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

39923Re: Sherman's Reliability

Expand Messages
  • Bill Bruner
    Jun 17, 2006
      I'm sorry, Will, but your reading and my reading on this matter is
      quite different and seems to be unresolvable.

      Bill Bruner

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene<wh_keene@...>
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@>
      > wrote:
      > > ...
      > > 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
      > flank.
      > > 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, therefore
      constituting "a
      > > strong right flank," and I met Generale Schofield and Hooker
      > > together. As rain was falling at the moment, we passed into a
      > little
      > > 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 the
      > > of the battle, actually in advance of Hooker's line; that the
      > attack
      > > or sally of the enemy struck his troops before it did Hooker's;
      > that
      > > 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)
      > > lying farther out than any of Hooker's. General Hooker pretended
      > not
      > > to have known this fact.
      > >
      > > The point of contention was whether or not Schofield was on
      > Hooker's
      > > right.
      > So says you. But I do not see that point contended in the
      > Sherman claims that Hooker pretended not to know "this fact".
      > fact would that be? The statement that Hooker pretended not to
      know a
      > fact immediately follows an assertion of fact that Schofield
      > 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
      that "extreme
      > > right" meant the army's right not the right of Hooker's Corp.
      > So what? Either way its a jab at Schofield, who was the army's
    • Show all 48 messages in this topic