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

Re: Thomas (was Davis & Johnston)

Expand Messages
  • Dave Smith
    ... That s true, as long as the Confederate commander ventures out from behind the Big Black River. Pemberton s original design was to stay behind, and force
    Message 1 of 41 , Jul 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "ironbrigade_24th_mich"
      <tooldude58@y...> wrote:
      > In order to save Vicksburg, any general in charge of the Rebs would
      > have had to have beaten Grant at Champions Hill.

      That's true, as long as the Confederate commander ventures out from
      behind the Big Black River.

      Pemberton's original design was to stay behind, and force Grant to
      try to cross against his defenses.

      > The difference if Thomas had been in command is that he probably
      > would not have opened with an offensive against Grant.

      See above. What would Thomas have done if ordered to move on Clinton
      on May 13, like Pemberton was?

      > The difference in manpower was not that great to where if he
      > defended instead of attacked, it might have evened the numbers up
      > considerably.

      Indeed. That was Pemberton's plan.

      > Once the Rebs are driven back into Vicksburg, it's all over. I
      > don't think it matters who is in command. One thing to remember is
      > that Grant did not face Pemberton with his whole force. He could
      > have used the troops under Sherman if he had needed them.

      Nor had Pemberton used all of his. In a show-down over the river
      crossings, who wins? Pemberton with, say 25,000-35,000, or Grant,
      with close to 50,000. Pemberton is sitting behind the river, with
      fortifications.

      Dave
    • 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.