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

Re: SCG epilogue

Expand Messages
  • dmsmith001
    ... snip, to make a point ... I, too, agree that the Grant/Thomas relationship was among the more unfortunate of the war, ranking with, IMO, that of Jefferson
    Message 1 of 179 , Apr 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:

      snip, to make a point
      >
      > And again I agree with you. I personally think Thomas should have
      > been given more leeway in how he handled his army at Nashville and
      > should have gotten more support than he did get. However, I think
      > that was not going to happen given the rather poor relationship
      > between Grant and Thomas. IMHO that was one of the unfortunate
      > circumstances of the war.

      I, too, agree that the Grant/Thomas relationship was among the more
      unfortunate of the war, ranking with, IMO, that of Jefferson Davis
      and Joseph E. Johnston.

      That said, however, I have to approach this whole issue from this
      perspective: in the final analysis, on whom is the burden the
      greatest towards making a relationship work? IMHO, it's on the
      subordinate - that's why the other guy is the *boss.*

      I'll give that Grant, as commander, didn't make things easy on
      Thomas. But Thomas certainly did not do everything in his power to
      make himself an ideal subordinate.

      Dave

      Dave Smith
      Villa Hills, KY
    • wh_keene
      Hi Dave. I never have subscribed to it though I have picked up occassional issues at the bookstore when the lead story grabs me. I know of a used bookstore
      Message 179 of 179 , May 16, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Dave.

        I never have subscribed to it though I have picked up occassional
        issues at the bookstore when the lead story grabs me. I know of a
        used bookstore that stocks old issues--will look for the one you
        mentioned

        --- In civilwarwest@y..., David Woodbury <woodbury@s...> wrote:
        > At 9:18 PM +0000 4/30/02, wh_keene wrote:
        > >I agree that our discussion was "getting a tad unwieldy." My work
        > >situation has changed, so I haven't been able to follow this board
        as
        > >closely as I used to. Only today could I catch up. The thread had
        > >become so unwieldy that it seemed to have become about what I said
        > >about what you said about what I said about what you said and it
        was
        > >hard to make sense of it without going back and starting over.
        >
        > Will,
        >
        > Haven't been able to keep up with the discussions lately -- things
        > like work, classes, Giants baseball, two small children, and the
        > opening of the trout season all combined to push Snake Creek Gap
        far
        > into the background. I did want to say, however, that I wasn't
        > ignoring your last missive on the subject.
        >
        > I've subsequently come across the March 2001 issue of "North &
        > South," with Steven H. Newton's article, "What Really Happened at
        > Snake Creek Gap?" I've just started through it, and will try to
        > convey the main points here. I'm curious to see if he brings
        anything
        > new to the discussion, or summarizes the conflicting views much as
        we
        > have done. Based on the subtitle, he may be more sympathetic to
        your
        > view:
        >
        > "The conventional account of the opening of the
        > 1864 Georgia Campaign is that William T. Sherman
        > swiftly bamboozled Joseph E. Johnston. There is another
        > interpretation."
        >
        > Do you, by chance, subscribe to and keep back issues of "North &
        South"?
        >
        > David
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.