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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas: Overrated or Underrated?

Expand Messages
  • Robert (Bob) Taubman
    Dave, I believe it was both. I think Grant s perception of Thomas, which was also evident with Stanton and Lincoln(Nashville), was that he, Thomas was slow
    Message 1 of 115 , Aug 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave,

      I believe it was both. I think Grant's perception of Thomas, which was
      also evident with Stanton and Lincoln(Nashville), was that he, Thomas was
      slow to attack and wouldn't until everything was in place. Grant's order
      to attack regardless of the circumstances, Grant's perception of Thomas,
      and Thomas's refusal frustrated Grant. I believe Grant was completely
      within his right as CIC to make such an order, I certainly won't/can't argue
      that.

      I agree with the two issues being separate. At Nashville, I believe Thomas
      had the better view of what was taking place and although Grant was
      frustrated with what he perceived was Thomas reluctance to attack, he should
      have deferred to the man at the scene. I don't believe the success of
      Nashville changed Grant's opinion of Thomas. However, it would be
      interesting to "what if" Grant's opinion of Thomas should the war have
      continued for another year and Thomas was still prominent in the western
      theatre. Would Grant be more accepting of Thomas's battle preparations
      knowing he had been successful at Nashville. Would he have been more
      confident in Thomas.

      Bob



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@...>
      To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:54 PM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas: Overrated or Underrated?


      > Bob,
      >
      > Did Grant find fault with Thomas for being slow in attacking, or for
      > not attacking when ordered?
      >
      > I'm not necessarily defending Grant and Nashville, but from my
      > perspective, the two above are very different things.
      >
      > Dave
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Robert \(Bob\) Taubman"
      > <rtaubman@r...> wrote:
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "William H Keene" <wh_keene@y...>
      > > To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:24 PM
      > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas: Overrated or Underrated?
      > >
      > >
      > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Robert \(Bob\) Taubman"
      > > > <rtaubman@r...> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: "William H Keene" <wh_keene@y...>
      > > > > To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:45 PM
      > > > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Thomas: Overrated or Underrated?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Robert \(Bob\) Taubman"
      > > > > > <rtaubman@r...> wrote:
      > > > > > > Grant also professed to let the general on the field do the
      > > > > > > generalling but that didn't apply to Thomas.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > When did this not apply to Thomas?
      > > > >
      > > > > Nashville???
      > > >
      > > > You and I just disagree then. Thomas did excellent generalling on
      > his
      > > > own at Nashville.
      > >
      > > I agree that Thomas did an outstanding job. But, Grant threatened
      > to
      > > removed Thomas from command and had in fact sent Logan to replace
      > Thomas
      > > because of what Grant determined was Thomas' slowness in failing to
      > attack.
      > > Grant was in Washington, Thomas was in Nashville. Lincoln and
      > Stanton were
      > > not in agreement with but conceded to Grant's wish to replace
      > Thomas.
      > >
      > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > >
      > > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • GnrlJEJohnston@aol.com
      In a message dated 8/1/2003 7:13:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... I agree with this Bob, but if Thomas had attacked when Grant kept on ordering him, it is a
      Message 115 of 115 , Aug 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 8/1/2003 7:13:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rtaubman@... writes:

        Grant's order
        to attack regardless of the circumstances, Grant's perception of Thomas,
        and Thomas's refusal frustrated Grant.  I believe Grant was completely
        within his right as CIC to make such an order, I certainly won't/can't argue
        that.


        I agree with this Bob, but if Thomas had attacked when Grant kept on ordering him, it is a good possibility that the attack would have failed.  According to reports, the ground was so icy after an ice storm, that even the horses could not stand up, let alone a soldier trying to march.  Grant was not aware of these severe weather conditions and IIRC the ice storm also knocked out the telegraph lines so Thomas was not able to notify Grant of the conditions.  Once the weather cleared and conditions improved, Thomas did attack and was successful.

        JEJ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.