--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "jackdotsmit" <jackdotsmit@...> wrote:
>
> I am trying to do a chronological analysis of the western theater from Jan
-Jun 1862 and the importance of this period specifically. I have been unable to
find good information of this period as to why it is significant; if it is
significant and exactly what states defined the western theater in this time
frame. Many historians differ on the territory and states considered the western
theater. Best I can tell this is where Grant made a name for himself.  This
particular time in history seems to be left unexamined or I am looking in the
wrong books. IT is easy to chronologically list the battles and the 1000 that
died, but I want to learn what impact these battles had on the war, the people
that fought the battles and the united states as a whole. Was this a turning
point?  Any insight or direction you can provide for this specific period would
be helpful.
>

Jack;
It is hard at times to define what the Western Theater was.  As the military
situation changed, so did the defination of the region and the authority and
responsibility of the commanders.  I define the Western Theater as the
Mississippi River valley.  That may sound to be a narrow defination but it
includes almost all of the campaigns and battles of the time period you mention.
Included is Grant's campaigh down the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, FT's
Henry and Donelson because the Tennessee River campaign was an extension to the
Mississippi River valley.  These side campaigns is how the federals got down the
Mississippi.  Therefore also included are Shiloh, Corinth, Iuka, Memphis, Fort
Pillow, Island #10, Columbus Kentucky.  Not included is the west bank of the
river (except Island #10) because it was bad terrain.  I would include the west
bank after July 1862 as the action moved down river at and below Memphis and
Helena Ark.
The area east of Nashville and down to northern Alabama I include in the Central
Theater, Chickamauga, Tullahoma, Knoxville, Chattanoonga and the Atlanta
campaign and battles.
In the time frame you provide, I suggest that the Tennessee River campaign was
the most important with military actions at Fts Henry, Heiman and Donelson,
Shiloh and the seige of Corinth.
Hope this helps
Ron

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "jackdotsmit" <jackdotsmit@...> wrote:
>
> I am trying to do a chronological analysis of the western theater from Jan
-Jun 1862 and the importance of this period specifically. I have been unable to
find good information of this period as to why it is significant; if it is
significant and exactly what states defined the western theater in this time
frame. Many historians differ on the territory and states considered the western
theater. Best I can tell this is where Grant made a name for himself.  This
particular time in history seems to be left unexamined or I am looking in the
wrong books. IT is easy to chronologically list the battles and the 1000 that
died, but I want to learn what impact these battles had on the war, the people
that fought the battles and the united states as a whole. Was this a turning
point?  Any insight or direction you can provide for this specific period would
be helpful.
>

Why Jan-Jun?  That's very specific, and is not bounded by any logical events. 
Why not Feb-May?  Why not Jan-Oct?

That's a REALLY strange question for a new poster.

:D

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, navalhistorymark@... wrote:
>
>
>
> James McPherson, in Battle Cry of Freedom (422), quotes a Union newspaper
describing the first half of the year as a "Deluge of Victories in the
West." Between February and June 1862 Union forces won battles at Forts Henry
and Donelson, Island Number 10, Shiloh, Memphis, and New Orleans, occupied fifty
thousand square miles of Confederate territory, gained control of one thousand
miles of navigable rivers, and captured two state capitals.
>
>
>
> The Confederacy lost a significant portion of its resources and manufacturing
capability during the first half of 1862 with the capture of Nashville, Memphis
and New Orleans. Several scholarly general histories, economic and naval studies
of the war point this out. IMHO, this leads back to the decisive decision to
build the western rivers ironclads at the end of 1861, which made the early
victories on the rivers possible.
>


I see, if you include Mill Springs and Memphis, it extends it to Jan-June.  The
central theme of this peroid is Halleck and Grant's campaign to turn Columbus
via the Tennessee River ... which is really Feb-May.

> This series of posts between Bobrick and Brooks Simpson should be enlightening
for anyone tempted to purchase this book:
>
> Re: George Thomas (#132373)
> by Brooks D. Simpson on March 3, 2009 at 1:44 AM
>
> How does your description of what happened at Chattanooga differ from that
offered by previous Thomas biographers? It's not as if your claims are exactly
new. In short, what do you have to say that hasn't been said before?

>
I have not read the new book out on GH Thomas, but I always have refered back to
my copy of his bio written by Palumbo.  In my estimation, Thomas was a great
Union commander.  Not better, not worse, but a integral part of Sherman's team. 
Being a room mate of Sherman at WP, the two of them knew each other very well
and had a lot of respect for each other.  Both of them made Brigadier on General
Order # 10 with Sherman's name first.  How did Thomas's get that appointment...
by Sherman twisting the arm of his brother, John Sherman. But, that friendship
was put aside when it came to the business afor them.  Both of them made
mistakes.  Following Resaca, Sherman did lean on the advice of Thomas more and
more.  He had enough confidence in Thomas knowing that Thomas alone could handle
Hood without a problem.  He is in many ways, an unsung hero, but there are those
on line that have tried to make him into a God.  This is wrong.

JEJ

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "jackdotsmit" <jackdotsmit@...> wrote:
>
> I am trying to do a chronological analysis of the western theater from Jan
-Jun 1862 and the importance of this period specifically. I have been unable to
find good information of this period as to why it is significant;

I would think that any book covering Shiloh or Fort Donelson would discuss the
importance of the period.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "jackdotsmit" <jackdotsmit@...> wrote:
>
> I am trying to do a chronological analysis of the western theater from Jan
-Jun 1862 and the importance of this period specifically. I have been unable to
find good information of this period as to why it is significant; if it is
significant and exactly what states defined the western theater in this time
frame. Many historians differ on the territory and states considered the western
theater.

The Western Theater in a sense was really two theaters.  One fought by Grant and
the Army of the Tennessee and the other fought by Don Carlos Buell and later
Rosecrans with the Army of the Cumberland.  To look at the Western Theater, you
have to look at both of these armies.

J+EJ

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@...> wrote:

> Why Jan-Jun?  That's very specific, and is not bounded by any logical events. 
Why not Feb-May?  Why not Jan-Oct?

Seems logical to me.
January is when activity started in Kentucky.
June is when the US initiative fizzled out.


> That's a REALLY strange question for a new poster.

Seems like a fine question.

Hello all,

I started a new blog called The History Blog, where I blog about all things
history-related. Please check it out at http://historyguy28.wordpress.com

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "gnrljejohnston" <GnrlJEJohnston@...>
wrote:
>
>  It seems to me that each of the three generals (USG, WTS & GHT) was good
enough in the role that he had to get the job done.  That was the important
thing.  Different qualities of leadership are usually required at different
levels within an organization and each of these men had a somewhat different
role from the other two.  Thus, it seems to me not to be useful to try to do
exact comparisons among them.  Each was equal to his task and that's what
counts.

As to Thomas being overlooked after the war was over, I think that's probably
true.  Should Grant and Sherman have taken the time to build up Thomas's
reputation after the war?  Perhaps.  In my view, the whole western theater was
overlooked after the war was over and may just now be beginning to get the
recognition it deserves.  Thomas's reputation may be shining brighter as
historians look more closely at what happened "way out here!"  However, it is
doubtful that Sherman's or Grant's reputations will suffer.  Perhaps the
strengths and weaknesses of each man will be revealed more clearly, but will
that make one "better" than the others?  I doubt it.


> > This series of posts between Bobrick and Brooks Simpson should be
enlightening for anyone tempted to purchase this book:
> >
> > Re: George Thomas (#132373)
> > by Brooks D. Simpson on March 3, 2009 at 1:44 AM
> >
> > How does your description of what happened at Chattanooga differ from that
offered by previous Thomas biographers? It's not as if your claims are exactly
new. In short, what do you have to say that hasn't been said before?
>
> >
> I have not read the new book out on GH Thomas, but I always have refered back
to my copy of his bio written by Palumbo.  In my estimation, Thomas was a great
Union commander.  Not better, not worse, but a integral part of Sherman's team. 
Being a room mate of Sherman at WP, the two of them knew each other very well
and had a lot of respect for each other.  Both of them made Brigadier on General
Order # 10 with Sherman's name first.  How did Thomas's get that appointment...
by Sherman twisting the arm of his brother, John Sherman. But, that friendship
was put aside when it came to the business afor them.  Both of them made
mistakes.  Following Resaca, Sherman did lean on the advice of Thomas more and
more.  He had enough confidence in Thomas knowing that Thomas alone could handle
Hood without a problem.  He is in many ways, an unsung hero, but there are those
on line that have tried to make him into a God.  This is wrong.
>
> JEJ
>

If you are thinking about buying the book, take a close look at the Amazon
reviews.  Thomas fans LOVE the book!  Civil War people are dismissive of it.  I
have not found an ACW person that thinks well of the book.

Check the book, Decision in the Heartland: The Civil War in the West
(Reflections on the Civil War Era) (Hardcover)
by Steven E. Woodworth (Author)

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene" <wh_keene@...> wrote:
>
> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@> wrote:
>
> > Why Jan-Jun?  That's very specific, and is not bounded by any logical
events.  Why not Feb-May?  Why not Jan-Oct?
>
> Seems logical to me.
> January is when activity started in Kentucky.
> June is when the US initiative fizzled out.

Exactly ... it's taking the logical boundary one month too far.

Jan-May would be the logical separation: Zollicoffer is killed, Donelson falls
to Grant, Buell moves south to Nashville, both armies converge on Shiloh,
Halleck takes Corinth, New Orleans falls to Farragut.

June is the beginning of a great federal denouement: the great federal army at
Corinth is split up, Rosecrans creeps towards Chattanooga only to be thwarted,
Halleck is called away to Washington, Farragut fails to force the capitulation
of Vicksburg, Bragg wrests the initiative from the federals and invades
Kentucky, the Confederates fortify Port Hudson and Snyder's Bluff securing the
Red and Yazoo Rivers to Confederate navigation.

Then in October we see Grant, though left with barely enough forces to hold the
ground that he has been ordered to defend, decide on his own to reclaim the
initiative in the west.  At the same time, Bragg withdraws to Knoxville.

So the logical periods are Jan-May, Jun-August, Oct-Dec.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@...> wrote:
>
> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene" <wh_keene@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@> wrote:
> >
> > > Why Jan-Jun?  That's very specific, and is not bounded by any logical
events.  Why not Feb-May?  Why not Jan-Oct?
> >
> > Seems logical to me.
> > January is when activity started in Kentucky.
> > June is when the US initiative fizzled out.
>
> Exactly ... it's taking the logical boundary one month too far.

Not in my opinion.


> Jan-May would be the logical separation: Zollicoffer is killed, Donelson falls
to Grant, Buell moves south to Nashville, both armies converge on Shiloh,
Halleck takes Corinth, New Orleans falls to Farragut.


To me it makes sense to continue into June with the pursuit after Corinth, the
initial move toward Chattanooga, the capture of Memphis, the effort to take
Vicksburg from below, etc.  US forces still had some momentum into June.


> June is the beginning of a great federal denouement: the great federal army at
Corinth is split up, Rosecrans creeps towards Chattanooga only to be thwarted,

You mean Buell?


> ... Halleck is called away to Washington,
> ... Farragut fails to force the capitulation of Vicksburg,

July


> ... Bragg wrests the initiative from the federals and invades Kentucky, the
Confederates fortify Port Hudson and Snyder's Bluff securing the Red and Yazoo
Rivers to Confederate navigation.
>

All subsequent to June.


> Then in October we see Grant, though left with barely enough forces to hold
the ground that he has been ordered to defend, decide on his own to reclaim the
initiative in the west.  At the same time, Bragg withdraws to Knoxville.
>

The initiative was also being reclaimed by means of river based expeditions
ordered by Washington.


> So the logical periods are Jan-May, Jun-August, Oct-Dec.

I disagree.  I'd do Jan-June; June-Nov; Nov-Apr'63; etc.

Why pay full price? Check out this month's deals on the new AOL Shopping.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene" <wh_keene@...> wrote:
>
> > So the logical periods are Jan-May, Jun-August, Oct-Dec.
>
> I disagree.  I'd do Jan-June; June-Nov; Nov-Apr'63; etc.


Bzzt.   You used June twice!

:D

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Black" <rblack0981@...> wrote:
>
> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "jackdotsmit" <jackdotsmit@> wrote:
> >
> > I am trying to do a chronological analysis of the western theater from Jan
-Jun 1862 and the importance of this period specifically. I have been unable to
find good information of this period as to why it is significant; if it is
significant and exactly what states defined the western theater in this time
frame. Many historians differ on the territory and states considered the western
theater. Best I can tell this is where Grant made a name for himself.  This
particular time in history seems to be left unexamined or I am looking in the
wrong books. IT is easy to chronologically list the battles and the 1000 that
died, but I want to learn what impact these battles had on the war, the people
that fought the battles and the united states as a whole. Was this a turning
point?  Any insight or direction you can provide for this specific period would
be helpful.
> >
>
> Jack;
> It is hard at times to define what the Western Theater was.  As the military
situation changed, so did the defination of the region and the authority and
responsibility of the commanders.  I define the Western Theater as the
Mississippi River valley.  That may sound to be a narrow defination but it
includes almost all of the campaigns and battles of the time period you mention.
Included is Grant's campaigh down the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, FT's
Henry and Donelson because the Tennessee River campaign was an extension to the
Mississippi River valley.  These side campaigns is how the federals got down the
Mississippi.  Therefore also included are Shiloh, Corinth, Iuka, Memphis, Fort
Pillow, Island #10, Columbus Kentucky.  Not included is the west bank of the
river (except Island #10) because it was bad terrain.  I would include the west
bank after July 1862 as the action moved down river at and below Memphis and
Helena Ark.
> The area east of Nashville and down to northern Alabama I include in the
Central Theater, Chickamauga, Tullahoma, Knoxville, Chattanoonga and the Atlanta
campaign and battles.
> In the time frame you provide, I suggest that the Tennessee River campaign was
the most important with military actions at Fts Henry, Heiman and Donelson,
Shiloh and the seige of Corinth.

Ron hits the nail on the head. The Western Theater is a broad front. The Union
key is to get forces concentrated and working in harmony while occupying
territory and supply sources and cutting Confederate communication lines.

The fall of Nashville brings 2 US armies together in time for the next outward
push toward Vicksburg and Chattanooga. In general, the Army of the Cumberland
eventually operates from Nashville and the Army of the Tennessee out of Memphis.

Do not forget the 'trans-Mississippi'. Though virtually impossible to work in
concert with their more-eastern comrades it serves as a proving ground for
Grant, Sherman and Sheridan and a potential thorn in the side of eastern
maneuvers.


Cheers,
HankC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of DPowell334@...
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:03 AM
> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Master of War by Benson Bobrick
>
>
>
>
>
> I did not find it all that worthwhile. Very slanted, very distorted in
> Thomas' favor.
>
>
>
> Dave Powell
>
Why would you expect a Thomas biographer to be distorted in disfavor of Thomas?


Don

 

Jan-May would be the logical separation: Zollicoffer is killed, Donelson falls to Grant, Buell moves south to Nashville, both armies converge on Shiloh, Halleck takes Corinth, New Orleans falls to Farragut.

So the logical periods are Jan-May, Jun-August, Oct-Dec.

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.56/2058 - Release Date: 04/14/09 06:17:00

Brooks said:

Re: George Thomas (#132386)
 by Brooks Simpson on March 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM
 I understand how blurbs are composed, having done a few myself. The question remains what is new about your biography of Thomas that has not been covered in Cleaves, McKinney, and Buell. I assume that given all the recent writing about the Civil War, including several fine books about battles and campaigns in which Thomas played a part, that your book might incorporate that work to update a rather familiar narrative offered by previous Thomas biographers, but I freely confess that in all of this heat I've seen nothing that suggests that you have anything new to say. Even the charges of a conspiracy by Grant and Sherman to deprive Thomas of his due (and the accusation that their biographers have been complicit in that endeavor) have been made before.
________________________________________________________

What's new in the 5,000+ books written about Grant?  Why are there 2 -3 books being turned out about him every year?

Not only did I find several new data about Thomas in Bobrick's Great book but also some about Grant and his Son Frederick Dent Grant who broke into Piatt's house and terrorized his family.

As well as his cruel treatment of the first black cadet at west point!

Why are Grantophiles still trying to deny Grant's drinking problems and dispute his butchery of his troops in the war?

Now ask why one has to tear down Grant and Sherman to build up Thomas.  That seems to be the favorite refrain of Grantophiles.

Don

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Don" <oneplez@...> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of DPowell334@
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:03 AM
> > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Master of War by Benson Bobrick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I did not find it all that worthwhile. Very slanted, very distorted in
> > Thomas' favor.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave Powell
> >
> Why would you expect a Thomas biographer to be distorted in disfavor of
Thomas?
>
>

There are plenty of biographies that are not slanted at all (although I was
surprised to find Marszalek so unfriendly to Halleck).

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...> wrote:
>
> Why discuss a time frame in such narrow limits.  The planning of
> these events occurred well before the action happened.

Oh my!  I disagree.  Civil war strategy was kind of an ad-hoc adventure this
early in the game.

But why limit the period to JUST Jan-Jun then? Why not Nov-July?  Why not
July-July?

June begins a period of federal screwups and half-hearted efforts that follow
what was considered at the time game-changing federal victories (Halleck thought
the war would probably end after the capture of Corinth!).  I think if you're
going to define a period at all, you need to end it in May.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Don" <oneplez@...> wrote:
>
>
> Brooks said:
>
>
> Re: George Thomas (#132386)
>   by Brooks Simpson on March 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM
>   I understand how blurbs are composed, having done a few myself. The
> question remains what is new about your biography of Thomas that has not
> been covered in Cleaves, McKinney, and Buell. I assume that given all
> the recent writing about the Civil War, including several fine books
> about battles and campaigns in which Thomas played a part, that your
> book might incorporate that work to update a rather familiar narrative
> offered by previous Thomas biographers, but I freely confess that in all
> of this heat I've seen nothing that suggests that you have anything new
> to say. Even the charges of a conspiracy by Grant and Sherman to deprive
> Thomas of his due (and the accusation that their biographers have been
> complicit in that endeavor) have been made before.
> ________________________________________________________
>
> What's new in the 5,000+ books written about Grant?  Why are there 2 -3
> books being turned out about him every year?


Seriously?  I could answer for him, but I think it would probably be better for
him to answer for himself.

:D

In my opinion, Simpson broke quite a bit of new ground on Grant that has never
been covered before.  My biggest disappointment with the book is that he did not
do so in a way that underscored how groundbreaking some of his assertions were.