- 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
re: Vlogging Through History's YouTube series on Ulysses S. Grant's Vicksburg Campaign
Posted on 2/7/23 at 6:54 pm to grizzlylongcut
Posted on 2/7/23 at 6:54 pm to grizzlylongcut
Well the Confederates picked a fight that they knew they could not win, so I don't give credit to stupid people.
0
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:02 pm to tide06
Grant held a lot of cred with the War Dept because of his actions at Shiloh. His barrage in the rain that night probably saves the Union Army's arse.
His actions overall are pretty remarkable. Takes Vicksburg while fighting an army in his rear. Then marches to Chattanooga and essentially kicks an entrenched army off a mountain.
Then he goes East and bleeds Lee into submission in Virginia. Lee could not match Grant's intensity or staying power.
His actions overall are pretty remarkable. Takes Vicksburg while fighting an army in his rear. Then marches to Chattanooga and essentially kicks an entrenched army off a mountain.
Then he goes East and bleeds Lee into submission in Virginia. Lee could not match Grant's intensity or staying power.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:11 pm to KiwiHead
If the incompetent Pemberton had laid in the supplies he needed, and evacuated the civilians knowing full well what was coming, Grant might still be trying to take Vicksburg.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:12 pm to RollTide1987
Grant had unlimited ammo, weapons, men, money, and provisions. It’s a disgrace it took him as long as it did to finish the job.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:15 pm to ronricks
They could not break through the fortifications. Had the South a competent leader at Vicksburg who had readied the place for a long siege, Grant might have broken his army trying to take the place.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:21 pm to antibarner
If, if, if.....but it never happened. Pemberton is incompetent and Grant knew how to marshall his advantage in resources.....overwhelming resources. Then he went and took advantage of another incomp at Chattanooga
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:23 pm to tide06
quote:
Can you imagine what Lincoln was hearing up in DC as he was stuck in the delta trying to dig canals for months only to have to back track
Lincoln was fascinated by/loved that plan.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:27 pm to RollTide1987
How drunk was he?
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:29 pm to Strannix
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:31 pm to ronricks
quote:
Grant had unlimited ammo, weapons, men, money, and provisions.
You are massively overstating his advantage.
quote:
It’s a disgrace it took him as long as it did to finish the job.
Nah it is not.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:37 pm to Junky
quote:
Jackson took the tools he was given (which wasn't much) and tied down forces nearly triple his own.
Well, if we're going to deduct points from Grant for taking on an incompetent in Pemberton, I guess we should deduct points from Jackson for taking on an incompetent in Nathaniel Banks. Banks wasn't even a professional soldier. He had been Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives just five years before and here he was commanding troops against a very experienced and wily Confederate officer. His subordinates were mostly political appointees as well (men such as John C. Frémont and Franz Sigel). These guys were scrubs. And while it's true that Jackson had a much smaller force than Banks did while in the Valley, Jackson was able to maneuver his forces in such a way that he equaled or outnumbered the Union army in size in every single battle.
That all being said, one cannot deny the audacity and skill Jackson utilized while bamboozling his opponents in the Shenandoah Valley. It was a brilliant campaign in every sense of the world. However, it pales in comparison to Grant's Vicksburg Campaign due to what each campaign accomplished. Jackson kept upwards of 50,000 Union reinforcements from reaching McClellan in front of Richmond, it is true. But Grant took 30,000 Confederate soldiers off the playing field. He captured an entire enemy army to go along with one of the most important strategic positions on the map. Grant fought and won five straight battles, shoved one Confederate army out of his way when he took Jackson (a state capital) before imprisoning another within the defenses surrounding Vicksburg. And he did it all while operating inside enemy territory while being collectively outnumbered.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:39 pm to RollTide1987
The first time this southern boy visited Vicksburg battlefield, I went expecting to see a memorial for the Southern defeat. Didn’t even think it would be celebrating Northern victory.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 7:42 pm to Darth_Vader
Can we turn this into a thread where we come up with a detailed plan about how we would’ve won as the good guys
Posted on 2/7/23 at 9:45 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Grant held a lot of cred with the War Dept because of his actions at Shiloh.
My understanding is that the cred you talk about wasn’t universal and that Halleck desperately want to get rid of him for most of the western campaign.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 10:39 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Then he went and took advantage of another incompetent at Chattanooga
That incompetent beat Rosecrans’ Army of the Cumberland at Chickamauga in Georgia back into Chattanooga where they huddled demoralized until rescued and revived by Grant and Sherman.
On an aside, I think a case could be made that losing Chattanooga was equally as costly to the South as losing Vicksburg. Maybe more so.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 11:12 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Jackson was able to maneuver his forces in such a way that he equaled or outnumbered the Union army in size in every single battle.
It’s called being smart and taking the tactical advantage when the opportunity arises. His army moved in ways not seen before on American soil and took the fight to the enemy. Grant’s subordinates were sub par, but that’s his own problem and a direct reflection on his leadership. He should have controlled them or replaced them. Does a lion complain about his jackasses, or does he lead those jackasses to victory?
However, Jackson’s goal in the valley campaign wasn’t to defeat an army, it was to prevent reinforcements and cause chaos in the Shenandoah Valley which isn’t exactly the same as Grant’s initiative in Vicksburg.
You have Jackson with his corps tying down essentially an army, while Grant has an army taking on an army. The two do not compare.
This post was edited on 2/7/23 at 11:14 pm
Posted on 2/7/23 at 11:16 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
Grant and Sherman never get a crack at Chattanooga without the victory at Vicksburg.
Whoever put Pemberton in charge{Jeff Davis} is to blame for what happened. Had they detached Longstreet and sent him out there {I know.....IF} he likely fills the warehouses and has things set for a long siege, and Ulysses is there for a very long time.
IF...he could stay there for a very long time. The Rebs in time could possibly cut him off they had the numbers and Grant couldnt stay there forever River Navy or no River Navy
Whoever put Pemberton in charge{Jeff Davis} is to blame for what happened. Had they detached Longstreet and sent him out there {I know.....IF} he likely fills the warehouses and has things set for a long siege, and Ulysses is there for a very long time.
IF...he could stay there for a very long time. The Rebs in time could possibly cut him off they had the numbers and Grant couldnt stay there forever River Navy or no River Navy
This post was edited on 2/7/23 at 11:21 pm
Posted on 2/7/23 at 11:28 pm to Junky
quote:
Grant’s subordinates were sub par, but that’s his own problem and a direct reflection on his leadership. He should have controlled them or replaced them.
Thanks for letting us know that you don't have knowledge of history.
Grant was not in charge of Anybody that Jackson faced. Hell, Grant wasn't leading the Union Army until well after Jackson's death.
Posted on 2/7/23 at 11:31 pm to antibarner
quote:
IF...he could stay there for a very long time. The Rebs in time could possibly cut him off they had the numbers and Grant couldnt stay there forever River Navy or no River Navy
People keep bringing up Jackson and his Valley campaign to cut off reinforcements.
Well...that's what Grant had Sherman and his other Generals doing throughout Mississippi while he began to lay the siege.
Why don't y'all give them the same credit for doing the same task?
Posted on 2/8/23 at 12:13 am to antibarner
quote:
Grant and Sherman never get a crack at Chattanooga without the victory at Vicksburg.
Yes. Absolutely.
An excerpt taken from Shelby Foote’s The Civil War that deals with Vicksburg has been made a separate book named The Beleaguered City.
I think it very fairly demonstrates the pressures Grant had working against him from his Confederate opponents in front to challenges to his authority and command from his own side and the strenuous efforts he made to reduce Vicksburg.
Like you say-if Longstreet had been sent west things may have gone differently. They certainly would have been more bloody for the Federal troops. Longstreet had given a lot of study to the relative ratios in strength of numbers required to maximize success both in defense and in attack. He’d have extracted a fierce toll on Grant and Sherman.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News