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

46900Re: Retreat and Fall Back

Expand Messages
  • hank9174
    Dec 27, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Of course, in Schofield's mind (and his men) there is no withdrawal or fall back.

      Nashville is his destination from the beginning of the move from Atlanta.

      Thomas considers moving forward to Brentwood but decides to wait for Smith's divisions and remains concentrated at Nashville - especially with Forrest's whereabouts unknown.

      A number of garrisons at Chattanooga and northern Alabama are also ordered to concentrate toward Murfreesboro. These units had been placed to provide early warning and delay of such a move as Hood's. Once the move is discovered and well-developed, their mission is over md they are free to be re-deployed. Whether the new move is backward, forward or sideways is situation dependent.


      HankC

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, William Nolan <sixtxcavrgtcsa@...> wrote:
      >
      > To me a Strategic Withdrawal is a planned moved that removes a unit from contact
      > for another purpose.
      >
      > Thomas fell back to Nashville as a planned move. He had no idea that Hood had
      > lost 6 generals, only that he had lost a lot of men. It was still possible that
      > he could have been breeched, so he moved to a superior position. I am not
      > as knowledgeable of the details of the battle. I had walked the battlefield,
      > Canton Plantation and Nashville. Forrest had Cavalry doing diversion actions in
      > Murfreesboro and north of Nashville. Cavalry was thin, but it could have been
      > better used than the Infantry was abused. Nashville was well fortified and
      > would have required probably twice Hood's force to even attempt to take it. A
      > sick defeated Hood tried, anyway.
      >
      > I would like to have seen the terrain in 1864. Today it is extremely forested
      > and hilly. Without the overgrowth it may have seemed more obtainable. The
      > Franklin position was good but not near as good as Nashville. The Union
      > positions were very tight. There defense was good because there were not gaps.
      > At Corinth Rosecran almost lost because the Confederates breeched his line.
      > Only spontaneous counter attacks and lack of reinforcement by Van Dorn save him.
      > At Franklin, the Confederate line seems to have lost men all across the front.
      > The cemetery at Canton looks like units on line by State. I went from there to
      > the National Cemetery in Nashville. Much harder to find the Union dead and
      > those Confederates who died there.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...>
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 5:47:14 AM
      > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back
      >
      >
      > What is a "strategic withdrawal"? The battle is over, the enemy is routed.
      > What does any army victorous army do in those circumstances. It leaves the
      > battlefield. It isn't a "strategic withdrawl:". They just left.
      >
      >
      > Wow, and you are willing to stipulate that Thomas did not retreat. Good on
      > you. I'm sure that must be the Christmas spirit.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Bob Huddleston <huddleston.r@...>
      > To: Civil War West <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 10:31:53 PM
      > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back
      >
      > Having done some reading in sources ranging from an 1868 campaign
      > biography of USG to Brooks Simpson, it does appear that Grant never
      > retreated, especially after the Holly Springs raid..... :>)
      >
      > So I am willing to stipulate that Pap Thomas did not retreat after Mill
      > Springs. He did fall back, make a strategic withdrawal, etc. What he did
      > not do was pursue the Rebels. Double :>)
      >
      > Take care,
      >
      > Bob
      >
      > Judy and Bob Huddleston
      > 10643 Sperry Street
      > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
      > Huddleston.r@...
      >
      > “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
      > fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
      > belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
      > Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.
      >
      > On 12/21/2010 2:13 PM, keeno2@... wrote:
      > > Agreed that it's semantics, Patricia. One might fall back to
      > > consolidate. One might run like a rabbit and call it a strategic withdrawal.
      > > In my limited memory, the Holly Springs episode was the only time Grant
      > > ever "retreated."
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Patricia Swan <pbswan@...>
      > > To: civilwarwest <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 2:50 pm
      > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Retreat and Fall Back
      > >
      > > It may all be a matter of semantics, but it seems to me that this being
      > > the anniversary of Confederate General Earl Van Dorn's raid on Grant's
      > > supply base at Holly Springs, it might be a timely illustration. After
      > > the raid, Grant could no longer sustain his troops, his supplies at
      > > Holly Springs having been largely destroyed and the railroad down to
      > > Mississippi having been disrupted. One could say, and some do write,
      > > that Grant retreated. Others say that he was "forced to fall back" to
      > > Tennessee. Do these terms apply equally well to what Grant did, or is
      > > one or the other more apt?
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
    • Show all 30 messages in this topic