Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TexConfederate1861
I disagree about Shiloh. I visited the field in the 80's and studied the battle and the field.

Grant was able to establish himself permanently in the vicinity and did not withdraw -- which it had been Johnston's objective to force him to do, if he couldn't wreck Grant's force -- whereas the Confederates, driven from the field on the second day by Grant's reinforcements, retreated to Mississippi.

I've thought about Shiloh a long time, and the Confederates basically didn't have the resources to do what the lay of the field required. Grant's dispositions defended his key landing in sufficient depth to prevent the Southerners from doing what they needed to do in one day's fighting.

JMHO, if Johnston's troops somehow could have approached Grant's base area under cover and avoided Prentiss, they might have had a chance of carrying the field. But fighting through Prentiss and the Hornet's Nest/Peach Orchard line was just too much. They spent themselves before they got close to endangering Grant's lodgement at the landing.

The battle was a mismatch, with Southern forces overmatched by the job to be done and outnumbered by Union forces in the operating area. It was a significant Union victory.

540 posted on 04/18/2007 9:16:11 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies ]


To: lentulusgracchus

LG:

I can concede, but I always thought that Johnston’s death was the damper on the Confederate drive towards the river, etc. :)


551 posted on 04/18/2007 11:14:30 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson