45667RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?
- Jul 12, 2008
What you say is pretty spot on. Slocum did a commendable job at C’ville but detested Hooker for a variety of reasons of which only some involved Chancellorsville. A lot of personal conduct behaviors troubled Slocum plus he felt Hooker stabbed McClellan in the back to get Mac removed in favor of Burnside and later in favor of himself.
Another reason for the promotion to replace Hooker in the west was that Slocum earned it. Prior to his arrival in Vicksburg if was rife with corruption and Emancipation issues that Slocum cleaned up to the best of his ability given the situation and the limited time he was there. The crooks were glad to see him leave.
As I mentioned earlier, Slocum did an excellent job when he commanded the new army/wing for Sherman.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of guitarmandanga
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 9:40 AM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?
As far as I know, Hooker didn't blame Slocum for the outcome of
Chancellorsville as much as he blamed Howard (whom he considered to
be largely responsible for it). For his part though, Slocum
detested Hooker for seemingly slaughtering the XII Corps at C'ville
with little to show for it, and then abandoning the campaign. The
rancor on Slocum's part ran so deep that when the XII Corps was sent
with the XI Corps to help out at Chattanooga under Hooker's overall
commander, Slocum requested to be reassigned. So the War Department
promptly placed him in command of the Vicksburg garrison &
environs. It was only after Hooker resigned in protest over
Howard's promotion that Slocum was tapped to take command of
Hooker's XX Corps. More than likely that choice was based on the
fact that the XX Corps was in part composed of Slocum's former
command (the XI Corps) anyway, and he would have been the most
senior general in the immediate area. Of course, the fact that
Slocum was Hooker's enemy could be those who wanted to see it as yet
another slap in Hooker's face by Sherman & the War Department, one
last rubbing of salt in the wounds as it were.
--- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, Jason <jvt1976@... > wrote:
>or am I getting my facts screwed up?
> Wasn't Hooker pissed off about Slocum getting a command as well,
> ----- 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
>each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that one lols.
> 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
>Hooker would have stayed in the war.
> And I agree I think if Logan might have been give command of AOT,
> Hooker got mad because Howard, a regular officer like him, was
> command of the AotT, yet he'd been OK with a non-professionalvolunteer
> being placed in command in his place? I doubt it.commanded an army
> Probably would have made him much more upset. Bottom line is
> that he was the senior of Sherman's corps commanders and had
> once before. Logan would have made him just as mad, if notscene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!
> Sam Elliott
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>