... not ... Thomas ... Sherman seems to have been consistent in this regard however. to John Sherman 6/8/61 You are with Genl Patterson. There are two A no.Message 1 of 179 , May 1, 2002View Source--- In civilwarwest@y..., "dmercado" <dmercado@w...> wrote:
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:not
> > Sherman was a complex man who had great strategic vision, but was
> above backstabbing his subordinate officers. Here is what he onceThomas
> said about Thomas in a private letter to General Grant:
> "I know full well that Gen. Thomas is slow in mind and in
> action "
> (Letter to Grant 12/16/1864 from Savannah and later published in
> Sherman's Memoirs).
> Maybe Sherman really thought Thomas was slow in starting his
> campaigns compared to him, but what was he trying to imply to Grant
> by this `slow in mind' comment?
> Sherman wrote this before he found out about Thomas' great
> victory at Nashville; afterwards he sent a friendly letter to
> saying he had all the confidence in the world in him. Weird guy.Sherman seems to have been consistent in this regard however.
> Best regards, Dave
to John Sherman 6/8/61
"You are with Genl Patterson. There are two A no. 1 men thereGeo. H
Thomas Col. 2nd cav.and capt Sykes 3rd Inf .Thomas is a
Virginian..he must feel unpleasant at leading an invading armybut if
he says he will do it I think he will do wellHe was never brilliant
but always cool, reliable & steadymaybe a little slow."
For whatever reason, Sherman believed Thomas to be slow in 1861 and
still held out that opinion late in 1864. Given Sherman's
personality and temperment, doesn't it seem unlikely that his views
were ever kept secret for very long? My point here is that Sherman
seemed to express his views pretty openly, often when he would have
been better served to remain silent. I think the backstabbing
reference as applied above might well be inaccurate. Thomas and
Grant were both probably well, well, well aware of Sherman's
opinions, including his opinions about each of them. I'm not
insisting I "know" this for certain, but it seems more likely than
Sherman keeping his views of Thomas to himself, waiting for an
opportune moment to stab him in the back.
Hi Dave. I never have subscribed to it though I have picked up occassional issues at the bookstore when the lead story grabs me. I know of a used bookstoreMessage 179 of 179 , May 16, 2002View SourceHi Dave.
I never have subscribed to it though I have picked up occassional
issues at the bookstore when the lead story grabs me. I know of a
used bookstore that stocks old issues--will look for the one you
--- In civilwarwest@y..., David Woodbury <woodbury@s...> wrote:
> At 9:18 PM +0000 4/30/02, wh_keene wrote:
> >I agree that our discussion was "getting a tad unwieldy." My work
> >situation has changed, so I haven't been able to follow this board
> >closely as I used to. Only today could I catch up. The thread had
> >become so unwieldy that it seemed to have become about what I said
> >about what you said about what I said about what you said and it
> >hard to make sense of it without going back and starting over.
> Haven't been able to keep up with the discussions lately -- things
> like work, classes, Giants baseball, two small children, and the
> opening of the trout season all combined to push Snake Creek Gap
> into the background. I did want to say, however, that I wasn't
> ignoring your last missive on the subject.
> I've subsequently come across the March 2001 issue of "North &
> South," with Steven H. Newton's article, "What Really Happened at
> Snake Creek Gap?" I've just started through it, and will try to
> convey the main points here. I'm curious to see if he brings
> new to the discussion, or summarizes the conflicting views much as
> have done. Based on the subtitle, he may be more sympathetic to
> "The conventional account of the opening of the
> 1864 Georgia Campaign is that William T. Sherman
> swiftly bamboozled Joseph E. Johnston. There is another
> Do you, by chance, subscribe to and keep back issues of "North &