is any
                          evidence at all for this, but an interesting what-if. Thanks for
                          listening.
                          Andy

                          "L.A. Chambliss" wrote:
                          >
                          > Cob makes a good point (we ARE supposed to be talking about "The Other Civil
                          > War" here) but that does not mean we have to dump this topic entirely. There
                          > are plenty of examples in the West of generals who shouldered on despite heavy
                          > odds, seemingy-impossible situations, etc.
                          >
                          > One such situation that has always puzzled me is Pemberton in Vicksburg. Once
                          > he got backed into the town, why did he not just surrender his forces
                          > immediately? What was the point of putting not only his men, but a fair sized
                          > civilian population, through the kind of privations they endured under the
                          > siege? Did he think he was tying Grant down and buying time for either relief
                          > to arrive or for Confederate forces to accomplish something elsewhere?
                          >
                          > Just wonderin'..... :-)
                          >
                          > Laurie "Xan" Chambliss
                          >
                          > cob2mo wrote:
                          >
                          > > As much as I admire Lee. Lets not forget that this forum is supposed to be
                          > > western theater. Lets talk about the real war not the war in the east. Lets
                          > > discuss the JO Shelby's and the Prices and the Lyon the Fremont. The Battle
                          > > at Wilson Creek aka Oak Hill. Shiloh, or Cornith Mobile etc. Now I will
                          > > shut up! Cobber
                          > > -----Original Message-----
                          > > From: aero1485@... <aero1485@...>
                          > > To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                          > > Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 10:12 PM
                          > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: LEE
                          > >
                          > > >Looking at the human side of Lee, I would agree that he could have been
                          > > >thinking about Washington at Valley Forge. Many times in history, men have
                          > > >persevered over impossible odds. So...why would a man like Lee just give
                          > > up
                          > > >without trying to overcome the odds?
                          > > >
                          > > >Victor
                          > > >
                          > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > > >Missing old school friends? Find them here:
                          > > >http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/3/_/14182/_/960088358/
                          > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > > How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. -
                          > > or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which
                          > > fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
                          > > http://click.egroups.com/1/3820/3/_/14182/_/960169034/
                          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > BeMANY, where eGroups members SAVE on long distance.
                          > http://click.egroups.com/1/4121/3/_/14182/_/960169781/
                          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        • D. Andrew Burden, Ph.D.
                          Hello all I hate to keep this thread going, since we have covered V burg before, but I find myself again unconvinced that loss of V burg was as significant an
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jun 6, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello all
                            I hate to keep this thread going, since we have covered V'burg before,
                            but I find myself again unconvinced that loss of V'burg was as
                            significant an event as, say, the loss of Donelson or the Tullahoma
                            campaign. On the other hand, I really don't know this. I'm just too
                            doggone lazy to get up off my bum and go looking for hard numbers, i.e.,
                            how many troops were in the Trans-Mississippi when V'burg fell, how many
                            resources were really provided by this region, etc. One must also
                            consider that if the loss of V'burg was perceived by virtually everyone
                            at the time as monumental, then whether it objectively was or not, the
                            effect on morale would still be the same. While hard number comparisons
                            would be nice (and surely if in no other place somebody out there has
                            written a master's thesis or doctoral dissertation on this question of
                            hard numbers, but again I must confess I haven't looked), this question
                            of the effect on morale should not be underestimated. Lastly, weren't
                            there rumors of Pemberton's disloyalty? I don't know that there is any
                            evidence at all for this, but an interesting what-if. Thanks for
                            listening.
                            Andy

                            "L.A. Chambliss" wrote:
                            >
                            > Cob makes a good point (we ARE supposed to be talking about "The Other Civil
                            > War" here) but that does not mean we have to dump this topic entirely. There
                            > are plenty of examples in the West of generals who shouldered on despite heavy
                            > odds, seemingy-impossible situations, etc.
                            >
                            > One such situation that has always puzzled me is Pemberton in Vicksburg. Once
                            > he got backed into the town, why did he not just surrender his forces
                            > immediately? What was the point of putting not only his men, but a fair sized
                            > civilian population, through the kind of privations they endured under the
                            > siege? Did he think he was tying Grant down and buying time for either relief
                            > to arrive or for Confederate forces to accomplish something elsewhere?
                            >
                            > Just wonderin'..... :-)
                            >
                            > Laurie "Xan" Chambliss
                            >
                            > cob2mo wrote:
                            >
                            > > As much as I admire Lee. Lets not forget that this forum is supposed to be
                            > > western theater. Lets talk about the real war not the war in the east. Lets
                            > > discuss the JO Shelby's and the Prices and the Lyon the Fremont. The Battle
                            > > at Wilson Creek aka Oak Hill. Shiloh, or Cornith Mobile etc. Now I will
                            > > shut up! Cobber
                            > > -----Original Message-----
                            > > From: aero1485@... <aero1485@...>
                            > > To: civilwarwest@egroups.com <civilwarwest@egroups.com>
                            > > Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 10:12 PM
                            > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: LEE
                            > >
                            > > >Looking at the human side of Lee, I would agree that he could have been
                            > > >thinking about Washington at Valley Forge. Many times in history, men have
                            > > >persevered over impossible odds. So...why would a man like Lee just give
                            > > up
                            > > >without trying to overcome the odds?
                            > > >
                            > > >Victor
                            > > >
                            > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            > > >Missing old school friends? Find them here:
                            > > >http://click.egroups.com/1/4055/3/_/14182/_/960088358/
                            > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            > > How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. -
                            > > or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which
                            > > fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!
                            > > http://click.egroups.com/1/3820/3/_/14182/_/960169034/
                            > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            > BeMANY, where eGroups members SAVE on long distance.
                            > http://click.egroups.com/1/4121/3/_/14182/_/960169781/
                            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          • hvonbork@aol.com
                            Andy- The loss of Vicksburg cost Pemberton his Generalship and much suspicion for many as he was not a Southerner by birth. In my view, however, he certainly
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jun 6, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Andy-
                              The loss of Vicksburg cost Pemberton his Generalship and much suspicion
                              for many as he was not a Southerner by birth. In my view, however, he
                              certainly demonstrated his integrity in serving out the balance of the war in
                              Richmond as a light- Colonel.
                            • hvonbork@aol.com
                              Andy- The loss of Vicksburg cost Pemberton his Generalship and much suspicion for many as he was not a Southerner by birth. In my view, however, he certainly
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jun 6, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Andy-
                                The loss of Vicksburg cost Pemberton his Generalship and much suspicion
                                for many as he was not a Southerner by birth. In my view, however, he
                                certainly demonstrated his integrity in serving out the balance of the war in
                                Richmond as a light- Colonel.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.