39923Re: Sherman's Reliability
- Jun 17, 2006I'm sorry, Will, but your reading and my reading on this matter is
quite different and seems to be unresolvable.
--- In email@example.com, "William H Keene<wh_keene@...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@>
> > ...
> > KULP HOUSE, 5.30 P.M.
> > General SHERMAN: We have repulsed two heavy attacks, and feel
> > confident, our only apprehension being from our extreme right
> > Three entire corps are in front of us.
> > Major-General HOOKER.
> > I found General Schofield's corps on the Powder Springs road,
> > head of column abreast of Hooker's right, thereforeconstituting "a
> > strong right flank," and I met Generale Schofield and Hookersaying
> > together. As rain was falling at the moment, we passed into a
> > church standing by the road-side, and I there showed General
> > Schofield Hooker's signal-message of the day before. He was very
> > angry, and pretty sharp words passed between them, Schofield
> > that his head of column (Hascall's division) had been, at thetime
> > of the battle, actually in advance of Hooker's line; that theand
> > or sally of the enemy struck his troops before it did Hooker's;
> > General Hooker knew of it at the time; and he offered to go out
> > show me that the dead men of his advance division (Hascall's)were
> > lying farther out than any of Hooker's. General Hooker pretendedmemoirs.
> > to have known this fact.
> > The point of contention was whether or not Schofield was on
> > right.
> So says you. But I do not see that point contended in the
> Sherman claims that Hooker pretended not to know "this fact".What
> fact would that be? The statement that Hooker pretended not toknow a
> fact immediately follows an assertion of fact that Schofieldthat "extreme
> was "actually in advance of Hooker's line".
> > ... What you posted was Schofield's offer of proof that he was
> > indeed on the right of Hooker.
> No, what I posted was Schofield's claim that he was actually in
> advance of Hooker and that his men had engaged the enemy before
> Hooker's did.
> > Castel says that Schofield stated that if he had actually seen
> > Hooker's message he would have explained to Sherman
> > right" meant the army's right not the right of Hooker's Corp.right.
> So what? Either way its a jab at Schofield, who was the army's
- << Previous post in topic