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

Re: SCG epilogue

Expand Messages
  • melchizedek22
    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
    Message 1 of 179 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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?
      >
      > J.B.,
      > 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
      > report.
      >
      > 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
      > action..."
      > (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
    • 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.