45668RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?
- Jul 12 5:51 PMThanks for the information, this sheds some light for me on the Hooker Issue in the Altanta and Savannah Campaign. I totally appoligize for stealing the thunder from the original post which delt with Logan.
Chadd M. Vail
--- On Sat, 7/12/08, Tom Mix <tmix@...> wrote:
> From: Tom Mix <tmix@...>
> Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?
> To: email@example.com
> Date: Saturday, July 12, 2008, 6:56 PM
> 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
> 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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On
> Behalf Of guitarmandanga
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 9:40 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher
> 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
> 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
> 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
> command (the XI Corps) anyway, and he would have been the
> senior general in the immediate area. Of course, the fact
> 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:
> > 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@
> > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:00:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for
> > 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
> > 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
> > madder.
> > Sam Elliott
> > ________________________________
> > Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and
> the live music
> scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>