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

The word "embarassed"

Expand Messages
  • endeavorgot
    barry writes: To an extent you are correct. The problem is that the argument has been made that the orders themeselves were not peremptory; I disagree. The
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      barry writes:

      To an extent you are correct. The problem is that the argument has
      been made that the orders themeselves were not peremptory; I
      disagree. The orders were clear, Buell was to hand over command to
      Thomas; I don't see how much clearer and direct the orders could
      have been made. That McKibbin delivered them under conditions when
      he shouldn't have, doesn't change that fact. And, once again,
      neither Thomas nor Buell would have been aware of the conditions
      imposed on the delivery of the orders.

      Barry

      I disagree. There is a "clear" difference between a "clear" order
      and a peremptory order. If all "clear" orders, issued from on high
      were treated as peremptory orders by the officer in the field,
      untold distasters would incur. Hundreds even thousands of examples
      couold be cited; Warren's orders to attack at Mine Run, Granger's
      to stay in place at Rossville, Woods to close up and relieve at
      Brotherton, to name just a few. A commander in the field is duty
      bound to question orders from those far from the scene, and it would
      be a form of cowardice not to do so. If a commander blindly obeys
      an order (espeacially from afar) That he believes would be
      detrimental or disasterous to the cause or mission he may well be
      guilty of malicous obedience or a special kind of cowardice. There
      are some in every military (even business) that are so afraid of
      questioning superiors that they will entertain all kinds or calumies
      to avoid doing so.
      Bill Bruner
    • Bob Huddleston
      All of this is quite irrelevant. What mattered is that the Bosses, Halleck, Stanton and Lincoln interoperated Thomas actions as a refusal. So when the
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        All of this is quite irrelevant.
         
        What mattered is that the Bosses, Halleck, Stanton and Lincoln interoperated Thomas' actions as a refusal. So when the opportunity came up again, they went for Rosecrans over Thomas.
         

        Take care,

        Bob

        Judy and Bob Huddleston
        10643 Sperry Street
        Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
        303.451.6376  Huddleston.r@...

        "Don't argue with someone who claims the earth is flat. You haven't given it a second thought, whereas he has spent 20 years thinking about and obsessing over why it is flat."

         


        From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of endeavorgot
        Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:09 PM
        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [civilwarwest] The word "embarassed"

        barry writes:

        To an extent you are correct. The problem is that the argument has
        been made that the orders themeselves were not peremptory; I
        disagree. The orders were clear, Buell was to hand over command to
        Thomas; I don't see how much clearer and direct the orders could
        have been made. That McKibbin delivered them under conditions when
        he shouldn't have, doesn't change that fact. And, once again,
        neither Thomas nor Buell would have been aware of the conditions
        imposed on the delivery of the orders.

        Barry

        I disagree.  There is a "clear" difference between a "clear" order
        and a peremptory order.  If all "clear" orders, issued from on high
        were treated as peremptory orders by the officer in the field,
        untold distasters would incur.  Hundreds even thousands of examples
        couold be cited;  Warren's orders to attack at Mine Run, Granger's
        to stay in place at Rossville, Woods to close up and relieve at
        Brotherton, to name just a few.  A commander in the field is duty
        bound to question orders from those far from the scene, and it would
        be a form of cowardice not to do so.  If a commander blindly obeys
        an order (espeacially from afar) That he believes would be
        detrimental or disasterous to the cause or mission he may well be
        guilty of malicous obedience or a special kind of cowardice. There
        are some in every military (even business) that are so afraid of
        questioning superiors that they will entertain all kinds or calumies
        to avoid doing so.
        Bill Bruner  



      • Tom Mix
        That is it right there. Thomas was offered the job by D.C. and did not take it. He left it to Buell. D.C. then looked else where. Case closed. Tom ... From:
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 31, 2006
        • 0 Attachment

          That is it right there.

           

          Thomas was offered the job by D.C. and did not take it.  He left it to Buell.

           

          D.C. then looked else where.

           

          Case closed.

           

          Tom

           

          -----Original Message-----
          From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Huddleston
          Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:29 PM
          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] The word "embarassed"

           

          All of this is quite irrelevant.

           

          What mattered is that the Bosses, Halleck, Stanton and Lincoln interoperated Thomas' actions as a refusal. So when the opportunity came up again, they went for Rosecrans over Thomas.

           

          Take care,

          Bob

          Judy and Bob Huddleston
          10643 Sperry Street
          Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
          303.451.6376  Huddleston.r@...

          "Don't argue with someone who claims the earth is flat. You haven't given it a second thought, whereas he has spent 20 years thinking about and obsessing over why it is flat."

           

           


          From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of endeavorgot
          Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:09 PM
          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [civilwarwest] The word "embarassed"

          barry writes:

          To an extent you are correct. The problem is that the argument has
          been made that the orders themeselves were not peremptory; I
          disagree. The orders were clear, Buell was to hand over command to
          Thomas; I don't see how much clearer and direct the orders could
          have been made. That McKibbin delivered them under conditions when
          he shouldn't have, doesn't change that fact. And, once again,
          neither Thomas nor Buell would have been aware of the conditions
          imposed on the delivery of the orders.

          Barry

          I disagree.  There is a "clear" difference between a "clear" order
          and a peremptory order.  If all "clear" orders, issued from on high
          were treated as peremptory orders by the officer in the field,
          untold distasters would incur.  Hundreds even thousands of examples
          couold be cited;  Warren's orders to attack at Mine Run, Granger's
          to stay in place at Rossville, Woods to close up and relieve at
          Brotherton, to name just a few.  A commander in the field is duty
          bound to question orders from those far from the scene, and it would
          be a form of cowardice not to do so.  If a commander blindly obeys
          an order (espeacially from afar) That he believes would be
          detrimental or disasterous to the cause or mission he may well be
          guilty of malicous obedience or a special kind of cowardice. There
          are some in every military (even business) that are so afraid of
          questioning superiors that they will entertain all kinds or calumies
          to avoid doing so.
          Bill Bruner  




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