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

Re: Meigs

Expand Messages
  • caztanzo
    ... That was due to a sense that this was becoming a counterproductive conversation. Silence does not always imply assent or surrender; it may simply mean one
    Message 1 of 50 , Jul 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
      wrote:

      > You made a statement about how, "Meigs reported what Grant said to
      > him and did not contest Grant's assertion."
      >
      > When I alerted you to the fact that Meigs did not *report* Grant's
      > claim but only noted it in his private journal, you did not reply.

      That was due to a sense that this was becoming a counterproductive
      conversation. Silence does not always imply assent or surrender; it
      may simply mean one chooses to move on.

      > Unless you have some further evidence or argument, then one can
      only
      > conclude that one of the foundations of Catton', Simpson's, and
      > Simon's conclusions that Grant intended the ridge to be taken is
      > based on nothing but thin air.

      So you believe. I think people can conclude otherwise; indeed, I
      know they have. Look at the poll. Look at the biographers you
      mention. Only one poster voted for your favorite, McFeely, and you
      never replied to my highlighting of his error (assent or surrender?
      In light of your silence, one can only conclude that McFeely's a
      badly flawed book ... see how this works?). Everyone else voted for
      Simpson or Catton. Unless you have some further evidence or
      argument, then one can only conclude that you are in the minority on
      the quality of these books.

      > When Meigs did report the next day, in his official dispatch--which
      > IIRC was republished months later--he made no mention of what Grant
      > told him. That implicitly contests Grant's assertion.

      That's illogical. It may mean that in the rush of the moment, he did
      not offer as full an account as he did later.

      > There is *nothing* there which shows that what Grant told Meigs was
      > thought by Meigs to be true.

      And there's nothing that suggests that Meigs thought that Grant was
      lying; by not contesting Grant's claim but reporting it, Meigs seems
      to have found it unobjectionable, and others may conclude that that's
      because it is true. You cite accounts from two decades later,
      whereas Shanks and Meigs wrote rather close to the event. Perhaps
      the sources upon which you build your case are shaky. However, as
      I've read in the archives what you said on this matter before, I
      think it best simply to declare that I disagree.
    • caztanzo
      ... But, who made the corrections? My understanding is that Meigs responded to some complaints from Sherman. As the above indicates, this was an unofficial
      Message 50 of 50 , Aug 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
        wrote:

        > It seems that I was correctly remembering, after all, about the
        > corrections to Meigs' dispatch. The Library of Congress catalog
        > lists:
        >
        > "Three days' battle of Chattanooga, 23d, 24th, 25th November, 1864
        > [!] An unofficial dispatch from General Meigs to the Hon. E.M.
        > Stanton, secretary of war. Now first correctly printed," dated 1864.

        But, who made the corrections? My understanding is that Meigs
        responded to some complaints from Sherman.

        As the above indicates, this was an "unofficial" dispatch. Meigs
        added information in his private journal. You've offered an
        interpretation that I find unconvincing, in part because your answer
        really doesn't admit of a difference of opinion. Unless you have any
        further evidence that Meigs distrusted Grant or questioned his
        veracity (there are two biographies available), I think this has run
        its course, as several experts in the field have offered
        interpretations that differ from yours. At best, it's an open
        question.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.