Re: [civilwarwest] More Pillow
What is your opinion in reference Buckner blaming the whole affair on
Pillow. I read where Buckner's Division held the right flank, by Hickman
Creek, which also overlooked the river fortifications. On the 15th, as the
CSA forces attacked from the left flank, to open the road to Nashville.
This actually became a rout of McClerndand's forces. As the Union flank was
rolled up Pillow apparently ordered Buckner's forces to join in and take a
hill to their left, which Buckner protested. Grant then ordered CF Smith to
attack the CSA right flank which Buckner had just vacated. A small CSA
Tennessee Volunteer brigade was holding an area previously covered by a
Division. The results were obvious. Is this more spin by Buckner, was
Pillow incompetent? Ideas or corrections.
From: Stephen D Wakefield <sdwakefield@...>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Saturday, September 02, 2000 8:40 AM
Subject: [civilwarwest] More Pillow
>Actually Pillow did not have the responsibilty for fortifying the opposite
>bank from Ft. Henry. Command responsibility for the twin rivers defenses
>passed several time sand with greater frequency as the crisis approached.
>Although lots of blame can be spread around.. I think it is fair to say
>the one's most responsible for the failure of adequate preparations at Ft.
>Henry were in order Polk, Tilghman (sp?) Sidney Johnston. Just my opinion
>Pillow did not have command at Ft. Donelson except for a couple of very
>critical days right before the Unio advance.
>One of Pillows greatest contr ibutions to the loss of the Fort was he made
>the decision not to challenge the Federal forces approach to the out skirts
>of the Fort's defenses. Of course Pillow was also a central player in the
>'booting' of the garrison escape the day before the surrender.