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

Re: Meigs

Expand Messages
  • caztanzo
    ... evidence ... We disagree. Repeated assertions of something that is not necessarily true does not add to the persuasiveness of the assertion. Would you not
    Message 1 of 50 , Aug 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
      wrote:
      > 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

      We disagree. Repeated assertions of something that is not
      necessarily true does not add to the persuasiveness of the assertion.

      Would you not agree that others interpret Meigs' testimony, taken
      together, than you do?

      --unless there is further evidence or
      > argument--I wrote as I did. You have yet to offer any other
      > evidence.

      Several people have offered other evidence that confirms what Meigs
      put down in his journal. I am sure you are aware of that evidence.
      My impression is that you simply accept without question that
      evidence which supports your preconceptions and try your darnest to
      discredit that evidence that does not support your view.

      As I said, I believed this discussion had reached a counterproductive
      moment. My impression appears to have been correct.

      > Even with further evidence, I would be in the minority, according
      to that illustrious poll.

      Yes, you would be. Now, why do you term it "illustrious?" Are you
      disparaging other posters for disagreeing with you?
      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
      > moment."

      Where was it republished and by whom?

      > 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?

      Joseph, Meigs reported it in his journal. I resent your personal
      slur.

      My impression is that you are simply rehashing old arguments with the
      same tactics you have employed before. I find some of those tactics
      distasteful. Please reply to the post instead of insulting the
      poster. Thank you.
    • 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.