Cindy.

I will admit that some of us have been having some fun with this post. However, the truth is in the underlying foundation of all of these postings.

Alcohol, in it's various uses, was an important item of war supplies during the Civil War. Even paper was a war supply for the South. The uses of alcohol for several purposes from medical supplies to moral building was vital to the war effort, particularly to the South. Even today Beer is regulated in combat zones as a moral builder.

We often hear of the abuses more that the practical uses of any substance. And alcohol was/is a substance which was then and is now easily abused. We giggle and laugh about the abuses and because of that we discredit any other interpretation of possible motives, which are a legitamate part of any military operations.

If the Confederate Army would reportedly march out of it's way to a place called Gettysburg for shoes, does it seem so improbable that they would send someone to capture a supply of medical stores? On the other hand if you knew there was a supply of whiskey at this location. And knew that your troops would probably get drunk if you moved throught that area would you avoid it as a commander? It's all a matter of perspective.

Where military operations "Planned" around the location of distillerys in Kentucky as indicated by "The History Channel"? I do not know that to be the case. Nor, do not know of any evidence that would indicate that any operations were influenced in one way or the other by that. But, not every military judgement of that war was written down in the "Official Records". On the other hand, to say that some operations weren't influenced by the locations of distilleries would also be incorrect. If for no other reason than to avoid or destroy them, if there was one nearby, to keep your troops from getting drunk before battle.

I like you do not think that at the highest levels of command of either army, that the location of distillerys made any impression or influence upon the operational concideration of those armies. BUT, this is different than saying that their location did not make any impression of the operational concideration at "All" Levels of command.

There is a difference between the two. But, they both effect the progression of an operational plan. And in more than one case the operational conciderations of a minor Regimental or Brigade commander materially effected the overall plans of the Army Commander. Most noteablely Gettysburg. It wasn't Lee's plan to fight there, nor was it Meade's plan either.