civilwarwest : Messages : 6945-6974 of 47301

Joe could you cut me a little slack here!Halleck took the better part of a month
to make a two day march.I think he just might have been a little over  cautious 
And its not like he had a small troop of men.He had 100000 men. And after the
empty victory at Corinth ,did he keep going to lets say Vicksburg.No he broke
the Army into pieces and blew the chance of winning the War in the West much
sooner.Probably the biggest lost opportunity of the War.  The Baron i
PS But lets be fair he was a good General at a desk!



On 01-Aug-01, hartshje@... wrote:
<html><body>
<tt>
Hank,<BR>
<BR>
  Your points are well taken.� I might add that with point #1, this <BR>
applied equally to the Southern commanders, although Beauregard (with <BR>
all his faults) DID look at the big strategic picture almost right <BR>
from the start.� He was constantly submitting grand designs to <BR>
Richmond to try to bring the war to a rapid, successful conclusion <BR>
for the South, but many of his ideas were rejected as too fantastic.<BR>
They may have been, but I suspect a lot of the rejection had to do <BR>
with Davis' policy of trying to defend ALL points at ALL times.<BR>
<BR>
  On point #2, what is meant by "fieldworks"?� I do know that Halleck, <BR>
during the offensive against Corinth in 1862, had his entire force <BR>
entrench up to their eyeballs every day when their march ended.� He <BR>
had no intention of being caught unprepared like Grant was at Shiloh.<BR>
McClellan handled his advance up the Penninsula in similar fashion.<BR>
Also, there were a number of defensive examples (Chancellorsville,<BR>
Fredricksburg, Seven Pines, Culp's Hill at Gettysburg, and Chicka-<BR>
mauga).� None of these reached the magnitude of the works constructed<BR>
later in the war during the 1864 advances on Richmond and Atlanta,<BR>
but I would classify them as, at minimum, breastworks.<BR>
<BR>
Sincerely,<BR>
Joe H.<BR>
  <BR>
--- In civilwarwest@y..., clarkc@m... wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> I'd raise a couple of points:<BR>
> <BR>
> 1) A major problem, if not THE major problem, with the USA war<BR>
> effort was that the military commanders could not see beyond their <BR>
> immediate military objectives. Grant and Sherman grew into this <BR>
> ability. (For goodness sake, even Thomas was ready to go into <BR>
> winter quarters in December 1864 when the end was in sight...)<BR>
> <BR>
> 2) Field works were STILL not in vogue in September 1863! <BR>
> Commanders would rather lose men than a perceived lack of offensive <BR>
> vigor. If Rosecrans had ordered them thrown up at Chickamauga he'd <BR>
> have been the first army commander to order field works erected. <BR>
> (I'm not sure Rosey was the first at anything). I'd like to find <BR>
> the earliest order of a corps or army commander to erect field <BR>
> works, especially if he was on the offensive...<BR>
> <BR>
> Cheers,<BR>
> HankC<BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</tt>

<br>

<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td width=470><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=210156.1528659.3092253.1456767/D=egroupweb/S=1705020\
536:HM/A=734384/R=0/*https://www.joinhistorybookclub.com/mybookclub/history/book\
clubs/hbc/JoinFast/c2/c2_coupon.htm/?src=015_02_hf_273_487_2687"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/bo/bookspan/his_map_468x60.gif"
width="468" height= "60" border= "0"></a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=210156.1528659.3092253.1456767/D=egroupmai\
l/S=1705020536:HM/A=734384/rand=214658213"></td></tr>
</table>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->



<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>

</body></html>

#6946

From: "Jenny Holder" <jholder@...>
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 2:46 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Albert Castel on Sherman's Memoirs

jholder@...

Yes, It happened  to suggest Lincoln was one too..stress from the war!!
melancholy rather.
People lie to place individual in to  category!!
Jenny

>
> There are many authors that say that he was manic depressive, but I hardly
> believe any are psychiatrists, nor did they have direct conversation with
him
> to determine their findings.  Just their own opinions.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Reply | Messages in this Topic (55)

#6947

From: hartshje@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: Rosecrans at Chickamauga

hartshje@...

Joseph,

  You are definitely right about Forrest.  IMHO, Bragg should have
taken Wheeler's command away from Wheeler and added it to Forrest's,
instead of vice-versa (whenever that was; I'm not sure at the present
moment).  In any event, I don't fault Bragg for attacking at
Chickamauga, but I don't understand why he didn't use Forrest with
some infantry & artillery backup to bottle-up Granger in Rossville
gap, and then throw a whole corp or two across the roads past
Rosecran's left and totally cut him off from Chattanooga.

   My biggest problem with Bragg, however, is that he kept depleting
his already outnumbered army at Chattanooga, and then wouldn't take
any other actions except just siting there like the proverbial duck,
while the whole world came marching to the city's relief.

  Another point about the Confederate cavalry:  Imagine if most of
the Southern troopers who had been sent off with Wheeler to harrass
Sherman's march to the sea had been placed under Forrest, who had
reached Spring Hill ahead of Schofield's army.  I think any bettin'
man would have to like Hood's chances of success at that point!

Joe

--- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> From the Chickamauga battlefield, Bragg wouldn't have even needed
> to cross the Tennesse.  He would have to get around or over
> Missionary Ridge and cross the South Chickamauga, which was
> fordable in several places.  He also had to contend with Granger's
> three brigades around Rossville.  Having Forrest on his right
> flank, however, could have been tremendously useful, in this
> scenario.
>
> So I would say that Bragg had another shot at trying to cut
> Rosecrans off from his lines of supply, if he refrained from
> attacking at Chickamauga and moved to his right.
>
> Joseph
>
>
> From:  hartshje@a...
> Date:  Wed Aug 1, 2001  8:11 am
> Subject:  Re: help for Rosecrans from other departments
>
> Joseph,
>
>  I find it very interesting that one whole year later (after the
> Chattanooga fiasco and the grevious losses in the Atlanta campaign),
> Hood somehow managed to have a pontoon train with him and very
easily
> outflanked Schofield out of Columbia by crossing the Duck River,
even
> though Schofield had the "interior line"!!  So my question is:  Was
it
> really so inconceivable for Bragg to have tried this at Chattanooga?
> And if we take it as a fact that Bragg DID NOT have pontoons (which
I
> admit I don't know), then why couldn't HE have devised other means
for
> crossing the Tennessee River.  Afterall, didn't Union troops cross
the
> river seemingly at will with no bridge (i.e., when Rosecrans forced
> Bragg out of Chattanooga in the first place, and later at Brown's
> Ferry, and again when Sherman's force crossed over).
>
> Regards,
>  Joe H.

#6948

From: jaaah@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 7:17 pm
Subject: RE: Re Statues

jaaah@...

It's pretty silly that there are no Bill Rosecrans statues anywhere, he was
after all a fairly able commander. I can think of four spots where a statue of
the man should stand, 1) Rich Mountain, it was his victory, not George
McClellan's. Then, 2) Tullahoma, this too was a victory for Old Rosey. 3)
Stone's River/Murfreesboro, which he did manage to keep from being a loss. 4)
Chickamauga, it is a disgrace that there is no statue there, as the field is so
large and there are already several monuments to other generals. You would at
least hope the poor guy would have a statue at his birthplace, but again, none!
Poor guy! Joe Johnston was almost as unlucky, but as Mr. Butler pointed out some
months ago, he's got one up at Dalton.

  Addison Hart




Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com

#6949

From: jaaah@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 7:17 pm
Subject: RE: Re: A Note on Albert Pike

jaaah@...

Well, Unre, thanks for setting up the appointment, but I personally doubt that
ol' Sigi or Prof. von Snortz can help me here. 300 lb Generals were very
interesting fellows, especially when you think that 1) Gen. Pike personally led
a charge at Pea Ridge on horseback in moccasins, feathers, leggings, etc., and
managed to stay mounted, and 2) Humphrey Marshall was able to ride around in the
steep mountains of Big Sandy when his weight naturally does not mix well with
riding around in that area, and 3) John Williams (300 lbs as well) remained a
Cavalry Commander throughout the whole war in mainly mountainous regions, and
that doesn't seem very easy. In fact, it seems nearly impossible. However, they
all did it. And when they fell down they were able to get up again! Amazing!

  Addison Hart


Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com

Reply | Messages in this Topic (9)

#6950

From: jaaah@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 7:38 pm
Subject: RE: Re: A Note on Albert Pike

jaaah@...

Well, Unre, thanks for setting up the appointment, but I personally doubt that
ol' Sigi or Prof. von Snortz can help me here. 300 lb Generals were very
interesting fellows, especially when you think that 1) Gen. Pike personally led
a charge at Pea Ridge on horseback in moccasins, feathers, leggings, etc., and
managed to stay mounted, and 2) Humphrey Marshall was able to ride around in the
steep mountains of Big Sandy when his weight naturally does not mix well with
riding around in that area, and 3) John Williams (300 lbs as well) remained a
Cavalry Commander throughout the whole war in mainly mountainous regions, and
that doesn't seem very easy. In fact, it seems nearly impossible. However, they
all did it. And when they fell down they were able to get up again! Amazing!

  Addison Hart


Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com

Reply | Messages in this Topic (9)

#6951

From: jaaah@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 7:39 pm
Subject: RE: Re Statues

jaaah@...

It's pretty silly that there are no Bill Rosecrans statues anywhere, he was
after all a fairly able commander. I can think of four spots where a statue of
the man should stand, 1) Rich Mountain, it was his victory, not George
McClellan's. Then, 2) Tullahoma, this too was a victory for Old Rosey. 3)
Stone's River/Murfreesboro, which he did manage to keep from being a loss. 4)
Chickamauga, it is a disgrace that there is no statue there, as the field is so
large and there are already several monuments to other generals. You would at
least hope the poor guy would have a statue at his birthplace, but again, none!
Poor guy! Joe Johnston was almost as unlucky, but as Mr. Butler pointed out some
months ago, he's got one up at Dalton.

  Addison Hart




Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com

#6952

From: jaaah@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 7:45 pm
Subject: Missing Messages!!

jaaah@...

My friends, there is something wrong here. I've sent several messages to the
group in reply that have never shown up. In fact, I just sent two that never
came up Re: A Note on Albert Pike and Re: Statues. If someone else is getting
these messages please write back!

  Addison Hart


Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com

#6953

From: "William Henry Keene" <wh_keene@...>
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 6:45 pm
Subject: The Cracker Line.......again

wh_keene@...

A few weeks or so ago, someone made the point that opening
the 'cracker line' could be considered a major pivotal point of the
war, making Baldy Smith the major hero of the war.  But like all the
events at Chattanooga, this is murky.

I was just in a book store browsing Perret's biography of Grant.
Perret makes the point that Smith presented the Brown's Ferry plan as
his own and that after the war Smith made a big deal out of claiming
credit for it.  Perret adds that Smith made such a fuss over it that
in 1900 the Secretary of War initiated an official investigation into
the matter.  The results were a finding that the plan was conceived
by Rosecrans.  Perret footnotes this, but the footnote didn't tell me
anything as it said something like "Lamar, page 400" and I couldn't
figure out what 'Lamar' referred to.

I bring this up becuase I am hoping that the huge store of knowledge
among the group here can shed some light on this.

~Will

#6954

From: "Addison Hart" <jaaah@...>
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 6:45 pm
Subject: Missing Messages!

jaaah@...

I'm writing this from the webpage in hope it reaches you guys. Have
any of you received any mail from me through CWWT this morning
(besides this message)? I have not received a single copy of the
three messages I wrote to the group today, and so I am wondering if
these were properly received.

  Thanks,
  Addison Hart
  jaaah@...

#6955

From: "Robert Taubman" <rtaubman@...>
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Re: help for Rosecrans from other departments

rtaubman@...

Some might wish to look at "Attack and Die, Civil War Military Tactics and the
Southern Heritage", by Grady McWhiney and Perry D. Jamieson.

----- Original Message -----
From: <hartshje@...>
To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: help for Rosecrans from other departments

| Hank,
|
|  Your points are well taken.  I might add that with point #1, this
| applied equally to the Southern commanders, although Beauregard (with
| all his faults) DID look at the big strategic picture almost right
| from the start.  He was constantly submitting grand designs to
| Richmond to try to bring the war to a rapid, successful conclusion
| for the South, but many of his ideas were rejected as too fantastic.
| They may have been, but I suspect a lot of the rejection had to do
| with Davis' policy of trying to defend ALL points at ALL times.
|
|  On point #2, what is meant by "fieldworks"?  I do know that Halleck,
| during the offensive against Corinth in 1862, had his entire force
| entrench up to their eyeballs every day when their march ended.  He
| had no intention of being caught unprepared like Grant was at Shiloh.
| McClellan handled his advance up the Penninsula in similar fashion.
| Also, there were a number of defensive examples (Chancellorsville,
| Fredricksburg, Seven Pines, Culp's Hill at Gettysburg, and Chicka-
| mauga).  None of these reached the magnitude of the works constructed
| later in the war during the 1864 advances on Richmond and Atlanta,
| but I would classify them as, at minimum, breastworks.
|
| Sincerely,
| Joe H.
|
| --- In civilwarwest@y..., clarkc@m... wrote:
| >
| > I'd raise a couple of points:
| >
| > 1) A major problem, if not THE major problem, with the USA war
| > effort was that the military commanders could not see beyond their
| > immediate military objectives. Grant and Sherman grew into this
| > ability. (For goodness sake, even Thomas was ready to go into
| > winter quarters in December 1864 when the end was in sight...)
| >
| > 2) Field works were STILL not in vogue in September 1863!
| > Commanders would rather lose men than a perceived lack of offensive
| > vigor. If Rosecrans had ordered them thrown up at Chickamauga he'd
| > have been the first army commander to order field works erected.
| > (I'm not sure Rosey was the first at anything). I'd like to find
| > the earliest order of a corps or army commander to erect field
| > works, especially if he was on the offensive...
| >
| > Cheers,
| > HankC
| >
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|

#6956

From: Nancy Bieberly <ksu_red@...>
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 7:41 pm
Subject: Unsubscribe

ksu_red@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Reply | Messages in this Topic (9)

#6957

From: CashG79@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 4:22 pm
Subject: Re: Missing Messages!

CashG79@...

In a message dated Wed, 1 Aug 2001  4:04:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Addison
Hart" <jaaah@...> writes:

> I'm writing this from the webpage in hope it reaches you guys. Have
> any of you received any mail from me through CWWT this morning
> (besides this message)? I have not received a single copy of the
> three messages I wrote to the group today, and so I am wondering if
> these were properly received.
>
>  Thanks,
>  Addison Hart
>  jaaah@...
>
I've been receiving your messages, Addison.

Regards,
Cash

#6958

From: clarkc@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 8:37 pm
Subject: Re: help for Rosecrans from other departments

clarkc@...

I'm not sure what a precise definition of a fieldwork is (but I know
it when I see it).

To take a stab at it, I'd say they are temporary works created by the
troops with the tools at hand, with the idea that they would be
abandoned soon.

My main point is that there were certain standards that were followed
(such as a 10 minute break in the march every hour with a one hour
break at noon). These standards pretty much required an order to
BREAK. I don't know that an SOP was ever adopted that troops entrench
at the end of the day, or was it a de facto practice as the war went
on?

I recall mention of some of Sherman's troops creating field works at
every opportunity during the campaign to Atlanta...

I believe both Halleck and McClellan were conducting sieges 'by
regular approachs' with all the normal siege impedimenta...


Cheers,
HankC


--- In civilwarwest@y..., hartshje@a... wrote:
> Hank,
>
>  Your points are well taken.  I might add that with point #1, this
> applied equally to the Southern commanders, although Beauregard
(with
> all his faults) DID look at the big strategic picture almost right
> from the start.  He was constantly submitting grand designs to
> Richmond to try to bring the war to a rapid, successful conclusion
> for the South, but many of his ideas were rejected as too fantastic.
> They may have been, but I suspect a lot of the rejection had to do
> with Davis' policy of trying to defend ALL points at ALL times.
>
>  On point #2, what is meant by "fieldworks"?  I do know that
Halleck,
> during the offensive against Corinth in 1862, had his entire force
> entrench up to their eyeballs every day when their march ended.  He
> had no intention of being caught unprepared like Grant was at
Shiloh.
> McClellan handled his advance up the Penninsula in similar fashion.
> Also, there were a number of defensive examples (Chancellorsville,
> Fredricksburg, Seven Pines, Culp's Hill at Gettysburg, and Chicka-
> mauga).  None of these reached the magnitude of the works
constructed
> later in the war during the 1864 advances on Richmond and Atlanta,
> but I would classify them as, at minimum, breastworks.
>
> Sincerely,
> Joe H.
>
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., clarkc@m... wrote:
> >
> > I'd raise a couple of points:
> >
> > 1) A major problem, if not THE major problem, with the USA war
> > effort was that the military commanders could not see beyond their
> > immediate military objectives. Grant and Sherman grew into this
> > ability. (For goodness sake, even Thomas was ready to go into
> > winter quarters in December 1864 when the end was in sight...)
> >
> > 2) Field works were STILL not in vogue in September 1863!
> > Commanders would rather lose men than a perceived lack of
offensive
> > vigor. If Rosecrans had ordered them thrown up at Chickamauga he'd
> > have been the first army commander to order field works erected.
> > (I'm not sure Rosey was the first at anything). I'd like to find
> > the earliest order of a corps or army commander to erect field
> > works, especially if he was on the offensive...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > HankC
> >

#6959

From: clarkc@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 8:48 pm
Subject: Re: Re Statues

clarkc@...

I can see the inscription:


"Invincible on the campaign trail,
Invisible on the battlefield"


Okay, it's a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist. He should have a
monument, at least.


HankC


--- In civilwarwest@y..., jaaah@t... wrote:
> It's pretty silly that there are no Bill Rosecrans statues anywhere,
he was after all a fairly able commander. I can think of four spots
where a statue of the man should stand, 1) Rich Mountain, it was his
victory, not George McClellan's. Then, 2) Tullahoma, this too was a
victory for Old Rosey. 3) Stone's River/Murfreesboro, which he did
manage to keep from being a loss. 4) Chickamauga, it is a disgrace
that there is no statue there, as the field is so large and there are
already several monuments to other generals. You would at least hope
the poor guy would have a statue at his birthplace, but again, none!
Poor guy! Joe Johnston was almost as unlucky, but as Mr. Butler
pointed out some months ago, he's got one up at Dalton.
>
>  Addison Hart
>
>
>
>
> Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com

#6960

From: taurus37@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 8:53 pm
Subject: What did Grant have against Thomas?

taurus37@...

I know people have skirted around this subject before, so I'm just
going to bring it out into the open. What, exactly did Grant have
against George Thomas? Sure he was slow, but he was one of the most
reliable commanders in the Union army.

Much of the criticism, that I've heard of Thomas, centers around his
conduct at Chattanoga, which is baffling to me. Thomas' last ditch
stand at Chickamagua saved the Army of the Cumberland, despite
Rosecrans' earlier blunder of overextending his army. When Grant
arrived he reconnitored the terrain with Thomas and his cheif
engineer, William "Baldy" Smith. Grant then ordered an attack on the
northern end of Missionary Ridge. Thomas, knowing the strength of the
Confederate position before him advised against it. Smith agreed.

Grant would forever hold this against Thomas, but WHY? Given the fact
that his army had just fought a huge battle, at Chickamagua, that it
was worn down and half-starved to death why attack? Furthermore both
Thomas and Grant knew Sherman's troops were coming up soon, so why
not just wait and make a coordinated attack, which was what later
happened with a splendid victory at the Battle of Chattanooga. So why
doesn't Grant simply admit that Thomas was right and he was wrong?

When the actual battle took place, Grant would again fault Thomas for
being slow to move, but again his protests have little legitimate
claim. Grant spent most of the morning of the attack on Orchard Knob,
right NEXT to Thomas. The truth is that Grant never even ordered an
attack until he received messages from Sherman, complaining (and
rightly so) of the resistance he was facing at Tunnel Hill and
calling for Thomas to relieve some of the pressure on him. Grant then
ordered Thomas to attack, and Thomas began making a preliminary
reconnaissance with his binoculars. One of Grant's staff Rawlins lost
his temper, made a scene, and finally Grant firmly told Thomas to
attack now, but only with orders to advance to the rifle pits at the
base of Missionary Ridge and pause.

Thomas carried out his orders and his men charged up missionary
ridge, but instead of pausing they kept on moving up the ridge. Why?
Because once they had seized the rifle pits, they found themselves
totally exposed to massed enemy fire. Why didn't they know this
before they stormed the ridge? Simple, Thomas had not been allowed to
finish making his observations before the attack. Instead he was
criticized (at the time only by Rawlins, but later by Grant as well)
as slow and too deliberate.

Fortunately the men of the AofC had the sense to keep charging up the
ridge, defeat the Confederates and take the entire position. True
many of the men then stopped, but (take note here Union generals who
failed to pursue Robert E. Lee time and time again) an entire
division, under Sheridan, carried out an actual pursuit of the enemy,
capturing more prisoners, securing their position, and actually
making a victory complete for once. Was any of the praise for this
given to Thomas? After all it had been one of his divisions that
carried out the pursuit? No instead it all went to Sheridan and Grant
found more reasons to criticize Thomas. There is no doubt that
Sheridan was a brilliant commander, probably much more so than
Thomas, but if Grant receives much of the credit for Thomas taking
Missionary Ridge, then surely Thomas must receive some of the credit
for Sheridan's pursuit.

To fault a commander for being slow to move is one thing. (Although I
take issue with this as well. Sherman was often slow on the march,
and numerous Grant dispatches hurrying him along exist as well.)
But to not give that commander the credit he deserves when his troops
perform brilliantly, exceeding all expectations, and completely
routing an enemy is a travesty.

Nashville was a similar situation, but I'm not going to go into that.
Anyway my point is in a struggle where so few, even of the best
generals, were able to gain clear-cut victories, including a
successful pursuit of a fleeing army, doesn't Thomas deserve far more
credit than he gets? Who cares if he's a little slow? I'd rather have
a slow general, who thoroughly defeated the enemy, than a fast one
who gained incomplete victories. Anyway that's just my two cents.
Feel free to disagree.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (194)

#6961

From: carlw4514@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: Missing Messages!

carlw4514@...

Addison, I think all your messages finally posted. Sometimes there is
quite a delay for me, too. And sometimes they never show up at all,
that is rare but maddening; If I do a lengthy post I try to also save
it on Word in case it vanishes. Go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/messages to look for your
messages at the website.
carl
--- In civilwarwest@y..., "Addison Hart" <jaaah@t...> wrote:
> I'm writing this from the webpage in hope it reaches you guys. Have
> any of you received any mail from me through CWWT this morning
> (besides this message)? I have not received a single copy of the
> three messages I wrote to the group today, and so I am wondering if
> these were properly received.
>
>  Thanks,
>  Addison Hart
>  jaaah@t...

#6962

From: "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@...>
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 9:16 pm
Subject: Re: Rosecrans at Chickamauga

dmsmith001@...

--- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
> Joe,
>
> From the Chickamauga battlefield, Bragg wouldn't have even needed
> to cross the Tennesse.  He would have to get around or over
> Missionary Ridge and cross the South Chickamauga, which was
> fordable in several places.  He also had to contend with Granger's
> three brigades around Rossville.  Having Forrest on his right
> flank, however, could have been tremendously useful, in this
> scenario.
>
> So I would say that Bragg had another shot at trying to cut
> Rosecrans off from his lines of supply, if he refrained from
> attacking at Chickamauga and moved to his right.

The problem facing Bragg was several-fold (oh, no - here I go
defending Bragg . . .)

First, he had a very confused reinforcement situation coming in.  By
the 19th of September, Hood was there with his division, but McLaws
(Kershaw) was not.  And they were coming in to Catoosa Station, to
the east and north of Lee and Gordon's Mills.

Second, Bragg was really not sure of exactly where all elements of
Rosecrans's army was.  The resulting two-day battle was over control
of Chattanooga; Bragg continually tried to get between Chattanooga
and Rosecrans, in order to cut him off.

Third, the existing road network wasn't really conducive to a wide
movement to the right to get over and behind Rosecrans.  The main
artery, over which the battle was fought, was the Lafayette Road,
connecting Chattanooga and Lafayette.  If Bragg tries to swing around
on the inferior, non-linear backwoods roads, Rosecrans waltzes into
Chattanooga first.

No, given the timing and placement of the armies on September 19, I
think the battle played out pretty much the way it had to, options-
wise.  That each commander could have done things differently - of
course they could have.  That the battle turned into a struggle for
the Lafayette Road, however, doesn't surprise me at all.

Dave

Dave Smith
Villa Hills, KY
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
> From:  hartshje@a...
> Date:  Wed Aug 1, 2001  8:11 am
> Subject:  Re: help for Rosecrans from other departments
>
> Joseph,
>
>  I find it very interesting that one whole year later (after the
> Chattanooga fiasco and the grevious losses in the Atlanta campaign),
> Hood somehow managed to have a pontoon train with him and very
easily
> outflanked Schofield out of Columbia by crossing the Duck River,
even
> though Schofield had the "interior line"!!  So my question is:  Was
it
> really so inconceivable for Bragg to have tried this at Chattanooga?
> And if we take it as a fact that Bragg DID NOT have pontoons (which
I
> admit I don't know), then why couldn't HE have devised other means
for
> crossing the Tennessee River.  Afterall, didn't Union troops cross
the
> river seemingly at will with no bridge (i.e., when Rosecrans forced
> Bragg out of Chattanooga in the first place, and later at Brown's
> Ferry, and again when Sherman's force crossed over).
>
> Regards,
>  Joe H.

#6963

From: "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@...>
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: help for Rosecrans from other departments

dmsmith001@...

--- In civilwarwest@y..., "Michael Mason" <richthofen@b...> wrote:
> Joe could you cut me a little slack here!Halleck took the better
part of a month to make a two day march.I think he just might have
been a little over  cautious  And its not like he had a small troop
of men.He had 100000 men. And after the empty victory at Corinth ,did
he keep going to lets say Vicksburg.No he broke the Army into pieces
and blew the chance of winning the War in the West much
sooner.Probably the biggest lost opportunity of the War.  The Baron i
> PS But lets be fair he was a good General at a desk!

He was?

Dave

#6964

From: "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@...>
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: help for Rosecrans from other departments

dmsmith001@...

--- In civilwarwest@y..., "Michael Mason" <richthofen@b...> wrote:
> Joe could you cut me a little slack here!Halleck took the better
part of a month to make a two day march.I think he just might have
been a little over  cautious  And its not like he had a small troop
of men.He had 100000 men. And after the empty victory at Corinth ,did
he keep going to lets say Vicksburg.No he broke the Army into pieces
and blew the chance of winning the War in the West much
sooner.Probably the biggest lost opportunity of the War.  The Baron i
> PS But lets be fair he was a good General at a desk!

He was?

Dave

#6965

From: jaaah@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 10:34 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Official Records regarding Polk's movement into Kentucky

jaaah@...

Joe, the name 'Chicken Guts' came from Missouri citizens while John Charles
Fremont was in command there from July, 1861 to November, 1861. From the
beginning, the new commander of the Department of the West was aloof and, in
fact, pretty odd. He couldn't get his mind off his plan of his army sweeping
down the Mississippi, taking Memphis, then Vicksburg, and finally New Orleans,
cutting the South in two. He spent thousands on fortifying the unthreatened St.
Louis and allowing Lyon to blunder off to Wilson's Creek and Mulligan to get
surrounded and forced to surrender. And then, as Grant remembered, he wrote his
orders in foreign languages or when the subordinates appeared at his HQ to
receive their orders he'd go on and on with his "Grand Scheme" and as Grant said
"You left without the least idea of what he meant or what he wanted you to do."
Then he secluded himself from his commanders, and handpicked a 300 man bodyguard
and a huge collection of staff officers (most of whom w!
ere Europeans, like French or Italian or guys named "Zagonyi"). When Albert
Sidney Johnston saw the list of these staff officers he laughed and said
"There's too much tail to that kite." Fremont's personal uniform was so grand,
with it's plumes and braids that the locals gave him the very manly sounding
name of "Chicken Guts". Now, do you remember what Fremont did when he received
word that he'd been relieved?

Addison Hart


Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com

Reply | Messages in this Topic (31)

#6966

From: "Vic Vernon" <antietam@...>
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 10:49 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas & J.E.Johnston

antietam@...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jenny Holder" <jholder@...>
To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas & J.E.Johnston


>
>
>  Yes why not they are Confederate  places!
>
> \Jenny
>
>
> > There are statues of Lee, and many more Confederate generals.  However,
> there
> > is only one statue of Joseph E. Johnston in the whole US, and that is
> located
> > in downtown Dalton, Georgia.
> >
> > Wayne


Does a bust count? there is a bust of him in the Virginia State Capitol
Building. The old Senate Chamber.

Vic

Reply | Messages in this Topic (286)

#6967

From: "Jenny Holder" <jholder@...>
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 11:18 pm
Subject: Re: Missing Messages!!

jholder@...

Am having the problem of receiving 3 messages per message too.Is this caused
by Code Red virus??
Jenny

#6968

From: MICHAEL McGEE <mcgee96@...>
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 11:32 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Thomas & J.E.Johnston

mcgee96@...

--- Jenny Holder <jholder@...> wrote:
> Michael,
> No doubt the fact that the Unions were very cautious
> not to start the
> fight...this reminded me of the first shot at
> Lexington too....
> As I expand further I have this following comment
> has been imprinted in my
> grey matter..." the more I read the more I am
> convinced that the Southerners
> were correct".
> So to be fair, I am always aware of this statement
> but as it stands
> currently, I am not convinced..
> As for the Western Theatre,my first painted image
> was really Sherman's March
> and Lincoln/Scott devising the "Anaconda Plan". In
> other words, I was
> superficially aware of that ,more than the greatly
> exposed GB.
>
>
> The behavior in this
> > army went bad when they entered South Carolina,
> but
> > who can blame them considering this State was
> where
> > the shooting war started.
> >
> > I have never saw these statutes.  I live out in
> > California and have only been as far East as
> Kansas
> > City.  My lifetime dream is to go back East for a
> > couple months and visit the all the Civil War
> Battle
> > sites.
>
> LOL, you haven't missed much on these statues as the
> ones of Lee in Richmond
> are absolutely dynamic and so is his tomb in
> Lexington.
>
> .  Good Luck in
> > expanding you knowledge of the CW.
>
> Unfortunately it is a very slow progress as I sneak
> the spare moments
> whenever it is available. Where are you in Ca?
> cheers
> Jenny
>
>Hi Jenny,

I am from a small town in Northern California,
approximately 120 north of San Francisco.  There is a
growing CW movement in my area.  In fact, I went and
saw my first re-enactment of the CW this summer in a
town located nearby.

However, someday I will make it to see the places of
my dreams.  I have always have had an interest in the
CW, in fact the first book I learned to read with was
a book on this topic.  I taught myself to read by
repeatedly checking this book out from the library
until I slowly learned the sounds and words until I
could actually read.  So, I do wish to see the places
that I have known about for so long.

Well you can see how easy it is to gain interest and
knowledge.  This war was so involved and complex that
after all these years I am still learning new things.
This period is the most important time in the history
of this nation.

Here is to your edification on this topic.  Oh, yeah
where are you from since I told you about my location?

Hope to hear from you soon,
Mike

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Reply | Messages in this Topic (286)

#6969

From: "Robert Taubman" <rtaubman@...>
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 12:26 am
Subject: Re: What did Grant have against Thomas?

rtaubman@...

OK, we're in for it now!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: <taurus37@...>
To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 4:53 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] What did Grant have against Thomas?

| I know people have skirted around this subject before, so I'm just
| going to bring it out into the open. What, exactly did Grant have
| against George Thomas? Sure he was slow, but he was one of the most
| reliable commanders in the Union army.
|
| Much of the criticism, that I've heard of Thomas, centers around his
| conduct at Chattanoga, which is baffling to me. Thomas' last ditch
| stand at Chickamagua saved the Army of the Cumberland, despite
| Rosecrans' earlier blunder of overextending his army. When Grant
| arrived he reconnitored the terrain with Thomas and his cheif
| engineer, William "Baldy" Smith. Grant then ordered an attack on the
| northern end of Missionary Ridge. Thomas, knowing the strength of the
| Confederate position before him advised against it. Smith agreed.
|
| Grant would forever hold this against Thomas, but WHY? Given the fact
| that his army had just fought a huge battle, at Chickamagua, that it
| was worn down and half-starved to death why attack? Furthermore both
| Thomas and Grant knew Sherman's troops were coming up soon, so why
| not just wait and make a coordinated attack, which was what later
| happened with a splendid victory at the Battle of Chattanooga. So why
| doesn't Grant simply admit that Thomas was right and he was wrong?
|
| When the actual battle took place, Grant would again fault Thomas for
| being slow to move, but again his protests have little legitimate
| claim. Grant spent most of the morning of the attack on Orchard Knob,
| right NEXT to Thomas. The truth is that Grant never even ordered an
| attack until he received messages from Sherman, complaining (and
| rightly so) of the resistance he was facing at Tunnel Hill and
| calling for Thomas to relieve some of the pressure on him. Grant then
| ordered Thomas to attack, and Thomas began making a preliminary
| reconnaissance with his binoculars. One of Grant's staff Rawlins lost
| his temper, made a scene, and finally Grant firmly told Thomas to
| attack now, but only with orders to advance to the rifle pits at the
| base of Missionary Ridge and pause.
|
| Thomas carried out his orders and his men charged up missionary
| ridge, but instead of pausing they kept on moving up the ridge. Why?
| Because once they had seized the rifle pits, they found themselves
| totally exposed to massed enemy fire. Why didn't they know this
| before they stormed the ridge? Simple, Thomas had not been allowed to
| finish making his observations before the attack. Instead he was
| criticized (at the time only by Rawlins, but later by Grant as well)
| as slow and too deliberate.
|
| Fortunately the men of the AofC had the sense to keep charging up the
| ridge, defeat the Confederates and take the entire position. True
| many of the men then stopped, but (take note here Union generals who
| failed to pursue Robert E. Lee time and time again) an entire
| division, under Sheridan, carried out an actual pursuit of the enemy,
| capturing more prisoners, securing their position, and actually
| making a victory complete for once. Was any of the praise for this
| given to Thomas? After all it had been one of his divisions that
| carried out the pursuit? No instead it all went to Sheridan and Grant
| found more reasons to criticize Thomas. There is no doubt that
| Sheridan was a brilliant commander, probably much more so than
| Thomas, but if Grant receives much of the credit for Thomas taking
| Missionary Ridge, then surely Thomas must receive some of the credit
| for Sheridan's pursuit.
|
| To fault a commander for being slow to move is one thing. (Although I
| take issue with this as well. Sherman was often slow on the march,
| and numerous Grant dispatches hurrying him along exist as well.)
| But to not give that commander the credit he deserves when his troops
| perform brilliantly, exceeding all expectations, and completely
| routing an enemy is a travesty.
|
| Nashville was a similar situation, but I'm not going to go into that.
| Anyway my point is in a struggle where so few, even of the best
| generals, were able to gain clear-cut victories, including a
| successful pursuit of a fleeing army, doesn't Thomas deserve far more
| credit than he gets? Who cares if he's a little slow? I'd rather have
| a slow general, who thoroughly defeated the enemy, than a fast one
| who gained incomplete victories. Anyway that's just my two cents.
| Feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
| Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|

Reply | Messages in this Topic (194)

#6970

From: "Michael Mason" <richthofen@...>
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 12:35 am
Subject: Re: Re: Re Statues

richthofen@...

On 01-Aug-01, clarkc@... wrote:
<html><body>
<tt>
<BR>
I can see the inscription:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
"Invincible on the campaign trail,<BR>
Invisible on the battlefield"<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Okay, it's a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist. He should have a <BR>
monument, at least.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
HankC<BR>
<BR>

I think thats the first time anybody ever took a cheap shot in this group! The
Baron
<BR>
--- In civilwarwest@y..., jaaah@t... wrote:<BR>
> It's pretty silly that there are no Bill Rosecrans statues anywhere, <BR>
he was after all a fairly able commander. I can think of four spots <BR>
where a statue of the man should stand, 1) Rich Mountain, it was his <BR>
victory, not George McClellan's. Then, 2) Tullahoma, this too was a <BR>
victory for Old Rosey. 3) Stone's River/Murfreesboro, which he did <BR>
manage to keep from being a loss. 4) Chickamauga, it is a disgrace <BR>
that there is no statue there, as the field is so large and there are <BR>
already several monuments to other generals. You would at least hope <BR>
the poor guy would have a statue at his birthplace, but again, none! <BR>
Poor guy! Joe Johnston was almost as unlucky, but as Mr. Butler <BR>
pointed out some months ago, he's got one up at Dalton. <BR>
> <BR>
>� Addison Hart<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> Download NeoPlanet at <a
href="http://www.neoplanet.com">http://www.neoplanet.com</a><BR>
<BR>
</tt>

<br>

<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td width=470><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=210156.1528659.3092253.1456767/D=egroupweb/S=1705020\
536:HM/A=734384/R=0/*https://www.joinhistorybookclub.com/mybookclub/history/book\
clubs/hbc/JoinFast/c2/c2_coupon.htm/?src=015_02_hf_273_487_2687"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/bo/bookspan/his_map_468x60.gif"
width="468" height= "60" border= "0"></a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=210156.1528659.3092253.1456767/D=egroupmai\
l/S=1705020536:HM/A=734384/rand=232032903"></td></tr>
</table>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->



<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>

</body></html>

#6971

From: LWhite64@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 8:37 pm
Subject: Re: Rosecrans at Chickamauga

LWhite64@...

In a message dated 8/1/01 12:21:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
josepharose@... writes:

: Was it
really so inconceivable for Bragg to have tried this at Chattanooga?
And if we take it as a fact that Bragg DID NOT have pontoons (which I
admit I don't know), then why couldn't HE have devised other means for
crossing the Tennessee River

Well the main problem as well with the River North of Chattanooga was also
the terrain, it having no East West Roads and being extremely rough with
numerous ridges to cross.

Lee

#6972

From: LWhite64@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 8:41 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rosecrans at Chickamauga

LWhite64@...

Good points Dave, also add to this that Bragg's original plan was also to
attack Crittenden's Corps at the Mill, not really planning on Rosecrans
entire army being there. Thus he thought he could accomplish what had not
been accomplished thus far, that being the destruction of a corps of Rosey's
army.

Lee

#6973

From: "Michael Mason" <richthofen@...>
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 12:41 am
Subject: Re: Re: help for Rosecrans from other departments

richthofen@...

Dang it! I knew somebody would nail me on that desk line,But I thought it just
might slip thru. The Baron


On 01-Aug-01, Dave Smith <dmsmith001@...> wrote:
<html><body>
<tt>
--- In civilwarwest@y..., "Michael Mason" <richthofen@b...> wrote:<BR>
> Joe could you cut me a little slack here!Halleck took the better <BR>
part of a month to make a two day march.I think he just might have <BR>
been a little over� cautious� And its not like he had a small troop <BR>
of men.He had 100000 men. And after the empty victory at Corinth ,did <BR>
he keep going to lets say Vicksburg.No he broke the Army into pieces <BR>
and blew the chance of winning the War in the West much <BR>
sooner.Probably the biggest lost opportunity of the War.� The Baron i<BR>
> PS But lets be fair he was a good General at a desk!<BR>
<BR>
He was?<BR>
<BR>
Dave<BR>
<BR>
</tt>

<br>

<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td width=470><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=210156.1528659.3092253.1456767/D=egroupweb/S=1705020\
536:HM/A=734384/R=0/*https://www.joinhistorybookclub.com/mybookclub/history/book\
clubs/hbc/JoinFast/c2/c2_coupon.htm/?src=015_02_hf_273_487_2687"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/bo/bookspan/his_map_468x60.gif"
width="468" height= "60" border= "0"></a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=210156.1528659.3092253.1456767/D=egroupmai\
l/S=1705020536:HM/A=734384/rand=996981631"></td></tr>
</table>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->



<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>

</body></html>

#6974

From: LWhite64@...
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 8:46 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rosecrans at Chickamauga

LWhite64@...

Well as shown in previous messages a move north of the River wasnt a good
option nor moving around Granger, but as a follow up what if Bragg had sent
Wheeler or Forrest on a Raid against Bridgeport, or even had Roddey move over
and join in as well. I think this presented the best option in the aftermath
of Chickamauga.

Lee