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

Re: Sherman and Thomas

Expand Messages
  • bjer50010
    ... Sherman s point was that while Sherman was in the field with his troops Thomas was still on Orchard Knob. No matter how you and Rose try to colour it that
    Message 1 of 116 , Apr 27, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
      wrote:
      >
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "oneplez" <oneplez@y...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "bjer50010"
      > <barry.jewell@y...>
      > > wrote:
      > > snips
      > >
      > > > Did Sherman know Thomas went up the ridge with Grant? If so
      > how?
      > >
      > > Apparently using the same method you described immediately below.
      > >
      > > > But what is clear is that Sherman knew
      > > > exactly where Thomas was during Sherman's fight, he was still on
      > > >Orchard Knob.
      > >
      > > > And
      > > > even if he did his point was still valid, Sherman lead his men
      > into
      > > combat,
      > >
      > > No wonder he screwed up and didn't know where he was! Who was
      > > commanding the TROOPS?
      > >

      Sherman's point was that while Sherman was in the field with his troops
      Thomas was still on Orchard Knob. No matter how you and Rose try to colour
      it that is a fact. Sherman would not have known Thomas went up the ridge
      with Grant because he was still with his troops near Tunnel Hill. And the next
      morning he was quickly in pursuit, Thomas, as usual, delayed (if you don't
      believe that read Cozzens, even his biases don't prevent him from making
      that point).

      > > > Thomas followed his men up the ridge.
      > >
      > > Yeah and he took Grant with him.
      > >

      Since Grant was the overall commander of ALL forces at Chattanooga what
      exactly is your point sir? And the AotC went forward under Grant's orders, not
      Thomas'. You do understand the chain of command don't you?

      > > It was easy, he and Hooker had won their battle and given Grant
      > > another stripe. Sherman sat and watched the fight.
      > >

      Since when do generals earn stripes? Grant was in overall command, the
      credit for the victory was his. I'm sorry that you and Rose seem unable to
      grasp that simple concept, but that doesn't alter the fact that Grant ranked
      Thomas at Chattanooga. As for Sherman, the casualties suffered by his men
      at Chattanooga speak for themselves as to his involvement in the fight. I
      would also suggest to you, as I have previously to Rose, to read the
      regimental histories of Sherman's troops involved in the fight. They were
      hardly standing around watching, despite your unsupported assertions to the
      contrary.

      > >
      > > Don
      >
      >
      > Mr. Plezia:
      >
      > And I have yet to see any of Sherman's defenders explain why Sherman
      > would have even mentioned such an incident to his brother, whether
      > it was true or not. If it were true that Thomas stayed back in
      > Chattanooga, Sherman would have been unnecessarily taking a slap at
      > his "friend."
      >

      It was a personal letter to his brother. If there is no truth to the rumour why
      does it bother the Thomas fan-boys so much? And Sherman's statement was
      correct, Thomas did not leave the entrenchments until after the battle and only
      to move up an already captured ridge. My question, still unanswered by you
      and Plezia is, did Sherman know Thomas had left Orchard Knob to go up the
      ridge? If not then his statementmay be factually incorrect, but it is not a lie; a
      lie involves deliberately making a false statement. And if you want to defend
      Thomas, why don't you answer the question, did Sherman KNOW Thomas
      went up the ridge with Grant?

      > If the allegation were untrue, as without doubt it was,

      Once I see statements like "as without doubt it was" I realize that you have no
      answer to the question I have asked. The fact is that as far as Sherman knew
      Thomas spent the entire duration of the battle on Orchard Knob. Sherman
      had no way of knowing that Thomas had gone up the ridge with Grant and
      that point is not relevant to what he telling his brother. As to whether the letter
      was a slap at a friend, I don't know or care frankly. Sherman's point was to get
      credit for his army, which had played a role in the fight. For people like you
      and Plezia to question that fact is a sign of how biased and unfair your
      assertions are.

      >then Sherman
      > was lying while slapping down his friend. There was no reason for
      > Sherman to have mentioned Thomas at all.
      >

      Sherman had a perfectly good reason to mention Thomas. Sherman
      physically lead his troops into battle. Thomas stayed on the ridge. Part of
      Sherman's army fought with Hooker, and was entitled to the same recognition
      Hooker's men got. That was his point in the letter to his brother (a private
      letter I might add again). But as far as Sherman knew Thomas did not go with
      his troops into battle. His statement was not factually incorrect, despite your
      twisted rationale that is was. Hence he was not lying.

      > Joseph
    • bjer50010
      ... Sherman s point was that while Sherman was in the field with his troops Thomas was still on Orchard Knob. No matter how you and Rose try to colour it that
      Message 116 of 116 , Apr 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "oneplez" <oneplez@y...> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "bjer50010"
        > <barry.jewell@y...>
        > > wrote:
        > > snips
        > >
        > > > Did Sherman know Thomas went up the ridge with Grant? If so
        > how?
        > >
        > > Apparently using the same method you described immediately below.
        > >
        > > > But what is clear is that Sherman knew
        > > > exactly where Thomas was during Sherman's fight, he was still on
        > > >Orchard Knob.
        > >
        > > > And
        > > > even if he did his point was still valid, Sherman lead his men
        > into
        > > combat,
        > >
        > > No wonder he screwed up and didn't know where he was! Who was
        > > commanding the TROOPS?
        > >

        Sherman's point was that while Sherman was in the field with his troops
        Thomas was still on Orchard Knob. No matter how you and Rose try to colour
        it that is a fact. Sherman would not have known Thomas went up the ridge
        with Grant because he was still with his troops near Tunnel Hill. And the next
        morning he was quickly in pursuit, Thomas, as usual, delayed (if you don't
        believe that read Cozzens, even his biases don't prevent him from making
        that point).

        > > > Thomas followed his men up the ridge.
        > >
        > > Yeah and he took Grant with him.
        > >

        Since Grant was the overall commander of ALL forces at Chattanooga what
        exactly is your point sir? And the AotC went forward under Grant's orders, not
        Thomas'. You do understand the chain of command don't you?

        > > It was easy, he and Hooker had won their battle and given Grant
        > > another stripe. Sherman sat and watched the fight.
        > >

        Since when do generals earn stripes? Grant was in overall command, the
        credit for the victory was his. I'm sorry that you and Rose seem unable to
        grasp that simple concept, but that doesn't alter the fact that Grant ranked
        Thomas at Chattanooga. As for Sherman, the casualties suffered by his men
        at Chattanooga speak for themselves as to his involvement in the fight. I
        would also suggest to you, as I have previously to Rose, to read the
        regimental histories of Sherman's troops involved in the fight. They were
        hardly standing around watching, despite your unsupported assertions to the
        contrary.

        > >
        > > Don
        >
        >
        > Mr. Plezia:
        >
        > And I have yet to see any of Sherman's defenders explain why Sherman
        > would have even mentioned such an incident to his brother, whether
        > it was true or not. If it were true that Thomas stayed back in
        > Chattanooga, Sherman would have been unnecessarily taking a slap at
        > his "friend."
        >

        It was a personal letter to his brother. If there is no truth to the rumour why
        does it bother the Thomas fan-boys so much? And Sherman's statement was
        correct, Thomas did not leave the entrenchments until after the battle and only
        to move up an already captured ridge. My question, still unanswered by you
        and Plezia is, did Sherman know Thomas had left Orchard Knob to go up the
        ridge? If not then his statementmay be factually incorrect, but it is not a lie; a
        lie involves deliberately making a false statement. And if you want to defend
        Thomas, why don't you answer the question, did Sherman KNOW Thomas
        went up the ridge with Grant?

        > If the allegation were untrue, as without doubt it was,

        Once I see statements like "as without doubt it was" I realize that you have no
        answer to the question I have asked. The fact is that as far as Sherman knew
        Thomas spent the entire duration of the battle on Orchard Knob. Sherman
        had no way of knowing that Thomas had gone up the ridge with Grant and
        that point is not relevant to what he telling his brother. As to whether the letter
        was a slap at a friend, I don't know or care frankly. Sherman's point was to get
        credit for his army, which had played a role in the fight. For people like you
        and Plezia to question that fact is a sign of how biased and unfair your
        assertions are.

        >then Sherman
        > was lying while slapping down his friend. There was no reason for
        > Sherman to have mentioned Thomas at all.
        >

        Sherman had a perfectly good reason to mention Thomas. Sherman
        physically lead his troops into battle. Thomas stayed on the ridge. Part of
        Sherman's army fought with Hooker, and was entitled to the same recognition
        Hooker's men got. That was his point in the letter to his brother (a private
        letter I might add again). But as far as Sherman knew Thomas did not go with
        his troops into battle. His statement was not factually incorrect, despite your
        twisted rationale that is was. Hence he was not lying.

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