Re: Snake Creek Gap - Garrard
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...> wrote:
> ...I think you should review the ORs. We are referring to a movement through the gap made
> Please review the ORs. Garrard was in the vicinity, but he wasn't at
> the head of McP's troops when McP went through the gap. Instead,
> Garrard was left in front of the gap--around Villanow, IIRC, and told
> to patrol toward the south. Garrard was part of McPherson's command,
> but McP did not avail himself of the cavalry in the move thru SCG
> because of the delays in moving and McP's/Sherman's decision not to
> wait for him.
on the May 9th. On the afternoon of the 8th, McPherson wrote to Sherman that he had
"No news of Garrard yet".[38-4 p85] The order you refer to was issued at 10:45 at night
on the 9th [38-4 p107], after the move was made through the gap, and this order was
sent to Garrard at La Fayette where he was, having never arrived at the gap with
McPherson. Garrard's report states "joined the army at Villanow on the 10th of May."
[38-2 p803] McPherson never had Garrard before the time at which he moved throught
the gap; Grarrad was not part of his command until after the fact.
> Unless Garrard can be shown to have been moving too slowly, the faultWhy should the fault lie with McP? Sherman felt that Garrard was slow. He commented on
> lies with Sherman and McP.
it and sent Corse to try to expedite Garrard's movement.
> .... Prior to his mvoing through the gap., Garrard had not evenSee above for my evidence. If ytou think you can show me ORs that show otherwise,
> > reported to him.
> Do you have evidence for this assertion? I think that I can show you
> ORs to prove your wrong.
please do so.
> > > ... that if they had not changed the strategic plans ....I would be suprised. He was not on the scene and do not see indications that he knew the
> > McPherson did not change the plan, Sherman did.
> I do not know whether McP had input into the initial decision or
> not. I'd be surprised if he was not part of the decision-making
situation until Sherman infomed him of his role by message.
> Even if McP didn't have Garrard under his command, McP would still beSo a general who carries out a mission as ordered has done wrong in your eyes?
> at fault for not requesting the necessary numbers and types of troops
> needed to fulfill his mission.
Sounds like you just want to find fault and then look for reasons.
- 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.