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

Re: Meigs

Expand Messages
  • josepharose
    ... ... no ... assertion. Proof of that is found in your repeatedly stating that Meigs reported the statements which Grant made. ... This
    Message 1 of 50 , Aug 1, 2003
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "caztanzo" <cfsusg@y...> wrote:
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose"
      > wrote:
      > > But my next sentence started, "Unless you have some further
      > evidence
      > > or argument . . ." which shows that it is because Meigs offers
      > > evidence for your stance that
      > 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, taken
      > together, than you do?

      This sentence makes no sense.

      > --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
      > put down in his journal. I am sure you are aware of that

      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 that
      > 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 a
      > moment. My impression appears to have been correct.
      > > Even with further evidence, I would be in the minority,
      > to that illustrious poll.
      > Yes, you would be. Now, why do you term it "illustrious?"

      The n is rather small and the responders are doubly self-selected.

      > Are you
      > disparaging other posters for disagreeing with you?
      > not offer as full an account as he did later.

      No, and your snippage is showing.

      > > The report, as I stated, was republished (with corrections,
      > > two months later. That negates your assertion of some "rush of
      > > moment."
      > Where was it republished and by whom?

      It appears to be by McGill & Witherow, Washington, D.C.

      > > I told you before that Meigs didn't *report* it. This was his
      > > private journal. Why would you intentionally state something
      > > you should know is not true?
      > Joseph, Meigs reported it in his journal. I resent your personal
      > slur.

      Please excuse me. The use of the word *report*, which was also used
      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 with
      > same tactics you have employed before. I find some of those
      > distasteful. Please reply to the post instead of insulting the
      > poster. Thank you.

      Having been referred to as *disagreeable*, I will try to remember
      your dictum.

      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
      v. tr.
      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.

      v. intr.
      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.
    • 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
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>

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