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

Re: Grant's lies about Chattanooga

Expand Messages
  • josepharose
    ... below. ... had ... Hooker ... to ... base ... every ... his ... of ... of ... Grant s ... of ... wrong? If Grant s advance to the rifle-pits was done just
    Message 1 of 267 , Aug 1, 2002
      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:
      > I'm sorry to reply to my own post, but I forgot that the quote to
      > which I referred was in a different forum. I am repeating it
      > "Hooker was dismayed but determined to push on. Once again fate
      > 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
      > 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
      > slightly under 25,000 men - against the enemy rifle pits at the
      > of and atop Missionary Ridge. Thomas had no reserves on hand;
      > 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
      > hopes for victory in his friend Sherman, Thomas, who shared little
      > Grant's enthuasism for the Ohioan, looked southward to Hooker for
      > decisive results."
      > A couple of points to make. Thomas may have come up with the idea
      > 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
      > consent. Also note the "against the enemy rifle pits at the base
      > and atop Missionary Ridge". So did Thomas actually realize that
      > Grant's intention was to take the top of the ridge? Was Dana

      If Grant's advance to the rifle-pits was done just to relieve the
      pressure on Sherman, than Dana was correct that it wasn't Grant's
      intention to have Thomas' men carry the ridge.

      > 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
      > called for a cooperative assault between Thomas and Sherman.
      > sounds like Grant "placing his hopes for victory in his friend
      > Sherman".

      Sherman was to carry the ridge and march down it. Two of Granger's
      divisions were to move to the left and cooperate with Sherman.
      Remember that some of Grant's orders told Thomas to move left or
      take the rifle-pits in front; as the latter was a possibility then
      it illustrates how Grant placed 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
      > earlier, which had told Hooker simply to move across the valley the
      > Rossville road toward Missionary Ridge, while taking care to
      > 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
      > the previous evening? Also note, although Grant has been censured
      > for giving Hooker little or no role in the assaults, Thomas's
      > as described by Cozzens, also make him a spectator, albeit at
      > Rossville rather than on Lookout Mt.

      Hooker wouldn't have been (and he wasn't) a mere spectator at
      Rossville. In fact, Rossville was occupied.

    • 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
        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.