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

Re: Sherman's Insubordination at Chattanooga

Expand Messages
  • wh_keene
    Gosh, Joe, I guess you have it all figured out. So how much do you think Ewing had to pay Loomis, Buschbeck and various others to lie for him in their reports?
    Message 1 of 267 , Aug 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Gosh, Joe, I guess you have it all figured out.

      So how much do you think Ewing had to pay Loomis, Buschbeck and
      various others to lie for him in their reports?
      For example, there is Lieutenant Colonel Buswell, 93rd IL of Mathies
      Brigade and part of Loomis attack, whose report reads:

      "Moving forward about one-forth of a mile, we halted for a few
      moments at the base of Tunnel Hill, so called. Resting here a short
      time, we had orders to advance to the top of the hill, which order
      were promptly obeyed. The regiment moved forward in good line,
      though under heavy fire from the enemy. Resting once in the ascent
      we gained the top of the hill about 1.30 p.m. Advancing our line
      within 20 paces of the enemy's breastworks of logs and stone, behind
      which was planted a battery that poured grape and canister into our
      ranks continually, the engagement grew into a fierce battle. For two
      hours and a half we held our position at the brow of the hill.
      During this time the enemy made three attempts to charge over, but
      were as often repulsed. About 4 o'clock the regiment on our rght
      gave way, and the enemy, with three well-formed lines of battle,
      charged us on the right flank, which obliged us to abandon our
      position."

      There must have been quiet a conspiracy that day since you have
      identified all this as self-serving mis-statments (based on what I
      don't know).

      But what about Cleburne, how did Ewing get to him?

      Cleburne describes Corse's advance as follows:
      "..he drove in Smith's skirmishers, and possessed himself of the
      breastworks which Smith had abandoned that morning."

      The breastworks being on top of Tunnel Hill, this confirms Ewing's
      statement that Corse took possession of the enemy's entrenchments on
      the hill, though Ewing (as well as Walcutt, who commanded the brigade
      after Corse was wounded) perceived that they had driven Smith out,
      whereas Cleburne says Smith had abandoned the entrenchments at his
      direction and only skirmishers were there to be driven.

      And later on Cleburne describes Loomis's attack as follows:
      "At the steep the enemy's line now seemed to form into a heavy column
      on the march and rushed up the hill in the direction of the
      batteries. Warfield's fire stopped the head of the charging column
      just under the crest. Here the enemy lay down behind trees, logs and
      projecting rocks, their first line not 25 yards from the guns and
      opened fire."

      Thus Cleburne also confirms Ewing's assertion that Colonel Taft
      reached the summit of the hill and a gallant and prolonged combat
      took place.

      So how do you think Ewing got Cleburne to support his self-serving
      lies?


      ~Will



      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "josepharose" <josepharose@y...> wrote:
      > Mr. Jewell:
      >
      > On the hills opposite Tunnel Hill, Sherman had, it seems three
      fresh
      > brigades. Cockerill's suffered three men wounded, Alexander's four
      > wounded, and Lightburn's had ten killed and 76 wounded. These
      units
      > were in position to attack in short order.
      >
      > They didn't.
      >
      > The reports of two regiments are not always to be trusted over the
      > research of historians who have gathered evidence from all sides.
      >
      > 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.")
      >
      > 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.
      >
      > Joseph
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:
      > > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "wh_keene" <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
      > > > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
      wrote:
      > > > > 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
      than
      > > 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
      credit
      > 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
      wing
      > > > might
      > > > > not have hung on so hard, as well. Any attack would have
      made
      > 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
      think.
      > > 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, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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.