Re: Jefferson Davis and Joe Johnston
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
> Can't find my source on this, Dave, but doubts aboutau contraire Carl,
> Pemberton apparently started after Beauregard took over
> Charleston,SC defenses;
> Pemberton was in charge of them prior to B. and he, B.,
> was pretty critical of what P. had done to that point. I'm
> sure this criticism circulated in the CSA and got to Davis.
> -I hate it when I can't find a source. I'm thinking it was
> not circulated in anything official like the OR's, though.
O.R. XIV,609-612 contains Bory's reports of his inspections of the
Charleston defenses when he relieved Pemberton. It's really a mixed
bag of things done right and things done wrong (in his opinion). The
worst criticism is at the end of his last report on page 612.
I'd have to agree with others that the War Dept and Davis took
everything Bory said with a rather LARGE grain of salt.
- In a message dated 7/10/2003 8:51:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, slippymississippi@... writes:
> Is there any evidence that Sherman had beef with Logan? PoliticalFollowing Atlanta, Logan took leave to do some politicing in order for supporting Lincoln's election coming up in November. He had finished that and was on his way back when Grant sent him the wire to proceed to Nashville and take over command from Thomas. After that order was rescinded, Logan went back and joined Sherman. If Sherman had a beef with Logan so much and did not respect his ability, why did he have Logan appointed the final commander of the Army of the Tennessee. Granted, a year earlier, he had Howard replace McPherson rather than Logan, but not only was Howard a WP graduate, he outranked Logan. I do not think anything personal was involved in Sherman's decision making in this case.
> general or not, he was one of the most effective division commanders
> under Grant during the Vicksburg campaign. It's hard to
> Sherman would relish the loss of a good general.