Re: Sherman's gross exaggerations
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "The Coys" <thecoys@k...> wrote:
> Joseph,far off of a
> So how many were needed? It seems to me 200,000 was not to
> guess. There was the Army of the Tennessee and the Army of theCumberland.
> How many Union soldiers were down in New Orleans? How about allthose in
> the Department of Ohio? And then there was the 9th, 11th, and12th
> Corps....and then Colored troops would be required also. I knowI'm leaving
> some others out....200,000 might not be too far off.Mr. Coy:
> Kevin S. Coy
The number of troops needed to win in the West is an interesting
question, but it is not at issue here.
The question is, what was *Sherman* referring to when he quoted such
numbers as 3:1; 5:1; 45,000; 60,000, and 200,000?
According to letters referred to by Marszalek, Sherman complained
that he was outnumbered by 3:1 and 5:1. That was grossly untrue.
Sherman, himself, wrote that the CSA had 45,000 men--which was far
more than they actually had.
The 200,000 was a reference to the number of men Sherman needed to
push the CSA out of KY and to attack TN. Even if Sherman
successfully fended off this exaggeration, he would still be
convicted by the above two instances and . . .
The 60,000 which Sherman stated he needed for defense was far more
men than he needed to defend against an enemy whom Sherman already
outnumbered with his 20,000 troops.
Therefore, Sherman repeatedly exaggerated the Confederate threat and
he asked for huge numbers of men--this was still 1861, remember--all
of which if evidence sufficient to conclude that he lost his nerve
and blundered badly. He made McClellan on the Peninsula look
If it can thus be shown that Sherman truly had made such
exaggerations, would you agree that he committed a major mistake?
PS This blunder is only half of the problem; the second half is how
he and his friends then lied about the need for those 200,000 men in
order to evade reponsibility for the first half of the problem.