Chickamuga !!!

[ole]

You do indeed have a point, 'Bama.

"Most important "targets" of the war were located in the west. Had the AOT had great leadership in IMPORTANT positions of leadership (sorry) the war might have ended differently. Do I have a point??"

Most certainly the AoT could have used better leadership all the way up to Jeff Davis. The importance of the west was either not recognized or was ignored -- a failing that can easily be laid at the door of the ultimate decision-maker.

Ole

[johan_steele]

I think the biggest factor was the placement of the press... if truly competant commanders or ideally exceptional ones been placed in command of the CS AoT from the start things might well have been different. Even if a competant leader had been in command of the AoT at Chickamauga and exploited the rout of the AoC... I think to name just one, Longstreet would have followed up the success. Though IMHO a drunk, chimpanze w/ a bad case of hemmroids could have done a better job than Bragg.

[r_moody]

Originally Posted by Alabaman

r-moody:
I didn't mean my reply to 'sound' grumpy or anything. ;-)
Its just that my ancestors in the Army of Tennessee need all the credit thaey can garnish, if you get my meaning. The AOT gained this victory despite Gen. Bragg's 'leadership' and apparent inability to even realize it could and indeed happened. :-)

Re: Thomas' defense:
I agree, to a degree that Thomas might have remained there, but THE big 'if' was reinforcement. The possible reinforcement had been nullified as per Old Pat's Boys & others, on the Confederate right-wing. The high-pressure applied to the Fed left by Hill, as per Cleburne/Polk, etc.. caused all Fed heads to turn much attention to their left. The "Gap" IMO was caused by Gen. Cleburne & company, (Hill/Polk) attacking ferociously. This is when the "Gap" opened, not so much by accident but as more likely by great fear, consternation by the great fuss kicking up on the Fed left. Upon this fear and not acting cooly and prudently, Wood (US) was ordered to fill a gap which didn't exist. But one did now! Now, IMO, at this point insert the "good luck" factor of Gen.Longstreet's point of attack focus, being right where that gap lay. I hope I made some sense here. I'm admittedly biased, and a big fan of the Western Boys and their fighting ability. I just as much, however, admire the Eastern Boys too! Please forgive me.

Why do you (anybody) think that so much focus/attention, then and now, was/is placed upon the Army of N. Va. vs. the Army of Tenn. or the Western Theatre per se? The same goes with Northern "Western" Armies, to some degree, IMO.
Most important "targets" of the war were located in the west. Had the AOT had great leadership in IMPORTANT positions of leadership (sorry) the war might have ended differently. Do I have a point??

Respectfully,
Rob Adams

I had ancestors on both sides of the conflict, so I really try to remain as objective as I can. The AOT needs no aid from me; their fighting did the talking for them. The fighting in the west was a bloody dogfight, one right after the other for the whole war. Without adequate supplies most of the time they fought on. It also created the best citizen soldiers of the war on either side.

It was to the Unions advantage that Lincoln saw the need to get control of the rivers and the states of Kentucky and Tennessee as soon as possible. Lincoln had three armies in the west doing just that. It was to his credit that he saw and acted on it.

I think there are a lot of reasons that the east gets the most press, even today. The movies always seem to be about actions in Virginia and the east. Gods and Generals, Gettysburg, Glory, and Cold Mountain are all based upon the eastern theater. I also think that many people/authors want to stay away from talking about and having an opinion about William Tecumseh Sherman and Nathan Bedford Forrest. If you take an opinion about either of these two generals, you will be branded as a hater, regardless of which side you pick. There is little middle ground with these two men. If you love Forrest then you are likely to hate Sherman and vise versa. I once asked the editor of a major Civil War Magazine why they didn’t have special editions on these two men as there is plenty of material. His reply was that he would have to risk his subscription base if he published pro Sherman articles in the South or pro Forrest articles in the North. In other words his business was at stake and he could not risk his investments. Very Sad IMO!! The war is over and it should stay that way. Forrest and Sherman did what they thought was necessary to end the war. We should be able to talk about there deeds with out all of the hatred.

On to Bragg! It is my opinion that if Bragg had been on his toes and taken Chattanooga, which I’m not sure that he could accomplish logistically. The Union captives would have been paroled and sent to either Grant or Burnside. I believe that Grant would have been given overall command of Burnside and they would have commenced an assault on Chattanooga. Though it was a massive undertaking the North had the logistical power to do so. If Grant marched from Vicksburg he is likely to have headed for Rome or Atlanta to force Bragg out of Chattanooga or be cut off.

Remember that Bragg also saw Chattanooga as un-defendable and moved south so he was not cut off from his supply base at Atlanta. IMO Missionary Ridge was a more defendable location.

I love talking about the Western Theater, there are so many more options and strategic opportunities to keep your mind going without taking sides.

Rick

[samgrant]

Longstreet was a drunk? Never heard that one.

But as Lincoln said of Grant: "I can't spare him. He fights!"

[pvt gauss]

Samgrant, Compliments ,Sir,
Did not Lincoln offer any Union Gen. out there a "cask" of Grants favorite if they would fight??

180 degree turn. As spiritual as Bobby Lee was could that even have crossed his mind???

Gauss

[Alabaman]

Rick,
I'll second the desire to discuss the Western Theatre without taking sides. I added my comment of Thomas as just such an idea.

We are on the same road despite our calling a road by two different names. ;-)

The "Sherman/Forrest" point brought forth makes sense. It also shows that some prominent Historians on the WBTS won't be objective or are forced to remain subjective due to PC these days and subsequent book sales?

The AOT's "history' and thus it's efficacy as an Army seem based on its few victories. I was referring to this when I staunchly defended Chiamauga as an AOT victory. I'm with you on the discussion without personal agenda.

rivvrat:
That is a terrible & sad story re: your ancestor.

Do you have a Memorial Stone for him in a family cemetery?
If not, you might look into this. Honor your ancestor for what he did!

Rob Adams (Alabaman)

[richard]

Gentlemen, I must say this. Being raised in the north and then attending College at Cumberland Gap and Chattanooga, I have gained a great deal of respect for both sides.

In my research on the 9th indiana Cavalry, and the 18th Indiana Cavalry, I have come to enjoy reading and studying the adventures, the skill and cunning of one General N.B, Forrest. IMO, If Forrest had been commander of the AOT, the AOTC would have been swimming accross the Tennessee River after the second day of battle.

The only thing that held the AOTC together at all was Gen Thomas. Bragg did his part in keeping it together also by not following through. (It seems that many great battles in this war lacked the leadership to finish the job).

It is hard not to take sides in any discussion of the Civil War. Especially when ones family was involved in it on what ever side they were. Hopefully, there are many people like most of the men and women on this board, who can look at the facts, study the actions, and actually learn to enjoy the study of personalities and there actions. Being able to understand why and what men like Forrest, Sherman, Bragg, Grant, Lee and all the others did and how they did it is what we, I hope, are really trying to find out. If we are trying to refight the war and its battles to reach our own prechosen outcomes, then we have lost our direction.

[Alabaman]

Richard,
By all means and intentions, I fully agree with you. Discuss the battles and peronalities as they happened and not with the intent to re-fight it.

Yes, Gen. Bragg had his ways. Bragg's personal agenda did more to defeat the AOT than did the Yanks. And, yes, old Thomas saved old Rosey's backside at Snodgrass.

My a direct ancestor was on the Confederate right wing. The end of the right wing beheld (as you know) Gen. Forrest. Gn. Hill asked what infantry that was, battling so ferociously on the CS right flank. Why Gen. Forrest's Cavalry came the reply.

I've read where Cleburne, Wood's Brigade in particular (my ancestors brigade), didn't perform that well at Chicamauga. Any soldier, North or South who would face cannister, grape & tremendous volleys from breastworks, DID WELL in my book. These western troops, in my opinion, were the finest light infantry this country has ever produced; bar none.

Gen. Wood, U.S. got an undeserved repremand IMHO, for the gap matter. When a superior is arrogant and unreasonable, like Wood's superior, you can't have cohesiveness in an army. Chicamauga's are the result.

This cohesiveness was the beauty in Cleburne's Division. If a brigadier or Col. saw a new problem, he could pre-empt an order by Old Pat and you could bet it would be OK. Of course, this division was drilled, drilled & drilled in tactics by the School of the Soldier manual. Discipline was to make a soldier field-strip & clean rifles for ex. rather than being relegated to cut down tree stumps or wearing a barrell. It worked there, as well as in Northern ranks who did so. These units usually shined during battle.

Rob Adams (Alabaman)

[r_moody]

I think the misuse of its cavalry is one of the reasons why the CSA Infantry had so little success in the western theater overall. There was far too much Cavalry, it accomplished far too little, and despite it's numbers, it rarely provided the Infantry with decent intelligence on Union movements. Consider that in 1862, despite the fact that Bragg had nearly 25k Cavalry at his disposal, constant dispersion, useless raids, and inferior patrolling meant that he was repeatedly surprised all through the summer and fall by General Rosecrans, whose own mounted force was between 7k and 11k, which included Wilders mounted infantry.

Western CSA Cavalry loved to make large, flashy raids. Forrest, Wheeler, Morgan, Van Dorn, etc. all were famous for things like the West Tennessee Raid, the October Raid, the Christmas Raid, or Holly Springs. What virtually all historians miss is that the cost to the troopers was significant. Even a successful cavalry raid was likely to cost the raiding force half of it's horses, which in turn meant that the men would need to go home and try to get new animals, causing a manpower drain for several months. Some of these boys never rejoined their unit as family needs prevented them from returning. Most of the cavalry raids were strategically detrimental to the South, and the commanders should have restricted or prohibited them in most cases. Only Holly Springs actually netted the South any real advantage that lasted more than a day or two.

Rick

[r_moody]

Originally Posted by scone

Wilders Men did slam into the flank of Manigaults Brigade.

Sorry I am running a little behind. Wilder's brigade did charge Manigault, and drove it back nearly a mile. This attack did disrupt Longstreet's use of Hindman in turning to support the Horseshoe Ridge attack, and also held Preston's Division in reserve longer than Longstreet may have originally intended. However, the attack I was referring too is where Wilder conceived of the idea of cutting his way through Longstreet's attack column to join Thomas.

I think Wilder might well have got through to Thomas, but at what cost?

The Pros: Wilder was attacking into an enemy flank and rear, he had horses for mobility, though he would have attacked dismounted in a sort of square, and had superior weapons that magnified his strength and should cause Longstreet to pull forces intended to assault Snodgrass-Horseshoe Ridge.

The Cons: Likely to get little or no infantry support. 2,500 Federals would be attacking into the rear of a 10,000 man Rebel column, but another 10,000 men (Preston and Hindman IIRC) were in Wilder's own flank and rear. Wilder might very shortly be fighting a 360 degree battle, and it could have become "Wilder's Last Stand". Historically, Wilder's men instead retreated up the Dry Valley Road, and covered the rear of the retreating Federals. Absent Wilders brigade, the retreating trains might well have been captured, which would have been a crippling blow for Rosecrans after the battle.

Wilder's attack against Manigault, coupled with some Cavalry probes from Crawfish Spring later in the day alerted Longstreet to the reality that there were still Federals south of him, and likely kept Preston's division out of the fight longer than otherwise. This certainly gave the Thomas more time to build up the defense on Snodgrass-Horseshoe Ridge. If Preston had been committed the same time that Granger arrived, Horseshoe might not have been held by Thomas.

Rick