37117RE: [civilwarwest] The word "embarassed"
- Jan 31, 2006
That is it right there.
Thomas was offered the job by D.C. and did not take it. He left it to Buell.
D.C. then looked else where.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Bob Huddleston
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:29 PM
Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] The word "embarassed"
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.
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
"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: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of endeavorgot
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:09 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] The word "embarassed"
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.
- << Previous post in topic