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

45675Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

Expand Messages
  • Tony Gunter
    Jul 15, 2008
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Finished the book "Black Jack: John A. Logan and Southern Illinois
      in
      > the Civil War Era" I Recommend it.
      >
      > The author discusses whether Logan was unjustly passed over as a
      > replacement for McPherson when he was KIA. Interestingly, he gave
      > Sherman's views on what he didnt like about "political generals."
      > Seems that there is more to it than unthinking prejudice. I
      > loaned the book to someone, so can't quote from it, but
      > basically Sherman just felt that these guys typically just weren't
      > full time. He was especially resentful when they would go
      > home to campaign for reelection just as things were critical
      > in the field.

      From the moment he picked up a musket and fought as a citizen at
      First Bull Run, Logan was sold on military life. He loved being in
      the field and would have remained in the field. It was only a direct
      request from the POTUS himself that sent Logan home to campaign.

      I think there's a lot of smoke and misdirection when it comes to
      Sherman's decision ... didn't Sherman blame it on Thomas? Another
      Sherman correspondence, IIRC, claimed that Logan didn't pay close
      enough attention to logistics. I'm not sure I have ever seen an
      analysis that supports any of these assertions sufficiently.

      Just my opinion, I believe Logan was mentored by the best in the
      business (McPherson) and deserved a shot at army command.
    • Show all 28 messages in this topic