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

37113RE: [civilwarwest] The word "embarassed"

Expand Messages
  • Bob Huddleston
    Jan 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      All of this is quite irrelevant.
      What mattered is that the Bosses, Halleck, Stanton and Lincoln interoperated Thomas' actions as a refusal. So when the opportunity came up again, they went for Rosecrans over Thomas.

      Take care,


      Judy and Bob Huddleston
      10643 Sperry Street
      Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
      303.451.6376  Huddleston.r@...

      "Don't argue with someone who claims the earth is flat. You haven't given it a second thought, whereas he has spent 20 years thinking about and obsessing over why it is flat."


      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of endeavorgot
      Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:09 PM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [civilwarwest] The word "embarassed"

      barry writes:

      To an extent you are correct. The problem is that the argument has
      been made that the orders themeselves were not peremptory; I
      disagree. The orders were clear, Buell was to hand over command to
      Thomas; I don't see how much clearer and direct the orders could
      have been made. That McKibbin delivered them under conditions when
      he shouldn't have, doesn't change that fact. And, once again,
      neither Thomas nor Buell would have been aware of the conditions
      imposed on the delivery of the orders.


      I disagree.  There is a "clear" difference between a "clear" order
      and a peremptory order.  If all "clear" orders, issued from on high
      were treated as peremptory orders by the officer in the field,
      untold distasters would incur.  Hundreds even thousands of examples
      couold be cited;  Warren's orders to attack at Mine Run, Granger's
      to stay in place at Rossville, Woods to close up and relieve at
      Brotherton, to name just a few.  A commander in the field is duty
      bound to question orders from those far from the scene, and it would
      be a form of cowardice not to do so.  If a commander blindly obeys
      an order (espeacially from afar) That he believes would be
      detrimental or disasterous to the cause or mission he may well be
      guilty of malicous obedience or a special kind of cowardice. There
      are some in every military (even business) that are so afraid of
      questioning superiors that they will entertain all kinds or calumies
      to avoid doing so.
      Bill Bruner  

    • Show all 3 messages in this topic