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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas (was Davis & Johnston)

Expand Messages
  • Robert (Bob) Taubman
    ... From: William H Keene To: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 5:57 PM Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas
    Message 1 of 41 , Jul 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "William H Keene" <wh_keene@...>
      To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 5:57 PM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas (was Davis & Johnston)


      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > ...What would Thomas have done if ordered to move on Clinton
      > > on May 13, like Pemberton was?
      >
      > Hmmmm, what did Thomas do when Grant ordered him to make attacks or
      > movements? I think there was enough discretion in JEJ's order (that
      > great phrase 'if practicable') that Thomas might have remained close
      > to the Big Black.
      >
      > ~Will

      What did he do? He made preparations and he attacked; Nashville.
      Unfortunately, Grant didn't afford Thomas the leeway he gave others, and
      IIRC, Brooks Simpson makes this point in his Grant biography. Thomas, like
      all the other CW generals on both sides, was not perfect but the legend of
      his being too slow is akin to the legend of Grant's drunkeness.

      What would have happened at Nashville had Grant been successful in replacing
      Thomas? The replacement would have had to do little in the way of
      preparation; he would have only had to command and direct. Whether the
      replacement would have been as successful,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?



      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • 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.