Re: Thomas and Duplicity
- Dr Marszelek was right on the point,if Gen Thomas doesn't
understand why Sherman ,had Thomas involved
means nothing,Thomas is there to follow orders,not to question
why his commanding officer,gave orders to him.
I have to say,I couldn't disagree more in your view
of Thomas's duplicity in this situation.
I guess Dr Marszelek,is yet another author,like
Brooks D Simpson that you don't agree with their view.
That doesn't mean they are wrong,only that,for
whatever reason you disagree with well respected
authors who don't share your view of Thomas
the perfect General. The Baron
-- In email@example.com, "josepharose <josepharose@y...>" <josepharose@y...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "bjer50010 <bjewell@i...>"
> <bjewell@i...> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, DORR64OVI@a... wrote:
> > I agree with your final point but since it wasn't GHT's case why
> > he simply not refuse it, rather than allow Sherman to believe that
> > would accept it? If Sherman was attempting to avoid a conflict of
> > interest, which his or McPherson's involvement would have
> > represented, he was perfectly correct to involve GHT. But also
> > that GHT does two things which are inappropriate if he expects not
> > have the case dumped on him. One, he recommends, quite strongly
> > ISTM, that the man be tried and executed if found guilty of
> Recommending execution of someone who has endangered all of the
> soldiers in one's army and damaged the war effort as well is hardly
> inappropriate. It does not have anything to do with responsibility
> for the case. Thomas was a wronged party (and it seems quite
> possible that it was the AotC's intelligence efforts which were
> > Two, he does not refuse the case, nor make any strong statement to
> > disavow his own involvement in the case. That's strange behaviour
> > for a man who does not want to be involved.
> It's hardly inappropriate if someone does not "make any strong
> statement to disavow his own involvement in the case," when you
> yourself indicated that Thomas "was not directly involved." Thus,
> there's no involvement to disavow.
> > As to whether the case indicates duplicity on Thomas's part, I
> > that that is a little harsh, but I do see a certain amount of
> > disingenuousness in his handling of the case.
> "[A] little harsh"? The duplicity alleged by Marszalek has been
> shown to be without foundation by a reading of the ORs. There was
> no call for any harshness whatsoever.
> > To recommend execution
> > in his first message, in direct response to Sherman's attempt to
> > the case on him, suggests that he misread what was expected of
> > That he later pleads ignorance of why Sherman chose him to handle
> > case is slightly disingenuous.
> You are wrong. Thomas did not plead ignorance of why he was chosen;
> instead, he stated: "I do not know why General Sherman should have
> ordered him to be sent to me for punishment, as I did not know
> anything about him." He pleaded ignorance about Keim.
> Talking about disingenuousness, however, Sherman wrote to
> MacPherson: "Arrest one DeB. Randolph Keim, . . ." Excuse me! Was
> Sherman really pretending that he and Mac didn't know exactly who
> Keim was? The guy had been with them for the Meridian raid as well
> as on the road to Atlanta!
> ". . . who is said to be within the limits of your army in the
> field, . . ." Excuse me! Keim was Sherman and MacPherson's
> acquaintance. Sherman allowed him to travel with the AotT.
> ". . . and have him delivered to General Thomas to be tried as a
> spy. Let this be done at once, for publishing in a New York paper
> the important fact that our signal officers can interpret the
> signals of the enemy." Sherman should have written: "Mac, we've got
> egg on our faces. I always inveighed against reporters in the army
> and, hypocritically, I allowed Keim to hang out with you and the
> AotT. I went to the trouble to put that guy in a place where he
> could provide us with favorable press coverage, and he blows it by
> publishing a hugely important secret. Let's figure out a way to get
> him--and ourselves--off the hook. Your pal, W. T. SHERMAN"
> It's also somewhat strange to see the statement: "It's a pleasure to
> read a defense of Thomas which doesn't involve an assault on either
> Grant or Sherman," when Thomas had been unfairly attacked by
> Marszalek in an affair where Sherman--Marszalek's fave--was at fault.
- Mr. Weeks,
You recently mentioned not having an index to Sherman's memoirs,
IIRC, which makes me think that you or others might also not have a
digital copy of that work or of other useful books.
Would it be helpful, and would your website have the extra megabytes
(several MBs per book, roughly), for me to upload into your database
such texts as Sherman's, Grant's, and Sheridan's memoirs and Van
Horne's biography of Thomas? If so, once I return home, I would be
glad to do so.
I could put these in Word and/or .TXT formats.