--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "caztanzo" <cfsusg@y...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "josepharose"
> > You made a statement about how, "Meigs reported what Grant said
> > him and did not contest Grant's assertion."
> > When I alerted you to the fact that Meigs did not *report*
> > claim but only noted it in his private journal, you did not
> That was due to a sense that this was becoming a counterproductive
> conversation. Silence does not always imply assent or surrender;
> may simply mean one chooses to move on.
But my next sentence started, "Unless you have some further evidence
or argument . . ." which shows that it is because Meigs offers no
evidence for your stance that--unless there is further evidence or
argument--I wrote as I did. You have yet to offer any other
> > Unless you have some further evidence or argument, then one can
> > 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
> never replied to my highlighting of his error (assent or
> In light of your silence, one can only conclude that McFeely's a
> badly flawed book ... see how this works?). Everyone else voted
> Simpson or Catton. Unless you have some further evidence or
> argument, then one can only conclude that you are in the minority
> the quality of these books.
Even with further evidence, I would be in the minority, according to
that illustrious poll.
> > When Meigs did report the next day, in his official dispatch--
> > IIRC was republished months later--he made no mention of what
> > told him. That implicitly contests Grant's assertion.
> That's illogical. It may mean that in the rush of the moment, he
> not offer as full an account as he did later.
The report, as I stated, was republished (with corrections, IIRC)
two months later. That negates your assertion of some "rush of the
> > There is *nothing* there which shows that what Grant told Meigs
> > thought by Meigs to be true.
> And there's nothing that suggests that Meigs thought that Grant
> lying; by not contesting Grant's claim but reporting it, Meigs
> to have found it unobjectionable, and others may conclude that
> because it is true.
I told you before that Meigs didn't *report* it. This was his
private journal. Why would you intentionally state something which
you should know is not 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.
The accounts for an unintended assault are mutually corroborating,
consisting of some six unimpeached sources and a wealth of
circumstantial evidence. Two of these men were friends of Grant
(and a friendly Wilson could also be added to make seven and three,
respectively). The argument advanced by Catton, Simpson, and Simon
is based on three separate claims by Grant, the writing down--but
not public dissemination--of one of those claims by Meigs, and the
later writings of newspaper reporters who, IIRC, claimed that
Sherman carried Tunnel Hill. I suppose you consider Cadwallader an