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

45669RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

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

      No problem. Free discussion of topics should always be welcome.  And it is a good question and subject. 

      Tom

       

      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chadd Vail
      Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:52 PM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroupscom
      Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

       

      Thanks 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@insightbb. com> wrote:

      > From: Tom Mix <tmix@insightbb. com>
      > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?
      > To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. 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
      > 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.
      >
      > Tom
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
      > [mailto:civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com]
      On
      > Behalf Of guitarmandanga
      > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 9:40 AM
      > To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
      > 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@
      > <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
      > 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@
      > <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
      > 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