- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "caztanzo" <cfsusg@y...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "josepharose"<josepharose@y...>
> > But my next sentence started, "Unless you have some further
> > or argument . . ." which shows that it is because Meigs offers
> > evidence for your stance thatassertion.
> We disagree. Repeated assertions of something that is not
> necessarily true does not add to the persuasiveness of the
Proof of that is found in your repeatedly stating that
Meigs "reported" the statements which Grant made.
> Would you not agree that others interpret Meigs' testimony, takenThis sentence makes no sense.
> together, than you do?
> --unless there is further evidence orMeigs
> > argument--I wrote as I did. You have yet to offer any other
> > evidence.
> Several people have offered other evidence that confirms what
> put down in his journal. I am sure you are aware of thatevidence.
Except for sycophantic--and easily impeached--reporting, I am not
aware of any substantive evidence that confirms what Grant claimed.
> My impression is that you simply accept without question thatto
> evidence which supports your preconceptions and try your darnest
> discredit that evidence that does not support your view.If you want to attack the post, as you maintain below, do so. This
is attacking the poster. I'll try to write in a more restrained
manner, and I hope that you'll do the same.
> As I said, I believed this discussion had reached acounterproductive
> moment. My impression appears to have been correct.according
> > Even with further evidence, I would be in the minority,
> to that illustrious poll.The n is rather small and the responders are doubly self-selected.
> Yes, you would be. Now, why do you term it "illustrious?"
> Are youNo, and your snippage is showing.
> 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 ofthe
> > moment."It appears to be by McGill & Witherow, Washington, D.C.
> Where was it republished and by whom?
> > I told you before that Meigs didn't *report* it. This was hiswhich
> > private journal. Why would you intentionally state something
> > you should know is not true?Please excuse me. The use of the word *report*, which was also used
> Joseph, Meigs reported it in his journal. I resent your personal
in your book, is misleading as can be seen by the definitions below
in the postscript.
> My impression is that you are simply rehashing old arguments withthe
> same tactics you have employed before. I find some of thosetactics
> distasteful. Please reply to the post instead of insulting theHaving been referred to as *disagreeable*, I will try to remember
> poster. Thank you.
You wrote that, "by not contesting Grant's claim but reporting it,
Meigs seems to have found it unobjectionable." Not only did he
not "report" it in his journal entry, Meigs, when he did write his
dispatch the very next day, *didn't* "report" what Grant claimed.
Therefore, according to your reasoning and mine, he seems to have
found it objectionable. At no time did Meigs attest to the
truthfulness of Grant's claim; he merely noted what was told him.
Many readers of Grant's official report have done the same.
You also wrote that, I "cite accounts from two decades later,
whereas Shanks and Meigs wrote rather close to the event." Dana
wrote positively that Grant did not intend the assault the day after
the battle! Wood, Sheridan, and Granger wrote their official
*reports* on December 29, 1863, February 20, 1864, and February 11,
1864, respectively. That is a far, far cry from 20 years!
So, au contraire, it is the sources upon which *you* build your case
which are beyond shaky; they are as nothing.
P.S. Dictionary.com defines the verb "report" as:
v. re·port·ed, re·port·ing, re·ports
To make or present an often official, formal, or regular account of.
To relate or tell about; present: report one's findings. See
Synonyms at describe.
To write or provide an account or summation of for publication or
broadcast: report the news.
To submit or relate the results of considerations concerning: The
committee reported the bill.
To carry back and repeat to another: reported the rumor of a strike.
To complain about or denounce: reported them to the principal.
To make a report.
To serve as a reporter for a publication, broadcasting company, or
other news media.
To present oneself: report for duty.
To be accountable: She reports directly to the board of directors.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
> It seems that I was correctly remembering, after all, about theBut, who made the corrections? My understanding is that Meigs
> corrections to Meigs' dispatch. The Library of Congress catalog
> "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.
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