civilwarwest : Messages : 43706-43736 of 47301

File received and saved.
And thanks a heap!
Your yahell email might not be activated, or is
deactivated from non-use, hence the refused delivery.
As for the other site having a no delivery, can only
say....it was sent from Yahell!
Chuck Tinder



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)

#43707

From: "Terry" <lakota_313@...>
Date: Sat Jun 2, 2007 5:55 pm
Subject: new member:

lakota_313

hello all
    am wondering if you know any thing from Missouri's units in the
union.am looking for infromation on one unit.it is .... A Division
42nd Missouri Infantry ( Vol )
                                     thanks teque

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#43708

From: NPeters102@...
Date: Sat Jun 2, 2007 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: new member:

NPeters102@...

In a message dated 6/2/2007 2:00:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lakota_313@... writes:

am wondering if you know any thing from Missouri's units in the
union.am looking for infromation on one unit.it is .... A Division
42nd Missouri Infantry ( Vol )

42nd REGIMENT MO INFANTRY.

Organized at Macon, Mo., September, 1864. Attached to District of Northern Missouri, Dept. of Missouri, to December, 1864. Tullahoma, Tenn., Dept. of the Cumberland, to February, 1865. Unattached, 4th Division, 20th Army Corps, Dept. of the Cumberland, to March, 1865. 2nd Brigade, Defences Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad, Dept. Cumberland, to April, 1865. 2nd Brigade, 1st Sub-District, District of Middle Tennessee, to June, 1865.

SERVICE.-Companies "A," "C" and "H" moved to Sturgeon, Mo., September 23, 1864. Garrison duty there and at Columbia till November. RegIment assigned to guard duty on line of the Northern Missouri and Hannibal & St. Joseph Rallroad, till November 10. Moved to St, Louis, Mo., November 12-13, thence to Paducah, Ky., November 29-December 2. To Clarksville and Fort Donelson, Tenn., December 3-6, and duty there till December 30. Moved to Nashville, Tenn., December 30-31, thence to Tullahoma, Tenn., January 2-3, 1865, and duty there till March, operatIng against guerrillas in Southern Tennessee and Northern Alabama. Action at Corn's Farm, Franklin County, Tenn., February 6. Garrison duty at Shelbyville, Tenn., till June 23. Moved to Nashville, Tena., June 23. Mustered out Companies "H," "I" and "K" March 22, 1865; Regiment June 28, 1865.

Regiment lost during service 6 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 124 Enlisted men by disease. Total 134.

Source of Data: "A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion, V.III" by Frederick H. Dyer, c1908, p.1337

See what's free at AOL.com.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#43709

From: "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
Date: Sat Jun 2, 2007 10:49 pm
Subject: Re: FW: Help Me, Ted Savas Kenobi, You're My Only Hope!

carlw4514

the oddest thing about yahoo seems to be that they are convinced all
of their clients are 8-12 yrs old or so, from what I can tell

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, mobile ninetysix <mobile_96@...>
wrote:
>
> File received and saved.
> And thanks a heap!
> Your yahell email might not be activated, or is
> deactivated from non-use, hence the refused delivery.
> As for the other site having a no delivery, can only
> say....it was sent from Yahell!
> Chuck Tinder
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
> Never miss an email again!
> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (15)

#43710

From: "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...>
Date: Mon Jun 4, 2007 10:30 pm
Subject: HPS has announced Campaign Chickamauga

james2044

170 stand alone scenarios and 80 campaign scenarios

4 different campaigns for a varied campaign experience, each also has
a "weather variant" to choose from.

Scenarios include:
Perryville
Stones River
Frankfort
Nashville
Chickamauga
Greater Mill Springs
Chattanooga

Large maps and inclusive orders of battle offer unlimited possibilities
for user-created scenarios.


The standard introductory pricing is good until August 1st.

#43711

From: "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
Date: Mon Jun 4, 2007 10:44 pm
Subject: Re: HPS has announced Campaign Chickamauga

carlw4514

for some reason just realized I have been pronouncing Chickamauga
wrong [g]

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/Chickamauga

James, these are suitable for play against the computer?

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...>
wrote:
>
> 170 stand alone scenarios and 80 campaign scenarios
>
> 4 different campaigns for a varied campaign experience, each also has
> a "weather variant" to choose from.
>
> Scenarios include:
> Perryville
> Stones River
> Frankfort
> Nashville
> Chickamauga
> Greater Mill Springs
> Chattanooga
>
> Large maps and inclusive orders of battle offer unlimited possibilities
> for user-created scenarios.
>
>
> The standard introductory pricing is good until August 1st.
>

#43712

From: "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...>
Date: Mon Jun 4, 2007 11:32 pm
Subject: Re: HPS has announced Campaign Chickamauga

james2044

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
wrote:
> James, these are suitable for play against the computer?
>

Depends, nothing beats a person and the PC AI is fair to poor.  The
smaller games it will hold up but the large scale battles it gets real
bad.

I usually play the PC, being unwilling or unable to set aside the time
to play PBEM.  I keep wishing they would put some time into improving
the AI but I'm not sure that is possible either.

Hope that helps.  I have all the games and am buying this one.  The
smaller battles get played more becuse the PC is better it them.

James

#43713

From: "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
Date: Tue Jun 5, 2007 1:28 am
Subject: Re: HPS has announced Campaign Chickamauga

carlw4514

Sure shows to go you , when it comes to predicting the future. I would
have thought AI would be improving by leaps and bounds, but that hasnt
happened.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@>
> wrote:
> > James, these are suitable for play against the computer?
> >
>
> Depends, nothing beats a person and the PC AI is fair to poor.  The
> smaller games it will hold up but the large scale battles it gets real
> bad.
>
> I usually play the PC, being unwilling or unable to set aside the time
> to play PBEM.  I keep wishing they would put some time into improving
> the AI but I'm not sure that is possible either.
>
> Hope that helps.  I have all the games and am buying this one.  The
> smaller battles get played more becuse the PC is better it them.
>
> James
>

#43714

From: "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...>
Date: Tue Jun 5, 2007 2:48 am
Subject: Re: HPS has announced Campaign Chickamauga

james2044

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
wrote:
>
> Sure shows to go you , when it comes to predicting the future. I would
> have thought AI would be improving by leaps and bounds, but that hasnt
> happened.

Considering the state of human NI, what are you looking for in AI?

#43715

From: "oneplez" <oneplez@...>
Date: Thu Jun 7, 2007 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: Chattanooga

oneplez

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...> wrote:
>
> The question on Cozzens' treatment of Grant, in another group,
> started me thinking about this battle. I have often thought that in
> no battle do so many strong feelings play out about the generals
> involved. On one hand, we have the Thomas fan club upset over him
> being superseded by Grant. In addition, the anti-Sherman group has a
> field day with Tunnel Hill. To top things off, this seems to be one
> of Grant's poorer efforts and that releases the anti-Grant groups.
> Hooker, still smarting from summer is the joker in the deck.
>
> Thomas seems to have slighted Grant from when he showed up; failing
> to show him the respect due a commanding officer. His actions seem
> to be much less than what is expected as basic kindness.
> Sherman, favored by Grant, is stuck with problems that no one
> understood or expected. The tactical problems of the Tunnel Hill
> complex is made worse by facing one of the few real fighting
> divisions in the AoT.
> Grant seems passive during the battle, almost content to wait until
> Sherman works out his problems. Later, when pressed by Sherman,
> Grant sends Thomas into a demonstration attack
> Hooker is having a good time of it pushing the AoT off Lookout Mt.
> He may be the first Union general to realize that the AoT is falling
> apart. However, he seems unable to take advantage of it.
> Bragg is in an impossible task having lost total control of his army
> and unable to move forward or fall back.
>

James said:

The question on Cozzens' treatment of Grant, in another group, started me thinking about this battle. I have often thought that in no battle do so many strong feelings play out about the generals involved. On one hand, we have the Thomas fan club upset over him being superseded by Grant.

No one that I know of has ever reported that they thought they thought Thomas should have been named commander of the Division of the Mississippi rather than Grant. Many of Thomas' contemporaries thought so because of Thomas' seniority and infinitly better battle performances.

In addition, the anti-Sherman group has a field day with Tunnel Hill.

Well, Sherman continued his unmilitary bumbling at MR. He was slow getting his troops into position, Slow advancing them (Had he attacked immediately he would have found no resistance). Slow in making a reconnaissance (Made it just before he was to attack), and found he was a hill short of his target. He seems to have learned his strategy from Butler and Burnside.

To top things off, this seems to be one of Grant's poorer efforts and that releases the anti-Grant groups.

You've established a new standard by indicating Grant had a poor day. Congratulations!

Hooker, still smarting from summer is the joker in the deck.

Hooker performed brilliantly on the Rebels left.

Thomas seems to have slighted Grant from when he showed up; failing to show him the respect due a commanding officer. His actions seem to be much less than what is expected as basic kindness.

You are correct! Thomas seems! This legend was started by James Harrison Wilson and is the only mention of this incident extant. Porter echoes Wilson's statement but is a poor witness since he came with Baldy Smith after the alleged "insult" occurred and could not have been witness.

Sherman, favored by Grant, is stuck with problems that no one understood or expected. The tactical problems of the Tunnel Hill complex is made worse by facing one of the few real fighting divisions in the AoT.

Sorry! He was faced with no one if he had not been so slow. Don't understand the tactical problems you mention. He could have flanked the Rebel position and threatened Chickamauga Station, where Bragg had his stores. That would have grabbed the Reb's by the short hairs. Cleburne did not have his whole division up. He had some of it plus a couple other brigades. Against Sherman's uninspired straight-up charges, that's all he needed. Sherman had 5 or 6 division's and Thomas cavalry and still couldn't get `er done!

Grant seems passive during the battle, almost content to wait until Sherman works out his problems.

I'm not sure I agree that Grant was passive. He knew he was in trouble because of Sherman's inactivity. He also thought, as did everyone else that Bragg was shifting troops to Sherman's flank (Which he was not). He immediately took steps to implement changes to his battle plan to make it work. He took some suggestions from Thomas, and brought Hooker into the plan and was able to connect both his flanks. Hooker, always a fighting general started the roll-up of the Rebels left.

Later, when pressed by Sherman, Grant sends Thomas into a demonstration attack

That's all he intended. At least that's what his order's were.

Hooker is having a good time of it pushing the AoT off Lookout Mt. He may be the first Union general to realize that the AoT is falling apart. However, he seems unable to take advantage of it.

I agree with your realization characterization. He deployed his divisions so he could take as many prisoners as possible. And he did, despite Grant's sneering remarks to the contrary.

Bragg is in an impossible task having lost total control of his army and unable to move forward or fall back.

I thought he fell back to Dalton, Ga.

Don

#43716

From: "oneplez" <oneplez@...>
Date: Thu Jun 7, 2007 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: Chattanooga

oneplez

James said:

The question on Cozzens' treatment of Grant, in another group,started me thinking about this battle. I have often thought that in no battle do so many strong feelings play out about the generals involved. On one hand, we have the Thomas fan club upset over him being superseded by Grant.

No one that I know of has ever reported that they thought Thomas should have been named commander of the Division of the Mississippi rather than Grant. Many of Thomas' contemporaries thought so because of Thomas' seniority and infinitly better battle performances. But, even they realized Shermy had his nose buried so deep it was a foregone conclusion.

In addition, the anti-Sherman group has a field day with Tunnel Hill.

To top things off, this seems to be one of Grant's poorer efforts and that releases the anti-Grant groups.

You've established a new standard by indicating Grant had a poor day. Congratulations!

Hooker, still smarting from summer is the joker in the deck.

Hooker performed brilliantly on the Rebels left.

Thomas seems to have slighted Grant from when he showed up; failing to show him the respect due a commanding officer. His actions seem to be much less than what is expected as basic kindness.

Sherman, favored by Grant, is stuck with problems that no one understood or expected. The tactical problems of the Tunnel Hillcomplex is made worse by facing one of the few real fightingdivisions in the AoT.

Grant seems passive during the battle, almost content to wait until Sherman works out his problems.

Later, when pressed by Sherman, Grant sends Thomas into a demonstration attack

That's all he intended. At least that's what his order's were.

Hooker is having a good time of it pushing the AoT off Lookout Mt. He may be the first Union general to realize that the AoT is falling apart. However, he seems unable to take advantage of it.

I agree with your realization characterization. He deployed his divisions so he could take as many prisoners as possible. And he did, despite Grant's sneering remarks to the contrary.

Bragg is in an impossible task having lost total control of his army and unable to move forward or fall back.

I thought he fell back to Dalton, Ga.

Don

#43717

From: "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...>
Date: Fri Jun 8, 2007 2:52 pm
Subject: Re: Chattanooga

james2044

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "oneplez" <oneplez@...> wrote:
>
> No one that I know of has ever reported that they thought Thomas
should
> have been named commander of the Division of the Mississippi rather
than
> Grant.  Many of Thomas' contemporaries thought so because of
> Thomas' seniority and infinitly better battle performances.  But,
> even they realized Shermy had his nose buried so deep it was a
foregone
> conclusion.

I was not talking about department command but about command at
Chattanooga.  The Thomas fan club, always seems upset that Grant
showed up at all.

>
> In addition, the anti-Sherman group has a field day with Tunnel
Hill.
>
> Well, Sherman continued his unmilitary bumbling at MR. He was slow
> getting his troops into position, Slow advancing them (Had he
attacked
> immediately he would have found no resistance). Slow in making a
> reconnaissance (Made it just before he was to attack), and found he
was
> a hill short of his target. He seems to have learned his strategy
from
> Butler and Burnside.
>

What you say may or may not be fully correct but this is not unique
to Sherman or to Tunnel Hill area.  In addition, one can alwyas
question why this area had not be scouted prior to Grant's arrival.



> To top things off, this seems to be one of Grant's poorer efforts
and
> that releases the anti-Grant groups.
>
> You've established a new standard by indicating Grant had a poor
> day. Congratulations!

Everyone has apoor day and the higher up you get the better your
chances of are having more of them.


>
> Hooker, still smarting from summer is the joker in the deck.
>
> Hooker performed brilliantly on the Rebels left.
>

It was very hard not to perform "brilliantly" against the majority of
the AoT at that time.  Most of the army had very bad supply and moral
problems and had hit bottom.  Pat's division was an exception and
shows what an exceptional leader he was.


> Thomas seems to have slighted Grant from when he showed up; failing
to
> show him the respect due a commanding officer. His actions seem to
be
> much less than what is expected as basic kindness.
>
> You are correct! Thomas seems! This legend was started by James
Harrison
> Wilson and is the only mention of this incident extant. Porter
echoes
> Wilson's statement but is a poor witness since he came with Baldy
> Smith after the alleged "insult" occurred and could not have been
> witness.
>

If half the story is true, Thomas was wrong and insulting.  I
used "seems" becuse of the questions but I feel their is a factual
foundation for it.


> Sherman, favored by Grant, is stuck with problems that no one
understood
> or expected. The tactical problems of the Tunnel Hillcomplex is made
> worse by facing one of the few real fightingdivisions in the AoT.
>
> Sorry! He was faced with no one if he had not been so slow. Don't
> understand the tactical problems you mention. He could have flanked
the
> Rebel position and threatened Chickamauga Station, where Bragg had
his
> stores. That would have grabbed the Reb's by the short hairs.
> Cleburne did not have his whole division up. He had some of it plus
a
> couple other brigades. Against Sherman's uninspired straight-up
> charges, that's all he needed. Sherman had 5 or 6 division's and
> Thomas cavalry and still couldn't get `er done!
>

You continue to overlook some very real problems in your attack on
Sherman.


[snips]

> Bragg is in an impossible task having lost total control of his
army and
> unable to move forward or fall back.
>
> I thought he fell back to Dalton, Ga.

I was talking about Bragg's position prior to the battle during
the "seige".  He didn't have the men or transportation to maintain
the "seige" BUT he was unable to fall back due to other
considerations.

James

#43718

From: "oneplez" <oneplez@...>
Date: Fri Jun 8, 2007 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: General Grant and his drinking

oneplez

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "movedalot100" <tnblaurock@...>
wrote:
>
> > Grant has well over 2,000 books, Gettysburg has a book a year
coming
> > out.  What was the last good book, other than Castels written
about
> > any Western campaigns.
>
> How about the campaign studies for Wilson's Creek and Pea Ridge?
Our
> Forum (David Woodbury's) toured there in 2004 with Prof William
Shea.
> He and others spoke at our evening gatherings where we
headquartered in
> Bentonville. We visited both battlefields in one long weekend.
>
> The books are Wilson's Creek, by William G Piston and Richard W
> Hatcher, (2000) and Pea Ridge, by William L Shea and Earl J Hess,
> (1992.)

I think I confused you when I stated "Western Campaign."  I was using
the CW terminology Western equals Mid-west today and West of the
Mississippi was "The Far west" in those  days.

Don
>
> Terry Blaurock
>

#43719

From: "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
Date: Fri Jun 8, 2007 6:04 pm
Subject: Re: Re: General Grant and his drinking

tarafoxie

Read Peter Cozzens' books, This Terrible Sound, No Better Place to Die, The Darkest Days of the War, and Iuka and Corinth. They are very good, enjoyed them a lot. You may find a fault with them (don't know what fault) but they fill many blanks in the literature of the confederate western fighting. A book that I found surprising excellent and beyond my expectations is Kenneth Hofendorfer's Mill Springs. This book along should prevent the question of "Has anybody written a good book since Castel". Mill Springs was a small battle but the strategy and campaign involved in the hills of Kentucky and Tennessee started in July 1861 and Concluded in defeat in January 1862. This was the true beginning of the collapse of Johnston's line. This book is a real sleeper of civil war literature.

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: oneplez

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:52 AM

Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: General Grant and his drinking

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "movedalot100" <tnblaurock@...>
wrote:
>
> > Grant has well over 2,000 books, Gettysburg has a book a year
coming
> > out. What was the last good book, other than Castels written
about
> > any Western campaigns.
>
> How about the campaign studies for Wilson's Creek and Pea Ridge?
Our
> Forum (David Woodbury's) toured there in 2004 with Prof William
Shea.
> He and others spoke at our evening gatherings where we
headquartered in
> Bentonville. We visited both battlefields in one long weekend.
>
> The books are Wilson's Creek, by William G Piston and Richard W
> Hatcher, (2000) and Pea Ridge, by William L Shea and Earl J Hess,
> (1992.)

I think I confused you when I stated "Western Campaign." I was using
the CW terminology Western equals Mid-west today and West of the
Mississippi was "The Far west" in those days.

Don
>
> Terry Blaurock
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/838 - Release Date: 6/7/2007 2:21 PM

#43720

From: NPeters102@...
Date: Fri Jun 8, 2007 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: Re: General Grant and his drinking

NPeters102@...

In a message dated 6/8/2007 2:08:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rblack0981@... writes:

Mill Springs was a small battle but the strategy and campaign involved in the hills of Kentucky and Tennessee started in July 1861 and Concluded in defeat in January 1862. This was the true beginning of the collapse of Johnston's line. This book is a real sleeper of civil war literature

Ron:

I am interested in how Mr. Hafendorfer handles Richmond, KY in his latest work.

Respectfully,

Mike Peters
npeters102@...

See what's free at AOL.com.

#43721

From: "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
Date: Fri Jun 8, 2007 7:13 pm
Subject: Re: Re: General Grant and his drinking

tarafoxie

Mike;

Has the Richmond book been published yet? Please let me know. I'll buy it based on the high quality of his last book. People who read and study the civil war and don't read about the little known battles and the backwater areas are missing much. An example is the many who never read about the battle of Pea Ridge or Prairie Grove in Arkansas. You know who you are. Did you read about the battle of Wildcat Mountain?

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: NPeters102@...

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:12 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: General Grant and his drinking

In a message dated 6/8/2007 2:08:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rblack0981@wowway.com writes:

Mill Springs was a small battle but the strategy and campaign involved in the hills of Kentucky and Tennessee started in July 1861 and Concluded in defeat in January 1862. This was the true beginning of the collapse of Johnston's line. This book is a real sleeper of civil war literature

Ron:

I am interested in how Mr. Hafendorfer handles Richmond, KY in his latest work.

Respectfully,

Mike Peters
npeters102@aol.com

See what's free at AOL.com.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/838 - Release Date: 6/7/2007 2:21 PM

#43722

From: NPeters102@...
Date: Fri Jun 8, 2007 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: Re: General Grant and his drinking

NPeters102@...

In a message dated 6/8/2007 3:16:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rblack0981@... writes:

Did you read about the battle of Wildcat Mountain?

Ron,

Yes, & I visited the site this Spring on a trip back from Chickamauga & a tour led by our own Dave Powell. Dave is quite the guide & one which I can not recommend highly enough.

The Richmond book has been published. I saw it in May at the Mansfield, Ohio CW Show. Didn't pick it up right away. When I went back to purchase the Richmond book, it was gone & the dealer didn't have a second copy. I'll learn to be quicker on the draw.

Respectfully,

Mike Peters
npeters102@...

See what's free at AOL.com.

#43723

From: DORR64OVI@...
Date: Sat Jun 9, 2007 12:42 am
Subject: Re: Re: General Grant and his drinking

dorr64ovi

In a message dated 6/8/2007 3:30:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, NPeters102@... writes:

The Richmond book has been published. I saw it in May at the Mansfield, Ohio CW Show. Didn't pick it up right away. When I went back to purchase the Richmond book, it was gone & the dealer didn't have a second copy. I'll learn to be quicker on the draw.

I did the same thing. I saw the copy on Friday and when I went back on Sat, it was sold. I bet that dealer wont forget to bring more of the book next show.

BTW, for those interested, Morningside Books has Hafendorfers Battle of Wildcat Mt for 10 bucks.

Kent Dorr

See what's free at AOL.com.

#43724

From: NPeters102@...
Date: Sat Jun 9, 2007 12:48 am
Subject: Re: Re: General Grant and his drinking

NPeters102@...

In a message dated 6/9/2007 12:43:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, DORR64OVI@... writes:

BTW, for those interested, Morningside Books has Hafendorfers Battle of Wildcat Mt for 10 bucks.

Kent,

Dirt cheap for Morningside.

Respectfully,

Mike Peters
npeters102@...

See what's free at AOL.com.

#43725

From: "William H Keene" <wh_keene@...>
Date: Sat Jun 9, 2007 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Chattanooga

wh_keene

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "oneplez" <oneplez@...> wrote:
> ...
> Hooker performed brilliantly on the Rebels left.

By what standard?  I cant think of how his performance could possibly
be called brilliant.

> Sorry! He was faced with no one if he had not been so slow. Don't
> understand the tactical problems you mention. He could have flanked
the
> Rebel position and threatened Chickamauga Station, where Bragg had
his
> stores. That would have grabbed the Reb's by the short hairs.
> Cleburne did not have his whole division up. He had some of it plus
a
> couple other brigades. Against Sherman's uninspired straight-up
> charges, that's all he needed. Sherman had 5 or 6 division's and
> Thomas cavalry and still couldn't get `er done!

No matter what pace Sherman set (and I see nothing wrong with the
speed he moved) he would face someone.  Walker's division had been in
position south of the Tunnel since the day before and Cleburne was on
his way.

#43726

From: "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@...>
Date: Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:34 am
Subject: Re: General Grant and his drinking

tony_gunter

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
wrote:
>
> Read Peter Cozzens' books, This Terrible Sound, No Better Place to
Die,  The Darkest Days of the War, and Iuka and Corinth.  They are very
good, enjoyed them a lot.  You may find a fault with them (don't know
what fault) but they fill many blanks in the literature of the
confederate western fighting.  A book that I found surprising excellent
and beyond my expectations is Kenneth Hofendorfer's Mill Springs.  This
book along should prevent the question of "Has anybody  written a good
book since Castel".  Mill Springs was a small battle but the strategy
and campaign involved in the hills of Kentucky and Tennessee started in
July 1861 and Concluded in defeat in January 1862.  This was the true
beginning of the collapse of Johnston's line.  This book is a real
sleeper of civil war literature.
> Ron

Cozzen's Iuka book is very good, but he bends over backwards to
criticize Grant, often exceeding the bounds of evidence, logic, and
even physics.

The idea that Rosecrans could have marched from Rienzi to Vicksburg in
six days is simply laughable.  Cozzens regurgitates the assertion
without comment.  'Nuff said.

It's not that he's a mindless Rosecrans cheerleader, he puts in a few
jabs on Rosecrans also.  So don't let the egregious Grant bashing stop
you from buying the book, or studying the Mississippi theatre in late
1862.

#43727

From: "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
Date: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:32 pm
Subject: Re: World talk radio

carlw4514

progress report:
I broke down and downloaded the MP3 software by clicking where it
suggested.
working ok now, but I can play only recent shows,  I can't find the
archives!

Carl


> _http://www.modavox.http://www.moda_
(http://www.modavox.com/wtrstudioa/)

>
> It can be tough to find, but the easiest way I found it  was to use
the addy
> posted above, choose select a topic, choose history, and the  link
to the show
> will be found.  It's the only history program on World  Talk Radio.  I
> listened to the May 11th edition the other night, and Gerry
explains in the opening
> about the changes.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Regards from the Garden State,
>
> Steve Basic
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
>

#43728

From: "oneplez" <oneplez@...>
Date: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:46 am
Subject: Re: Chattanooga

oneplez

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene" <wh_keene@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "oneplez" <oneplez@> wrote:
> > ...
> > Hooker performed brilliantly on the Rebels left.
>
> By what standard?  I cant think of how his performance could
possibly
> be called brilliant.
>
>
> > Sorry! He was faced with no one if he had not been so slow. Don't
> > understand the tactical problems you mention. He could have
flanked
> the
> > Rebel position and threatened Chickamauga Station, where Bragg
had
> his
> > stores. That would have grabbed the Reb's by the short hairs.
> > Cleburne did not have his whole division up. He had some of it
plus
> a
> > couple other brigades. Against Sherman's uninspired straight-up
> > charges, that's all he needed. Sherman had 5 or 6 division's and
> > Thomas cavalry and still couldn't get `er done!
>
> No matter what pace Sherman set (and I see nothing wrong with the
> speed he moved) he would face someone.  Walker's division had been
in
> position south of the Tunnel since the day before and Cleburne was
on
> his way.
>

My opinion that Hookers performance was brilliant is as valid as
yours that Sherman moved at your acceptable speed rate.

Mine may be more acceptable since it is generally perceived by others
as true.  Nobody ever accused Sherman of  moving rapidly, viz his
slowness in getting to Chattanooga once Grant ordered him to drop the
bridge repairs.

#43729

From: "oneplez" <oneplez@...>
Date: Sat Jun 9, 2007 1:54 am
Subject: Re: Chattanooga

oneplez

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...> wrote:
>
> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "oneplez" oneplez@ wrote:
> >
> > No one that I know of has ever reported that they thought Thomas
> should
> > have been named commander of the Division of the Mississippi rather
> than
> > Grant. Many of Thomas' contemporaries thought so because of
> > Thomas' seniority and infinitly better battle performances. But,
> > even they realized Shermy had his nose buried so deep it was a
> foregone
> > conclusion.
>
> I was not talking about department command but about command at
> Chattanooga. The Thomas fan club, always seems upset that Grant
> showed up at all.

Where does that appear?

> > In addition, the anti-Sherman group has a field day with Tunnel
> Hill.
> >
> > Well, Sherman continued his unmilitary bumbling at MR. He was slow
> > getting his troops into position, Slow advancing them (Had he
> attacked
> > immediately he would have found no resistance). Slow in making a
> > reconnaissance (Made it just before he was to attack), and found he
> was
> > a hill short of his target. He seems to have learned his strategy
> from
> > Butler and Burnside.
> >
>
> What you say may or may not be fully correct but this is not unique
> to Sherman or to Tunnel Hill area. In addition, one can alwyas
> question why this area had not be scouted prior to Grant's arrival.
>

How do you know whether or not it is "fully" correct? Why would it have been scouted? No one knew what plans Grant was to come up with until he showed up?

>
> > To top things off, this seems to be one of Grant's poorer efforts
> and
> > that releases the anti-Grant groups.
> >
> > You've established a new standard by indicating Grant had a poor
> > day. Congratulations!
>
> Everyone has apoor day and the higher up you get the better your
> chances of are having more of them.
>

Spoken like a true Grant Groupie!

> >
> > Hooker, still smarting from summer is the joker in the deck.
> >
> > Hooker performed brilliantly on the Rebels left.
> >
>
> It was very hard not to perform "brilliantly" against the majority of
> the AoT at that time. Most of the army had very bad supply and moral
> problems and had hit bottom. Pat's division was an exception and
> shows what an exceptional leader he was.
>
>

Why didn't Grant perform "brilliantly then?

> > Thomas seems to have slighted Grant from when he showed up; failing
> to
> > show him the respect due a commanding officer. His actions seem to
> be
> > much less than what is expected as basic kindness.
> >
> > You are correct! Thomas seems! This legend was started by James
> Harrison
> > Wilson and is the only mention of this incident extant. Porter
> echoes
> > Wilson's statement but is a poor witness since he came with Baldy
> > Smith after the alleged "insult" occurred and could not have been
> > witness.
> >
>
> If half the story is true, Thomas was wrong and insulting. I
> used "seems" becuse of the questions but I feel their is a factual
> foundation for it.

What's the "factual foundation?" "Feeling" only counts in horseshoes.

>
>
> > Sherman, favored by Grant, is stuck with problems that no one
> understood
> > or expected. The tactical problems of the Tunnel Hillcomplex is made
> > worse by facing one of the few real fightingdivisions in the AoT.
> >
> > Sorry! He was faced with no one if he had not been so slow. Don't
> > understand the tactical problems you mention. He could have flanked
> the
> > Rebel position and threatened Chickamauga Station, where Bragg had
> his
> > stores. That would have grabbed the Reb's by the short hairs.
> > Cleburne did not have his whole division up. He had some of it plus
> a
> > couple other brigades. Against Sherman's uninspired straight-up
> > charges, that's all he needed. Sherman had 5 or 6 division's and
> > Thomas cavalry and still couldn't get `er done!
> >
>
> You continue to overlook some very real problems in your attack on
> Sherman.
>

What are they? Please enlighten me?

> [snips]
>
> > Bragg is in an impossible task having lost total control of his
> army and
> > unable to move forward or fall back.
> >
> > I thought he fell back to Dalton, Ga.
>
> I was talking about Bragg's position prior to the battle during
> the "seige". He didn't have the men or transportation to maintain
> the "seige" BUT he was unable to fall back due to other
> considerations.

That's fairly convoluted. Seems to me that he fell back pretty quick once Thomas knocked him off the Ridge. Didn't he? What am I missing?

Don
>
> James
>

#43730

From: "Tom Mix" <tmix@...>
Date: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:21 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Chattanooga

tmix@...

As for you claim of Hooker’s “brilliance” and that others believe your statements to be true, I don’t think so. Hooker did a fine job but brilliant? No, I can’t that far but that is subjective thought. As for your tremendous support in your evaluation, I don’t see that either and that is not subjective.

-----Original Message-----
From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of oneplez
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:46 PM
To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Chattanooga

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene" <wh_keene@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "oneplez" <oneplez@> wrote:
> > ...
> > Hooker performed brilliantly on the Rebels left.
>
> By what standard? I cant think of how his performance could
possibly
> be called brilliant.
>
>
> > Sorry! He was faced with no one if he had not been so slow. Don't
> > understand the tactical problems you mention. He could have
flanked
> the
> > Rebel position and threatened Chickamauga Station, where Bragg
had
> his
> > stores. That would have grabbed the Reb's by the short hairs.
> > Cleburne did not have his whole division up. He had some of it
plus
> a
> > couple other brigades. Against Sherman's uninspired straight-up
> > charges, that's all he needed. Sherman had 5 or 6 division's and
> > Thomas cavalry and still couldn't get `er done!
>
> No matter what pace Sherman set (and I see nothing wrong with the
> speed he moved) he would face someone. Walker's division had been
in
> position south of the Tunnel since the day before and Cleburne was
on
> his way.
>

My opinion that Hookers performance was brilliant is as valid as
yours that Sherman moved at your acceptable speed rate.

Mine may be more acceptable since it is generally perceived by others
as true. Nobody ever accused Sherman of moving rapidly, viz his
slowness in getting to Chattanooga once Grant ordered him to drop the
bridge repairs.

#43731

From: "William H Keene" <wh_keene@...>
Date: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:34 pm
Subject: Re: Chattanooga

wh_keene

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "oneplez" <oneplez@...> wrote:
> ...
> My opinion that Hookers performance was brilliant is as valid as
> yours that Sherman moved at your acceptable speed rate.

You are certainly entilted to your opinion.  I would like to know what
it is based on, since I do not understand how that opinion of Hooker
was arrived at.

> Mine may be more acceptable since it is generally perceived by others
> as true.

What others?  Is that the basis for your opinions -- that they are held
by others?

> ... Nobody ever accused Sherman of  moving rapidly, viz his
> slowness in getting to Chattanooga once Grant ordered him to drop the
> bridge repairs.

Not sure what you are intending to say or mean here.

#43733

From: "ks" <ks@...>
Date: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:02 am
Subject: MODERATOR'S NOTE :Re: "Today in the Civil War"

pbjdesigns

Please reply to this post privately and not on the Civil War West board.

Thank you.

Pat Jones, co-moderator CWWT

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:52 PM

Subject: [civilwarwest] "Today in the Civil War"

For several years (six or more), I have been posting a "Today in the
Civil War" piece to "Lee and Jackson" and for the past two years
to "Study of the Civil War." I would be glad to post the same to this
group.

I have had many positive comments about my work. However, the posts
cover all of the Civil War and are not necessarily limited to the West.

If you would like me to post them to "CivilWarWest," I would be happy
to do so. Please reply to bobnelson@comcast.net. If the moderators
would like to view them, please visit the sites I have cited above.

Regards,

Bob

Reply | Messages in this Topic (1)

#43734

From: "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...>
Date: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:46 am
Subject: Re: Chattanooga

james2044

The person that is doing all the questioning and finds Hooker brillant
has a nickname of "slowtrot".

I rest my case.

James

#43735

From: "bjer50010" <barry.jewell@...>
Date: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: Chattanooga

bjer50010

[snips]

> > > Thomas seems to have slighted Grant from when he showed up;
failing
> > to
> > > show him the respect due a commanding officer. His actions seem to
> > be
> > > much less than what is expected as basic kindness.
> > >
> > > You are correct! Thomas seems! This legend was started by James
> > Harrison
> > > Wilson and is the only mention of this incident extant. Porter
> > echoes
> > > Wilson's statement but is a poor witness since he came with Baldy
> > > Smith after the alleged "insult" occurred and could not have been
> > > witness.
> > >
> >
> > If half the story is true, Thomas was wrong and insulting. I
> > used "seems" becuse of the questions but I feel their is a factual
> > foundation for it.
>
> What's the "factual foundation?"


Who really cares?  The fact is that this entire point gets over
emphasized in discussions of Chattanooga and masks larger issues,
especially about Grant.  Grant had had a horrible trip getting to
Chattanooga.  However, his first concern upon his arrival was to
ascertain the condition of the AotC, to ensure that they would not be
retreating any time soon and to determine the dispositions of both Union
and Confederates forces around the city.  Then he listened to Smith's
proposal of his plan to open the Cracker Line and within 12 hours had
made his own recon and given Smith approval to carry out the plan.  IMHO
he showed a level of professionalism which is ignored in discussions of
this man.  BTW, many of Thomas' officers had shown lukewarm support for
the plan, so Grant should be given credit, as should Thomas, for
realizing the plan would work.

Barry

#43736

From: "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
Date: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:48 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Chattanooga

tarafoxie

I agree with Barry about the bickering in favor of your favorite general draws attention from the events. We all have our favorites but get on with it.

I also agree with Barry about Grant's actions to get the complete picture. Once again, Grant's determination reversed a tough situation and gained the victory. He did this over and over during the war. Remember Lincoln's statements about the barrel of whiskey, more like him, etc. Please remember that I'm not really a fan of Grant but I would not like to have to fight against him. Concerning the battle of Missionary Ridge, the greatest contribution towards union victory was made by Braxton Bragg, aided by John C. Breckinridge. Sherman was stalled before Tunnel hill and Cleburne, Hooker did OK at Lookout Mountain but left the army because of his hurt fellings. Many don't care for Burnsides but he was still there when the campaign ended having defended Knoxville. This battle came closest to being a soldier's victory because they deemed the time was right for attack up the ridge.

What about the positions and the manevers during the battle.

Ron

----- Original Message -----

From: bjer50010

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:25 AM

Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Chattanooga

[snips]

> > > Thomas seems to have slighted Grant from when he showed up;
failing
> > to
> > > show him the respect due a commanding officer. His actions seem to
> > be
> > > much less than what is expected as basic kindness.
> > >
> > > You are correct! Thomas seems! This legend was started by James
> > Harrison
> > > Wilson and is the only mention of this incident extant. Porter
> > echoes
> > > Wilson's statement but is a poor witness since he came with Baldy
> > > Smith after the alleged "insult" occurred and could not have been
> > > witness.
> > >
> >
> > If half the story is true, Thomas was wrong and insulting. I
> > used "seems" becuse of the questions but I feel their is a factual
> > foundation for it.
>
> What's the "factual foundation?"

Who really cares? The fact is that this entire point gets over
emphasized in discussions of Chattanooga and masks larger issues,
especially about Grant. Grant had had a horrible trip getting to
Chattanooga. However, his first concern upon his arrival was to
ascertain the condition of the AotC, to ensure that they would not be
retreating any time soon and to determine the dispositions of both Union
and Confederates forces around the city. Then he listened to Smith's
proposal of his plan to open the Cracker Line and within 12 hours had
made his own recon and given Smith approval to carry out the plan. IMHO
he showed a level of professionalism which is ignored in discussions of
this man. BTW, many of Thomas' officers had shown lukewarm support for
the plan, so Grant should be given credit, as should Thomas, for
realizing the plan would work.

Barry

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 6:39 AM