Re: Thomas: Overrated or Underrated?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
This was me:
> > Did Grant find fault with Thomas for being slow in attacking, orI don't think it's at all common usage for this situation. They are
> > for not attacking when ordered?
> > I'm not necessarily defending Grant and Nashville, but from my
> > perspective, the two above are very different things.
> Mr. Smith:
> I think that, in the usage common to this situation, the two are
> one and the same.
two distinctly different things.
We probably will have to agree to disagree, though I am interested in
the opinions of other posters.
- In a message dated 8/1/2003 7:13:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rtaubman@... writes:
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
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.