GDG- Inevitable defeat

[Andy Mills]

Jeff:

Out of curiosity:  is the dam in which you refer, the one just below City Island across from the city?  

Thanks,

-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com [mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Burk
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:42 PM
To: GDG
Subject: Re: GDG- Inevitable defeat

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Your point about the river being shallow is true today.  However that is because the river has been dammed upstream.  during the  war the river flowed free. 


 Namaste
 
Jeff Burk


>________________________________
>From: "CWMHTours at aol.com" <CWMHTours at aol.com>
>To: gettysburg at arthes.com
>Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:14 PM
>Subject: Re: GDG- Inevitable defeat
>
>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>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
>
>
>----------------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