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

Re: SCG epilogue

Expand Messages
  • bjer50010
    ... always ... same time, ... wanted to go ... have is that ... but Sherman ... heavily on ... any ... Sherman s ... heaviest at ... would do the ...
    Message 1 of 179 , May 1 1:24 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@y..., FLYNSWEDE@A... wrote:
      > Hello bjewell@i...,
      >
      > In reference to your comment:
      >
      > è Do you happen to know if they were still on good
      > è terms at the time of SCG?  Certainly Grant had shown
      > è that he preferred Sherman over Thomas, when he went
      > è east, but did that have any lasting effect on the
      > è relationship between the two men?  ISTM that the
      > è various present day camps make a big deal of the
      > è difference between the strategy proposed by Thomas
      > è and that adopted by Sherman, but I wonder whether
      > è the two men themselves felt the same sort of
      > è animosity?  Or did they just see it as a minor
      > è disagreement, or even as a disagreement?  Or did
      > è Thomas see his proposal as just something to throw
      > è out onto the table for discussion? J.B. Jewell
      >
      > They did remain friends until the day that Thomas died. I do not
      always
      > agree with my wife nor does she always agree with me, but at the
      same time,
      > we stay in love with each other. I keep on hearing that Thomas
      wanted to go
      > forward to SCG instead of Mac, and yet the documentation that I
      have is that
      > Thomas offered to strengthen Mac's force with some of his troops,
      but Sherman
      > vetoed the offer. All during the Atlanta campaign, Sherman relied
      heavily on
      > Thomas since he had the largest force, and nary a time have I heard
      any
      > documented report about Thomas being slow to act or to follow out
      Sherman's
      > orders. Sad to say, it was Thomas's troops that suffered the
      heaviest at
      > Kennesaw Mountain. Sherman knew that Thomas was dependable and
      would do the
      > job assigned to him. I personally do not believe that they
      considered the
      > job of ultimate commander as a race, competition, or as a condition
      of
      > personal bias. If Thomas had been selected, Sherman would have
      worked with
      > him to the best of his ability like he did with Grant, and as it
      has been
      > shown, Thomas did the same thing after Sherman was selected. To
      me, the
      > pitting of one against the other as we are doing so often, is
      nothing but
      > pure speculative BS.
      >
      > Wayne

      Hello Wayne,

      Thank you for your comments. I haven't read that much on the Atlanta
      campaign, that's next on my list. It's time to raid the University
      library again and stock up for the next year, so I should make some
      headway.

      I remembered reading a comment somewhere about how close Thomas and
      Sherman were but didn't know if it had survived that late into the
      war or not. Apparently it did. I agree with the assertion, from
      what I know of the campaign, that Thomas served Sherman well. It
      does seem to be ironic that their present day champions don't get
      along as well as the men themselves.

      Best wishes,
      J.B. Jewell
    • 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 4:04 PM
      • 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.