Re: SCG epilogue
--- 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.
Villa Hills, KY
- 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
--- 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
> >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
> >hard to make sense of it without going back and starting over.
> 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
> 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
> new to the discussion, or summarizes the conflicting views much as
> have done. Based on the subtitle, he may be more sympathetic to
> "The conventional account of the opening of the
> 1864 Georgia Campaign is that William T. Sherman
> swiftly bamboozled Joseph E. Johnston. There is another
> Do you, by chance, subscribe to and keep back issues of "North &