Wilsons Creek/Oak Hill missed opportunity for the CS?

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by whitworth

The Confederacy never had a way or the means of maintaining a large army in Missouri. It was similar to what happened to the Confederacy in Kentucky, Tennessee and western Virginia.
The United States controlled the navigable streams and could bring troops and supplies to the point of attack, with their steamboats, better than the Confederates.

The United States was Riverboat Nation. That was why the Confederacy had great difficulty in Missouri, Kentucky and western Tennessee. Virginia and the Confederacy never could control western Virginia. All these areas, saw few large battles, as the Confederates at best, could conduct raids and wage guerrilla warfare.

The CS could never maintain a large Army in the Trans-Mississippi because Jeff Davis and Benjamin siphoned off the regt's raised there to fight in the AONV and AOT.

Richmond gave no serious consideration was given to the Trans-Miss.

But in 1861 the CS could have caused a little discomfort by a judicious pursuit of the federal column after Oak hill. River Boat Nation or not.

I'm not talking about taking and holding Missouri for the duration I'm talking about a missed opportunity to make the Union sweat a bit.

[ole]

I'm not talking about taking and holding Missouri for the duration I'm talking about a missed opportunity to make the Union sweat a bit.

Agree. Missouri could have been a real military threat to the Union war effort. Given Lincoln's fixation, it couldn't have been held but, given some serious consideration from Richmond, it could have siphoned troops away from other areas.

(Puts on Black Republican hat.) The secesh aristocracy in action. No gentlemen west of St. Louis. Of value only for the grunts it could feed into more important mills.

ole

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by ole

Agree. Missouri could have been a real military threat to the Union war effort. Given Lincoln's fixation, it couldn't have been held but, given some serious consideration from Richmond, it could have siphoned troops away from other areas.

(Puts on Black Republican hat.) The secesh aristocracy in action. No gentlemen west of St. Louis. Of value only for the grunts it could feed into more important mills.

ole

And this is why Missouri in particular and the Trans-Miss in general was lost to the south. No interest in it by Davis and crew except for the cannon fodder it could provide.

[rivrrat]

I agree that the idiot of a Texas Ranger (McCollough) should and could have joined Ol Pap Price in a follow up after Wilson's Creek. Missouri was split politically but Lyon's "declaration of war" on a state which had not succeded had caused a lot of resentment in the state. Nobody at that time had good supply, it simply hadn't had dime to develop, but Missouri had good forage and sympathitic farmers. It was August and there were still a couple of months of good campaign weather left. I think that a vigorous pursuit would have strenghtined the CS forces with recruits. Note, Price's troops at this point were not CSA but Missouri State Guard resisting an illigal Federal invasion of a state that was not actually in rebellion. They would join the CSA untill later, after the Missouri Articles of Succession were passed and Missouri accepted into the Confederacy. We should look at the successes Price had aginst Union Forces after Wilson's creek which shows that a campaign was not only possible but effective. McColough's forces could have given the added boost necessry to possibly take St. Louis snd saecure the lower Mississippi River for the CS. This also would have given them control of the Missouri River. A real advantage in the "Steamboat War."

There were several factors at work which prevented McCollough from cooperating with Price. First and formost the two couldn't stand each other, a condition which would persist to the detrament of the CS until McCollough's death at Pea Ridge the following March. Second, there was no real political CS organization in the area yet. The Confederate department of the Trans Mississippi didn't yet exist. McCollough's forces were more a collection of co-operating state militia units rather than a CS Army. McCollough was a Texas Ranger not an army product. he had contempt for trained officers, which hurt him. He was pritty capable on a tactical level, but I beleive he was unable to grasp the larger stratigic picture. Price was a much better general. McCollough used as his excuse for not entering Missouri a concern that he would be invading the United States.

I personaly think that the failure to secure Missouri was a large factor in the loss of the war.

As for the color of sack coats at Wilson's Creek, it didn't make a whole lot of diffrence. There were all sourts of troops wearing all sorts of diffrent uniforms or none at all. Just like first Bull Run there were Yankees in Grey and Rebs in blue. And just like Bull Run there several "friendly fire" incidents.

[ole]

I personaly think that the failure to secure Missouri was a large factor in the loss of the war.

As much as I dislike to rain on your parade, Doug, I disagree. Except for the superior fighting man Missouri, Arkansas and Texas shipped east, there was little of value to the confederacy west of the Missississippi. I will now seek shelter under this desk and wait for the storm to subside.

ole

[larry_cockerham]

Ole, just because you rained, did the parade actually stop? Better check to see if you sprung a leak.

[rivrrat]

Originally Posted by ole

As much as I dislike to rain on your parade, Doug, I disagree. Except for the superior fighting man Missouri, Arkansas and Texas shipped east, there was little of value to the confederacy west of the Missississippi. I will now seek shelter under this desk and wait for the storm to subside.

ole

Fie! I reject the light mist of your so called rain. For it dissapates quickly in the strong light of the of the bright Missouri sun, which reaches into the dark places even under desks.

When you count the number of Civil War engagements fought by state the first three states are in order are Virginia, Tennessee and Missouri, rhere are some historians who will put Missouri second. What you and most easterners over look is the importance of the Mississippi River to Lincoln's Anaconda Plan. Cinfederate control of both sides of the river frm St. Louis to New Orleans would have defeated that plan and kept the Confederacy from being split. It would have defeated the blockade by keeping Confederate European supply open through Texas and Mexico. Beleive me, all the gun boats in the world don't do a whole lot of good when faced by strong artillery positions on both sides of a river. The Federals had to win the war in the east, but they could have lost it in the west.

I will even go so far as to suggest that if Sterling Price had succeded in capturing St. Louis in 1864, it could have cost Linclon the election.

[cw1865]

Originally Posted by rivrrat

When you count the number of Civil War engagements fought by state the first three states are in order are Virginia, Tennessee and Missouri, rhere are some historians who will put Missouri second. What you and most easterners over look is the importance of the Mississippi River to Lincoln's Anaconda Plan. Cinfederate control of both sides of the river frm St. Louis to New Orleans would have defeated that plan and kept the Confederacy from being split.

Very true, BUT the second the Federals seize New Orleans, the Mississippi is virtually useless for Confederate commerce. The important length of the Mississippi FOR THE CONFEDERACY is still well below Missouri. Any importance north of that point is based on pre-war commerce with states remaining in the Union.

[rivrrat]

But with Confederate control of the river above NO would the Yankees have been able to hold the city?
Of course as a friend of mine is fond of saying, what happened happened all else is speculation. My main point is that Missouri was of greater importance in the war than most people are willing to consider.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by cw1865

Very true, BUT the second the Federals seize New Orleans, the Mississippi is virtually useless for Confederate commerce. The important length of the Mississippi FOR THE CONFEDERACY is still well below Missouri. Any importance north of that point is based on pre-war commerce with states remaining in the Union.

cw1865 is just not open to any suggestion that his precious Union could've/would've/should've been defeated. He and many like him are unwilling to see things as they were rather than as they have been taught to believe. It ain't his fault. It ain't their fault. If you look at the world through Blue tinted glasses you can't help but see things in a Blue hue. But you ain't seein' the truth and it will never set you free.

Let's see ...

What would Alexander do? What would Ceasar do?

The confluence of those big rivers is Key Terrain boys and girls. No doubt about it. More strategic than all the battlefields of Virginia combined. The confluence of those big rivers is the Key to the continent.



The war was won, or should I say lost, when good old General McCulloch refused to follow old Pap up to Lexington. The war was lost in Missouri.