Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2222RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)
    Jul 12, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Somebody wrote a very sympathetic biography of him. I'm sure there's a
      full chapter of lame excuses there.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of G E Mayers
      Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 7:14 PM
      To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'

      All;

      That is at least a statement I can agree with.........

      Now that I have said that and probably shocked a lot of folks here, I
      have a
      question:

      Did Franklin ever try to adequately explain why, after speedily pushing
      his
      Corps through Crampton's Gap and then down into Pleasant Valley, thereby

      scaring the s*** out of the Confederates in the process, did he stop
      and do
      nothing???

      Very respectfully,
      G E "Gerry" Mayers

      "As an American citizen I prize the Union very highly
      and know of no personal sacrifice that I would not make
      to preserve it, save that of honour."
      --Robt. E. Lee, Letter to Rooney Lee, 3 December 1860

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)" <jbeckner@...>
      To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 6:34 PM
      Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'


      > Tardy George will NOT be contained to a single discussion group!
      >
      > That's how fast the man moves.
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      > On Behalf Of Harry Smeltzer
      > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:32 PM
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'
      >
      > Excuse me, the post I referenced was not made to this group, but
      > another.
      >
      >
      >
      > I am aware that this is the TalkAntietam group. I'm just not positive
      > what
      > planet I'm on.
      >
      >
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      > On
      > Behalf Of Harry Smeltzer
      > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:23 PM
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'
      >
      >
      >
      > A) What does Sykes have to do with this?
      >
      > B) The "speed" question has been addressed here many times, and
      > also
      > received the "even if true, so what" treatment. So why would you want
      > to
      > discuss it again?
      >
      > C) Maybe because sometimes spades are more accurately described
      as
      > shovels. Of course, having to make that distinction can cause
      > discomfort
      > for some.
      >
      > D) The main reason I am asking you "why you bother" is that your
      > attitude on this particular issue (I don't know if you have a similar
      > attitude on other issues) is one that I see repeatedly, and yet the
      > holders
      > still semi-involve themselves in discussions (I say semi because,
      given
      > their firm belief that nothing can sway them, they can never truly
      > "participate"). In fact, there was a past several months ago on this
      > group
      > made by someone who stated that everything he reads more or less
      > confirms
      > what he already knows about the Civil War. Truly a bizarre statement
      to
      > make in a group such as the CWDG.
      >
      >
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      > On
      > Behalf Of Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)
      > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:09 PM
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'
      >
      >
      >
      > I'm willing to listen to particular points here and there -- as in the
      > now thrice-mentioned MD speed question.
      >
      > However, I do indeed consider an accurate and truthful portrait of
      Tardy
      > George to have been painted long ago, and thus am extremely skeptical
      of
      > "new, improved!" versions. There does not seem to be much ground to
      > plow.
      >
      > There are some CW questions that are more or less beyond dispute. This
      > is one of them, in my opinion. And I bother because it still, even
      after
      > all these years of discussion groups, etc., amazes me that some folks
      > will bend over backwards to avoid calling a spade a spade. Of all the
      > horses to back, why back THIS one?
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      > On Behalf Of Harry Smeltzer
      > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:03 PM
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'
      >
      > I accept your position is as you state. You don't need to explain it
      > further.
      >
      >
      >
      > You have made up your mind and that is that. The expression of any
      > opinion
      > counter to what you know to be the truth is by definition irrelevant.
      I
      > imagine there is a lot of comfort in that.
      >
      >
      >
      > It just makes me wonder why you bother.
      >
      >
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      > On
      > Behalf Of Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)
      > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 4:48 PM
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'
      >
      >
      >
      > It also should indicate to you that your time on this topic
      (McClellan)
      > is
      > misspent, don't you think?
      >
      >
      > I would be encouraged by said reviews if a knowledgeable reader --
      whom
      > I presume Steven Recker to be and know Jim to be -- hadn't said Rafuse
      > "is taking positions contrary to all that's known about McClellan," or
      > whatever his exact wording was. Because, you see, I just don't see any
      > possible way (unless you're pursing a particular agenda) you can take
      a
      > look at McClellan and suddenly find that ALL the conventional wisdom
      is
      > wrong. Undoubtedly, there are some edges that probably need some
      > softening -- for example, maybe he WAS speedier in MD than usually
      given
      > credit for -- but a LOT of things that needed rethinking with new
      > conclusions?
      >
      > There's just no way. It's not there. The evidence is too conclusive on
      > the other side.
      >
      > Someone, 20 years from now, will put out a book "re-examining" the OJ
      > trial, and will hint, without being dumb enough to come out and say
      it,
      > that maybe, somehow, if you look at it this way and that, he was
      > actually innocent after all. And a book would NEED to say that,
      because
      > saying the opposite (aka, the truth) means there's no book worth
      > publishing. And I fear Rafuse falls into the same ocean, if not quite
      > the same boat, as this example.
      >
      >
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      > On
      > Behalf Of Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)
      > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 4:35 PM
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'
      >
      >
      >
      > I'm commenting on reviews of something I've not yet read; reviews I
      > believe to be likely accurate.
      >
      > Sue me.
      >
      > I had hoped the book would be an even-handed treatment. Praise him
      when
      > earned and blame him when culpable. Doesn't seem to have worked out
      > quite that way....because if it had, there would have been no book;
      that
      > book already having been written 200 times over.
      >
      > But let's say, for the sake of obtuse discussion, that Mac DID move
      > faster in MD than is usually supposed.
      >
      > BFD. He's still a general who spent most of his time being afraid, and
      > who, as a result, missed some lovely opportunities to take a year or
      two
      > or three off the war.
      >
      > How do we get around that?
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      > On Behalf Of Harry Smeltzer
      > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 4:25 PM
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'
      >
      > As you are being typically obtuse, and commenting on something you've
      > not
      > yet read, and again requesting evidence to dispute your facts (which
      > when
      > presented will be predictably deflected by a patently wry rhetorical
      > comment), I'm doing the best I can ;-)
      >
      >
      >
      > I'm glad you're proud. Your affirmation means the world to me. I do
      > still
      > stand in awe of your interest in discussing a topic about which many
      > years
      > ago you had already seen and read enough to be 100% confident that
      what
      > you
      > already know is true.
      >
      >
      >
      > Why do you do it?
      >
      >
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      > On
      > Behalf Of Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)
      > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 4:16 PM
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'
      >
      >
      >
      > Doing yeoman work of being Mac's champion today, Harry. We're all
      proud
      > of you.
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      > On Behalf Of Harry Smeltzer
      > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 3:31 PM
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'
      >
      > In your mind, I'm sure you will.
      >
      >
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      > On
      > Behalf Of Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)
      > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 10:15 AM
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'
      >
      >
      >
      > Post an excerpt. I'll tear it apart.
      >
      > _____
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      >
      >
      > * Visit your group "TalkAntietam
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam> " on the web.
      >
      >
      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      ><mailto:TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
      >
      >
      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      >
      >
      > * Visit your group "TalkAntietam
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam> " on the web.
      >
      >
      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
      >
      >
      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      >
      >
      > * Visit your group "TalkAntietam
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam> " on the web.
      >
      >
      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
      >
      >
      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      >
      >
      > * Visit your group "TalkAntietam
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam> " on the web.
      >
      >
      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
      >
      >
      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      >
      >
      > * Visit your group "TalkAntietam
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam> " on the web.
      >
      >
      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
      >
      >
      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --------
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      > a.. Visit your group "TalkAntietam" on the web.
      >
      > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >
      >
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --------
      >
      >





      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 90 messages in this topic