- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:02 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Did he cry more, more, more?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:08 pm to LCA131
quote:
rambunctious..just fyi.
Thanks, wasn't autocorrected lol.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:29 pm to Wishnitwas1998
That was a great book. If you liked it, you should also check out Empire of the Summer Moon, also written by S.C. Gwynn. It's about the Comanches and taming of the southwest.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:32 pm to Palo Gaucho
Palo, I read and enjoyed that one also. The savagery of the Indians was shocking.
Gwynne is a great writer
Gwynne is a great writer
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:41 pm to GREENHEAD22
quote:
There was several ways the south could have one,
was =/= were and one =/= won. If those are huge stumbling blocks, I'm not going to take anything that you say on tactics seriously. Grammar matters.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:54 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Bryce's (Brice's?) Crossroads is still studied today in military schools. Forrest was a bad motherfricker.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:54 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Gonna look into this book
Just finished a great on on the siege of Vicksburg. Just can't wrap my mind around why more wasn't done on the western front to secure the river
Just finished a great on on the siege of Vicksburg. Just can't wrap my mind around why more wasn't done on the western front to secure the river
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:00 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
Just can't wrap my mind around why more wasn't done on the western front to secure the river
Because most of the generals were more focused on protecting their homes than the overall cause. If they were serious about winning the war, they should have focused on protecting the ports and major rivers
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:10 pm to BamaSaint
I honestly thought it was simply bc they didn't have the manpower to defend it and when given a choice Richmond (industrial capital of the South) was much more necessary to be protected
Not to mention it just kinda makes sense to have your forced closer to norther territory that might force the norths hand if you can invade and occupy
Controlling the Miss River is great and all but it wouldn't have brought the north a single inch closer to peace. Being on DC's doorstep might could do just that
Not to mention it just kinda makes sense to have your forced closer to norther territory that might force the norths hand if you can invade and occupy
Controlling the Miss River is great and all but it wouldn't have brought the north a single inch closer to peace. Being on DC's doorstep might could do just that
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:11 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
Gonna look into this book Just finished a great on on the siege of Vicksburg. Just can't wrap my mind around why more wasn't done on the western front to secure the river
Can you tell me the books name by chance?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:18 pm to Wishnitwas1998
" The siege of Vickburg" by Richard Wheeler.
I really liked the way it was written. Most of it is the story told through diary entries from everyone involved from Grant to shopkeepers.
I really liked the way it was written. Most of it is the story told through diary entries from everyone involved from Grant to shopkeepers.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:19 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:38 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
Controlling the Miss River is great and all but it wouldn't have brought the north a single inch closer to peace. Being on DC's doorstep might could do just that
I admit to being very ignorant to much of the war and strategies. Supplies were gonna be an issue from the beginning so why not secure all ports? Control the river and rails in the south. Seems like of the south was to succeed then they would do so, secure the south and only fight to keep the north out and not use so many resources in actually attacking the north.
I'm sure I'm way off on that line of thinking but seems like that could have bought them more time and let the north grow weary. By the end of the war most northerners ( citizens and politicians / generals) were wanting peace and had grown tired of it
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:52 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Except the Union won the war by Naval blockades. If Davis and Lee would've focused a little more on the West and the major ports in New Orleans and Mobile maybe the cause wouldn't have been lost.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:55 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
let's try to avoid commenting on the south being right or wrong ITT
quote:
so I don't feel so heartbroken over his death
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:58 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
You aren't way off by any means and I am certainly not an expert either but I'm pretty sure there was a Union blockade essentially blocking off the entire confederacy so even if they could control the river I'm not sure how much good it would have done
My guess would be is it was just far too large an area to try to defend for the south to be able to do so effectively. The south was dwarfed in man power by the north and in fact likely would've been crushed much earlier in the war (1861-1862) had the north not consistently had VERY exaggerated man counts of the southern armies. Sometimes it was even double. Now some of that was bc Generals like Mclellon were just overly cautious and looked for any reason not to be aggressive when he likely Knew the count was way too high but Lincoln would've removed him much earlier had he known the actual numbers
Combine this with the fact that the north was on Richmond's doorstep in 1862 (often forgotten) with already supieror numbers than the south it just doesn't seem pheasable to me to have diverted ANY forces to try to hold the river/West. They were already hamstrung as it was and IMO if it wasn't for Lee taking over command the Union would've probably crushed Richmond right then and there
Due to differences of the present ppl don't realize that Richmond wasn't just a symbolic capital of the south. It's industrial importance along with strategic railroad infrastructure made it CRITICAL to the war effort and for better or worse it's where the vast majority of confederate supplies was gathered then dispersed to the army
The General consensus amongst many and that of I think Lee and ESPECIALLY Jackson was/is due to the differences in resources, the longer the war went the harder it would become for the South to win. Waiting it out while the north slowly chipped away at their already limited man power and resources was simply not a great option, especially after it became apparent none of the European powers were going to help them out
My guess would be is it was just far too large an area to try to defend for the south to be able to do so effectively. The south was dwarfed in man power by the north and in fact likely would've been crushed much earlier in the war (1861-1862) had the north not consistently had VERY exaggerated man counts of the southern armies. Sometimes it was even double. Now some of that was bc Generals like Mclellon were just overly cautious and looked for any reason not to be aggressive when he likely Knew the count was way too high but Lincoln would've removed him much earlier had he known the actual numbers
Combine this with the fact that the north was on Richmond's doorstep in 1862 (often forgotten) with already supieror numbers than the south it just doesn't seem pheasable to me to have diverted ANY forces to try to hold the river/West. They were already hamstrung as it was and IMO if it wasn't for Lee taking over command the Union would've probably crushed Richmond right then and there
Due to differences of the present ppl don't realize that Richmond wasn't just a symbolic capital of the south. It's industrial importance along with strategic railroad infrastructure made it CRITICAL to the war effort and for better or worse it's where the vast majority of confederate supplies was gathered then dispersed to the army
The General consensus amongst many and that of I think Lee and ESPECIALLY Jackson was/is due to the differences in resources, the longer the war went the harder it would become for the South to win. Waiting it out while the north slowly chipped away at their already limited man power and resources was simply not a great option, especially after it became apparent none of the European powers were going to help them out
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 11:03 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 10:59 pm to BamaSaint
quote:
Except the Union won the war by Naval blockades. If Davis and Lee would've focused a little more on the West and the major ports in New Orleans and Mobile maybe the cause wouldn't have been lost.
What exactly were they going to do about the blockades with little to no navy? What good is Mobile or NO if the Union Navy won't allow you to ship any goods in or out?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 11:09 pm to Wishnitwas1998
The only way the south ever could have won was with a quick victory. There were times early it was almost possible, but it was almost too quick, and the troops were not ready.
The south was not prepared to rout the north and end it quick.
Then later there were times it could have happened, but it did not, and then other bad things for the south happened. Jackson dying, etc.
Once the war hit three years, how it would end was all but predestined.
Not to go all Turtledove on this, but the real question is "if the south had won, what would have happened in Civil War part two?"
The south was not prepared to rout the north and end it quick.
Then later there were times it could have happened, but it did not, and then other bad things for the south happened. Jackson dying, etc.
Once the war hit three years, how it would end was all but predestined.
Not to go all Turtledove on this, but the real question is "if the south had won, what would have happened in Civil War part two?"
Posted on 2/21/17 at 11:21 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Even though the Naval Blockade would almost seal off the CSA from overseas ports, Confederate control over the Miss. River remained very important.
Here's why:
The Confederate areas West of the Miss. River were rich in beef, horses and other resources MUCH needed by the Confederate States main armies, which were East of the River. These resources were hauled to the banks of the River to be loaded onto some kind of boat or ferry for transport to the East Bank of the River and further transport over road or railroad.
ONCE the Union Navy was able to take the last Confederate forts on the River, Vicksburg and Port Hudson, there was NO WAY for the abundant resources located West of the River to get to the East! Union Navy Gunboats patrolled the River and prevented any Confederate ferry or transport boats from operating on the River.
So, Union control of the Miss River isolated the areas East of the River and prevented them from receiving supplies from anywhere West of the River. If the CSA could have held onto Vickburg and Port Hudson, THEN the portion of the River between these forts would be a "safe transport zone" for transport of critically needed supplies from the West Bank the the East Bank.
So loss of control of the River was a terrible blow to the Confederacy because the Eastern areas had much less access to cattle and horse ranches than did the vastness of the Western areas of the CSA.
Here's why:
The Confederate areas West of the Miss. River were rich in beef, horses and other resources MUCH needed by the Confederate States main armies, which were East of the River. These resources were hauled to the banks of the River to be loaded onto some kind of boat or ferry for transport to the East Bank of the River and further transport over road or railroad.
ONCE the Union Navy was able to take the last Confederate forts on the River, Vicksburg and Port Hudson, there was NO WAY for the abundant resources located West of the River to get to the East! Union Navy Gunboats patrolled the River and prevented any Confederate ferry or transport boats from operating on the River.
So, Union control of the Miss River isolated the areas East of the River and prevented them from receiving supplies from anywhere West of the River. If the CSA could have held onto Vickburg and Port Hudson, THEN the portion of the River between these forts would be a "safe transport zone" for transport of critically needed supplies from the West Bank the the East Bank.
So loss of control of the River was a terrible blow to the Confederacy because the Eastern areas had much less access to cattle and horse ranches than did the vastness of the Western areas of the CSA.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 11:24 pm
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News