Lee,

 I have somewhat of a bias towards the Texans:) as I'm sure you know,  so if I may, I would like to share one of my favorite quotes:  "Forward men, forward.  Never let it be said that Texan's lag in the fight!"

Kristin

  LWhite64@... wrote:

Actually Hood was a Liet in the 2nd US Cav in Texas prior to the war, so when the war broke out he was stationed there.  Also, with the Franklin quotes, "Well if we are to die, let us die like men"  Cleburne to Brig. Gen. Daniel Govan, Nov 30, 1864

Lee

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Thats the thing about Franklin.  If you go by the book, because it's whoever holds the filed, since the Federal Army did pull out of Franklin at about 1am on Dec 1st,  the AOT won.  But the Confederate casualty's were about 2/3 more.  Confederates being just over 6000, and Federals being just over 2000.

Kristin

  LWhite64@... wrote:

Not to get into a game of numbers, but I have always thought that the CS losses as a total were low, and if Franklin is anything like Chickamauga, that may be the case.  Grand total of dead for Chickamauga is supposed to be 4,000 and I have compiled over 3,000 for the Confederates alone.  It is likely that we will never know for sure.

Lee

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

And go figure, I'm so tired, I forget to say who said my favorite quote!  It was General Hiram Bronson Granbury, KIA Battle of Franklin.

Kristin

  Kristin Scherrer <wacogaurds64@...> wrote:

Lee,

 I have somewhat of a bias towards the Texans:) as I'm sure you know,  so if I may, I would like to share one of my favorite quotes:  "Forward men, forward.  Never let it be said that Texan's lag in the fight!"

Kristin

  LWhite64@... wrote:

Actually Hood was a Liet in the 2nd US Cav in Texas prior to the war, so when the war broke out he was stationed there.  Also, with the Franklin quotes, "Well if we are to die, let us die like men"  Cleburne to Brig. Gen. Daniel Govan, Nov 30, 1864

Lee

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

The Federal's were never going to stay,whether they  had
a battle or not.So by that reasoning,Hood could not
possibly lose,no matter how many troops he fed to
"The Grim Reaper"!   The Baron



On 1-Dec-01, Kristin Scherrer <wacogaurds64@...> wrote:


  Thats the thing about Franklin.  If you go by the book, because it's whoever
holds the filed, since the Federal Army did pull out of Franklin at about 1am on
Dec 1st,  the AOT won.  But the Confederate casualty's were about 2/3 more. 
Confederates being just over 6000, and Federals being just over 2000.
Kristin
   LWhite64@... wrote: Not to get into a game of numbers, but I have always
thought that the CS losses as a total were low, and if Franklin is anything like
Chickamauga, that may be the case.  Grand total of dead for Chickamauga is
supposed to be 4,000 and I have compiled over 3,000 for the Confederates alone. 
It is likely that we will never know for sure.

Lee
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.

Baron,
Thomas wanted Schoefield to hold Hood a Franklin for three days to
give Thomas time to get Smiths troops disembarked plus Thomas was
worried Forrest would raid Nashville.

Right up until the time of the attack no one on the federal side
thought that Hood woud make a frontal assault. Schoefield had told
Thomas he could no hold Hood for three days. Hood adied by Forrest
could ford the Harpeth whenever he chose to and get on Schoefield's
rear.

Thomas's desire was that Schoefield hold Hood for three days at
Franklin.




--- In civilwarwest@y..., "Michael Mason" <richthofen@b...> wrote:
> The Federal's were never going to stay,whether they  had
> a battle or not.So by that reasoning,Hood could not
> possibly lose,no matter how many troops he fed to
> "The Grim Reaper"!   The Baron
>
>
>
> On 1-Dec-01, Kristin Scherrer <wacogaurds64@y...> wrote:
>
>
>  Thats the thing about Franklin.  If you go by the book, because
it's whoever holds the filed, since the Federal Army did pull out of
Franklin at about 1am on Dec 1st,  the AOT won.  But the Confederate
casualty's were about 2/3 more.  Confederates being just over 6000,
and Federals being just over 2000.
> Kristin
>   LWhite64@a... wrote: Not to get into a game of numbers, but I
have always thought that the CS losses as a total were low, and if
Franklin is anything like Chickamauga, that may be the case.  Grand
total of dead for Chickamauga is supposed to be 4,000 and I have
compiled over 3,000 for the Confederates alone.  It is likely that we
will never know for sure.
>
> Lee
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.

I stand corrected,so under that situation Hood did win
Franklin.Won the battle,lost the heart of a once great
Army,went a long way to losing "the cause",the war.
I think Hood would have been better off,losing this battle,but
in the end,he was going to lose,unless someone feels
without Franklin,Hood would have had a chance in Nashville.
The Baron


On 02-Dec-01, Jim Elliot <jrayelliot@...> wrote:
<html><body>
<tt>
Baron,<BR>
Thomas wanted Schoefield to hold Hood a Franklin for three days to <BR>
give Thomas time to get Smiths troops disembarked plus Thomas was <BR>
worried Forrest would raid Nashville. <BR>
<BR>
Right up until the time of the attack no one on the federal side <BR>
thought that Hood woud make a frontal assault. Schoefield had told <BR>
Thomas he could no hold Hood for three days. Hood adied by Forrest <BR>
could ford the Harpeth whenever he chose to and get on Schoefield's <BR>
rear. <BR>
<BR>
Thomas's desire was that Schoefield hold Hood for three days at <BR>
Franklin.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--- In civilwarwest@y..., "Michael Mason" <richthofen@b...> wrote:<BR>
> The Federal's were never going to stay,whether they  had<BR>
> a battle or not.So by that reasoning,Hood could not<BR>
> possibly lose,no matter how many troops he fed to<BR>
> "The Grim Reaper"!   The Baron<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> On 1-Dec-01, Kristin Scherrer <wacogaurds64@y...> wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
>  Thats the thing about Franklin.  If you go by the book, because <BR>
it's whoever holds the filed, since the Federal Army did pull out of <BR>
Franklin at about 1am on Dec 1st,  the AOT won.  But the Confederate <BR>
casualty's were about 2/3 more.  Confederates being just over 6000, <BR>
and Federals being just over 2000.<BR>
> Kristin<BR>
>   LWhite64@a... wrote: Not to get into a game of numbers, but I <BR>
have always thought that the CS losses as a total were low, and if <BR>
Franklin is anything like Chickamauga, that may be the case.  Grand <BR>
total of dead for Chickamauga is supposed to be 4,000 and I have <BR>
compiled over 3,000 for the Confederates alone.  It is likely that we <BR>
will never know for sure. <BR>
> <BR>
> Lee <BR>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT<BR>
> <BR>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of <BR>
Service. <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> ---------------------------------<BR>
> Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
> Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.<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 align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacaaing=0>
<tr>
<td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=178320.1681224.3270152.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705126\
278:HM/A=879171/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/yahoo-57f"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/fa/fastweb/300x250.gif" alt=""
width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td>
</tr>
</table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=178320.1681224.3270152.1261774/D=egroupmai\
l/S=1705126278:HM/A=879171/rand=185137386"></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>

In a message dated 12/2/01 12:32:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wacogaurds64@... writes:

<< I have somewhat of a bias towards the Texans:) as I'm sure you know,  so
if I may, I would like to share one of my favorite quotes:  "Forward men,
forward.  Never let it be said that Texan's lag in the fight!" >>

Kristin
IMHO, Phil Sheridan had the best thing to say about Texas.  As military
governor he said, "If I owned Texas and Hell, I would live in Hell and rent
out Texas."   <g>

Wayne

This was also the Christmas( and I will have to find it written down) where the two sides sang Christmas carols over the lines to eachother and had a snow ball fight.  But again, I will try to find the story for ya'll.

Kristin

  ecm777@... wrote:

I thought it would be interesting for us to share Civil War Christmas stories that we know.  So, here is the one I just read this week about my hometown in a local magazine.

Christmas 1863 - Chattanooga

After Union forces successfully raised the siege of Chattanooga, forcing the Confederates to retreat toward Atlanta, our city remained under military occupation for the rest of the war.  Government was by martial law.

Presbyterian minister Thomas H. McCallie wrote. "I shall never forget the Christmas of 1863.  Christmas Eve came.  All without was winter.  It was winter in the city and winter in the State.  War had desolated everything.  Our church was still used for a hospital and no bell rang out on the air telling us of God, His house, His worship.  There was no Sunday school.  There was no day school...The old citizens had gone to the South or been sent to the North.  Only a few families remained and they very infrequently saw each other.  There were no stores open, no markets of any kind, no carriages on the streets....Strangers filled our streets, highways and houses.  The rattle of spurs of the officers and the tramp of soldiers fell constantly on our ears.  The town was white with tents; tents, tents everywhere...It was winter in the home except for a few precious rays of sunshine.  We had no milk, no butter, no cheese, scarcely any fruit; but we had bacon, bread, such as could be made without milk or yeast, a little coffee, some sugar and a barrel of pickles in brine, but no vinegar to put with them..."

Sure a sad Christmas indeed.  We can be thankful we have never known one like it.  Hope others have some stories to share.....I know Connie does....she is such a wealth of information! :-)

Merry Christmas ya'll
Colleen aka CWgal

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

I have heard that many a time.  And frankly, I love the state.

Kristin

  FLYNSWEDE@... wrote:

In a message dated 12/2/01 12:32:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wacogaurds64@... writes:

<< I have somewhat of a bias towards the Texans:) as I'm sure you know,  so
if I may, I would like to share one of my favorite quotes:  "Forward men,
forward.  Never let it be said that Texan's lag in the fight!" >>

Kristin
IMHO, Phil Sheridan had the best thing to say about Texas.  As military
governor he said, "If I owned Texas and Hell, I would live in Hell and rent
out Texas."   <g>

Wayne


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

From: Kristin Scherrer

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 4:58 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: CW Christmas

This was also the Christmas( and I will have to find it written down) where the two sides sang Christmas carols over the lines to eachother and had a snow ball fight.  But again, I will try to find the story for ya'll.

Kristin

 

Try the aftermath of the Battle of Fredericksburg. The Great Snowball Battle was strickly a Confederate thing though. No Yankees.

T.J.

I'm sure there were several snow ball fights, but recorded and unrecorded. 

Kristin

  Tjjack <tjjack9@...> wrote:

 

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

From: Kristin Scherrer

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 4:58 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: CW Christmas

This was also the Christmas( and I will have to find it written down) where the two sides sang Christmas carols over the lines to eachother and had a snow ball fight.  But again, I will try to find the story for ya'll.

Kristin

 

Try the aftermath of the Battle of Fredericksburg. The Great Snowball Battle was strickly a Confederate thing though. No Yankees.

T.J.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

From: Kristin Scherrer

To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 5:28 PM

Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: CW Christmas

I'm sure there were several snow ball fights, but recorded and unrecorded. 

Kristin

  Kristen;

Probably. But that is the most famous one. Next time you go to Fredericksburg, ask about it at the V.C.

T.J.

Near Brandy Station Va                  Dec 27, 1863

"Dear Folks at Home,
As today is Sunday and I have a little spare time I will send you a few lines
before the close of the year. I hope you all have passed a very pleasant
Christmas & wish you a happy New Year.

I received the things you sent to me & was very glad to receive them; I am
sorry to say some of the articles were a little damaged. The cakes made me
think of the last time I was at home when you were baking for Christmas; I
suppose Ma remembers very well what an important part I performed in
inspecting the majority of the pans full. The apples were very nice -- also
the part of the peaches I got.

Christmas was quite a dull day here & if it had not been for the "folks at
home" we would hardly have known that it was a holiday. On Christmas our
Brigade received about 8 wagon loads of Express packages & such a profusion
of turkeys, chickens, ducks, cakes of all kinds, jellies, candies, apples &c
I hardly expected to see on "Old Virginia."

We kept open until noon, I then passed the balance of the day over at the
Regiment with Capt. France. I suppose I must give you a description of our
Christmas dinner. Our drink was tea, sweetened to taste with white sugar &
milk: good fresh bread, butter, 3 kinds of jellies, 4 kinds of cakes, mince &
cherry pies, & candies. The day was very pleasant; clear but cold. I often
thought of you all & wondered what you were doing. Part of the time I would
have known where to have found you. I suppose Genie enjoyed himself with his
cakes & candies? So much for that."

First Lieutenant Rufus Ricksecker
The 126th Ohio Volunteer Infantry

Jim,

  I did some rereading, and found that you are correct.  Hood did, in
fact, order another assault for the morning.  This order was given
sometime after midnight.  However, I would have to disagree with you
about him knowing the full extent of his losses.  A large part of the
carnage occurred after dark, and though he had to know that it was
bad, I still don't think he knew just HOW bad.

His corps commanders didn't have actual casualty figures yet, and
told Hood that their divisions were "cut to pieces".  But I have read
enough to know that the phrase can mean quite different things than
reality. At Franklin, the sunrise would have brought that reality
home.  When Hood rode in to the town next day he stopped at the
breastworks to survey the horrors, and wept like a baby.


--- In civilwarwest@y..., "Jim Elliot" <jrayelliot@a...> wrote:
>
> I wonder if Hood would have realized the fruitlessness if that had
> happened. Some time around midnight he had issued orders for
> another > major frontal assault to take place the following
> morning. This was long after the extent of the casulties were
> known.
>
> Had Schofield elected to stay and fight Hood would have simply
> lined the rest of SD Lee's corp up with the remains of Cheathams
> and Stewarts Corps and the Army of Tennessee would have been
> destroyed on that long gentle slope.
>
> Jim
>
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., hartshje@a... wrote:
> >
> >  I agree with you completely! The ironic thing is, if the attack
> > had, in fact, been "blasted to rags" prior to reaching the Union
> > lines, the casualty count probably would have been a lot less
> > without the hours of face to face combat at the works.  And the
> > fruitlessness of the situation would have been realized a whole
> > lot sooner.
> > - Joe
> >
> > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Jim Elliot" <jrayelliot@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it was a combination of both. Hood's greatest moments
> > > had come in East during a part of the War when engagements were
> > > still pretty well standup and face the foe affairs. Sharpsville
> > > for example.
> > >
> > > Had he witnessed Picket's assault I do not think he would have
> > > repeated the mistake at Franklin. The long gentle slope at
> > > Franklin very much resembles the ground at Gettysburg. The
> > > exception is instead of a stone wall, Jacob Cox was strongly
> > > fortified.
> > >
> > > You mention had Opedyke not been where he was Hood's fortunes
> > > may have been different. If Opedyke's boss Waggoner had not
> > > disobeyed orders and attempted to have his troops stand and
> > > fight Hood, creating the rout and allowing Cleaburne's and
> > > Cheatham's troops to follow the routed federals right up to the
> > > breastworks.  Waggoner's troops prevented the federal army from
> > > opening on the rebs until Waggoner's men came within the lines.
> > > Had they retired as they were supposed to do Hood's grand
> > > charge would have been blasted to rags long before they came
> > > close the outer works must less breaching the lines in front of
> > > the Carter House..
> > >
> > > --- In civilwarwest@y..., hartshje@a... wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  As bad as Hood's judgement was at Franklin, I don't think it
> > > >  was his ego doing the talking.  Let us not forget that Hood
> > > >  had a reputation for straight, head-on fighting, which had
> > > >  been quite a successful (though costly) tactic for whatever
> > > >  unit he commanded (R.E. Lee: "Texans ALWAYS move them!").  I
> > > >  think his wound at Gettysburg cost him much more than a
> > > >  useless arm.  It cost him the eyewitness experience of the
> > > >  bloody Confederate repulse on July 3rd.  Of course, I'm sure
> > > >  he read about it, and talked about it with others, but
> > > >  that's not quite the same thing as seeing it first-hand.
> > > >  Lee certainly never tried anything like THAT again. So Hood
> > > >  still believed that Southern spirit and courage could carry
> > > >  the day against anything. And who knows, if Opdyke's brigade
> > > >  hadn't been in the right spot at the right time, the Union
> > > >  line gets split in half, each half flanked out of their
> > > >  strong breastworks, and possibly the whole lot is bagged
> > > >  south of the Harpeth River. Then Hood goes down in history
> > > >  as another Lee or Napoleon. Never-the-less, the whole thing
> > > >  was still a very bad idea.
> > > >

Wayne writes:

> IMHO, Phil Sheridan had the best thing to say about Texas.  As military
> governor he said, "If I owned Texas and Hell, I would live in Hell and rent
> out Texas."  <g>

Been through Hell (Michigan that is), heading back to Texas for the
holidays.  Life's too short not to live it as a Texan.  <vbg>

John

John,

 I like the way you think!

Kristin

(A fellow Texan)

  "John T. Coleman" <jtcoleman@...> wrote:

Wayne writes:

> IMHO, Phil Sheridan had the best thing to say about Texas.  As military
> governor he said, "If I owned Texas and Hell, I would live in Hell and rent
> out Texas."  <g>

Been through Hell (Michigan that is), heading back to Texas for the
holidays.  Life's too short not to live it as a Texan.  <vbg>

John



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In civilwarwest@y..., LWhite64@a... wrote:
> Well I also feel a little sorry for Hood, sorry that he was one of
the 2% to survive a amputation at the hip.  Now I know this sounds
bad, but if Hood had died from his wound at Chickamauga he would be
enshrined along with Jackson and Stuart.  Instead his reputation feel
into the abyss.

Kind of like what would have happened with Longstreet had he died at
the Wilderness.

Of course, by war's end, most everyone with a hand in things at
Gettysburg would have been dead, so whom do they blame now?

Oops, horribly drifting off topic - back to the Western grind . . .

Dave

He may not have have had a complete casualty list but he was very
much aware of the cost in General Officers. Given Hoods agressive
nature I think he would have ordered the assault. He was not a man to
back away from a fight. He marched right on to Nashville and deployed
his forces against overwhelming odds and finished what he had started
at Franklin....the destruction of his army.

I doubt even Bobby Lee himself could have pulled off a win at
Nashville...but then Lee I think had learned his lesson at Gettysburg.



--- In civilwarwest@y..., hartshje@a... wrote:
> Jim,
>
>  I did some rereading, and found that you are correct.  Hood did, in
> fact, order another assault for the morning.  This order was given
> sometime after midnight.  However, I would have to disagree with you
> about him knowing the full extent of his losses.  A large part of
the
> carnage occurred after dark, and though he had to know that it was
> bad, I still don't think he knew just HOW bad.
>
> His corps commanders didn't have actual casualty figures yet, and
> told Hood that their divisions were "cut to pieces".  But I have
read
> enough to know that the phrase can mean quite different things than
> reality. At Franklin, the sunrise would have brought that reality
> home.  When Hood rode in to the town next day he stopped at the
> breastworks to survey the horrors, and wept like a baby.
>
>
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Jim Elliot" <jrayelliot@a...> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if Hood would have realized the fruitlessness if that
had
> > happened. Some time around midnight he had issued orders for
> > another > major frontal assault to take place the following
> > morning. This was long after the extent of the casulties were
> > known.
> >
> > Had Schofield elected to stay and fight Hood would have simply
> > lined the rest of SD Lee's corp up with the remains of Cheathams
> > and Stewarts Corps and the Army of Tennessee would have been
> > destroyed on that long gentle slope.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --- In civilwarwest@y..., hartshje@a... wrote:
> > >
> > >  I agree with you completely! The ironic thing is, if the
attack
> > > had, in fact, been "blasted to rags" prior to reaching the Union
> > > lines, the casualty count probably would have been a lot less
> > > without the hours of face to face combat at the works.  And the
> > > fruitlessness of the situation would have been realized a whole
> > > lot sooner.
> > > - Joe
> > >
> > > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Jim Elliot" <jrayelliot@a...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think it was a combination of both. Hood's greatest moments
> > > > had come in East during a part of the War when engagements
were
> > > > still pretty well standup and face the foe affairs.
Sharpsville
> > > > for example.
> > > >
> > > > Had he witnessed Picket's assault I do not think he would
have
> > > > repeated the mistake at Franklin. The long gentle slope at
> > > > Franklin very much resembles the ground at Gettysburg. The
> > > > exception is instead of a stone wall, Jacob Cox was strongly
> > > > fortified.
> > > >
> > > > You mention had Opedyke not been where he was Hood's fortunes
> > > > may have been different. If Opedyke's boss Waggoner had not
> > > > disobeyed orders and attempted to have his troops stand and
> > > > fight Hood, creating the rout and allowing Cleaburne's and
> > > > Cheatham's troops to follow the routed federals right up to
the
> > > > breastworks.  Waggoner's troops prevented the federal army
from
> > > > opening on the rebs until Waggoner's men came within the
lines.
> > > > Had they retired as they were supposed to do Hood's grand
> > > > charge would have been blasted to rags long before they came
> > > > close the outer works must less breaching the lines in front
of
> > > > the Carter House..
> > > >
> > > > --- In civilwarwest@y..., hartshje@a... wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >  As bad as Hood's judgement was at Franklin, I don't think
it
> > > > >  was his ego doing the talking.  Let us not forget that
Hood
> > > > >  had a reputation for straight, head-on fighting, which had
> > > > >  been quite a successful (though costly) tactic for
whatever
> > > > >  unit he commanded (R.E. Lee: "Texans ALWAYS move them!").
I
> > > > >  think his wound at Gettysburg cost him much more than a
> > > > >  useless arm.  It cost him the eyewitness experience of the
> > > > >  bloody Confederate repulse on July 3rd.  Of course, I'm
sure
> > > > >  he read about it, and talked about it with others, but
> > > > >  that's not quite the same thing as seeing it first-hand.
> > > > >  Lee certainly never tried anything like THAT again. So
Hood
> > > > >  still believed that Southern spirit and courage could
carry
> > > > >  the day against anything. And who knows, if Opdyke's
brigade
> > > > >  hadn't been in the right spot at the right time, the Union
> > > > >  line gets split in half, each half flanked out of their
> > > > >  strong breastworks, and possibly the whole lot is bagged
> > > > >  south of the Harpeth River. Then Hood goes down in history
> > > > >  as another Lee or Napoleon. Never-the-less, the whole
thing
> > > > >  was still a very bad idea.
> > > > >

In a message dated 12/2/01 5:33:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tjjack9@... writes:

<< Probably. But that is the most famous one. Next time you go to
Fredericksburg, ask about it at the V.C.
   >>

Another was at Dalton, GA in Jan 64.  At that one, even JEJ got hit by one
flying missile.  Needless to say,  the troops were told to improve their aim
in the future.

Wayne

In a message dated 12/3/01 11:36:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wacogaurds64@... writes:

<<  Life's too short not to live it as a Texan.  <vbg>
   >>

There goes one of those Tejanos again.  Stretching everything he can  <g>
Wayne

--- In civilwarwest@y..., FLYNSWEDE@A... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/30/01 11:40:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> LWhite64@a... writes:
>
> << Also, I would give Hood an A for effort for the fight at
> Peachtree Creek and Atlanta, that being the only Good things I can
> say about the Kentuckian in 1864. >>

> Knowing that you are anti-Johnston  <g> I would still have to give
> Hood a total grade of F for failure (thats the lowest I can go
> doggone it) at Kolb's Farm.  Any commander that sends his troops
> into battle without knowing what he is facing has to receive such a
> grade and is not worthy of holding the position of Corps. Cmdr.
>
I'd guess it's all a matter of perspective, though (and I'm not
trying to absolve Hood from blame here).  At least Hood attacked, and
attacked hard.  It's interesting that here we have one of the few
offensive attacks made by a commander serving under Johnston, since
Seven Pines, and he (Hood) gets an "F."

I guess Key West or the Dry Tortugas would have made a good, final
defensive stand for Johnston.  :-)

> Wayne  who is pro-Johnston and tries to understand him

My problem with Johnston is that I started out with a very favorable
impression of the man.  The more I've read - especially his OR
correspondence - the less he is a man to be admired.

I may have said it here, and if so, apologize for the repeat.  But
I've concluded there were two things that were very dear to Joe
Johnston.  One was his love of the Confederacy, while the other was
his reputation.  It's just a shame that at times, the latter was more
important than the former.

Dave

Dave Smith
Villa Hills, KY

I did not write that, I responded to it.  I am  a Texan, though not proud of it.  The Bible says that there is one thing that goes before the fall...Pride.  I am, however, honored by my heritage there, because that is where my family comes from and is a part of me.    

Kristin

  FLYNSWEDE@... wrote:

In a message dated 12/3/01 11:36:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wacogaurds64@... writes:

<<  Life's too short not to live it as a Texan.  <vbg>
  >>

There goes one of those Tejanos again.  Stretching everything he can  <g>
Wayne


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

In a message dated 12/5/01 7:10:42 AM Central Standard Time,
dmsmith001@... writes:

<< One was his love of the Confederacy, while the other was
  his reputation.  It's just a shame that at times, the latter was more
  important than the former. >>

Craig L. Symonds, a Johnston biographer, makes a strong case supporting your
conclusion.  Symonds argues that Johnston and Davis were far apart in
strategic thinking especially in where and how to concentrate Confederate
efforts and armies.  Johnston's problem, however, was that he decided to
fight Davis head-on rather than work with him.  Johnston was unable to
recognize that right or wrong, Davis was the civilian authority and the man
in charge.

A democratic form of government is dependent on the military being submissive
to the civilian authority. In this case it was incumbent on Johnston to
adjust both his actions and point of view, as Lee did, to Davis. After all
success was the goal, not flexing his prerogatives or gaining solace for his
hurt feelings.

McClellan also refused to communicate effectively with his
commander-in-chief. He allowed the glitter of his own fame and inflated ego
to blind him to the reality of who was in charge. Neither Johnston nor
McClellan grasped what Lee and Grant did -- the president was calling the
shots. For that reason both made poor generals in a democracy and neutralized
their own talent on the field because of it. Douglas MacArthur was another
who could not sublimate his military ego to the civilian authority.

Connie

From Craig Symonds essay - A Fatal Relationship:  Davis and Johnston at War
in Jefferson Davis and His Generals, edited by Gabor S. Boritt pgs 3-45

“It is not too much to assert that the mutual antagonism between Davis and
Johnston was a major factor in Confederate defeat. If the confederacy had any
hope at all of overcoming the North’s tangible advantages of manpower and
industrial resources, it had to have two things: commonality of purpose and
unity of direction, and the feud between Davis and Johnston helped ensure
that it had neither. The failure of Confederate leadership in the 1864
Atlanta campaign was particularly critical.. . . .Although a good case can be
made by either side [Johnston vs Davis], a more fundamental problem was the
working relationship between Davis and Johnston had been poisoned long before
the campaign in north Georgia even began. By the spring of 1864 neither the
president nor general was willing or able to cooperate effectively with the
other.

. . . . That is not to say that there would have been no friction between
Davis and Johnston without the encouragement of others. . . .But without the
political element provided by anti-Davis politicians in Richmond who used
Johnston as a cat’s-paw to assail the president, it is at least conceivable
that the two men might have managed some minimal level of cooperation.
Instead their feud became a primary factor in Confederate defeat.

…….This episode [Yorktown May 3, 1861] highlights the single greatest
failing in the Davis-Johnston relationship: the lack of full and free
communication. This was primarily Johnston’s fault, of course. As the junior
partner in the relationship, it was his responsibility to keep Davis
informed, particularly since he was aware of Davis’ obsession for
information. But he made little serious effort to cultivate the president’s
support, and his failure to do so was deliberate.

. . . As a result, by the time of the critical Atlanta Campaign of 1864, he
had lost all credibility with the administration. Whatever merit there may
have been to the strategic vision he communicated to his friends in Richmond,
it was unlikely to attract the enthusiastic support of a president who had
come to view him as the enemy. For that, Johnston himself must bear a major
responsibility – and with it a major responsibility for the failure of the
Confederate war effort.

. . . .Even the end of the war did not end the feud. It extended into the
postwar years as each man wrote his memoirs, and in this battle Davis emerged
the clear victor. Neither man produced a particularly readable or
enlightening memoir. But Davis’s account was at least relatively restrained
whereas Johnston’s was confrontational and combative. The bitter and
unyielding tone of his postwar writings probably did more to undermine his
historical reputation than all of his actions – or inaction – on the
battlefield.”

I think a democratic government,that fights for the right
to keep a third of its citizens in forced bondage isn't
democratic.   The Baron


On 5-Dec-01, Aurelie1999@... wrote:
<html><body>


<tt>
In a message dated 12/5/01 7:10:42 AM Central Standard Time, <BR>
dmsmith001@... writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< One was his love of the Confederacy, while the other was <BR>
  his reputation.  It's just a shame that at times, the latter was more <BR>
  important than the former. >><BR>
<BR>
Craig L. Symonds, a Johnston biographer, makes a strong case supporting your
<BR>
conclusion.  Symonds argues that Johnston and Davis were far apart in <BR>
strategic thinking especially in where and how to concentrate Confederate <BR>
efforts and armies.  Johnston's problem, however, was that he decided to <BR>
fight Davis head-on rather than work with him.  Johnston was unable to <BR>
recognize that right or wrong, Davis was the civilian authority and the man <BR>
in charge. <BR>
<BR>
A democratic form of government is dependent on the military being submissive
<BR>
to the civilian authority. In this case it was incumbent on Johnston to <BR>
adjust both his actions and point of view, as Lee did, to Davis. After all <BR>
success was the goal, not flexing his prerogatives or gaining solace for his
<BR>
hurt feelings. <BR>
<BR>
McClellan also refused to communicate effectively with his <BR>
commander-in-chief. He allowed the glitter of his own fame and inflated ego <BR>
to blind him to the reality of who was in charge. Neither Johnston nor <BR>
McClellan grasped what Lee and Grant did -- the president was calling the <BR>
shots. For that reason both made poor generals in a democracy and neutralized
<BR>
their own talent on the field because of it. Douglas MacArthur was another <BR>
who could not sublimate his military ego to the civilian authority.<BR>
<BR>
Connie<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 align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td
align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1765089.3286457.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705126\
278:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085" target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=213858.1765089.3286457.1261774/D=egroupmai\
l/S=1705126278:HM/A=763352/rand=491041509"></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>

Baron,

  Not to get off topic too much here, but a "democratic" government
simply means that the majority can vote to do anything it wants.  In
other words, 50.1% can vote to enslave the other 49.9% and it would
be perfectly legal to do so.  The U.S.A. is getting perilously close
to this now when you consider the fruits of your labor from January
through May are confiscated by the various levels of government, and
about half of that goes toward wealth re-distribution (socialistic
programs).  We are supposed to have a "republic" here, based on a
constitution which safeguards our "inalienable rights".  Yet so many,
over the years, have been brainwashed to think it is a democracy,
that it is actally becoming one; thanks to state-run public school
systems and universities, and an apathetic public at large.

Off-the-Soapbox now,
  Joe H.

--- In civilwarwest@y..., "Michael Mason" <richthofen@b...> wrote:
> I think a democratic government,that fights for the right
> to keep a third of its citizens in forced bondage isn't
> democratic.   The Baron
>
>
> On 5-Dec-01, Aurelie1999@a... wrote:
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> In a message dated 12/5/01 7:10:42 AM Central Standard Time, <BR>
> dmsmith001@y... writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> << One was his love of the Confederacy, while the other was <BR>
>  his reputation.  It's just a shame that at times, the latter was
more <BR>
>  important than the former. >><BR>
> <BR>
> Craig L. Symonds, a Johnston biographer, makes a strong case
supporting your <BR>
> conclusion.  Symonds argues that Johnston and Davis were far apart
in <BR>
> strategic thinking especially in where and how to concentrate
Confederate <BR>
> efforts and armies.  Johnston's problem, however, was that he
decided to <BR>
> fight Davis head-on rather than work with him.  Johnston was unable
to <BR>
> recognize that right or wrong, Davis was the civilian authority and
the man <BR>
> in charge. <BR>
> <BR>
> A democratic form of government is dependent on the military being
submissive <BR>
> to the civilian authority. In this case it was incumbent on
Johnston to <BR>
> adjust both his actions and point of view, as Lee did, to Davis.
After all <BR>
> success was the goal, not flexing his prerogatives or gaining
solace for his <BR>
> hurt feelings. <BR>
> <BR>
> McClellan also refused to communicate effectively with his <BR>
> commander-in-chief. He allowed the glitter of his own fame and
inflated ego <BR>
> to blind him to the reality of who was in charge. Neither Johnston
nor <BR>
> McClellan grasped what Lee and Grant did -- the president was
calling the <BR>
> shots. For that reason both made poor generals in a democracy and
neutralized <BR>
> their own talent on the field because of it. Douglas MacArthur was
another <BR>
> who could not sublimate his military ego to the civilian
authority.<BR>
> <BR>
> Connie<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 align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0
cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font face=arial size=-
2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1765089.3286457.1261774/D=egroupweb
/S=1705126278:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?
s=5085" target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.
gif" alt="" width="300" height="250"
border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=213858.1765089.3286457.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705126278:HM/A=763352
/rand=491041509"></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>

Someone has been having too much "Rush" these days.

----- Original Message -----
From: "hartshje" <hartshje@...>
To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 10:45 AM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Democracy (was: John Bell Hood . . . .)


Baron,

  Not to get off topic too much here, but a "democratic" government
simply means that the majority can vote to do anything it wants.  In
other words, 50.1% can vote to enslave the other 49.9% and it would
be perfectly legal to do so.  The U.S.A. is getting perilously close
to this now when you consider the fruits of your labor from January
through May are confiscated by the various levels of government, and
about half of that goes toward wealth re-distribution (socialistic
programs).  We are supposed to have a "republic" here, based on a
constitution which safeguards our "inalienable rights".  Yet so many,
over the years, have been brainwashed to think it is a democracy,
that it is actally becoming one; thanks to state-run public school
systems and universities, and an apathetic public at large.

Off-the-Soapbox now,
  Joe H.

--- In civilwarwest@y..., "Michael Mason" <richthofen@b...> wrote:
> I think a democratic government,that fights for the right
> to keep a third of its citizens in forced bondage isn't
> democratic.   The Baron
>
>
> On 5-Dec-01, Aurelie1999@a... wrote:
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> In a message dated 12/5/01 7:10:42 AM Central Standard Time, <BR>
> dmsmith001@y... writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> << One was his love of the Confederacy, while the other was <BR>
>  his reputation. It's just a shame that at times, the latter was
more <BR>
>  important than the former. >><BR>
> <BR>
> Craig L. Symonds, a Johnston biographer, makes a strong case
supporting your <BR>
> conclusion. Symonds argues that Johnston and Davis were far apart
in <BR>
> strategic thinking especially in where and how to concentrate
Confederate <BR>
> efforts and armies. Johnston's problem, however, was that he
decided to <BR>
> fight Davis head-on rather than work with him. Johnston was unable
to <BR>
> recognize that right or wrong, Davis was the civilian authority and
the man <BR>
> in charge. <BR>
> <BR>
> A democratic form of government is dependent on the military being
submissive <BR>
> to the civilian authority. In this case it was incumbent on
Johnston to <BR>
> adjust both his actions and point of view, as Lee did, to Davis.
After all <BR>
> success was the goal, not flexing his prerogatives or gaining
solace for his <BR>
> hurt feelings. <BR>
> <BR>
> McClellan also refused to communicate effectively with his <BR>
> commander-in-chief. He allowed the glitter of his own fame and
inflated ego <BR>
> to blind him to the reality of who was in charge. Neither Johnston
nor <BR>
> McClellan grasped what Lee and Grant did -- the president was
calling the <BR>
> shots. For that reason both made poor generals in a democracy and
neutralized <BR>
> their own talent on the field because of it. Douglas MacArthur was
another <BR>
> who could not sublimate his military ego to the civilian
authority.<BR>
> <BR>
> Connie<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 align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0
cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font face=arial size=-
2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1765089.3286457.1261774/D=egroupweb
/S=1705126278:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?
s=5085" target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.
gif" alt="" width="300" height="250"
border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=213858.1765089.3286457.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705126278:HM/A=763352
/rand=491041509"></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>





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

I was stationed in El Paso, TX for three years, and saw a good bit
of the state.  I liked it and enjoyed living there, but I have a
funny anecdote to pass on here.  A friend of mine who was from Alaska
once remarked to a Texan who was expressing a little too much pride:
"If all you Texans don't shut up, Alaska is going to split itself in
half, and then Texas will be the THIRD largest state instead of the
second."

  Regards,
  Joe H.

--- In civilwarwest@y..., FLYNSWEDE@A... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/3/01 11:36:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> wacogaurds64@y... writes:
>
> <<  Life's too short not to live it as a Texan.  <vbg>
>   >>
>
> There goes one of those Tejanos again.  Stretching everything he
can  <g>
> Wayne