As much of an admirer I am of Lee.........

[Tamaroa]

usmcsgt65, your statement "The Confederate's "will to fight" was not crushed, changed, or challenged." applies equally well to the Confederate army after Gettysburg. In fact their morale was still fairly high. I maintain that the capture of Henry and Donelson was a turning point because it provided the jump off point for the Union army to split the south asunder yet again.

Andy, figuring troop strength for the Confederacy at that point is always risky, but I believe at the beginning of the overland campaign Lee hadf about 60,000 men. At petersburg, just before five forks, he was whittled down to about 35,000 troops. Finally at Appomattox 12,000 surrendered. 3 days earlier at Saylors creek about 6,000 rebs were taken prisoner in the last pitched battle made by the ANV.

Regards,

Bill

[usmcsgt65]

Mech you're getting the golden ring today. The capture of Vicksburg split the South. New Orleans was from the sea, a nice combined operation, that gave the North a base of operations in the South. Remember the overall plan, squeeze the South until they couldn't take it anymore, and "On to Richmond".

[Tamaroa]

usmc, mech, andy and all. Don't you find it interesting that the way the north defeated the south was exactly what "old fuss and feathers," said should be done. Yet, he was roundly criticized at the beginning of the war. To bad his ancient body could not keep up with his brain and horse sense!!



Bill

[MORTARDUDE]

I believe the defeat at Gettysburg was as a result of Lee's illness, bad intel of the Union side, lack of cavalry support for said intel,
and just plain bad tactics....not to mention no clear goal for the invasion of the North....

An aside : there is a book about Pickett's charge..will have to look it up... that disputes the numbers involved and shows that it wasn't a headlong charge into slaughter as some have thought...
the Reb soldiers weren't completely stupid after all... )

If the Union side had been soundly defeated at Gettysburg, there would have been an offer for some sort of settlement on Lincoln's desk soon after...who knows what would have happened then....

In reality, the South never had a chance. If the European allies had done something sooner and Russia hadn't intervened, things might have been different.

The international banking interests were behind both sides and were the real winners, and were directly responsible for Lincoln's murder...and as in all wars, the soldiers on both sides were the losers......and slavery ( in all its forms ), the presumed "cause" of the war, wasn't de facto ended untill 100 years later.....

DEO VINDICE

Larry

[Mech28]

larry,
How did russia intervene? (if you have time to tell me other wise its back to the bookstore)I never came across it in any of my studies in school or other books i read. I'm curious really the extent of my foreign influences in that war pretty much ends at the south wanting help from England or France.

[Tamaroa]

mech,
I can't give you more details without looking it up, but as I recall, the Russian fleet visited the North, I believe they docked in New York. I remember seeing photos of the sailors standing by their rigging. I believe it was 1863.

That act was seen as supporting the Union. don't forget that Russia had freed her Serfs in 1861. Tsar Alexander of Russia was known as the Abraham Lincoln of Russia. Ironically, he was to be assassinated several years later because the masses were impatient and wanted a greater taste of freedom that Alexander gave them.

Sorry if its not very detailed. It has been a long time since I studied Russian history.

Bill

[MORTARDUDE]

There was actually a great deal of foreign involvement...much more than the conventional history books will admit to..go into www.google.com and do some searches.. you will be VERY surprised...

HINTS : Mexico, France, Great Britain, Russia, Tsar Alexander II, Rothschilds, bankers, blockade, and etc...the USA and the CSA were in a hell- of-a-mess, financially speaking, and needed to borrow foreign money to finance the war effort ( not to mention money to buy munitions ). Lincoln...as were Andy Jackson and JFK ( also murdered for opposing a central bank ) was vehemently opposed to a central bank concept ( Federal Reserve )
and was murdered for his opposition...the bankers like to own both sides and have them duke it out...sort of like a high-stakes-cock-fight.....and then pick up the pieces, and of course, the profits afterwards...

Let me know what you find...the search is what it is all about after all..

Larry

[Tamaroa]

ALEXANDER II (ALEXANDER NIKOLAEVICH)
1818-1881
EMPEROR OF ALL RUSSIA 1855-1881
Eldest son of Emperor Nicholas I, Alexander was born in Moscow on April 17, 1818, and came to the throne on February 19, 1855, after the death of his father. He was crowned in the Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin on August 26, 1856.

After his accession to the throne, Alexander II implemented important reforms, notably the abolition of serfdom, as well as changes in national, military and municipal organization. He also rethought foreign policy: Russia now refrained from overseas expansion and concentrated on strengthening its borders. In 1867, he sold Alaska and the Aleutian Islands to the United States. His greatest foreign policy achievement was the successful war of 1877-8 against the Ottoman Empire, resulting in the liberation of Bulgaria and annulment of the conditions of the Treaty of Paris of 1856, imposed after Russia's defeat in the Crimean War.

[MORTARDUDE]

I changed my post above to put the correct Tsar in it ( Tsar Alexander II ). Their naval fleet showed up on both coasts and kept France and England from sending soldiers directly in to the Civil War fighting on the USA proper....The sale of Alaska was a direct result of the Civil War also...look it up ..interesting stuff..

Larry

[Andy]

Old Fuss and Feathers was defamed for his plan the surround and squeeze the south to death, which is how it ended up happening but Sherman estimated how many men would die and they put him in a nut house. His estimate was low!

As far as British troops send to Canada, what was due to the US Navy boarding a British ship and taking Slidell the minister to (France or England) off the ship and arresting him. The English rightfully thought this was exactly what the US got mad about in 1812 with the Brit Navy boarded American ships on the high seas. So they send 10,000 troops to Canada. Lincoln says, "One war at a time", says he's sorry and hands the diplomats over to the Brits with a Sorry Bout That.

The French taking Mexico in the 1860s seems in large part to be something to do with extra noblemen. The numbers of troops sent to Mexico were small enough for even the Mexicans to take care of.

On the old History channel a guy who seemed to know quite a bit about the 19th century (he's from England), said that by 1866 75% of all business' and banks in the US were actually owned by the English. Sort of like we were still a colony but without all the messy administration duties.

Stay healthy,
Andy