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

45666RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

Expand Messages
  • Tom Mix
    Jul 12, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      You are more than welcome.  I hope it helps.

      I actually wrote it and sent it on the 10th. It must have got held up some where.



      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason van Teylingen
      Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 1:33 PM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroupscom
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?


      thanks for the explanation

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Tom Mix <tmix@insightbb. com>
      To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:00:30 PM
      Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

      No, you are partially correct but it was Slocum who refused to server under Hooker.  He simply despised the man.  Hooker could tolerate Slocum but would never serve under him. Hooker had to learn to tolerate those who resented him since it was such a large club.  But his animosity toward Howard was justified as Howard had failed to bolster, heck, even make an effort, to build up a defensive position on the right flank of the Union Army at Chancellorsville.  Slocumʼs animosity toward Hooker was just as justifiable. 

      To pacify Slocum and keep him from resigning rather than server under Hooker, he was given command of the Vicksburg occupation and supply base where he was exceptional. Once Hooker left the army prior to Atlanta falling, Sherman quickly moved Slocum in where he rose to be Hookerʼs number 2 man.  It was Slocum who first received the surrender of Atlanta and forwarded it on to Shermanʼs HQ and it was Slocum who was the first Union force to enter Atlanta. Just after Atlanta Sherman divided his army into 2 separate armyʼs, confirmed by D.C. and used them as 2 independent wings under Shermanʼs command. Slocum had one and Howard the other and Slocum performed excellently throughout the march to the sea and the fighting in the Carolinaʼs.  



      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwes t@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Jason
      Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:22 PM
      To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroupscom
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?


      Wasn't Hooker pissed off about Slocum getting a command as well, or am I getting my facts screwed up?

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: "SDE80@..." <SDE80@...>
      To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:00:21 PM
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

      In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cvail19@yahoo. com writes:

      Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to eye with each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that one lols.

      And I agree I think if Logan might have been give command of AOT, Hooker would have stayed in the war.


      Hooker got mad because Howard, a regular officer like him, was placed in command of the AotT, yet  he'd been OK with a non-professional volunteer being placed in command in his place?    I doubt it.   Probably would have made him much more upset.    Bottom line is that he was the senior of Sherman's corps commanders and had commanded an army once before.   Logan would have made him just as mad, if not madder.


      Sam Elliott


      Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!

    • Show all 28 messages in this topic