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

Re: Sherman's Insubordination at Chattanooga

Expand Messages
  • bjer50010
    ... fresh ... units ... And again, where do you suggest that Sherman use these troops to make this assault? ... So the accounts of men who were actually there
    Message 1 of 267 , Aug 1 6:42 AM
      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "josepharose" <josepharose@y...> wrote:
      > Mr. Jewell:
      > On the hills opposite Tunnel Hill, Sherman had, it seems three
      > brigades. Cockerill's suffered three men wounded, Alexander's four
      > wounded, and Lightburn's had ten killed and 76 wounded. These
      > were in position to attack in short order.
      > They didn't.

      And again, where do you suggest that Sherman use these troops to make
      this assault?

      > The reports of two regiments are not always to be trusted over the
      > research of historians who have gathered evidence from all sides.

      So the accounts of men who were actually there mean nothing? My
      point wasn't to show that only two regiments were engaged all day,
      but to indicate that accounts from two regiments suggest that the
      fighting was heavier and the task facing Sherman more difficult than
      you give him credit for. From the descriptions of the ground posted
      here by others ISTM that the position was a difficult one against
      which to mass troops for an assault; hence my insistence on upplaying
      Cleburne's contribution to Sherman's failure. Given the problems
      confronting Sherman it would not have mattered how many troops he
      massed, he only had a limited front over which he could attack. You
      have called Grant a "butcher" for doing exactly what you now propose
      Sherman should have done. The two accounts also descibe how slippery
      and steep the ground, which added to the fine defensive position
      assumed by Cleburne indicates how daunting Sherman's task was.

      > To be sure, we should be careful on how we accept the writings of
      > certain soldiers; Hugh Ewing actually wrote that he, in effect,
      > captured Tunnel Hill ("On the 25th, Corse led his brigade down the
      > gorge and up Tunnel Hill, assaulting and carrying it with great
      > gallantry. We drove the enemy from his entire intrenchments, and
      > reduced the larger part to possession." and "[Loomis] was ably
      > supported by Buschbeck, a portion of whose troops, under Colonel
      > Taft, drove the enemy from the Glass' houses and followed them to
      > the summit of Tunnel Hill, where they maintained a gallant and
      > prolonged combat, with the loss of their gallant commander.")

      All of which shows nothing. Of course there are going to be accounts
      that are self-serving and outright fabrications. But the two to
      which I referred fought side-by-side for much of the war, they were
      heavily engaged at Chattanooga and there accounts support each
      other. The 6th IA account does not say they broke through or take
      undue credit. It merely points out that after the initial attacks
      failed that the fighting became a series of thrusts and
      counterthrusts and that they were heavily engaged all day. So if
      Grant or Sherman says that Sherman was heavily engaged all day, it is
      not a lie, at least part of Sherman's force was.

      I will also point out that the 6th IA historian was not above
      criticizing Sherman for mistakes, eg. Kennesaw Mt., but he did not
      find fault with Sherman's performance at Chattanooga.

      > Of course, Cozzens makes mistakes. They are, in general, not major
      > and he doesn't tend to play favorites. Ewing made major
      > misstatements and they are truly self-serving.

      Cozzens most certainly does play favorites. He takes every
      opportunity to place both Grant and Sherman in a bad light, esp. the
      latter. The biases in his writings have been addressed by several
      posters on this group.

      > Joseph
      JB Jewell

      > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:
      > > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "wh_keene" <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
      > > > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
      > > > > Sherman was *not* heavily engaged all day. Please refer to
      > > > Cozzens,
      > > > > Sword, McDonough, or any other responsible writer.
      > > >
      > > > Now your demeaning the bravery of Cleburne's men and the units
      > of
      > > > other divisions he had gathered there.
      > > >
      > > > Cozzens as a responsilbe writer? I don't think so.
      > > >
      > > > > Because I state that fact,
      > > >
      > >
      > > Two regimental accounts, the 40th IL and the 6th IA, of Sherman's
      > > command talk about the ferocity of the fire fight in which they
      > were
      > > engaged all day. Either they are lying or Cozzens got it wrong.
      > I
      > > hope you are not trying to make the argument that a 20th century
      > > writer is more knowledgeable of the events on Sherman's front
      > > the participants.
      > >
      > > > It is noit a fact, it is your opinion.
      > > >
      > > > > Even if, upon receiving Grant's order after Thomas' troops
      > > carried
      > > > > the ridge, Sherman put together another attack no stronger
      > than
      > > the
      > > > > one he had commanded earlier that day, the results could have
      > > been
      > > > > significant.
      > > >
      > > > General Rose's speculation.
      > > >
      > >
      > > And again, where was Sherman's attack to be launched? Give
      > to
      > > Cleburne and his men for seizing good defensive ground and
      > stopping
      > > cold a superior force. Grant's orders obviously show that he was
      > > unaware of how completely Sherman had been stopped.
      > >
      > > >
      > > > > With their rear and flank in peril, the Confederate right
      > > > might
      > > > > not have hung on so hard, as well. Any attack would have
      > it
      > > > > harder for Cleburne to have accomplished what he did in
      > sealing
      > > off
      > > > > the advance along the ridge and in forming a rearguard.
      > > >
      > > > General Rose's speculation.
      > >
      > > Since Sherman's troops were engaged in a heavy fire fight with
      > > Cleburne's all day, until after sundown, ie. after the center and
      > > right flanks of Bragg's army had been overwhelmed, it is
      > reasonable
      > > to assume that Cleburne's men were engaged with Sherman all day.
      > > Therefore they could not pull out as easily as you seem to
      > > You still have not provided a reasonable scenario for how Sherman
      > was
      > > going to launch this attack.
      > >
      > > JB Jewell
    • Aurelie1999@aol.com
      In a message dated 8/8/02 4:25:02 PM, josepharose@yahoo.com writes:
      Message 267 of 267 , Aug 8 3:45 PM
        In a message dated 8/8/02 4:25:02 PM, josepharose@... writes:

        << Now, which of the two men, Wood or Grant, had been bending the truth
        (if not breaking it)? I think that the evidence heavily points to
        Grant. Because I think that he did so, I question his integrity,
        here and elsewhere. >>

        Mr. Rose,

        It appears to me that you cherry pick data to support your presumption that
        Grant was a worthless fool. Grant's contemporaries - even enemies - praised
        his integrity to the max. So how come that by standing in the dim hindsight
        of 150 years you are able to see what they did not see?

        Finally please explain why Thomas is incapable of standing on his own merit
        and can only be praised by faulting Grant?

        Connie Boone
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.