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

Re: Snake Creek Gap - Garrard

Expand Messages
  • josepharose
    ... schedule, ... Snake ... As I stated, McPherson *had* Garrard s cavalry. As I stated, this cavalry *was not* available because it did not reach the gap in
    Message 1 of 101 , Jun 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene" <wh_keene@y...>
      wrote:
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > ...
      > > 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.)
      >
      > Though you state that "it's not true that McP had no cavalry" you
      > 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.

      As I stated, McPherson *had* Garrard's cavalry. As I stated, this
      cavalry *was not* available because it did not reach the gap in time to
      lead the way. It had been under Sherman's/McPherson's direction for
      long enough that if they had not changed the strategic plans at the
      last minute, had started the cavalry earlier, and/or had delayed the
      move until Garrard was ready, then Garrard *would* have been available.

      There's a distinct difference between having a unit and making it
      available for use. There is no contradiction.

      Sherman could also have realized the problem before the crunch time
      came and could have switched Kilpatrick for Garrard, giving McP a
      cavalry division in good condition and ready for the move.

      These are mistakes of Sherman and McPherson.

      Joseph
    • keeno2@aol.com
      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
      Message 101 of 101 , Jun 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.