Doug,
I agree with everything you stated. I remember nights sitting around Deer Camp listening to the coyotes wondering what part of that country played a role in the civil war and sitting on deer stands wondering if troops march through these woods. My father ended up buying the property our deer camp was on and many more acres. The country down there (I live in Sherwood, Ar.) is special to me. Perhaps somewhere I will find some of the answers anyway its keeps me thinking The whole Camden Expedition was about cotton and General Banks was more of a politician that General. General Grant wanted no part of it but Banks convinced Lincoln to go for it. General Sherman was no doubt bothered by having to send some of his troops. No doubt control of the Red River was an objective but I think it was more of who could get what $ for the cotton sitting in Texas. Its strange how we can sit back and view the whole picture of events and how they were played out. My gg grandfather, Felix Brown, came from Eastern Tenn. and joined the 10th Tenn. Vol. Calvary (Union) but ended up spending the war in a Union hospital in Springfield, Tenn. He later moved to Franklin Co. Ar. and then to Haskell Co. Okla. My other gg grandfather, Henry Kaufeld, was in Fremont's Body guard (Benton Cadets) out of Ohio and wounded somewhere in Missouri prior to the Battle of Springfield. He ended up being a grape farmer in Lutherville, Ar. I had a gg grandfather and his sons out of Polk Co. Ar. with the 4th Arkansas Infantry (Confederate) the sons fought at Pea Ridge. And on an ironic note, General Joseph Johnston is my 3rd cousin 6 times removed. So I play both sides of the war and can understand both view points. Thank God I didn't have to make a choice!