Re: Snake Creek Gap - Garrard
- --- In email@example.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
> ...Though you state that "it's not true that McP had no cavalry" you
> 2) Sherman took the AotC's division of cavalry under Garrard and
> gave it to McPherson (to be used used against the railroads, of
> course). Coming from Middle Tennessee, it was also behind schedule,
> wasn't available for the Snake Creek Gap move and the move wasn't
> delayed for them, and they ended up merely patrolling the roads
> toward Rome. (So, it's not true that McP had no cavalry, just that
> they weren't employed as they should have been--in the forefront of
> the move through SCG.)
contradict this by saying that Garrard "wasn't available for the Snake
Creek Gap move". If Garrard wasn't available at the time, then McP
did not have Garrard's cavalry for the movement.
- You've outlined a scenario that would have guaranteed Union defeat at Pittsburg Landing. Two divisions could not have withstood the assault launched. By the time the divisions at Crump's Landing could be moved into support position, it would have been all over. A division at Hamburg Landing could not have helped much.As it was, the divisions present were almost defeated. Too many Confederates for Union resistance. Had PGTB not called a halt near sundown, there might have been a different conclusion.