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

Re: Affair at the Gulp House?

Expand Messages
  • josepharose
    ... and page ... sent Hooker ... they had repulsed ... As Sherman ... not ... we rode away ... such a ... gently than the ... Hooker had a ... their right
    Message 1 of 55 , Jun 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@... wrote:
      >
      > In a message dated 6/3/2006 1:36:51 PM Central Daylight Time,
      > banbruner@... writes:
      > Don, thank you. After a thoughtful interlude, and weighing many
      > possibilities, I think you have nailed it. Culp vs Gulp is a
      > natural garble or typo. And the events as you related them,
      > certainly give cause and motivation (along with a long standing
      > mistrust of Hooker) for Sherman's decision not to consider him
      > (Hooker) for command of the AotT.
      > My version of Sherman's Memoirs has the Kulp House (pages 528-9
      and page
      > 560). Apparently the affair started west of Kennesaw Mt. when had
      sent Hooker
      > and Schofield to the right to skirt the mountain. Hood was ordered to
      > interdict but attacked -- twice. Hood then sent WTS a message that
      they had repulsed
      > two attacks ... ending with "Three entire corps are in front of us."
      As Sherman
      > knew Johnston had only three corps, he investigated. My version does
      not
      > mention dressing Hooker down in front of Schofield, but does say "As
      we rode away
      > from that church General Hooker was by my side, and I told him that
      such a
      > thing must not occur again; in other words, I reproved him more
      gently than the
      > occasion demanded, and from that time he began to sulk."
      > Apparently, Thomas and Hooker had previously complained that
      Hooker had a
      > tendency to drift off, in their opinion, to gain personal glory. These
      > complaints, Hooker's intimation that "they" were apprehensive of
      their right flank.
      > (Sherman knew that Schofield was on that flank.) WTS looked into it
      and found
      > Hooker to be less than truthful (Butterfield's division of Hooker's
      Corps
      > hadn't even been in on the fighting.).
      > Whether it was the sulking or the prevarications Sherman doesn't
      specify
      > -- just that after that, he wasn't too thrilled with Fightin' Joe.
      > Am reading an amusing little book by Mark Coburn: Terrible
      Innocence. He
      > refers to the affair as at Kolb's Farm. Coburn strongly intimates
      Sherman
      > "grabbed the chance to bully a man he disliked." Go figure.
      > Ken


      You noted: "Apparently, Thomas and Hooker [I assume that you mean
      Sherman or Schofield or McPherson] had previously complained that
      Hooker had a tendency to drift off, in their opinion, to gain personal
      glory."

      Have you seen where Thomas, himself, expressed such an opinion, or at
      least is there any evidence that indicates he held such an opinion?
      Sherman had put false words in Thomas' mouth concerning Kennesaw, so
      Sherman's word alone seems hardly sufficient to make any conclusions.

      Thanks,
      Joseph
    • GnrlJEJohnston@aol.com
      In a message dated 6/7/2006 12:40:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, clarkc@missouri.edu writes: This is an interesting view of the role of an historian. To
      Message 55 of 55 , Jun 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 6/7/2006 12:40:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, clarkc@... writes:
        This is an interesting view of the role of an historian.

        To research and present data but not to interpret?

        HankC
        Yes research and present data, but if there is personal interpretation, let it be stated as so, to prevent it being taken as fact.  Is that too much to ask.
         
        JEJ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.