Re: Affair at the Gulp House?
- --- In email@example.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
> 560). Apparently the affair started west of Kennesaw Mt. when hadsent Hooker
> and Schofield to the right to skirt the mountain. Hood was ordered tothey had repulsed
> interdict but attacked -- twice. Hood then sent WTS a message that
> two attacks ... ending with "Three entire corps are in front of us."As Sherman
> knew Johnston had only three corps, he investigated. My version doesnot
> mention dressing Hooker down in front of Schofield, but does say "Aswe rode away
> from that church General Hooker was by my side, and I told him thatsuch a
> thing must not occur again; in other words, I reproved him moregently than the
> occasion demanded, and from that time he began to sulk."Hooker had a
> Apparently, Thomas and Hooker had previously complained that
> tendency to drift off, in their opinion, to gain personal glory. Thesetheir right flank.
> complaints, Hooker's intimation that "they" were apprehensive of
> (Sherman knew that Schofield was on that flank.) WTS looked into itand found
> Hooker to be less than truthful (Butterfield's division of Hooker'sCorps
> hadn't even been in on the fighting.).specify
> Whether it was the sulking or the prevarications Sherman doesn't
> -- just that after that, he wasn't too thrilled with Fightin' Joe.Innocence. He
> Am reading an amusing little book by Mark Coburn: Terrible
> refers to the affair as at Kolb's Farm. Coburn strongly intimatesSherman
> "grabbed the chance to bully a man he disliked." Go figure.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
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.
- 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?
HankCYes 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