Re: Grant's lies about Chattanooga
- --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., "josepharose" <josepharose@y...> wrote:support
> > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:
> > >
> So your argument is that Grant ordered Hooker to send most of his
> force up Lookout Mt. in some strange strategic move, but Thomas, on
> his on initiative, orders him to move instead to Rossville to
> Thomas's right flank? Where would he get the authority to dothat?
> That totally changes the intent of Grant's supposed order.Obviously
> Grant and Thomas changed Hooker's orders sometime before themorning
> assaults were to begin. Thomas did not have that authority to doa
> that on his own. Reread the passage from Cozzens that I posted in
> previous discussion and even he writes that Thomas had to get GrantI'm sorry to reply to my own post, but I forgot that the quote to
> to agree to the changed battle plan.
which I referred was in a different forum. I am repeating it below.
"Hooker was dismayed but determined to push on. Once again fate had
handed him a chance to play a prominent role in the battle. As
earlier related, Sherman's delay in getting underway against Tunnel
Hill had convinced Grant acquiesce in Thomas's desire to send Hooker
against Bragg's left. To recapitulate, Thomas was absolutely
convinced that both of the enemy's flanks must be crushed before he
dare send his AotC - reduced by detachments to Sherman and Hooker to
slightly under 25,000 men - against the enemy rifle pits at the base
of and atop Missionary Ridge. Thomas had no reserves on hand; every
soldier was in the battle line of four divisions, and the rebels
across the valley enjoyed numerical parity - bad odds for an attack
across a partially open, mile-wide valley. So, while Grant placed his
hopes for victory in his friend Sherman, Thomas, who shared little of
Grant's enthuasism for the Ohioan, looked southward to Hooker for
A couple of points to make. Thomas may have come up with the idea of
using Hooker to support the assault on Missionary Ridge, but note
the "had convinced Grant to acquiesce in Thomas's desire to send
Hooker against Bragg's left." Even Cozzens agrees that Thomas did
not have the authority to issue such orders to Hooker without Grant's
consent. Also note the "against the enemy rifle pits at the base of
and atop Missionary Ridge". So did Thomas actually realize that
Grant's intention was to take the top of the ridge? Was Dana wrong?
I will also point out the subtle anti-Grant and Sherman bias.
Note "while Grant placed his hopes for victory in his friend
Sherman". This completely ignores the fact that the original orders
called for a cooperative assault between Thomas and Sherman. Hardly
sounds like Grant "placing his hopes for victory in his friend
" Thomas' anxiety was apparent. At 10:00 am, just as Hooker was
starting down Lookout Mountain, Thomas amended his order of two hours
earlier, which had told Hooker simply to move across the valley the
Rossville road toward Missionary Ridge, while taking care to protect
his right flank. Now, with the enemy evidently long since off the
mountain, Thomas threw caution aside. He exhorted Hooker to "move
firmly and steadily upon the enemy's works in front of Missionary
Ridge." Palmer's 14th Corps would cooperate in the assault once
Hooker came up."
Now this paragraph is interesting. What happened to the Reynolds
message telling Hooker to proceed to Rossville as per his orders of
the previous evening? Also note, although Grant has been censured
for giving Hooker little or no role in the assaults, Thomas's orders
as described by Cozzens, also make him a spectator, albeit at
Rossville rather than on Lookout Mt.
- 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. >>
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?