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

Re: Beauregard (was Davis & Johnston)

Expand Messages
  • Dave Smith
    That s a pretty good question. One question that comes to mind is how Beauregard would have worked with Joe Johnston as his nominal boss (as was Pemberton). I
    Message 1 of 41 , Jul 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      That's a pretty good question.

      One question that comes to mind is how Beauregard would have worked
      with Joe Johnston as his nominal boss (as was Pemberton). I cannot
      see Davis however reluctantly he puts Beauregard in command, having
      him report directly to him.

      The second is how militarily Beauregard handles Grant's crossing, and
      whether or not Johnston ends up in Jackson as the third cog. Neither
      man was particularly interested in taking blame; it might be an
      interesting spectacle.

      The third is now Beauregard manages the state and-a-half department
      he has; 80 percent of Pemberton's tenure was as an administrator, not
      as a military general.

      One of the problems in trying to assess this is that we simply do not
      know how Beauregard would have handled an entire campaign on the
      move. He never really did (I don't really count First Manassas since
      no one could really be judged from it).

      Dave

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hartshje" <Hartshje@a...> wrote:
      >
      > Beauregard was an excellent engineer with a good eye for defensive
      > strength, but his offensive ideas were just too grandiose. He was
      so
      > desperate to stay in the limelight that he was constantly writing
      > long exposes to any general or politician he thought might listen
      to
      > his strategies, which were usually far-fetched. He was too
      arrogant
      > for his own political good. His defenses of Charleston and
      > Petersburg were excellent, and I truly wonder how well HE might
      have
      > managed to do at Vicksburg instead of Pemberton.
      >
      > Joe H.
    • GnrlJEJohnston@aol.com
      ... Following 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
      Message 41 of 41 , Jul 11, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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? Political
        > general or not, he was one of the most effective division commanders
        > under Grant during the Vicksburg campaign. It's hard to
        > imagine
        > Sherman would relish the loss of a good general.

        Following 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.

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