GDG- Inevitable defeat

[CWMHTours at aol.com]

The river at that point is frequently shallow in summer  droughts but very 
wide and quite an obstacle. Very rocky.
 
A smart and careful commander would not want to put more than  an 
expeditionary force that could have been sacrificed on the east side of the  river.  
Harrisburg was no significant military goal other than being a  state 
capital and RR center.
 
Thre are 2 57mm guns sitting on the west side of the river  there.
 
A  Loyal Neo-Anti Unionist,
Peter  

 
In a message dated 1/24/2012 2:22:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
mdblough1 at comcast.net writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
Tom-The militia destroyed it in order to keep the  Confederates using it to 
cross over the the eastern shore of the Susquehanna.  Harrisburg is on the 
east and this would have enabled the Confederates to  attack the city from 
both sides. While Lee initially ordered the bridge's  destruction, the ANV 
generals on the scene saw the advantages to saving it and  tried to save it. 
The Susquehanna is not one of the wildest rivers in the  world but bridges 
were needed to cross it and with that bridge out there  wasn't another until 
Harrisburg. The hope was to destroy sections so it could  be rebuilt later 
but, in the days before dynamite, that sort of precision  wasn't easily 
obtained. The Columbia-Wrightsville bridge was a wood &  stone covered bridge 
believed to be the longest such bridge in the world at  the time and the flames 
that destroyed the wood, leaving only the granite  supports. 


Regards, 


Margaret 

----- Original  Message -----
From: "Tom" <bunco973 at optonline.net> 
To: "GDG"  <gettysburg at arthes.com> 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:38:11 PM  
Subject: Re: GDG- Inevitable defeat 

Esteemed GDG Member  Contributes: 
>>> And 
in fact, if you think about it, the damn  thing IS still made of big 
granite blocks. Now just how are you going to  knock the darn thing over 
without a 
whole lot of valuable time and  trouble? <<< It was destroyed, by fire 
(not the granite supports  of course), by Union militia. 
Regards, Tom B.  





-----Original Message----- 
From: CWMHTours at aol.com  
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:28 PM 
To: gettysburg at arthes.com  
Subject: Re: GDG- Inevitable defeat 

Esteemed GDG Member  Contributes: 
Dave, 

Respectfully Sir, 

I think we disagree,  sir. 

Where is it written that Lee disagreed with Jackson about  destroying 
infrastructure in the North? I think Lee was just about as  aggressive as 
Jackson was in bringing the war to your opponent. for  example, Antietam, 
Gtysbg, 
& Monocacy. 

I am not dispersing  you personally. I just see Lee & Jackson as being a 
balanced  combination. 

By the time of 2nd Man Lee could see the Hammer and the  Anvil. 

The Hammer was Jackson. 

The Anvil was the wonderful  James Peter Longstreet, the Old Warhorse. 

Also, just curious, I don't  recall reference to Lee being concerned about 
destroying the RR bridge  over the Susq. R. being a big concern of his. And 
in fact, if you think  about it, the damn thing IS still made of big 
granite blocks. Now just how  are you going to knock the darn thing over 
without a 
whole lot of  valuable time and trouble? 

Lee's 3 raids up north where just that.  Raids. Move overwhelming forces 
up north and attack piecemeal in  overwhelming force. 

The purpose of going north for Lee was to  de-stabilizing the North. 
Everything else was a subset. 

A Loyal  Neo-Anti Unionist, 
Peter  





----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe 
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives  
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives