Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas (was Davis & Johnston)
- If he was as slow-moving, and as deliberate as the mythology claims he was,
the "Rock" would probably have lasted much, much, longer than Pemberton did.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:22 AM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas (was Davis & Johnston)
> i.e., about as long as Pemberton did?
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, DORR64OVI@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 7/3/03 7:36:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > dmsmith001@y... writes:
> > > 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
> > Dave...Old Pap would've held Vicksburg "until we starve".
> > Kent Dorr
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- 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 After that order was rescinded, Logan went back and joined Sherman.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.