Re: Dear Wayne- I respectfully disagree
- Sherman's Battle for Atlanta by Gen Jacob Cox I feel is head and shoulders above
Castel or McMurrys books,plus ,he was there.
I felt when I read McMurrys book that he wrote in a style so as not
to contradict Castel,that was my take on his work,I found the only thing new was his trying to clean up Hoods Reputation.Wich I think is laughable
Autors I feel tryed and true Bruce Catton,McPherson,Neville,I
think a lot of modern writers have to sell books,so they write some revisionist
scribbling,because they can't just write what all those before have wrote,or who would buy there books,I feel McMurrys and Castels both fall into that
type of book. The Baron
PS But than as often stated I could be wrong
In civilwarwest@y..., "aot1952" <wakefield1952@m...> wrote:
> And please pray tell prior to Castle's and McMurry's which books have
> focused solely on these campaigns and what books and authors do you
> consider the tried and true? I am not aware of many non-contempory
> participant books that foccused on these battles and campaigns.
> Further I guess it is just me, but you have been asked by others in
> the past to provide some substantive evidence to support your
> condemnation of Castel's book and I for one am still anxiously
> waiting to hearing the evidence.
> Once again, no offense intended but calling someone a "suck up" is
> argument not evidence.
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., "melchizedek22" <richthofen@b...> wrote:
> > I respectively disagree with your disagreement,I found
> > McMurrys Atlanta book,one a kiss up to Castel,probably because he
> > used his maps
> > and two he painted Hood with a over positive brush,Hood lost
> > big and all the sugarcoating in the world can't change that simple
> > so many of these new books ,put a spin on history that takes it
> away from reality
> > give me the tryed and true authors,I like the older books that have
> stood the test of time. The Baron
> > -- In civilwarwest@y..., "aot1952" <wakefield1952@m...> wrote:
> > > Dear Wayne-
> > > I hope you will not take me as being inappropriately disagreeable
> > > I really do respectfully disagree regarding your criticisms of
> > > Richard McMurry.
> > > My view of his work is clearly different from yours in that I
> > > that he has done a wonderful job of looking behind the generally
> > > accepted and somewhat dubious 'simple' story of the North Georgia
> > > Atlanta Campaign and has successfully forced people to take a new
> > > more in depth view of the events and personages. In addition I do
> > > see him as quite so tough on Joe Johnston as he is supportive of
> > > Bell Hood.
> > > First I think that McMurry has done a pretty darn good and ground
> > > breaking job of dispelling the widely held notion that Sam
> Watkins in
> > > his widely read and very entertaining book "Company Atch" (sp.?)
> > > spoke for all the enlisted men of the AoT, regarding their widely
> > > held dislike of Hood and bewilderment at his replacement of Joe
> > > Johnston. A careful review of McMurry's footnotes and sources
> > > certainly convinced me that in many units of the AoT Hood's
> > > to command was in fact well received. He has also seemed to find
> > > real evidence for his notion that some in the AoT had become very
> > > disenchanted with Johnston failure to make some more aggressive
> > > attempts to stop Sherman's movement southward.
> > > Also I believe that McMurry and now Davis have done a pretty
> > > creditable job of challenging the reliability and creditability
> > > Johnston's post-war writings regarding the inappropriateness and
> > > unjustness of his being relieved. In short, I think that these
> > > have in fact done a creditable job of challenging conventional
> > > wisdom. I like you feel that at times, they both, McMurry and now
> > > Davis, have unfairly ignored Johnston's considerable
> contributions (
> > > see my prior posting) but this does not mean that they have
> failed to
> > > make some very legitimate points regarding the extreme passive
> > > noncommunicative nature of Johnston's defensive campaign from May
> > > July 1864.
> > > However I do sincerely feel that McMurry's greatest contribution
> > > been to make many people take a second REAL look at Hood's
> > > generalship around Atlanta. To me, this has been the single most
> > > significant shift in Civil War Military History scholarship of
> > > the last 20 years. McMurry I think makes a pretty darn compelling
> > > presentation that Hood was NOT the wide-eyed wild senseless
> > > around Atlanta that history had heretofore generally viewed him.
> > > Battle of Peachtree Creek was a well conceived but poorly
> > > plan. Hood should be blamed for some of these lacks of execution
> > > the execution but it seems that William Hardee in fact may have
> > > the primary cause for the lack of greater success. I mean it was
> > > until McMurry told me I had failed to focus in on the pains Hood
> > > taken to explain to all officers involved the plan and their
> > > It was also not until McMurry laid it out for me that I fully
> > > understood that Hardee had been placed in overall tactical
> command of
> > > the operation. Further, McMurry has made it rather clear to me
> > > it is darn hard to blame Hood for all the delay caused by
> > > excessive sliding toward the left, that is usually cited as a
> > > cause for the poor timing of the initial assaults. Finally, I
> > > that McMurry and others have been very convincing at least to me,
> > > that Hood's Peachtree Creek plan was in essence the same plan
> > > Joe Johnston in his post war writing claimed was the great
> > > stroke he was hatching at the very moment of his 'untimely'
> > > from command. This being the case, how can Hood's first sortie be
> > > seen as the mad, ill-conceived blood letting it had previously
> > > generally accepted to have been?
> > > Next, I think that McMurry's treatment of Hood's Second Sortie,
> > > as the Battle of Atlanta, has been instructive and has also been
> > > helpful in re-evaluating Hood's leadership and planning. A plan
> > > called for too much marching and too much coordination between
> > > BUT a plan that truly but for dumb luck may have been the closest
> > > that the AoT ever came to delivering to Sherman a truly
> > > and perhaps campaign altering defeat. By the way you can
> > > define 'luck' in many ways but in this instance where a Union
> > > is right smack where it needs to be and in fact where it has been
> > > ordered NOT to be is just plain dumb bad luck! (Just imagine
> > > Jackson's great flank march @ Chancellorsville with say the Union
> > > Second Corps totally out of place and just sitting behind
> > > exposed flank.) Although the Battle Plan suffered from bad luck
> > > excessive coordination requirements it met with much localized
> > > successes and these coupled with Sherman's rather mystifying
> lack of
> > > response certainly indicate that Hood's plan had real merit.
> > > Finally for me at least it was McMurry who I think finally
> > > the screw up at Ezra Church. How this failure could have ever
> > > justly laid at Hood's door truly is amazing.
> > > In sum, I really applaud McMurray for his work's making many of
> > > really take a second I honestly believe more informed look at
> > > Army command tenure around Atlanta.
> > > I have gone on way too long and I hope that you do not consider
> > > respectful disagreement with you too confrontational.
> > > Regards-
> > > WAKEFIELD