Re: SCG epilogue
- I can site,Halleck,Grant William Warner,all saying Thomas was slow,maybe,just maybe,Thomas was slow! And everybody could see it. The Baron
In civilwarwest@y..., "dmercado" <dmercado@w...> wrote:
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:
> >Certainly Grant had shown that he preferred Sherman over Thomas,
> >when he went east, but did that have any lasting effect on the
> >relationship between the two men?
> Certainly Thomas was disappointed by Grant's decision, as he felt
> he had done more on the battlefield than Sherman and was the senior
> Major General to boot. These were the ways command was given by the
> old regular army protocol, but the regulations about such things had
> changed during the Civil War. And by this date in the war, he was
> well aware that without any congressional sponsorship (all the
> Virginia senators, after all, were now Confederates), he was destined
> to play second fiddle to the men of Ohio. He therefore resolved to
> soldier-on without complaint and do his utmost to help win the war.
> He served Sherman very well.
> Thomas had carefully thought out the best way to steal a march on Joe
> Johnston when his scouts first informed him that SCG was not defended
> in February. He tried his best to convince Sherman during a planning
> meeting in April, but Sherman decided to use the Army of the
> Tennessee (his old command) for the attack rather than Thomas'
> Army of the Cumberland with its well-equipped cavalry. When Sherman
> botched SCG, Thomas never even hinted at the issue in his official
> Sherman was a complex man who had great strategic vision, but was not
> above backstabbing his subordinate officers. Here is what he once
> said about Thomas in a private letter to General Grant:
> "I know full well that Gen. Thomas is slow in mind and in
> (Letter to Grant 12/16/1864 from Savannah and later published in
> Sherman's Memoirs).
> Maybe Sherman really thought Thomas was slow in starting his
> campaigns compared to him, but what was he trying to imply to Grant
> by this `slow in mind' comment?
> Sherman wrote this before he found out about Thomas' great
> victory at Nashville; afterwards he sent a friendly letter to Thomas
> saying he had all the confidence in the world in him. Weird guy.
> Best regards, Dave
- 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 &