Page 2 of 2
RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate?
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:47 pm
by Ironclad
Fremont not Freemont (we won't mention his accented e!)
RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate?
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:06 am
by Gray_Lensman
Check out the Battle of Wilson's Creek, near Springfield, MO
edit:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/wilsoncreekintro.htm
RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate?
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:54 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Bismarck
The most accurate way to divide Missouri is to follow the major rivers and Kansas border. People along the Missouri were pro-Southern but, about 50 miles out either way, they tended to be more Union. Actually, some of the strongest pro-Northern sympathizers were in the Ozarks. We even had one county secede from the Confederacy and set up its own kingdom.
Correct. Central Missouri along the river was still called "Little Dixie" when I was in school there in the 60's. St. Louis was heavily pro-Union, as were most of the Ozarks and the Northern part of the state. Kansas City area was more evenly divided. But by the time the game starts most Confederate strength had moved towards the Southwest corner area where they could get some support and arms from Arkansas.
RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate?
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:21 am
by sven6345789
The two southwestern provinces including Springfield should be in CSA hands (Price and his Missouri state guard had retreated to it after the siege of Lexington form Sept. 12-20. McCulloch had withdrawn to Arkansas.
RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate?
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:26 pm
by Ironclad
McCulloch returned and led a cavalry force to Springfield after he heard of the Union army's surprise withdrawal from there on 8 November.
RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate?
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:04 pm
by Bombsight
Eric,
Lyon disappears in 1861 because he was killed in action at Wilson's creek. Francis P. Blair JR. was instrumental in keeping Missouri in the Union because of his political ties (Familial ties to Lincoln administration). These men working in concert were able to cut a lot of bureaucratic red tape to enable themobilization of pro-union elements "extra-legally" (i.e. competely against the law; but, they backed the winning side). When Lyons took the field, Blair jr remained in St Louis to keep him supplied (i.e. held office holders to promises).
I don't know how you would handle the situation in the game other than having the character of Lyons with a high initiative rating. Unless you chose to add Department Headquarters to influence availibility and distribution of supplies to field armies, you can't duplicate Blair Jr's contribution to the war effort.
RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate?
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:04 pm
by Mr. Z
Probably we are going to give Osage to CSA, rest of MO to USA. We realize sympathies varied from area to area, but we're just talking about military control.
Price's units will be in Osage, Fremont/Hunter's in Black River. (And McCullough in Fayetteville province.) This is just to reflect the fact that actually what we call "Osage" province was divided at the beginning of November. Gil will decide what to do with Fremont, who was sacked on 11/2.
RE: Should part of Missouri start confederate?
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:42 pm
by ericbabe
I've given the southernmost three provinces to the CSA, though presently we have Union forces starting in Black River and they usually take that back on the first turn.