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

RE: [civilwarwest] Digest Number 2519

Expand Messages
  • Tom Mix
    No kidding, you have a book on the way? Fantastic. Give me, us, a little information to be looking out for it. Tom ... From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      No kidding, you have a book on the way? Fantastic. Give me, us, a little
      information to be looking out for it.
      Tom

      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of S P
      Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:20 PM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Digest Number 2519

      Hood in the East:

      In studying the Second Battle of Manassas, I have
      concluded that Hood's overaggressiveness disrupted the
      timing of Longstreet's overall attack and, thereby,
      ruined the best opportunity Lee had to destroy an
      opposing Union force (opportunity to do so brought to
      you courtesy of John Pope).

      Hood's attack was quite "macho" on the part of the
      Texas Brigade, but its rapid pace increased casualties
      and caused the overall attack to degenerate into a
      piecemeal assault (as Longstreet feared when he went
      after Hood to warn him against just such an occurence.

      In short, Hood never excercised much judgment in my
      opinion, and I agree with the post that says others
      planned and oversaw his successful attacks in the
      east. He could be counted on to attack aggressively,
      but as Lee warned he was too much the lion.

      Hope to have my book out on Longstreet's attack on
      August 30, 1862 by year end. Hennessy wrote an
      introduction for it.

      --- civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com wrote:

      > There are 25 messages in this issue.
      >
      > Topics in this digest:
      >
      > 1. Re: McNair at Murfreesboro
      > From: "Ronald black"
      > <rblack0981@...>
      > 2. Re: Re: Cleburne
      > From: "Ronald black"
      > <rblack0981@...>
      > 3. RE: Re: Cleburne
      > From: "Tom Mix" <tmix@...>
      > 4. RE: Re: Hood
      > From: "Tom Mix" <tmix@...>
      > 5. RE: Re: Hood
      > From: "Tom Mix" <tmix@...>
      > 6. RE: Re: Cleburne
      > From: "Tom Mix" <tmix@...>
      > 7. RE: Hood
      > From: "Tom Mix" <tmix@...>
      > 8. Re: Re: Cleburne
      > From: hooperjwboro@...
      > 9. Re: Regiments
      > From: "Ronald black"
      > <rblack0981@...>
      > 10. Re: hood
      > From: GnrlJEJohnston@...
      > 11. Re: McNair at Murfreesboro
      > From: Gary Cozzens <gcozzens@...>
      > 12. Re: Re: Cleburne
      > From: hooperjwboro@...
      > 13. RE: Re: Cleburne
      > From: "Harry Smeltzer"
      > <hjs21@...>
      > 14. Re: Joe Johnston
      > From: "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@...>
      > 15. Re: Regiments
      > From: "sputnik842002"
      > <sputnik842002@...>
      > 16. Re: Joe Johnston
      > From: "sputnik842002"
      > <sputnik842002@...>
      > 17. Re: hood
      > From: Mark Schmidt
      > <maarschmidt@...>
      > 18. RE: Re: Cleburne
      > From: "Tom Mix" <tmix@...>
      > 19. RE: hood
      > From: "Tom Mix" <tmix@...>
      > 20. RE: Re: Cleburne
      > From: "Harry Smeltzer"
      > <hjs21@...>
      > 21. [civilwarwes] Vicksburg
      > From: nickrelee@...
      > 22. Re: [civilwarwes] Vicksburg
      > From: "sputnik842002"
      > <sputnik842002@...>
      > 23. Re: Re: [civilwarwes] Vicksburg
      > From: nickrelee@...
      > 24. Re: [civilwarwes] Vicksburg
      > From: "sputnik842002"
      > <sputnik842002@...>
      > 25. RE: Re: Hood
      > From: hooperjwboro@...
      >
      >
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 1
      > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:12:47 -0500
      > From: "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
      > Subject: Re: McNair at Murfreesboro
      >
      > Gary:
      > The same happened to Colonel William H. Stephens at
      > the Battle of Shiloh. He had been a brigade
      > commander since Sept. 1861 and was becoming ill in
      > March 1862. He welcomed the arrival of Colonel
      > George Maney who was the senior colonel of the
      > brigade and would have assumed command of the
      > brigade but was delayed by his Battalion of the 1st
      > Tennessee being assigned to right flank duties and
      > was not with the brigade. Colonel Stephens
      > literally got out of sick bed and led the first
      > charge against the Hornets Nest by the confederates.
      > After the charge, about 10:30, he was too exhausted
      > to command the brigade further. Colonel Maney
      > arrived about 2:30 and took charge of the brigade.
      >
      > Sorry this wasn't about General McNair but the
      > similarity caught my attention. With the state of
      > health that existed with these men in active field
      > operations, it is no wonder this didn't happen more
      > often.
      >
      > Ron
      >
      >
      > From: Gary Cozzens
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 9:46 PM
      > Subject: [civilwarwest] McNair at Murfreesboro
      >
      >
      > I am new to this list and this is my first post.
      >
      > In the middle of the morning of the first day's
      > fighting at
      > Murfreesboro, Brig Gen Evander McNair (McNair's
      > Brigade, McCowan's
      > Division, Hardee's Corps) gets sick for some
      > reason and excuses
      > himself from the battle. Col. Robert Harper of
      > the 1st Arkansas
      > Mounted Rifles assumed command of the Brigade for
      > the remainder of
      > the battle. Supposedly McNair had been sick
      > previous to the fight.
      > Does anyone know what caused McNair's illness?
      >
      > Thank you,
      > Gary Cozzens
      >
      >
      > SPONSORED LINKS American civil war Civil war
      > United states
      > Civil war history Of the civil war United
      > state army
      >
      >
      >
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      > a.. Visit your group "civilwarwest" on the web.
      >
      > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
      > email to:
      > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
      > Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      >
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --
      >
      >
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 -
      > Release Date: 2/24/2006
      >
      > ----------
      >
      > No virus found in this outgoing message.
      > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 -
      > Release Date: 2/24/2006
      >
      >
      > [This message contained attachments]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:19:24 -0500
      > From: "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
      > Subject: Re: Re: Cleburne
      >
      > JEJ:
      > I couldn't agree with you more. He was a loyal
      > subordinate brigade and division commander.
      > Aggressive in his battlefield behavior, he reach his
      > level of competency as a division commander. His
      > body was wrecked after Chickamauga but his ambition
      > continued. Thanks for your clear statement.
      > Ron
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: GnrlJEJohnston@...
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:13 PM
      > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Cleburne
      >
      >
      > In a message dated 2/26/2006 9:57:25 P.M. Eastern
      > Standard Time, tmix@... writes:
      > As for pain relief making a difference in the
      > Tennessee campaign, I doubt it. Hood was a lousy
      > Army commander and apparently a disgusting person to
      > be around at that time.
      >
      > If anything, if he had used the meds properly he
      > would been able to make a clear and proper decision
      > and
      === message truncated ===


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com



      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • LWhite64@aol.com
      Well Hood s tactics didnt change in his entire career. When he was a lieutenant in the 2nd US Cavlary in July of 1857, he led a detachment of the 2nd into a
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 1 5:50 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Well Hood's tactics didnt change in his entire career.  When he was a lieutenant in the 2nd US Cavlary in July of 1857, he led a detachment of the 2nd into a fight near Devil's River in south Texas.  In the fight with Commanches that followed, Liet. Hood would lead 17 troopers against 45 natives who held the high ground and were largely concealed.  Hood was wounded with an arrow through his left hand, which he yanked free in the fight, along with three other troopers, and had two men killed.  He was forced to fall back, but was not pursued by the Commanches.
         
        Lee
      • Dan Giallombardo
        Which reminds of Bragg, about whom it was said, He never forgot a tactic or a strategy. Or learned a new one. ---Dan ... a ... detachment of the 2nd ...
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 3 1:47 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Which reminds of Bragg, about whom it was said, "He never forgot a
          tactic or a strategy. Or learned a new one."---Dan

          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, LWhite64@... wrote:
          >
          > Well Hood's tactics didnt change in his entire career. When he was
          a
          > lieutenant in the 2nd US Cavlary in July of 1857, he led a
          detachment of the 2nd
          > into a fight near Devil's River in south Texas. In the fight with
          Commanches
          > that followed, Liet. Hood would lead 17 troopers against 45
          natives who held
          > the high ground and were largely concealed. Hood was wounded with
          an arrow
          > through his left hand, which he yanked free in the fight, along
          with three
          > other troopers, and had two men killed. He was forced to fall
          back, but was not
          > pursued by the Commanches.
          >
          > Lee
          >
        • LWhite64@aol.com
          In a message dated 3/3/2006 4:48:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, DanGiallo@AOL.com writes: Which reminds of Bragg, about whom it was said, He never forgot a
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 3 4:26 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 3/3/2006 4:48:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, DanGiallo@... writes:

            Which reminds of Bragg, about whom it was said, "He never forgot a
            tactic or a strategy. Or learned a new one."---
            Well like so much that was said of Bragg, I dont think that one is true.  He certainly had a lot of faults, but what little that was made to advance tactics in the army was done by him.  Also, I would argue that his strategic use of the railroads in 62, led to one of the greatest reverses of the war, when he forced Buell to leave north Alabama and chase him into Kentucky.  So the old dog deserves some credit.
             
            Lee
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.