45675Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?
- Jul 15, 2008--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
> Finished the book "Black Jack: John A. Logan and Southern Illinois
> the Civil War Era" I Recommend it.From the moment he picked up a musket and fought as a citizen at
> 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.
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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>