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

40815Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas' orders ( MODERATOR'S MESSAGE)

Expand Messages
  • Dick Weeks
    Jul 4 5:25 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Gentlemen, I have about had it with these type posts. Normally I would just
      remove the offender(s) in an instance like this. Pat would have probably
      put them on moderated status. I am not inclined to moderate the posts that
      come over so I find it easier to just get rid of the one(s) that comment the
      offense. However, in this case I am going to break my own rule (owner's
      choice) and let these posts just slide. After all it is the 4th of July.

      Now having said that, I want to make it very clear that I am absolutely sick
      to death of reading "Grant lied! Sherman lied! Sherman and Grant conspired
      to bring Thomas down! Thomas did not get a fair shake because Grant and
      Sherman hated him!" I will tolerate no more of it. If I see words like
      lied, hate, etc. in this forum again I will summarily unsubscribe the
      offender with no warning. If you wish to make posts that put your guy in a
      better light feel free to do so. I will accept no more posts that are
      purely designed to bring the other individual down. I hope I have made
      myself clear on this. If not feel free to contact me via private email and
      I will try to clarify it a little more. If any of you feel you cannot live
      with these rules feel free to unsubscribe. I do not like making these type
      posts and I don't want to have to make any more of them.

      Next month we will celebrate the 7th year of this forum and we have nearly
      600 members at this time. When we first started this group folks said it
      could not last with the rules that I had set down. They said that a person
      has a right to speak their mind. They were dead wrong. I will agree that
      the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. However, it does not
      guarantee the right to be heard. In this forum that right is granted and
      guaranteed by me.

      I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
      Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
      http://www.civilwarhome.com

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "bjer50010" <barry.jewell@...>
      To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 7:29 PM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas' orders


      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman
      > <rtaubman@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> Fortunately, yes some of us who support Thomas DO know a
      > lot more about theCivil War?
      >
      > This is insulting to various members of this group who have
      > legitimate disagreements with your opinions and borders on
      > being the single most arrogant thing I have ever seen anyone
      > spout on this group. Neither you nor Mr. Rose has any monopoly
      > on knowledge of the Civil War and I find your assertion that the
      > two of you do possess such a monopoly insulting in the extreme.
      >
      > You may have uncovered a couple of messages, that actually do
      > not support your case as well as you seem to think they do, but
      > that does not mean you know more about the Civil War than
      > other posters on this group. Others, including myself, have
      > provided other citations which have advanced a variety of
      > discussions on this group. Yet none of us has ever uttered such
      > an arrogant sentence as you posted above.
      >
      >> If you want the thread to die, don't respond or as I have said,
      > start a topic of your own.
      >>If you can't stand it because Grant and Sherman aren't idolized
      > by all members of this group, well, that's the way it goes.
      >
      > Frankly I also find this insulting. You have numerous times
      > accused myself and others of idolatry of Sherman and Grant,
      > when we respond to negative characterizations of either man.
      > You really do NOT know me or my opinions well enough to make
      > such a statement and I find it insulting that you believe that you
      > can make such a statement with impunity.
      >
      >> Either deal with it or deal yourself out.
      >
      > Who died and left this group in your charge Bob? Since when do
      > you decide what threads I or anyone can respond to? You are
      > the one who has kept the thread alive.
      >
      >> Everyone has favourites. I've never said I hated Sherman or
      > Grant. They just had more books written about them.
      >>
      >
      > This is a totally irrelevant argument. You may not hate Sherman
      > or Grant, but there are posters, whom you support, who do.
      > Furthermore, if some of us choose to defend either of these men
      > it does not mean we idolize them. Again, such arrogance.
      >
      >> Anyway, Italy and Germany are still playing.
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> ----- Original Message ----
      >> From: Tom Mix <tmix@...>
      >> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      >> Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2006 4:23:22 PM
      >> Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas' orders
      >>
      >>
      >> What I'm talking about is how people take a fine discussion
      > and hijack it to
      >> their agenda of their personal dislike of Grant/Sherman as well
      > as their
      >> admiration of Thomas. I'm sure you know what I'm talking
      > about. It seems
      >> virtually every discussion devolves into this tired and over
      > played debate.
      >> It does no good to try to discuss a battle because it always
      > switches to how
      >> badly Thomas was allegedly treated by Grant/Sherman. Is this
      > all these
      >> people know about the Civil War? I don't think so but that is
      > their primary
      >> interest.
      >> At this point I don't even recall what the original topic was. It is
      > now how
      >> Grant/Sherman mistreated Thomas. As usual.
      >> By the way, did you mean "I will let you judge (for) yourself" or
      > am I am
      >> supposed to judge myself?
      >> Tom
      >>
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      >> Behalf Of hooperjwboro@...
      >> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:11 PM
      >> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      >> Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas' orders
      >>
      >> Tom, I have accused no one of being a lover or hater of any
      > particular CWW
      >> participant. You may check endless posts. No disrespect, I will
      > let you
      >> judge yourself.
      >>
      >> --
      >> Regards,
      >> Hooper
      >> -------------- Original message ----------------------
      >> From: "Tom Mix" <tmix@...>
      >> > I assume your "point" is that you prefer to divert a discussion
      > to
      >> personal
      >> > agendas of hate?
      >> > I think the hate speak is silly and should be taken to private
      > e-mails
      >> among
      >> > the hate club rather than try to hijack the real discussion.
      >> > Maybe I'm wrong.
      >> > Tom
      >> >
      >> > -----Original Message-----
      >> > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com]
      >> On
      >> > Behalf Of hooperjwboro@...
      >> > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 2:46 PM
      >> > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      >> > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas' orders
      >> >
      >> > Exactly my point
      >> > --
      >> > Regards,
      >> > Hooper
      >> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
      >> > From: "Tom Mix" <tmix@...>
      >> > > Hooper
      >> > > We want to discuss the issues of the Western Civil War not
      > a member's
      >> > > personal hatred of a specific individual or individuals.
      > Those are
      >> > personal
      >> > > issues of the individual member not of the group nor are
      > they germane to
      >> > the
      >> > > Civil War issues being discussed.
      >> > > Those attempts to hijack a valid discussion to their own
      > personal
      >> agendas
      >> > > are who we are referring to. And those can be accurately
      > described as
      >> > silly,
      >> > > unreasonable and impertinent to the discussion.
      >> > > It is proper to stay on the general topic and not spin off into
      > "I hate
      >> so
      >> > > and so because he lied, etc. etc." Or, so and so only
      > divided the
      >> troops
      >> > > this way because he hates Thomas, etc. etc. Those are
      > silly.
      >> > > Tom
      >> > >
      >> > > -----Original Message-----
      >> > > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com]
      >> > On
      >> > > Behalf Of hooperjwboro@...
      >> > > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 12:27 PM
      >> > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      >> > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas' orders
      >> > >
      >> > > "Houston, we have a problem"
      >> > >
      >> > > With all due respect Barry, the claim of silliness has
      > become a
      >> > > multi-tangent
      >> > > argument.
      >> > > I and others are debating and discussing the actions of
      > Sherman,
      >> Thomas
      >> > > ,Grant
      >> > > and Hoods' desicions and correspondence during the last
      > months of the
      >> war.
      >> > > Others are claiming SILLINESS in .... the debate
      >> > > the posts
      >> > > attacks on
      >> > > Sherman
      >> > > ( at
      >> > least
      >> > >
      >> > > Sherman knew what an
      >> > >
      >> > > attack was)
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > > attacking
      >> Hood
      >> > up
      >> > > hill
      >> > >
      >> > > Ridiculous to......theorize Sherman
      >> knew
      >> > > he
      >> > > would
      >> have
      >> > > minimal opposition
      >> > >
      >> > > SILLY to ....... discuss division
      >> > > of
      >> > > troops
      >> > >
      >> > > """""Participate""""""""
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > > I commend others who refrain from characterizing posts as
      > silly and
      >> > > ridiculous.
      >> > >
      >> > > It is ironic that the crowd who always interjects the words
      > hate, bash,
      >> > > silly and absurd continue to take part in the debate.
      >> > >
      >> > > --
      >> > > Regards,
      >> > > Hooper
      >> > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
      >> > > From: "bjer50010" <barry.jewell@...>
      >> > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "James W.
      > Durney"
      >> > > > <JWD2044@> wrote:
      >> > > > >
      >> > > > > Thank you for a historical and intellgent aummary of
      > events.
      >> > > > ISTM
      >> > > > > that you have marked "done" to all the silly postings we
      > have
      >> > > > been
      >> > > > > subjected to.
      >> > > > >
      >> > > > > Thank you
      >> > > > >
      >> > > > > James2044
      >> > > > >
      >> > > >
      >> > > > James,
      >> > > >
      >> > > > Thanks for the support. I just want to make it clear that I
      > think
      >> > > > there is much to criticize in how the entire situation was
      > handled.
      >> > > > But, the attacks on Sherman are just silly (to use Jim
      > Epperson's
      >> > > > choice of words). The fact is, both Sword and Daniel
      > indicate
      >> > > > that Thomas never made a protest at the time the troops
      > were
      >> > > > allocated to the various campaigns. In fact, he wrote at
      > least two
      >> > > > messages to Grant and Halleck indicating that he had
      > sufficient
      >> > > > troops for his assignment (and again, I will restate, his
      > original
      >> > > > assignment was not to take on Hood's army alone). I
      > also
      >> > > > reiterate the point, which JFE also made, that at the time
      > the
      >> > > > dispositions were made Sherman was still in contact
      > with
      >> > > > Hood's army and he didn't really know how he would
      > react to
      >> > > > Sherman marching towards Savannah. To suggest that
      >> > > > Sherman knew he would face no opposition, deep in
      > enemy
      >> > > > territory, is simply ridiculous.
      >> > > >
      >> > > > He became, with good reason IMHO, nervous towards
      > the end of
      >> > > > Nov. when Hood became more aggressive and when he
      >> > > > realized that Smith would be delayed. He also became
      > aware
      >> > > > that his cavalry was not in as good shape as he thought it
      > was,
      >> > > > but that was because Wilson had allowed Forrest to run
      > him
      >> > > > around TN. Strangely, while Forrest's men and horses
      > were as
      >> > > > run down as Wilson's, very few make mention of that fact.
      >> > > >
      >> > > > But much of the problem was the result of factors beyond
      > the
      >> > > > control of the various commanders; so blaming Sherman
      > just
      >> > > > seems overly simplistic to me.
      >> > > >
      >> > > > As for the orders to attack up ice covered hills, that's just
      >> > > > ridiculous. The series of messages between Grant and
      >> > > > Thomas was posted about a half year ago and they
      > clearly show
      >> > > > two men talking across each other not to each other.
      > Again,
      >> > > > there is much silliness in a simple-minded assertion that
      > Grant
      >> > > > ordered such an attack.
      >> > > >
      >> > > > It's really unfortunate that we cannot have a reasonable
      >> > > > discussion of the events between Atlanta falling and
      > Nashville
      >> > > > without the discussion being hijacked by the
      > Sherman-bashers.
      >> > > >
      >> > > > >
      >> > > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "bjer50010"
      >> > > > <barry.jewell@>
      >> > > > > wrote:
      >> > > > > >
      >> > > > > >
      >> > > > > > ISTM this entire thread is the usual Thomas
      > propaganda
      >> > > > being
      >> > > > > > spouted yet again. I suggest the pro-Thomas people
      > read
      >> > > > the
      >> > > > > > ORs to find out what Thomas' orders actually were;
      > because
      >> > > > not
      >> > > > > > a single poster has actually indicated what his orders
      > were.
      >> > > > > > Hint: his original orders were NOT to attack Hood. In
      > fact,
      >> > > > when
      >> > > > > > Sherman made his decision about which troops to
      > take with
      >> > > > him
      >> > > > > > he was still confronting Hood in GA and AL. Thomas
      > was
      >> > > > > > ordered to defend TN against Forrest, not Hood, and
      > another
      >> > > > > > part of his orders was to get ready for service the new
      >> > > > recruits
      >> > > > > > that Grant and Halleck had ordered to report to
      > Sherman's
      >> > > > > > department. So Thomas knew full well that he would
      > have a
      >> > > > > > large number of raw troops. Yet he never seems to
      > have
      >> > > > > > expressed any doubts about their quantity or qualtiy,
      > at the
      >> > > > time.
      >> > > > > >
      >> > > > > > When Sherman left he did not know where Hood
      > would go,
      >> > > > so
      >> > > > > > the argument about facing less opposition is
      > hindsight, not
      >> > > > what
      >> > > > > > was known at the time. Furthermore, as soon as
      > Smith
      >> > > > became
      >> > > > > > available (he was in MO helping to oppose Price's
      > raids)
      >> > > > after
      >> > > > > > the Battle of Westport MO, he was ordered to move to
      >> > > > Thomas'
      >> > > > > > command.
      >> > > > > >
      >> > > > > > In addition, there is no record of Thomas complaining
      > about
      >> > > > > > either the number or the quality of the troops left to
      > him by
      >> > > > > > Sherman, at the time. In fact, as late as Nov. 15 he
      > was
      >> > > > writing
      >> > > > > > to Grant and Halleck to say how well in hand the
      > situation
      >> > > > was in
      >> > > > > > TN and that he had sufficient troops to carry out his
      >> > > > assignment.
      >> > > > > > He even pointed out that he could spare more cavalry
      > to
      >> > > > > > Sherman if he needed it (this one is particularly
      > interesting
      >> > > > > > because of his later complaints about lack of cavalry
      > delaying
      >> > > > his
      >> > > > > > attack on Hood). All of this is in Sword's book on the
      >> > > > Nashville
      >> > > > > > campaign.
      >> > > > > >
      >> > > > > > The messages described by Sword hardly sound like
      > a man
      >> > > > > > who thinks he got the short end of the stick as some
      > are
      >> > > > trying to
      >> > > > > > argue. Thomas didn't start showing real concern until
      > late in
      >> > > > > > Nov. when Smith was late arriving and Hood was
      > becoming
      >> > > > > > much more aggressive. The reasons for Smith's
      > delay are
      >> > > > > > numerous, but have very little to do with Sherman or
      > Grant.
      >> > > > They
      >> > > > > > include bad weather, poor communications, poor
      >> > > > transportation,
      >> > > > > > and a lack of urgency from Thomas (strangely this
      > one is
      >> > > > never
      >> > > > > > mentioned although the same people who complain
      > about
      >> > > > > > Sherman seem to be the ones who complain about
      > Grant
      >> > > > not
      >> > > > > > showing urgency when writing to Buell before Shiloh).
      >> > > > > >
      >> > > > > > JB Jewell
      >> > > > > >
      >> > > > >
      >> > > >
      >> > > >
      >> > > >
      >> > > >
      >> > > >
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> > >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >