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

Grant vs. Johnston?

Expand Messages
  • bobaldrich2001
    What if Grant had stayed with the Western armies in 1864? Would he have captured Atlanta sooner or later than Sherman did? Bob Aldrich
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      What if Grant had stayed with the Western armies in 1864? Would he
      have captured Atlanta sooner or later than Sherman did?

      Bob Aldrich
    • dmsmith001
      Sooner. But it s a matter of being relative. Dave
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Sooner.

        But it's a matter of being relative.

        Dave

        --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bobaldrich2001" <aldrichr@d...> wrote:
        > What if Grant had stayed with the Western armies in 1864? Would he
        > have captured Atlanta sooner or later than Sherman did?
        >
        > Bob Aldrich
      • Robert(Bob) Taubman
        Are you saying sooner because you are related to Grant ;-) I agree though, Grant sooner. Bob I would have thought Dave was related to Longstreet Taubman ...
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Are you saying sooner because you are related to Grant ;-)

          I agree though, Grant sooner.

          Bob "I would have thought Dave was related to Longstreet" Taubman
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "dmsmith001" <dmsmith001@...>
          To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:42 PM
          Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Grant vs. Johnston?


          | Sooner.
          |
          | But it's a matter of being relative.
          |
          | Dave
          |
          | --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bobaldrich2001" <aldrichr@d...> wrote:
          | > What if Grant had stayed with the Western armies in 1864? Would he
          | > have captured Atlanta sooner or later than Sherman did?
          | >
          | > Bob Aldrich
          |
          |
          |
          |
          | Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          |
          |
          |
        • Jfepperson@aol.com
          ... Not only would he have captured it sooner (IMO), but the opposing army would have been in much worse shape. JFE
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:27:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, aldrichr@... writes:

            > What if Grant had stayed with the Western armies in 1864?
            > Would he have captured Atlanta sooner or later than Sherman did?

            Not only would he have captured it sooner (IMO), but the
            opposing army would have been in much worse shape.

            JFE
          • aot1952
            Not sure exactly what I think on this possibility but it certainly raises two interesting questions in my mind. How would Sherman have performed in the line
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Not sure exactly what I think on this possibility but it certainly
              raises two interesting questions in my mind. How would Sherman have
              performed in the line commander role? Secondly, assuming Grant
              reached Atlanta what would he have done then? Grant always seemed to
              view Mobile Ala. as a very important stragetic goal.
              Who knows
              Wakefield


              --- In civilwarwest@y..., Jfepperson@a... wrote:
              > In a message dated Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:27:15 PM Eastern Standard
              Time, aldrichr@d... writes:
              >
              > > What if Grant had stayed with the Western armies in 1864?
              > > Would he have captured Atlanta sooner or later than Sherman did?
              >
              > Not only would he have captured it sooner (IMO), but the
              > opposing army would have been in much worse shape.
              >
              > JFE
            • wh_keene
              I just don t know what my answer would be to this question. But would love to hear the reasoning others have. Does anyone want to say why they picked Grant?
              Message 6 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I just don't know what my answer would be to this question.
                But would love to hear the reasoning others have. Does anyone want
                to say why they picked Grant?

                Where would Grant pick up time?
                Would it be during the May moves from Rocky Face to New Hope Church?
                Would it be during the June moves up through Kennesaw Mtn.?
                Would it be in the July moves from the Chattahoochee to Ezra Church?
                Or would it be in the final August flanking move and battrle of
                Jonesborough?

                I have no idea, that is why I ask.

                Also, with Grant as opponent, would Johnston still have been removed
                in favor of Hood?
                With Grant in command would McPherson still have been killed?

                ~Will

                --- In civilwarwest@y..., Jfepperson@a... wrote:
                > In a message dated Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:27:15 PM Eastern Standard
                Time, aldrichr@d... writes:
                >
                > > What if Grant had stayed with the Western armies in 1864?
                > > Would he have captured Atlanta sooner or later than Sherman did?
                >
                > Not only would he have captured it sooner (IMO), but the
                > opposing army would have been in much worse shape.
                >
                > JFE
              • carlw4514
                Who knows? Grant was at his best when there was a nut to crack, so in this particular campaign, he wouldn t necessarily have done better than Sherman, IMO. I
                Message 7 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Who knows? Grant was at his best when there was a nut to crack, so in
                  this particular campaign, he wouldn't necessarily have done better
                  than Sherman, IMO. I am sure he would have prevailed as well, due to
                  the numerical advantage, but there might have been more than one
                  Kennesaw Mountain type setback; then again, maybe he would have come
                  up with Johnston's head on a platter at some Snake Creek Gap, being a
                  better exploiter of opportunity.

                  --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bobaldrich2001" <aldrichr@d...> wrote:
                  > What if Grant had stayed with the Western armies in 1864? Would he
                  > have captured Atlanta sooner or later than Sherman did?
                  >
                  > Bob Aldrich
                • bobaldrich2001
                  I thought he was related to General Smith. ... Bob Aldrich ... Would he ... http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  Message 8 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I thought he was related to General Smith.

                    :0)

                    Bob Aldrich

                    --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Robert\(Bob\) Taubman" <rtaubman@r...>
                    wrote:
                    > Are you saying sooner because you are related to Grant ;-)
                    >
                    > I agree though, Grant sooner.
                    >
                    > Bob "I would have thought Dave was related to Longstreet" Taubman
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: "dmsmith001" <dmsmith001@y...>
                    > To: <civilwarwest@y...>
                    > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:42 PM
                    > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Grant vs. Johnston?
                    >
                    >
                    > | Sooner.
                    > |
                    > | But it's a matter of being relative.
                    > |
                    > | Dave
                    > |
                    > | --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bobaldrich2001" <aldrichr@d...> wrote:
                    > | > What if Grant had stayed with the Western armies in 1864?
                    Would he
                    > | > have captured Atlanta sooner or later than Sherman did?
                    > | >
                    > | > Bob Aldrich
                    > |
                    > |
                    > |
                    > |
                    > | Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    > |
                    > |
                    > |
                  • dmsmith001
                    ... Of course not. Mostly German in my heritage ... ... Sooner? Okie? Related, perhaps, to Brian Hampton? ... No, that would be Brian ... Dave Dave Smith
                    Message 9 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Robert\(Bob\) Taubman" <rtaubman@r...>
                      wrote:
                      > Are you saying sooner because you are related to Grant ;-)

                      Of course not. Mostly German in my heritage ...
                      >
                      > I agree though, Grant sooner.

                      Sooner? Okie? Related, perhaps, to Brian Hampton?
                      >
                      > Bob "I would have thought Dave was related to Longstreet" Taubman

                      No, that would be Brian ...

                      Dave

                      Dave Smith
                      Villa Hills, KY

                      See the Longstreet Chronicles ...
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "dmsmith001" <dmsmith001@y...>
                      > To: <civilwarwest@y...>
                      > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:42 PM
                      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Grant vs. Johnston?
                      >
                      >
                      > | Sooner.
                      > |
                      > | But it's a matter of being relative.
                      > |
                      > | Dave
                      > |
                      > | --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bobaldrich2001" <aldrichr@d...> wrote:
                      > | > What if Grant had stayed with the Western armies in 1864?
                      Would he
                      > | > have captured Atlanta sooner or later than Sherman did?
                      > | >
                      > | > Bob Aldrich
                      > |
                      > |
                      > |
                      > |
                      > | Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      > |
                      > |
                      > |
                    • dmsmith001
                      NO, that was the other General Smith. :-) Dave
                      Message 10 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        NO, that was the "other" General Smith. :-)

                        Dave

                        --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bobaldrich2001" <aldrichr@d...> wrote:
                        > I thought he was related to General Smith.
                        >
                        > :0)
                        >
                        > Bob Aldrich
                        >
                        > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Robert\(Bob\) Taubman" <rtaubman@r...>
                        > wrote:
                        > > Are you saying sooner because you are related to Grant ;-)
                        > >
                        > > I agree though, Grant sooner.
                        > >
                        > > Bob "I would have thought Dave was related to Longstreet" Taubman
                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > From: "dmsmith001" <dmsmith001@y...>
                        > > To: <civilwarwest@y...>
                        > > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:42 PM
                        > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Grant vs. Johnston?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > | Sooner.
                        > > |
                        > > | But it's a matter of being relative.
                        > > |
                        > > | Dave
                        > > |
                        > > | --- In civilwarwest@y..., "bobaldrich2001" <aldrichr@d...>
                        wrote:
                        > > | > What if Grant had stayed with the Western armies in 1864?
                        > Would he
                        > > | > have captured Atlanta sooner or later than Sherman did?
                        > > | >
                        > > | > Bob Aldrich
                        > > |
                        > > |
                        > > |
                        > > |
                        > > | Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > > |
                        > > |
                        > > |
                      • hartshje
                        ... IMO, Grant would get there sooner, but because I would assume he d use the same hit em, make em bleed, hit em again strategy. Johnston was so averse
                        Message 11 of 11 , Aug 2, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In civilwarwest@y..., "wh_keene" <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
                          > I just don't know what my answer would be to this question.
                          > But would love to hear the reasoning others have. Does anyone want
                          > to say why they picked Grant?
                          >


                          IMO, Grant would get there sooner, but because I would assume he'd
                          use the same "hit 'em, make 'em bleed, hit 'em again" strategy.
                          Johnston was so averse to fighting bloody battles that I believe he
                          would have taken his army completely out of the theatre of operations
                          after the second round. But that is just my opinion. Of course, if
                          that had happened, Hood might have gotten the assignment that much
                          sooner. Then what?

                          Joe H.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.