RE: [civilwarwest] Daniel's new book "Days of Glory: The Army of the Cumberla...
I’m not sure. When the Commander in Chief gives you a “directive” would it be appropriate to view it as an “order”? If the President of the United States directs a General to do something, I think I would view it as an order at not contradict him or ignore him. Tom M.
From: GnrlJEJohnston@... [mailto:GnrlJEJohnston@...]
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Daniel's new book "Days of Glory: The Army of the Cumberla...
In a message dated 4/4/2004 7:28:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, tmix@... writes:
It is not a General’s responsibility or prerogative to make policy but to follow it.
Are you assuming that a "directive" and an "order" are synomonous in meaning.
- In a message dated 4/5/2004 1:16:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, tmix@... writes:
However, having refused to take command when directed to do so justified a degree of mistrust from Washington and that is what the question here is all about. An action creates a reaction and his action caused D.C to react in a manner of questioning Thomas’ motives. I think that is a justified response considering the political, social and military climate of the time.Rather than thinking about himself, Thomas' responses to Halleck, his statements about the situation years later, etc. etc. may not have been in his best interests politically, but that he was more concerned what was in the best interest for the Army and the country. (I know - I know - only politicians decide what is best for the Army) As it turned out, things did turn out good until Chicamaugua, but then Rosie fell down. In the end, he ended up number 5 or 6 and was slated to take over Sherman's position according to Grant (during his world travels) but Thomas died first in California..JEJ