Why Didn't Johnston Attempt to Lift the Seige of Vicksburg???

I went to a Jesuit high school in Chicago and had two years of Latin, one of our tasks was to translate the entire commentary on Gaul from Latin to English. All that work and yet I remember far more Latin from going to Mass than from my schooling.
What little Latin I learned I got from Father Eusebius Beltran who was in charge of us altar boys.
 
May I ask ,did the Confederate army have a general in the West who could be similar to a general in the East.{excludeing Longstreet }? It just that Johnston,Hood,Hardee,nor any other general was inefective against any Union general.Was it the fact that numericaly they lacked the force?

The Confederates were generally outnumbered in the Virginia theater also, but were far more successful. We may have to look at the top command echelons; after all, the western Confederate armies included many talented corps and division commanders.
 
Well we know Grant brought in a lot of troops to prevent that from happening. One of the regiments was the one my ancestor served in.

I've read Johnston did not want to be blamed and let the 'yankee' holding Vicksburg take the blame!

Also read he, like a lot of others, wanted more men and supplies and.....
From the time the Grant started his march towards Vicksburg to his troop and the naval force arrived how long before he had Vicksburg so that no Confederate reinforcements could have entered the city or for the Pemberton to depart?Was he under orders not to surrender the city ,to the last man? Johnston could have attempted to rescue Pemberton but then he risked losing his army or most. Catch 22 for him. Caesar once had a Germanic leader entrapped behind a fort. A rescue was attempted by other Germanic tribes .Caesar had been a encirclement around this base just to prevent such a attempt.He beat back this force and Gedrick was forced to surrender. Wonder if Grant knew about this or Johnston did not want his army to go against a much stronger and well fortified army
 
The Confederates were generally outnumbered in the Virginia theater also, but were far more successful. We may have to look at the top command echelons; after all, the western Confederate armies included many talented corps and division commanders.
But none that seem to have the knowledge or experience to command a entire army as Lee.You do not win battles with talented corp and division commanders alone.
 
May I ask ,did the Confederate army have a general in the West who could be similar to a general in the East.{excludeing Longstreet }? It just that Johnston,Hood,Hardee,nor any other general was inefective against any Union general.Was it the fact that numericaly they lacked the force?
Richard Taylor....who eventually did command what was left of the forces in Mississippi, Alabama and East Louisaiana...about a year and a half to late.
 
Last edited:
Mary Boyd Chestnut's diary shares some insights in Joe Johnston. He enjoyed a reputation of being an unerring shot and would not chance a shot if that would injure that reputation. Hence he rarely fired. Militarily, if there was no certainty of success, he wouldn't attack. Johnston never mustered the men to attack and would not risk it even if there was a coordinated effort by Pemberton to break out.
 
Mary Boyd Chestnut's diary shares some insights in Joe Johnston. He enjoyed a reputation of being an unerring shot and would not chance a shot if that would injure that reputation. Hence he rarely fired. Militarily, if there was no certainty of success, he wouldn't attack. Johnston never mustered the men to attack and would not risk it even if there was a coordinated effort by Pemberton to break out.

It does not shed any insight whatsoever on Joe Johnston. It is an anecdote she made up to amuse herself and her friends about somebody she didn't like. Her anecdote puts all his failing on some mental block and does absolutly nothing to tell us anything about the decisions he made at the time or the circumstances he faced. It is a cheap and easy way of dismissing Joe Johnston as unworthy of any deeper examination. It says; "look at this General, he was predisposed to failure because he was afriad to damage his reputation, and that's all you need to know." It has no place and no worth in any serious discussion about Joe Johnston, his qualities as a General or the campaigns he was involved in.
 
True, but it's like "I" before "E" except after "C." Such an antidote does not work for "Weird" but it's still a good guide.

That's how I view the same antidote regarding Johnston.
 
It does not shed any insight whatsoever on Joe Johnston. It is an anecdote she made up to amuse herself and her friends about somebody she didn't like. Her anecdote puts all his failing on some mental block and does absolutly nothing to tell us anything about the decisions he made at the time or the circumstances he faced. It is a cheap and easy way of dismissing Joe Johnston as unworthy of any deeper examination. It says; "look at this General, he was predisposed to failure because he was afriad to damage his reputation, and that's all you need to know." It has no place and no worth in any serious discussion about Joe Johnston, his qualities as a General or the campaigns he was involved in.
Tell us how you really feel.
 
Joe Johnston consistently declined decisive action. While he launched Seven Pines, his command of the AoT shows his preference for Fabian tactics. What if anything did he do to disrupt Sherman's line of supplies? With respects to Vicksburg, he didn't even make a feint.
 
Tell us how you really feel.

The Wade Hampton story is something that really annoys me. It really does. It's just a tool used to dismiss Johnston out of hand without giving a **** about any details. I have railed against it previously on this website and I will likely do so again should I see it referanced as delivering some great "insight" into Johnston's Generalship.
 
The Wade Hampton story is something that really annoys me. It really does. It's just a tool used to dismiss Johnston out of hand without giving a **** about any details. I have railed against it previously on this website and I will likely do so again should I see it referanced as delivering some great "insight" into Johnston's Generalship.
Alrighty then.
 
Funny thing about it, Joe Johnston and Robert E. Lee were both fighting the war by 1864 to keep the armies in the field intact.
Well, Davis relieved Johnston with Hood, and that army was destroyed by Hood's aggressiveness.
When Robert E. Lee's army was shredded on the retreat from Petersburg, and then surrendered, the Confederacy passed out of existence.
They, Lee and Johnston, probably knew what they were doing.
 
I think Johnston gets a bad rap personally. His troops loved him by most account. He tried his best to bait Sherman into attacking him but he only did it once. People forget the plan at peach tree creek was Johnston's, not Hood's. That battle may have gone better had Johnston not been relieved. He also had a good plan later at Bentonville that succeeded on the first day there. I think he was cautious, wanting to strike when he had a really good opportunity only. With Sherman having a numerical advantage I think Johnston's style was better by far than Hood's reckless method. The AOT could only survive by fighting smart not with reckless abandon. Sometimes it's better to live to fight another day.
 
Personally I think Johnston was a horrible general....He may have been a great tactician, but was an awful strategist, which was exacerbated by being insubordinate.

At Vicksburg the union goal was simple, to open the Mississippi to Union control and split the confederacy in two, to which Vicksburg was the key due to its collection of batteries and position. If Johnston had abandoned Vicksburg for 2 weeks and then by maneuver checked and pushed back Grant, The Union would have still destroyed the heavy guns at Vicksburg, which the south at this point could ill replace, and would have still accomplished its goals.

The same is true later at Atlanta, both sides (except apparently Johnston) realized a victory for the North could have a huge impact on the presidential election, also at this point the south could ill afford to lose one if its few major transportation , supply and manufacturing centers. So once again if by "saving" his army to fight another day, even if he checks Sherman later, he failed again, And at this point I use "saving" his Army, because morale is declining due to constant retreats and he's losing his army to desertion.

His inclination to look at things more tactically then strategically wouldn't have been a major problem if he at least followed the orders he got, because they in effect would have defined the strategic goals for him. But that's what is most frustrating reading about Johnston's campaigns......He knew he was supposed to hold Vicksburg, and go to it, Pemberton could not move to him without abandoning all the heavy guns that gave Vicksburg its importance. He knew he was supposed to make a stand to defend before Atlanta. Yet would simply just ignore his orders.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top