GDG- Neither this Capital nor Harpers Ferry could long hold out agains...
John Lawrence
jlawrence at kc.rr.com
Wed Jan 25 20:33:34 CST 2012
Right
Barnard took it over and extended it.
Regards,
Jack
CWMHTours at aol.com wrote:
>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>That's good info, Jack.
>
>I should look into Meade's work on the forts.
>
>In both of Ben Coolledge's books "Mr Lincoln's Forts" and "Sword and
>Shield" I don't recall his name being mentioned.
>
>For the bulk of the war it was mostly Gen John Barnard who kept tweeking
>the forts, moving cannon around, Etc.
>
>One smart thing he did was to build Ft Craig, near the modern DIA outside
>of Ft. Myer. It prevented to Conf's from using the hill as an arty
>position against the forts outside Arl Cem.
>
>John Barnard leaves a good military legacy.
>
>I will look into Meade. He probly was up at Ft Pennsylvania- later Ft
>Reno.
>
>Great.... This is just great.... When there is some historical question
>like this I don't sleep at night until I chase it down and get an answer....
>
>Dammit, Jack.... Now you're gonna cost me another night of sleep trying
>to find out what Meade on the forts in DC.
>
>Dammit! I need my sleep..... Beauty rest- I am getting uglier as I
>age.
>
>A Loyal Neo-Anti Unionist,
>Peter
>
>
>In a message dated 1/25/2012 8:15:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>jlawrence at kc.rr.com writes:
>
>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>In 1861, Meade was put in command
>of the Department of the Potomac, not to be confused with the Army of the
>Potomac. As commander of the Department, he was responsible for the defense
>of Washington. Under the direction of general Halleck, the defenses were
>constructed, Meade being directly responsible.
>I'm not sure where you are coming from on your criticisms of numbers of
>the defenders.
>The topic at hand is how well the defense was staffed had Lee forced
>himself to
>the gates.
>My thought was that should Lee had attacked Washington, it would not be is
> impregnable as some seem to think.
>Not sure what your tirade is all about bit is good to deal with a man of
>passion.
>Regards
>Jack
>
>
>CWMHTours at aol.com wrote:
>
>>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>Jack!
>>
>>Dude!
>>
>>;-{) !!!!
>>
>>Meade had nothing to do with the Circle of Forts around DC. Where do
>you
>>come by that?
>>
>>"Not fully manned"... It was NOT intended to be fully manned except in
>>the case of a military emergency. Ie July 1864.
>>
>>There was 30K troops, trained as Heavy Arty. They knew how to shoot a
>>100lb Parrott which is not something you undertake lightly. These guys
>were
>>damn good professionals.
>>
>>Not fully manned....What do you want them to do? Stand at full alert
>upon
>>the ramparts when there was no Rebel withing 20 mi?
>>
>>The Circle of Forts was in constant flux, Gen John Barnard, et all were
>>always trying to tweek the defenses just a little better. They did a
>damn
>>good job.
>>
>>You don't need to man the ramparts when there is no one around. When
>they
>>were not skinny dipping in the Potomac or partaking of the 600+ brothels
>>[I think that # is in Margaret Leech's book "Reveille in Washington"
>>-Fabulous book. You gotta buy it. It is very hooomoorous.]
>>
>>"AoP was first line of defense for DC" No no no!
>>
>>First line of defense was the forts.
>>
>>The AoP could go away and with 30k men plus the Veteran Reserve, plus
>the
>>staff of the Navy Yard, plus the quartermaster corps in west DC and
>>Georgetown, plus the quartermaster staff in Alexandria, plus the
>quartermaster
>>staff at Giesboro Point manning the re-horse station that's a LOT of
>dudes.
>>
>>Benjamin Franklin Cooling wrote an excellent book on the matter. "Sword
>>and Shield"
>>
>>In his book he compares the DC forts to the anvil and the AoP as the
>>hammer. Read the book. Difficult toi refute.
>>
>>And the west side of Balt was pretty open to invasion. Defenses were
>>pathetic.
>>
>>No no no, Jack!~
>>
>>Don't make me tell you again!
>>
>>
>>A Loyal Neo-Anti Unionist,
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>In a message dated 1/25/2012 4:28:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>>jlawrence at kc.rr.com writes:
>>
>>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>Andy,
>>
>>Meade had construcyed a multiple fort defensive line of some 33 miles
>>around
>>DC.
>>It is my impression thoyugh that it wasa not fully manned,
>>rom Coddington we know that defending Pennsylvania was the bigger
>concern
>>than DC though, with Stanton establishing the first ever National
>Reserve
>>with a commanmd center i Harrisburg, under Curtain (even though it was a
>>flop).
>>
>>A I read your blurb (did not go into the OR you cited), Halleck was just
>
>>pushing Hooker, whom he did noot like, a little harder.
>>
>>Obviously, the AoP was the DC first line of defense, which is that
>Halleck
>>is saying.
>>
>>But who knows.
>>
>>To respond to some earlier speculation about a what happens if Lee
>defeats
>>the aoP in detail, which means renders it militarily ineffective as a
>>fighting force, obviously they exfiltrate to Dc and see if Bobby lee
>wants
>>to test his luck.
>>
>>Lee, if he is smart, goes home anyway. He might try Philidelphia or
>>baltimore though, as the British learned, it was defensible to a fault.
>>
>>The Harrisburg thing is, IMHO, militarily unsound.
>>
>>More certainly though is Lee is not going to defeat Meade in detail, but
>>rather drive him off the fish hook. In which case he goes back to Pipes
>>Creek.
>>
>>And Lee gets degeated in detail.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Jack
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Andy Mills" <amills at jplcreative.com>
>>To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:08 AM
>>Subject: GDG- Neither this Capital nor Harpers Ferry could long hold out
>>against a large force
>>
>>
>>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>> In reading one of the articles posted earlier (
>>>
>>http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gett/gettysburg_seminars/10
>/essay4.pdf )
>>> , on page 144, Halleck is quoted as to have said: "Neither this
>>> Capital nor Harpers Ferry could long hold out against a large force.
>>They
>>> must depend for their security very much upon the co-operation of your
>>> army"
>>>
>>> It has been said in this forum that Washington was a nearly
>impenetrable
>>> fortress and the ANV could never actually capture the city.
>>>
>>> But this quote makes it seem that he feared very much for the safety
>of
>>DC
>>> and I have to believe Lincoln would also feel this way, or Halleck
>>> wouldn't be able to send such telegrams to the army.
>>>
>>> Did they see a reality that is we don't see today? Were the forces
>that
>>> defending Washington DC impressive on paper, but troops to which you
>>> couldn't rely on when the fighting got heated? In 1863, how many
>troops
>>> defended the capitol and were they mostly green troops with short
>>> enlistments? What makes us today claim DC was unable to be taken
>when
>>> the military men of the time thought the exact opposite?
>>>
>>> I know there are a lot of questions, but I am trying to figure out the
>>> differences in beliefs and if this is all with the hindsight of
>history
>>to
>>> know Lee / ANV / Confederacy never had the capabilities the Union / US
>>> high command believed they were capable of.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
>m
>>> -to unsubscribe
>>> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
>m
>> -to unsubscribe
>>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>>
>>
>>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.co
>m -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
More information about the Gettysburg
mailing list