In his memoirs, General Grant said that he "returned to La Grange and
Grand Junction."  He noted that: "Pemberton was falling back at the same
time."  So, Grant "returned" and Pemberton "fell back." Later Grant
says: "After the war was over I read from the diary of a lady who
accompanied General Pemberton in his retreat from the Tallahatchie, that
the retreat was almost a panic ... Why there should have been a panic I
do not see." Does this help?

Here's the deal.
Thomas repulsed Critterdon and pursued him to the Ohio. The confederates
scrambled aboard transport. They abandoned their cannons, their horses ( ny idea
how badly impaired an army that ((reportedly, their names were not on the roll))
loses 1100 horse and miles Is?)) and their dead. They wwre useless as a force
and completely destroyed as a military force.
Central Kentucky waS laid bare to the Union and the confederates were kicked
into their Long, inevitable slide in the west.
Ther never was a retreat. Thomas just didn't have anything else to do.

There is no box Score in war. Just winners and losers

Regards,

Jack

Amateur military historians study units and numbers

Professional military historians study battles.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Huddleston <huddleston.r@...>
Sender: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:41:15
To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Fall Back or Retreat

I think both are equally applicable!

Take care,

Bob

Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
Huddleston.r@...

“There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent.”
David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln Reconsidered (New York, 1956),
82.


On 12/20/2010 3:29 PM, Patricia Swan wrote:
>
> Certainly there were differences between General Grant's situation below
> Oxford and General Thomas' situation at Mill Springs. However, my
> question was about a comparison but which of the two terms under
> discussion would be more apt in describing Grant's situation. I haven't
> seen an answer as yet!
>
>


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Having done some reading in sources ranging from an 1868 campaign
biography of USG to Brooks Simpson, it does appear that Grant never
retreated, especially after the Holly Springs raid..... :>)

So I am willing to stipulate that Pap Thomas did not retreat after Mill
Springs. He did fall back, make a strategic withdrawal, etc. What he did
not do was pursue the Rebels. Double :>)

Take care,

Bob

Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
Huddleston.r@...

“There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.

On 12/21/2010 2:13 PM, keeno2@... wrote:
> Agreed that it's semantics, Patricia. One might fall back to
> consolidate. One might run like a rabbit and call it a strategic withdrawal.
> In my limited memory, the Holly Springs episode was the only time Grant
> ever "retreated."
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patricia Swan <pbswan@...>
> To: civilwarwest <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 2:50 pm
> Subject: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back
>
> It may all be a matter of semantics, but it seems to me that this being
> the anniversary of Confederate General Earl Van Dorn's raid on Grant's
> supply base at Holly Springs, it might be a timely illustration.  After
> the raid, Grant could no longer sustain his troops, his supplies at
> Holly Springs having been largely destroyed and the railroad down to
> Mississippi having been disrupted.  One could say, and some do write,
> that Grant retreated. Others say that he was "forced to fall back" to
> Tennessee.  Do these terms apply equally well to what Grant did, or is
> one or the other more apt?
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

The Rebel units at Mill Springs were:

1st Bde:
	 15 Miss
	 19 TN
	 20 TN
	 25 TN

2nd Bde
	 16 AL
	 17 TN
	 29 TN

All, except the 17th and 29th Tennessee infantries were at Shiloh. And
those two had a war-long record at other battles.

Destroyed? Hardly.

Take care,

Bob

Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
Huddleston.r@...

“There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.

What are Schofield's orders?

IIRC they are to join Thomas - nothing more or less. Hood strives to prevent
this and defeat Schofield, and then Thomas, in detail. Whether it is sensible to
fail in the former, at Franklin, and still attempt the latter, at Nashville, is
questionable.

Underlying all orders, is the implication to thwart the will of the enemy.
Schofield also accomplishes this...


HankC

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...> wrote:
>
> It could be two of the three;  retreat and strategic withdrawal. 
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "DORR64OVI@..." <DORR64OVI@...>
> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 9:21:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back
>
>
>
> How does one characterize what Schofield did at Franklin?   The Federal Army
> defended itself against a massive enemy assault that failed to break the
> defenders lines.  After the battle, the Federal Army left Franklin and made
its
> way to Nashville which was its objective before the battle.  Its that a
> retreat?  Strategic withdrawal?  Redployment?  The next morning Hood sent a
> classic spin doctored report to Richmond that he was in possession of the
> battlefield and downplayed his devastating losses.
>
> Kent Dorr
>
> In a message dated 12/22/2010 6:47:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rtaubman@... writes:
> What is a "strategic withdrawal"?  The battle is over, the enemy is routed. 
> What does any army victorous army do in those circumstances.  It leaves the
> battlefield.  It isn't a "strategic withdrawl:".  They just left. 
>

Good point.

If you accomplish your objective and use the same road toleave, it's not a
retreat ;)

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...> wrote:
>
> What is a "strategic withdrawal"?  The battle is over, the enemy is routed. 
> What does any army victorous army do in those circumstances.  It leaves the
> battlefield.  It isn't a "strategic withdrawl:".  They just left. 
>
>
> Wow, and you are willing to stipulate that Thomas did not retreat.  Good on
> you.  I'm sure that must be the Christmas spirit.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Huddleston <huddleston.r@...>
> To: Civil War West <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 10:31:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back
>
> Having done some reading in sources ranging from an 1868 campaign
> biography of USG to Brooks Simpson, it does appear that Grant never
> retreated, especially after the Holly Springs raid..... :>)
>
> So I am willing to stipulate that Pap Thomas did not retreat after Mill
> Springs. He did fall back, make a strategic withdrawal, etc. What he did
> not do was pursue the Rebels. Double :>)
>
> Take care,
>
> Bob
>
> Judy and Bob Huddleston
> 10643 Sperry Street
> Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
> Huddleston.r@...
>
> “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
> fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
> belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
> Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.
>
> On 12/21/2010 2:13 PM, keeno2@... wrote:
> > Agreed that it's semantics, Patricia. One might fall back to
> > consolidate. One might run like a rabbit and call it a strategic withdrawal.
> > In my limited memory, the Holly Springs episode was the only time Grant
> > ever "retreated."
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patricia Swan <pbswan@...>
> > To: civilwarwest <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 2:50 pm
> > Subject: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back
> >
> > It may all be a matter of semantics, but it seems to me that this being
> > the anniversary of Confederate General Earl Van Dorn's raid on Grant's
> > supply base at Holly Springs, it might be a timely illustration.  After
> > the raid, Grant could no longer sustain his troops, his supplies at
> > Holly Springs having been largely destroyed and the railroad down to
> > Mississippi having been disrupted.  One could say, and some do write,
> > that Grant retreated. Others say that he was "forced to fall back" to
> > Tennessee.  Do these terms apply equally well to what Grant did, or is
> > one or the other more apt?
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 10:23 AM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back

 

Grant was not forced to fall back under pressure. He could have continued toward Vicksburg. He was not retreating from great loss of force or because he feared the enemy. He wanted to capture Vicksburg under his terms.

 

Mostly  agree. The Rebs only indirectly forced the fall-back. He couldn't very well continue to Vicksburg without the empty, Holly Springs life-line.

 

Schofield made a strategic withdrawal from Franklin. He just wanted to get to Nashville and didn't want another pointless fight there. Much the same as Lee did at Sharpsburg.

 

Thomas drove the rebs from Nancy to the crossing at Mill Springs. (They were retreating.) He gave up the chace when the Rebs got across the river.. Granted, he might have been more excited about destroying the Rebs, but I'm sure he had his reasons to regroup.

-----Original Message-----
From: William Nolan <sixtxcavrgtcsa@...>
To: civilwarwest <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 21, 2010 11:14 pm
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back

Neither term applies to Grant in January of 1865. He had lost two supply lines and had to regroup until he could resupply. In turn he told his forces to forage. A trick they learned and used for the rest of the War, much to the sorrow of the South.

Grant was not forced to fall back under pressure. He could have continued toward Vicksburg. He was not retreating from great loss of force or because he feared the enemy. He wanted to capture Vicksburg under his terms.

Though I would have preferred that Pemberton had moved north at that time, he was not ready or able. Van Dorn's Cavalry action was a measure that worked and was very successful, but which History has lost because the South lost the War.  The question might be, How many Union Soldiers died because the war was prolonged, and how close did the South come to winning had the war ended because of the continued loss of Union Soldiers? 

From The Texas Cavalry Brigade under Van Dorn.

www.rosstexascavalrybrigade.com

---

From: Bob Huddleston <huddleston.r@...>
To: Civil War West <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 9:31:53 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back

Having done some reading in sources ranging from an 1868 campaign
biography of USG to Brooks Simpson, it does appear that Grant never
retreated, especially after the Holly Springs raid..... :>)

So I am willing to stipulate that Pap Thomas did not retreat after Mill
Springs. He did fall back, make a strategic withdrawal, etc. What he did
not do was pursue the Rebels. Double :>)

Take care,

Bob

Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
Huddleston.r@...

“There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.

On 12/21/2010 2:13 PM, keeno2@... wrote:
> Agreed that it's semantics, Patricia. One might fall back to
> consolidate. One might run like a rabbit and call it a strategic withdrawal.
> In my limited memory, the Holly Springs episode was the only time Grant
> ever "retreated."
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patricia Swan <pbswan@...>
> To: civilwarwest <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 2:50 pm
> Subject: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back
>
> It may all be a matter of semantics, but it seems to me that this being
> the anniversary of Confederate General Earl Van Dorn's raid on Grant's
> supply base at Holly Springs, it might be a timely illustration.  After
> the raid, Grant could no longer sustain his troops, his supplies at
> Holly Springs having been largely destroyed and the railroad down to
> Mississippi having been disrupted.  One could say, and some do write,
> that Grant retreated. Others say that he was "forced to fall back" to
> Tennessee.  Do these terms apply equally well to what Grant did, or is
> one or the other more apt?
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    civilwarwest-digest@yahoogroups.com
    civilwarwest-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3333 - Release Date: 12/23/10

>
> Schofield made a strategic withdrawal from Franklin. He just wanted to get to
Nashville and didn't want another pointless fight there. Much the same as Lee
did at Sharpsburg.
>

Not a good comparison.

Lee's will was thwarted on Antietam creek.

I'd not go so far as to say Schofield imposed his on Hood, but it was pretty
close...


HankC

.  True, Holly Springs was a successful confederate stroke but it did
nothing but delay Grants continued advances on Vicksburg.  It did not change
Grant's objective, only how he got there.  Grant did not retreat from Holly
Springs but, yes he did change his base of supply and axis of advance. 

Hello.

I am not sure Grant ever retreated.
The Holly Springs thing was one of what, six failed attempts to seize 
Vicksburg? With his supply line cut and the railroads being torn up, he just
retrenched and looked for another way in.
What is always overlooked is what Grant learned-that body of troops, cut off in
hostile territorty but previously unravaged by war, can support a march or
maneuver by foraging the enemy for provender.
And he did it. And he learned.
The next year, in fear Napoleonic in execution of not in scope, using a grand
calvary raid as a diversion, he conducted a successful river crossing below the
city.
He cut himself off and, using the foraging tactic learned the year before, he
drove into the state ma took the capital
This time it was Grant tearing up railroads and burning enemy assets. Securing
his rear, he marched/fought his way back to Vicksburg, eventually securing it's
fall.
The winter next, Grant, Sherman and Lincoln devised a plan that, using the same
tactic, would gut the south in the east.
retreat hell

Regards,
Jack


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Merry Christmas to you and your family Dick.  Thanks for providing us with the
chat room.  You never get enough credit for your generosity.

Warm Regards,  Dave Gorski

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

From: Dave Gorski

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:32 AM

Subject: [civilwarwest] Merry Christmas

 

Merry Christmas to you and your family Dick. Thanks for providing us with the chat room. You never get enough credit for your generosity.

Warm Regards, Dave Gorski

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

.  True, Holly Springs was a successful confederate stroke but it did nothing but delay Grants continued advances on Vicksburg.  It did not change Grant's objective, only how he got there.  Grant did not retreat from Holly Springs but, yes he did change his base of supply and axis of advance.  Hello.
I am not sure Grant ever retreated. The Holly Springs thing was one of what, six failed attempts to seize Vicksburg? With his supply line cut and the railroads being torn up, he just retrenched and looked for another way in.
What is always overlooked is what Grant learned-that body of troops, cut off in hostile territorty but previously unravaged by war, can support a march or maneuver by foraging the enemy for provender.
And he did it. And he learned.
The next year, in fear Napoleonic in execution of not in scope, using a grand calvary raid as a diversion, he conducted a successful river crossing below the city.
He cut himself off and, using the foraging tactic learned the year before, he drove into the state ma took the capital
This time it was Grant tearing up railroads and burning enemy assets. Securing his rear, he marched/fought his way back to Vicksburg, eventually securing it's fall.
The winter next, Grant, Sherman and Lincoln devised a plan that, using the same tactic, would gut the south in the east.
retreat hell Regards,
Jack
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
civilwarwest-digest@yahoogroups.com civilwarwest-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I want to thank everyone for their Christmas wishes.  It is such a great
pleasure to have friends in this group and the chatroom.

I would like to bring something else up at this time.  It is that time of
the year when the family gathers together to share their memories of times
past.  It is that time of the year when we share what we have with others
who are not as fortunate as we are.  However, it is a time of great
loneliness for some.  As you all gather around the table for the Christmas
meal, with heads bowed while giving thanks, I would ask that just for a
moment you remember those that wear the war suit.  Some are in Iraq, some in
Afghanistan, still others in Germany, Japan, Korea, and other places that
even God may have forgotten. Where ever they are needed, there you will find
the soldier, sailor, airman, and marine.  They stand guard for this country
just as they have since the founding of this great nation.  This time of the
year it is especially difficult.  I can speak with some degree of certainty
that regardless of the assignment there is no more lonesome place in the
world than the barracks during the holidays.  Even though they go to great
lengths to prepare the Christmas meal, the mess hall is not the same as
being around the table with family.  No matter how moving the sermon, the
chaplin is not the same as the family minister.  So, if  you would, just
give a little thanks for those that serve, and especially those that are
going in harm's way.  Remember, ". . .if it were not for the brave, there
would be no land of the free".

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)

Of course, in Schofield's mind (and his men) there is no withdrawal or fall
back.

Nashville is his destination from the beginning of the move from Atlanta.

Thomas considers moving forward to Brentwood but decides to wait for Smith's
divisions and remains concentrated at Nashville - especially with Forrest's
whereabouts unknown.

A number of garrisons at Chattanooga and northern Alabama are also ordered to
concentrate toward Murfreesboro. These units had been placed to provide early
warning and delay of such a move as Hood's. Once the move is discovered and
well-developed, their mission is over md they are free to be re-deployed.
Whether the new move is backward, forward or sideways is situation dependent.


HankC

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, William Nolan <sixtxcavrgtcsa@...> wrote:
>
> To me a Strategic Withdrawal is a planned moved that removes a unit from
contact
> for another purpose.
>
> Thomas fell back to Nashville as a planned move. He had no idea that Hood had
> lost 6 generals, only that he had lost a  lot of men. It was still possible
that
> he could have been breeched, so he moved to a superior position. I am not
> as knowledgeable of the details of the battle.  I had walked the battlefield,
> Canton Plantation and Nashville. Forrest had Cavalry doing diversion actions
in
> Murfreesboro and north of Nashville.  Cavalry was thin, but it could have been
> better used than the Infantry was abused.  Nashville was well fortified and
> would have required probably twice Hood's force to even attempt to take it. A
> sick defeated Hood tried, anyway.
>
> I would like to have seen the terrain in  1864. Today it is extremely forested
> and hilly.  Without the overgrowth it may have seemed more obtainable.  The
> Franklin position was good but not near as good as Nashville.  The Union
> positions were very tight.  There defense was good because there were not
gaps.
>  At Corinth Rosecran almost lost because the Confederates breeched his line.
> Only spontaneous counter attacks and lack of reinforcement by Van Dorn save
him.
>  At Franklin, the Confederate line seems to have lost men all across the
front.
>  The cemetery at Canton looks like units on line by State.  I went from there
to
> the National Cemetery in Nashville.  Much harder to find the Union dead and
> those Confederates who died there.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...>
> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 5:47:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back
>
>
> What is a "strategic withdrawal"?  The battle is over, the enemy is routed.
> What does any army victorous army do in those circumstances.  It leaves the
> battlefield.  It isn't a "strategic withdrawl:".  They just left.
>
>
> Wow, and you are willing to stipulate that Thomas did not retreat.  Good on
> you.  I'm sure that must be the Christmas spirit.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Bob Huddleston <huddleston.r@...>
> To: Civil War West <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 10:31:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back
>
> Having done some reading in sources ranging from an 1868 campaign
> biography of USG to Brooks Simpson, it does appear that Grant never
> retreated, especially after the Holly Springs raid..... :>)
>
> So I am willing to stipulate that Pap Thomas did not retreat after Mill
> Springs. He did fall back, make a strategic withdrawal, etc. What he did
> not do was pursue the Rebels. Double :>)
>
> Take care,
>
> Bob
>
> Judy and Bob Huddleston
> 10643 Sperry Street
> Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
> Huddleston.r@...
>
> “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
> fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
> belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
> Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.
>
> On 12/21/2010 2:13 PM, keeno2@... wrote:
> > Agreed that it's semantics, Patricia. One might fall back to
> > consolidate. One might run like a rabbit and call it a strategic withdrawal.
> > In my limited memory, the Holly Springs episode was the only time Grant
> > ever "retreated."
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patricia Swan <pbswan@...>
> > To:  civilwarwest <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 2:50 pm
> > Subject: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back
> >
> > It may all be a matter of semantics, but it seems to me that this being
> > the anniversary of Confederate General Earl Van Dorn's raid on Grant's
> > supply base at Holly Springs, it might be a timely illustration.  After
> > the raid, Grant could no longer sustain his troops, his supplies at
> > Holly Springs having been largely destroyed and the railroad down to
> > Mississippi having been disrupted.  One could say, and some do write,
> > that Grant retreated. Others say that he was "forced to fall back" to
> > Tennessee.  Do these terms apply equally well to what Grant did, or is
> > one or the other more apt?
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

very good synopsis.

In some ways this is similar to Lee's treatment of Pope along the Rappahannock
prior to the battle of 2nd Manassas.

This time Hood (in the role of Lee) is trying to prevent/destroy Schofield (in
the role of Pope) from combining with Thomas (in the role of McClellan) in the
Nashville defenses (playing the role of Washington DC).

Of course, Lee then split his army (he had that habit) sending Jackson on an
end-run and Little Mac was farther away than Thomas.


HankC



--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, DORR64OVI@... wrote:
>
> Once Thomas determines that Hoods intention is to fight his army and not
> follow Sherman into GA, Old Paps plan is to concentrate his forces.  Until
> Hood shows his hand about where he intends to move, either toward Knoxville
> or  northward into Ky, Thomas prepares to check him either at Murfreesboro or
>  Chattanooga.
>    Thomas orders Schofield to move gradually back from Pulaski to  Columbia
> in case Hoods moves this way.  When the telegraph lines get cut  between
> Thomas and Schofield, Thomas believes at this point that Hoods objective  is
> Nashville and not Chattanooga.
>    At Columbia Schofield is fooled by the appearance of Hoods  artillery.
> He fails to see that it is a trick to hold him in place  while Hood crosses
> the Duck River and move to cut him off at Spring Hill.   After delaying for
> 12 some hours, Wilsons cavalry patrols reveal Hoods  intentions and
> Schofield sends the 4th Corps hastily up the Columbia Pike.   Only Hoods own
blunder
> at Spring Hill in failling to attack saves Schofield from  capture and the
> Federals march past Hoods campfires on the retreat to Franklin  and
> Nashville.
>     When Thomas gets the word that Hood has crossed the Duck  River and is
> moving north, it is at this point that he orders his forces to  concentrate
> at Nashville.  Schofield is slowly retreating to Franklin where  he must
> cross the Harpeth River.  Thomas orders him to defend Franklin  while crossing
> and hopes Schofield can hold for three days to allow Smiths  reeinforcements
> to arrive at Nashville.  Schofield replies that he cant  hold Franklin and
> Thomas then orders him to pull his army back to  Nashville.
>     Approaching Franklin, Hood orders a frontal assault  which is repulsed
> with heavy losses.  Schofield continues his retreat to  Nashville after dark
> and reaches the cities defenses on Dec 1.  Hood  follows Schofield to
> Nashville, but his losses have weakened his force so that  it cannot attack
> Thomas.  Hood has now lost the critical element of  initiative and Thomas has
> time to strengthen his forces especially his  cavalry.   Despite fears of
Hoods
> intentions and ability to move by  Washington and Grant, Thomas waits out
> the Dec weather and finally attacks Hood,  smashing him over the course of
> two days.
>      So it appears that Schofields moves are a retreat  which ultimately
> reveal Hoods intentions.
>
> Kent Dorr
>
> In a message dated 12/27/2010 10:14:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> clarkc@... writes:
>
>
> Of  course, in Schofield's mind (and his men) there is no withdrawal or
> fall back.
>
> Nashville is his destination from the beginning of the move from  Atlanta.
>
> Thomas considers moving forward to Brentwood but decides to  wait for
> Smith's divisions and remains concentrated at Nashville - especially  with
> Forrest's whereabouts unknown.
>
> A number of garrisons at  Chattanooga and northern Alabama are also ordered
> to concentrate toward  Murfreesboro. These units had been placed to provide
> early warning and delay  of such a move as Hood's. Once the move is
> discovered and well-developed,  their mission is over md they are free to be
> re-deployed. Whether the new move  is backward, forward or sideways is
situation
> dependent.
>
> HankC
>