Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas (was Davis & Johnston)
- In a message dated 7/4/2003 12:40:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rtaubman@... writes:
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,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?
Luckily for Thomas, his replacement was called back. However, had his replacement taken over, Thomas had done all the preparation, his replacement would have defeated Hood just the same and would have taken all the credit and acclaimed a hero. The replacement being John "Blackjack" Logan who was one of the best, if not the best, political generals.
If Logan had been a West Pointer, he would have remained commander of the AOTT after McPherson got killed instead of Howard taking over. As it turned out, Logan was the final commander of the AOTT before it was dissolved.
- 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 After that order was rescinded, Logan went back and joined Sherman.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.