Carronade
Captain
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Location
- Pennsylvania
I had read this on THC but enjoyed seeing it again and reading everyone's comments; thanks rhp and all!
As for the French, they had their hands full just trying to control Mexico, especially northern Mexico were the nationalist forces were strongest. If Stewart had better information about what was going on in Mexico he wouldn't have worried about French intervention.
I don't see any reason to doubt the quality of Seward's information about Mexico. There were US diplomats there feeding him information. In mid 1863 the French had captured Mexico City and defeated the national forces in battle. Confederate representatives had found an ally in Santiago Vidaurri, the governor of Nuevo Leon and Emperor Maximilian was though to be pro-CSA.
Perhaps they fell into the common mistake ...
Or perhaps there was no mistake.
When I originally read this on THC I was reading Shelby Footes Civil War series. It was a coincidence that I was just reading his account of the Red River campaign. I thought your series was extremely well done and very helpful.
Reading it a second time through I can't believe how much I missed the first time through. It's either that or I'm having some serious senior moments.
I hope to see more.
Ol' Dick sure showed em'at Sabine Pass didn't he! Sabine Pass is about 15 mi South of me.
Feel free to choose whichever method you desire to discuss the claim regarding potential French intervention as a cause of the campaign - it's certainly within the topic of this thread,
Quite a few items are worthy of discussion of their own, as well. Part of this began with my own fascination of how so many elements, from various angles, fit together in the creation of this campaign, and it's effect on the lifes and careers of those involved. I expected more dispute over the issue of the burning of Lousianna towns and homes by the retreating Union army, but so far I haven't seen any.
As for the potential for French intervention - it's been long enough since I wrote this that I'll have to dig out my books once again to consider the sources. But that being said, it seems that there seemed to be just about every justification thrown in to support this campaign - including the kitchen sink - so dealing with one of them might be hard to pin down. It reminds me a bit of trying to go through Lee's reasoning for the invasion of Pennsylvania in the summer of 1863 - lots of reasons were given by Lee as well as others, it's hard to figure out which ones were important and which ones were thrown in just to pacify some special interests.
As for whether or not Banks got good press for the seizure of Ft. Hudson - I'm sure he did receive some, but the national attention seemed to be focused on Vicksburg. I was just taking the info from my sources, so I didn't investigate this claim closely. But I usually find that most generals in the ACW needed influential press on their side, as well as influential politicians. Grant's alliance with Sherman pretty much supplied the politicians (at least one of them), and the press seemed to be handled reasonably well by him and his staff. The result were huge victory celebrations and bell-ringing on two consecutive days, as the victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg were reported. But the later victory at Ft. Hudson seemed to pale in comparison, having been won without a daring amphibious operation (as Grant did at Vicksburt) or a major battle (as Meade handled at Gettysburg).
Banks was an accomplished politician, and he certainly had cultivated the press to report in his favor, especially those with correspondents enjoying the saloons and parlours of New Orleans. But the real question is - how did Banks think of this effort? Perhaps I'm guilty of making (or repeating) and assumption about Banks' state of mind which may not be justified. Again, I might have to check my books (and their footnotes) to see if I was right.
No. No. No.The Red River campaign was in part due to the 1864 election. Lincoln, ever the politician, wanted to "test" his idea of reconstruction by taking those parts of Arkansas, Louisiana, and whatever part of Texas could be taken by Banks.
And so Banks moved into Texas along the coast in November 1863. Banks gave up his Texas operations for the red river campaign because it was what Halleck wanted.The Administration had been under considerable pressure for quite some time to move into Texas. Freesoilers and the textile industry were driving it.