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

Re: SCG epilogue

Expand Messages
  • josepharose
    ... the back, ... know, but ... little ... manner ... positive in his ... Sherman s ... transferred to the ... I think that another officer, maybe Anderson,
    Message 1 of 179 , May 1 7:24 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > I don't think that calling Thomas is an A no 1 man is stabbing in
      the back,
      > nor is describing him cool and reliable. Never brilliant - don't
      know, but
      > could this refer to his classroom expertise while at the point. A
      little
      > slow - perhaps, but was he one to rush to judgement or to act in a
      manner
      > that was irrational. No All in all, I believe he was mostly
      positive in his
      > description of Thomas to his brother John. BTW it was on
      Sherman's
      > suggestion to his brother that Thomas be promoted and be
      transferred to the
      > Dept of Kentucky with him in August of 1861.
      >
      > Wayne


      I think that another officer, maybe Anderson, also recommended that
      Thomas be promoted.

      What is intersting is that Thomas, a full colonel in the regular
      army, who had served in the Valley with some distinction, was about
      to be passed over for promotion while large numbers of colonels who
      failed at Bull Run or who hadn't even seen real action were made
      generals. Even then, Thomas' name was kept well down the list.

      Joseph
    • 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.