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/
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
    • 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 2 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 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/
          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          --
          >
          >
          >
        • 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.