7086Re: Re: [TalkAntietam] Was Crook's attack truly misdrected?
- Apr 18 6:06 PMBuy the book and find out. :-)Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone-------- Original message --------From: G E MayersDate:04/18/2014 6:00 PM (GMT-05:00)To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: Re: [TalkAntietam] Was Crook's attack truly misdrected?
What does Carman say about that??
Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers
"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order of things." -- Robert E. Lee
On 04/18/14, Tom Clemens wrote:
If I was Crook writing the report, that's what I'd say too.
Nice theory, and I cannot say it is wrong, but nobody in the chain of command says that. Burnside & Cox wrote that Crook was to storm the bridge, along with Sturgis. Crook says when he got "in position" Sturgis was not there yet so he improvised, but he was 500 yards north of the bridge, and earlier had acknowledged he didn't know exactly where it was when he started off.
On 04/18/14, RoteBaron<RoteBaron@...> wrote:
It is generally considered that Crook’s attack against the bridge was badly misdirected and ended up reaching the creek a couple hundred yards upstream, instead of attacking it directly as planned.
However, I listened to a talk by Dennis Frye in which he proposed that Crook went exactly where he wanted to; as he was protecting the right flank of Burnside’s attack.
Any thoughts on this being likely?
Tom Shay – Cressona, PA
- << Previous post in topic