Re: Jefferson Davis and Joe Johnston
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Nico" <nicoavenger@w...> wrote:
> > I'm not sure in terms of "feelings," but in terms of respect, I
> > think Davis had a lot more respect for Johnston than he did
> > Beauregard.
> if he had that respect, he lost it fast
I don't think so. Davis certainly had respect for Johnston's
military abilities, and I think he carried them all the way through
the Johnston's tenure in the Atlanta Campaign. Davis did not agree
with Johnston's choice of tactics, looking for more of a "Lee-type"
general. He got one, in the Lee-wannabe Hood.
Davis disliked Johnston personally, and moreover, the crowd with
which Johnston hung.
Davis *really* disliked Beauregard, and I think it's significant that
after Shiloh, Beauregard never got a significant field command.
- 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 After that order was rescinded, Logan went back and joined Sherman.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.