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

Re: Thomas (was Davis & Johnston)

Expand Messages
  • Dave Smith
    My first thought was how a Grant or Sherman would have handled Vicksburg as a Confederate commander - but then, I thought ... How would George Thomas have
    Message 1 of 41 , Jul 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      My first thought was how a Grant or Sherman would have handled
      Vicksburg as a Confederate commander - but then, I thought ...

      How would George Thomas have done?

      Dave



      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "carlw4514" <carlw4514@y...>
      wrote:
      > Joe, Beauregard would have been the right choice for the defense of
      > the area. And we most likely wouldnt then have gotten this
      > unmanageable command situation that helped sink the Confederate
      > boat...
      > It would have all been up to Beauregard, who just might have pulled
      > off a long, stubborn defense.
      > -but I think it was Dave S. who just pointed out that Beauregard
      had
      > just been sent packing; Jeff D. COULDN'T have had him on his short
      > list.
      > Carl
      >
      > PS: gee, I wonder how Hooker would do as defender of Vicksburg?
      > [inside joke... sorry]
      > [Joe, couldnt resist. Good chance you'll have the last laugh.]
      >
      > --- 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.