MY problem with this forum

[samgrant]

It's just my own opinion, which might be shared by some, or not, but I have a hard time getting interested in most any anything that happened, save for the beginnings of the war, West of the Big River.

The post category sez:

Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.

Well, my idea is that anything that happened in Trans-Mississippi or close to the other side of the river had little to do with the big picture.

(Aside from 2 things:

1) Mr.Grant's brief excursion there in order to get from the west to the east side - which is a perfect example of what I mean - Grant did nothing till he crossed that river

and 2) All that Missouri/Kansas nonsense that went on before the war, and the small Lyons, Price, etc., battles that settled nothing).

"Pacific"? don't recall any Pacific battles, tho there were those useless New Mexico engagements.

I'd breakup this category into 2: 1) the West and South, everything south of Virginia and east of the Mississippi, and 2) Everything else, Texas, New Mexico, whatever else.

Bored with the Trans-Mississippi UNITE!

[Admiral_Porter]

Galveston was important.

[ole]

Sam:

Anything involving the ANV and AotP was eastern. Everything else was western. The Trans-Mississippi is a subdivision of western. (You might hope that Rivrrat and Mobile_96 didn't see your post.) Activities across the river had impact in that they pinned a number of CSA troops on the west side and protected Missouri.

Pacific was named because there was a military department out there, as there were for the Dakota Territory and other locations out west.

It was all part of the whole. Read up on Pea Ridge and Wilson's Creek. Check out the Guerilla activities and the Texas forays -- both ways. The Trans-Mississippi might constitute tidbits, but for many they were very intersting tidbits.

Ole

[rivrrat]

Mr. Grant Sir,
Although what took place in Missouri may seem unimportant to you, I must beg to differ. There was a very strong movement, led by Gen. Price and Gov. Jackson to bring Missouri into the Confederacy. Try and think what would have happened if the effort would have been successful. A Confederate held St. Louis would have ment that there would have been no Vicksburg Campaign and the federal blocade would have failed in the face of supplies coming in and cotton going out through Mexico.
At the time it was fought the Battle of Wilson's Creek was, at the time it was fought, the second largest land battle fought on the North American Continentent, second to 1St Bull Run. It was only the stupidity of Ben McCollough in refusing to follow Price after Wilson's Creek that kept St. Louis out of Confederate hands in 1861.
The Battle of Pea Ridge again kept St. Louis out of Confederate hands in 1862. Had Davis' idiot class mate kept his army west of the Mississippi Grant's job would have been a lot harder.
Lincoln, thought Missouri so important that he rescended and sacked General Freemont over his ill advised emancipation proclamation in Missouri.
The Guerilla war in Missouri and Arkansas kept a lot of Federal Troops occupied that could have been well used elsewhere. Do a little reading about Shelby's 1863 raid.
Price's 1864 invasion also tied up a lot of Yankee Troops. It also threatned the re-election of Lincoln. Think about what might have happened had Price taken St. Louis just before the election. President McCellen might just have negoitated a peace which would have recognized a Confederate States of America.
FYI after Virginia the second or third largest number of civil war engagements took place in Missouri. It depends on who's doing the counting.
I beleive your screen-name sake Gen. Grant would have disagreed with you about the importance of Missouri.
When Mike created this forum I tried to get him to add a Trans-Missippi stand alone forum. You are entitled to your opinion sir. But don't try to get me to agree that the Trans-Missippi and especally Missouri were unimportant to the "big picture." Jeff Davis thought that and it cost him the war.

[mobile_96]

{my idea is that anything that happened in Trans-Mississippi or close to the other side of the river had little to do with the big picture.}
Don't you mean, you belived the Trans-Miss. had little to do with the "little Picture" in Virginia, or in Tenn. or in Ky. or in each of the other states East of the Mississippi.
Looking at only the event in 1 of these states is only looking at a little portion of the Big Picture, which extended from Cal. to Maine, from just inside the borders of Canada south to the waters of Cuba. Another portion of the Big Picture includes the International aspects, both dipolmatically and materially, (building of ships in Britian used to wage war against US shipping to supplying both the English and French with large supplies of foodstuffs during the 3-4 years of poor crops in Europe).
And just important was what was happening behind the lines with the people of both sections. Another part of the Big Picture.
At least this is true for those of us interested in all aspects of the American Civil War. Starting with founding of America thru re-construction.
But I must state that I'm not coming down on you for your opinion. I know people only interested in Re-construction, some that believe that Gettysburg is the most important (and only) battle of the war and pay little attention to others. Some spend all their time learning about the Guerrilla warfare in the mountains, some spend all their awake hours trying to prove 1 general was far better than all other generals.
Some on northern civilians, or southern civilians, AoNV, Army of the Potomac or the Army of the Tennessee.
The point is, Each of these subjects is Part of the Big Picture, not The Big Picture.
I had 1 relative that joined (1864), and was stationed in Cal. And he's considered a Civil War veteran as part of his time in service involved performing guard duty at the Prisidio in SF, watching for a much feared invasion by the Confederacy
So, its ok that you prefer to only study the CW in 2 sections of the country and ignore the other 2. There is so much in the Big Picture, Army, Cavalry, Navy, civilians, National Politics, International Politics, and the industrialization of the country, that we have to choose which parts to leave out, or to touch only slightly, with the time we have available.
Have Fun, no matter which areas you like best!
Chuck in IL.

[Admiral_Porter]

I agree with 96.

It's all about finding your niche.

[samgrant]

OK, You all are correct, it WAS important. It just doesn't grab me, just as most of the Naval stuff also does not. Don't we all have areas of the war that interest us more or less than others?

[Admiral_Porter]

Don't we all have areas of the war that interest us more or less than others?

I think that's what 96 was trying to say.

Whatever tickles your fancy should be your area of study regardless of how much it impacted the big picture.

[rivrrat]

Yes, we all have that part that interests us most. In my case it is the Trans-Mississiippi, especally Missouri. I am especally intersted with the War along the Missouri Kansas boarder, because that's where I grew up.
I can understand that others, a lot of others, don't find that part of the war interesting. But, sometimes I find my self in agreement with General Grant. "I am heartily tired of hearing what Lee is going to do."

[caller]

Admiral Porter,

I do believe I recognize that image in your post. If I'm not mistaken, one of those vessel's is the Carondelet, the boat my Gx3 Grandfather fought on after spending the first few months in the Infantry camping at Arlington. Could you let me know what the painting is showing?