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

Re: [civilwarwest] Digest Number 2934

Expand Messages
  • mike myers
    Will first of all, I had to print out the world of information you gave me, I would like to thank you for the sources, I have sent off for 5 sets of records
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Will first of all, I had to print out the world of information you gave me, I would like to thank you for the sources, I have sent off for 5 sets of records (Miltary records) this past week. I am looking forward to what is there. I did not think to write Maryland or Indiana about their records,but will do so. As for what pvt Foster Hunt died of, sickiness was one of the first thinks I thought of, but you also gave me a few battle grounds to check out as well. Again thanks Mike

      civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com wrote:

      Messages In This Digest (14 Messages)

      Messages

      1a.

      Hi I one of the ones who post from time to time,but

      Posted by: "inline75067" inline75067@...   inline75067

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 5:23 am (PST)

      HI, first of all, you are the only Civil war group that seems to
      monitor the spam that comes. You wipe it out and that's great, I like
      to read the posts and I sometimes, post on different questions. I got
      into the group chasing family members who served with the 69th
      indiana, 93th Indiana,and the 145th Indiana. The 13th Maryland has
      just came up, I do like to read about the different subjects in the
      war, I am not a expert enough to really converse on the subjects
      without showing my lack of the subject. I have found my great-great
      uncle who was with the 93th Indiana, died fall of 1863 and buried at
      Jefferson Barracks National in St louis,mo 9-16-1863. I have not found
      the conflict or illiness that may have claimed him. If anyone had
      thoughts on this let me know. thanks mike-inline75067@ yahoo.com

      1b.

      Re: Hi I one of the ones who post from time to time,but

      Posted by: "keeno2@..." keeno2@...

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 6:24 am (PST)

      In a message dated 2/9/2007 7:25:41 AM Central Standard Time,
      inline75067@ yahoo.com writes:
      I do like to read about the different subjects in the war, I am not a expert
      enough to really converse on the subjects without showing my lack of the
      subject.
      Everybody starts with a lack of the subject. If you wait until you feel you
      are fully knowdegeable, you'll likely become quite aged before you pitch in.
      The surest way to find out something is to ask a question (there are no dumb
      questions), Asking anything also does the board a favor in that there will surely
      be a spate of replies, disagreements, and debate on the "proper" answer.

      Keep postin'
      Ken
      1c.

      Re: Hi I one of the ones who post from time to time,but

      Posted by: "keeno2@..." keeno2@...

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 6:27 am (PST)

      In a message dated 2/9/2007 7:25:41 AM Central Standard Time,
      inline75067@ yahoo.com writes:
      I have found my great-great uncle who was with the 93th Indiana, died fall of
      1863 and buried at
      Jefferson Barracks National in St louis,mo 9-16-1863. I have not found the
      conflict or illiness that may have claimed him.
      Could've been anything, Mike. The 93rd's engagement closest to that date was
      Brice's Crossroads in June of that year wherein Sturgis' troops (including the
      93rd) were quite severiously mauled by Forrest. Your antecedent may have been
      wounded there and lasted until September before succumbing to his wounds. Or
      maybe not. He may have survived the battle and got run over by a wagon in
      September. Others on the board will certainly have better sources to help you fill
      in some possibilities.
      Good huntin.'
      Ken
      1d.

      Re: Hi I one of the ones who post from time to time,but

      Posted by: "Dave Gorski" amhistoryguy@...   amhistoryguy

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 5:05 pm (PST)

      > I have found my great-great
      >uncle who was with the 93th Indiana, died fall of 1863 and buried at
      >Jefferson Barracks National in St louis,mo 9-16-1863. I have not found
      >the conflict or illiness that may have claimed him. If anyone had
      >thoughts on this let me know.

      Just speculation, but if he died of wounds, he may have been involved
      in the conflict around Jackson, Mississippi. The regiment's commander
      has his reports on the action the regiment participated in, in the OR,
      Series I, Volume 24, Part I, page 765. On the other hand he may have
      been a victim of disease. Of the 93rd Indiana's 291 dead, 250 of them
      died of disease, so the odds are that he also died of disease.

      Here are some research suggestions:

      If you have not already done so, get records from the National Archives,
      and if possible, get them yourself rather than by mail.
      When you get records by mail, you get what the individual researcher sends
      you. They are good, and they do the best they can, but they can leave
      things out. Some soldiers may be listed under a number of spellings of the
      names. One soldier from the 11th Indiana Battery, which I researched is listed
      under 7 different names, and several of these files had information in them,
      all on the same individual. The 241 men who served in the 11th Indiana Battery
      are listed under 368 names in the National Archives records. So, if you can
      look for yourself. Check ALL the records, legal, medical and POW are not
      together, you have to request them all. Don't overlook pension records. There
      can be a great deal of war related information there too, as some soldiers had
      their service records questioned and they required affidavits from
      comrades to secure their pension.

      Check with the Indiana Historical Society, and the Indiana Archives.
      If you need an address or phone number let me know. It is likely that they can
      provide much information. Ask for correspondence which may have been sent
      to the unit from the state adjutant general, telegrams etc. Many
      state archives
      have the original muster in and out rolls. Ask for that unit's Morning Report
      Books, Sick Book, Descriptive Book, Clothing Book, Order Book, Account Book
      of Company Fund, Register of Articles Issued to Soldiers, and Report of Target
      Practice Book. These were all books that were kept by regulations, and while
      many are missing, many still exist in state archives. They provide a wealth of
      information not just on the unit, but on individual soldiers as well.

      Contact the U.S. Army Military History Institute;
      Carlisle Barracks, 22 Ashburn Dr., Carlisle PA, 17013-5008

      Check period newspaper accounts. Most communities were very proud of their
      boys. They regularly kept the people updated on the activities of
      their hometown
      boys. The Indiana Historical Society Library can provide these
      papers on microfilm.
      Use interlibrary loan if you can't get to Indianapolis. Check the
      report of the Indiana
      Adjutant General as well, 4 or 5 volumes. The New Albany and Madison,
      Indiana Area
      had several newspapers, and many of the men in the 93rd Indiana were
      from that area.
      Look for reunion stories as well. Many men posed for unit photos that
      were published
      in local newspapers.

      Hope this is of some help. There are many avenues of research that
      can be taken.

      Regards, Dave Gorski

      2.

      Re: anyone else ever notice this?

      Posted by: "bjer50010" barry.jewell@...   bjer50010

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 7:26 am (PST)

      --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@. ..>
      wrote:
      >
      > seems like if we get a query from someone who doesnt normally post
      > here, just wants some help, it's just as if that person disappears.
      > You don't even know if you helped them.
      >
      > At least we sort of stayed on topic by finding out from the
      Wikipedia
      > entry that a Vandenburgh gun was found at Ft Fisher after the
      > battle... thus neither involving the AoNV or the Peninsula
      Campaign [g].
      >
      > Alas, no hint as to the manufacturer there or otherwise. Thus it
      seems
      > to me that something is broken in the assertion that the gun was
      > rejected by all but the Confederacy. .. IMO the CSA was quite
      unlikely
      > to have manufactured the contraption pictured. Whoever first came
      up
      > with that story just might have leapt to conclusions via this
      sequence:
      >
      > - Vandenburgh invented it
      > - it was found at Ft. Fisher
      > - *leap* therefore Vandenburgh could only interest the South in it,
      > and they bought and manufactured it. Inconvenient fact that he was
      an
      > officer in the New York Militia is to be posed as irony.
      >
      > just a thought
      > Carl
      >

      [snips]

      Hi Carl,

      About the Vandenburgh gun, I caught Modern Marvels on the History
      Channel yesterday morning, before coming into work and they were
      reshowing the "Guns of the Civil War" episode. In the segment about
      precursors to the machine gun they mentioned the Vandenburgh gun,
      showed a picture of what it looked like and that was about all the
      information they presented. They did go into more detail about the
      Gatling gun, including what his rationale was for designing it.

      As for your query about posters asking a question and then leaving,
      I don't know what to suggest. I know I try to send a thank you
      response if I ask a question, or at least to continue the discussion.

      Best wishes,
      Barry Jewell

      3a.

      Bragg and Chickamauga

      Posted by: "Carl Williams" carlw4514@...   carlw4514

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 7:40 am (PST)

      Bragg does have his defenders, and certainly it is not crazy to say
      that he deserves respect for a CS win at Chickamauga; in fact it is
      somewhat remarkable that the man showed enough ineptitude then and
      later that he could be denied by many what is usually granted: credit
      for a victory.

      Someone at a game forum granted me permission to repeat his answer to
      anyone who would grant Bragg such. I thought it was rather good. Dave
      Powell also weighed in, but I will let him speak for himself here.

      "To credit Bragg with the victory at Chickamauga is a bit of a stretch
      if you ask me. Bragg won despite all of his efforts. The fact that the
      Confederates won is a small miracle. Bragg, and Polk both did their
      best to sabotage any chance for victory. Bragg can be faulted for not
      providing accurate information to his subordinates. He remained too
      distant from the battlefield to maintain tactical control. If his
      style was a hands off style then he is at fault for not providing one
      of his generals with overall field command. Given his previous
      experience with Polk Bragg should have known better than to give Polk
      oral orders for the attack of the 20th. Bragg can also be faulted for
      not making sure that all his Corps commanders were present for the
      evening meeting where Bragg changed the command structure of the Army.
      To ensure the success of the Right Wing Bragg for the morning of the
      20th Bragg should have set up his headquarters with Polk. Bragg can
      also be faulted for his inflexibility once the battle was joined.
      Despite evidence of the contrary, Bragg continued to operate in the
      belief that the Union left flank was anchored at Lee and Gordon's
      Mill. Stewart's afternoon attack on the 19th is a good example of how
      Bragg was out of touch with the happenings on the battlefield. When
      Stewart asked what his orders were, Bragg told him to be guided by the
      sound of the battle. Stewart eventually punched through the Union
      center in the vicinity of the Brotherton Field but lacked the support
      to exploit his success. In the meantime Preston's division sat largely
      unengaged and Cleburne was sent on a six mile march to the right flank
      to continue the fight there. Polk can also be faulted. Polk was
      extremely negligent in readying his Corps for battle on the morning of
      the 20th. If Polk had attacked at first light as he was ordered to do,
      the Union position at Kelly field would have been easily overcome and
      there would have been no need for the costly assaults on Snodgrass
      Hill. Bragg can be credited for bringing his Army to the field of
      battle, but one there, his brilliance decided to take a vacation."

      By Rob Pottos
      http://talk. consimworld. com/WebX? 7@...2xI6 h.56@.ee6b335/ 11678

      3b.

      Re: Bragg and Chickamauga

      Posted by: "James W. Durney" JWD2044@...   james2044

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 7:44 am (PST)

      I am not sure that anyone could have won battles working with the Corps
      commanders Bragg had. Davis, refused to fix the problem by replacing
      one side or the other. Polk did everything possible to undermine Bragg
      on and off the field. Hardee cannot decide to obey or take over and
      sits doing nothing much of the time.

      James

      3c.

      Re: Bragg and Chickamauga

      Posted by: "DPowell334@..." DPowell334@...

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 8:29 am (PST)

      In a message dated 2/9/2007 9:49:28 AM Central Standard Time,
      JWD2044@hotmail. com writes:
      am not sure that anyone could have won battles working with the Corps
      commanders Bragg had. Davis, refused to fix the problem by replacing
      one side or the other. Polk did everything possible to undermine Bragg
      on and off the field. Hardee cannot decide to obey or take over and
      sits doing nothing much of the time.

      James

      Carl re-posted Rob's very thoughtful post, so I thought I would add my own
      comments, since they are germain to the above and to Rob's words.

      Bragg deserved a medal for winning a victory at all, considering how much
      Polk did to sabotage him. [from another poster on the BB]

      Hill is very much at fault, as well. He completely lost control of his corps,
      fixated on mid-level tasks that should have been left to his divisional
      commanders, and then wandered aimlessly over the field for several hours. In the
      meantime, Breckinridge actually spent the night of the 19th sleeping at Bragg's
      HQ, but amazingly, Bragg never mentioned the re-organization or the fact that
      Breckinridge' s division was spearheading an attack at dawn.

      Why on earth that wouldn't come up at HQ is beyond me.

      Polk's certainly not the wing commander Longstreet is, but his problems have
      been greatly magnified by a series of outright lies from the pro-Bragg side
      aimed at scapegoating him for all that went wrong. Polk's biggest failing was in
      the poor deployment of his Wing for midday of the 20th. He had a solid
      victory in his grasp between 10 am and noon, but let it slip away - mostly due to
      Hill's almost bizarre contrariness.

      Of the eight corps/wing commanders at Chickamauga, only two were outstanding:
      Longstreet and Hood. Walker did a credible job, Buckner was a cipher (he did
      virtually nothing for the battle, having largely been superceded by
      Longstreet) Polk was weak and fumbling, and Hill, Wheeler, and Forrest were all fairly
      spectacular failures at critical moments.

      Bragg must share a significant burden of the blame. He could have removed or
      isolated recalcitrant commanders, or provided a great deal more direct
      supervision. His failures to effectively communicate his plans on the night of the
      20th are his alone - as noted by the Breckinridge story above. He also failed to
      follow the basic dictum of reinforcing success, when he refused to lend
      Longstreet support on the afternoon of the 20th. He almost completely wasted
      Cheatham's large division on the 20th, despite it only having moderate losses on the
      19th. Cheatham's brigades might well have made all the difference at 10 am,
      on the north flank, or at 3 pm, on Horseshoe Ridge. Instead they were fed into
      the line to bolster Hill, and had to make yet more pointless frontal attacks
      on the Kelly field line.

      Dave Powell
      3d.

      Re: Bragg and Chickamauga

      Posted by: "Tom Mix" tmix@...

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 8:59 am (PST)

      I find these types of discussions fascinating. The personalities that
      participated in the Civil War are always an interesting study.

      What repeatedly comes up to me is how Polk was tolerated again and again by
      his superiors. After making judgment error after judgment error Polk still
      maintained his command position. While Polk is present in virtually every
      major western campaign despite his faults we see Longstreet sent back east,
      Beauregard ignored, Joe Johnston installed in command, removed and brought
      back, Cheatham and Cleburne constantly passed over (the West Point
      prejudice) and I'm sure other questionable commander decisions that I'm
      forgetting at the moment. But yet Polk continues on making error after
      error, being a persistent and consistent weak link in the command structure.
      Such values were destined to undermine a war effort and the did so. We can
      blame Davis but the blame lies with those in direct supervisory positions
      over Polk. Bragg and others seemed to constantly put Polk in vital positions
      like at Chickamauga and leaving him to independently command his field and
      screw it all up when they should have known better.

      Its like Bragg and others were dedicating themselves to insure failure by
      constantly and erroneously viewing Polk as capable of combat command.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com] On
      Behalf Of Carl Williams
      Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 9:30 AM
      To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Bragg and Chickamauga

      Bragg does have his defenders, and certainly it is not crazy to say
      that he deserves respect for a CS win at Chickamauga; in fact it is
      somewhat remarkable that the man showed enough ineptitude then and
      later that he could be denied by many what is usually granted: credit
      for a victory.

      Someone at a game forum granted me permission to repeat his answer to
      anyone who would grant Bragg such. I thought it was rather good. Dave
      Powell also weighed in, but I will let him speak for himself here.

      "To credit Bragg with the victory at Chickamauga is a bit of a stretch
      if you ask me. Bragg won despite all of his efforts. The fact that the
      Confederates won is a small miracle. Bragg, and Polk both did their
      best to sabotage any chance for victory. Bragg can be faulted for not
      providing accurate information to his subordinates. He remained too
      distant from the battlefield to maintain tactical control. If his
      style was a hands off style then he is at fault for not providing one
      of his generals with overall field command. Given his previous
      experience with Polk Bragg should have known better than to give Polk
      oral orders for the attack of the 20th. Bragg can also be faulted for
      not making sure that all his Corps commanders were present for the
      evening meeting where Bragg changed the command structure of the Army.
      To ensure the success of the Right Wing Bragg for the morning of the
      20th Bragg should have set up his headquarters with Polk. Bragg can
      also be faulted for his inflexibility once the battle was joined.
      Despite evidence of the contrary, Bragg continued to operate in the
      belief that the Union left flank was anchored at Lee and Gordon's
      Mill. Stewart's afternoon attack on the 19th is a good example of how
      Bragg was out of touch with the happenings on the battlefield. When
      Stewart asked what his orders were, Bragg told him to be guided by the
      sound of the battle. Stewart eventually punched through the Union
      center in the vicinity of the Brotherton Field but lacked the support
      to exploit his success. In the meantime Preston's division sat largely
      unengaged and Cleburne was sent on a six mile march to the right flank
      to continue the fight there. Polk can also be faulted. Polk was
      extremely negligent in readying his Corps for battle on the morning of
      the 20th. If Polk had attacked at first light as he was ordered to do,
      the Union position at Kelly field would have been easily overcome and
      there would have been no need for the costly assaults on Snodgrass
      Hill. Bragg can be credited for bringing his Army to the field of
      battle, but one there, his brilliance decided to take a vacation."

      By Rob Pottos
      http://talk.
      <http://talk. consimworld. com/WebX? 7@...2xI6 h.56@.ee6b335/ 11678>
      consimworld. com/WebX? 7@...2xI6 h.56@.ee6b335/11678

      3e.

      Re: Bragg and Chickamauga

      Posted by: "LWhite64@..." LWhite64@...   lwhite64

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 9:00 am (PST)

      Just to add to part of this, "When Stewart asked what his orders were, Bragg told him to be guided by the sound of the battle..." This was actually nothing new for the AoT, just after Shiloh Beauregard sent down word that in the future if your command was idle or got lost on the field to go toward the sound of the fighting. Chickamauga was a mess, the last place Bragg or Rosecrans would have wanted to fight. Also, concerning the problems Bragg had, add to the list the infighting between the Bragg men and Anti Bragg men, and as Dave has pointed out before the failings of Bragg's Cavalry.

      Lee

      -----Original Message-----
      From: carlw4514@yahoo. com
      To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:30 AM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Bragg and Chickamauga

      Bragg does have his defenders, and certainly it is not crazy to say
      that he deserves respect for a CS win at Chickamauga; in fact it is
      somewhat remarkable that the man showed enough ineptitude then and
      later that he could be denied by many what is usually granted: credit
      for a victory.

      Someone at a game forum granted me permission to repeat his answer to
      anyone who would grant Bragg such. I thought it was rather good. Dave
      Powell also weighed in, but I will let him speak for himself here.

      "To credit Bragg with the victory at Chickamauga is a bit of a stretch
      if you ask me. Bragg won despite all of his efforts. The fact that the
      Confederates won is a small miracle. Bragg, and Polk both did their
      best to sabotage any chance for victory. Bragg can be faulted for not
      providing accurate information to his subordinates. He remained too
      distant from the battlefield to maintain tactical control. If his
      style was a hands off style then he is at fault for not providing one
      of his generals with overall field command. Given his previous
      experience with Polk Bragg should have known better than to give Polk
      oral orders for the attack of the 20th. Bragg can also be faulted for
      not making sure that all his Corps commanders were present for the
      evening meeting where Bragg changed the command structure of the Army.
      To ensure the success of the Right Wing Bragg for the morning of the
      20th Bragg should have set up his headquarters with Polk. Bragg can
      also be faulted for his inflexibility once the battle was joined.
      Despite evidence of the contrary, Bragg continued to operate in the
      belief that the Union left flank was anchored at Lee and Gordon's
      Mill. Stewart's afternoon attack on the 19th is a good example of how
      Bragg was out of touch with the happenings on the battlefield. When
      Stewart asked what his orders were, Bragg told him to be guided by the
      sound of the battle. Stewart eventually punched through the Union
      center in the vicinity of the Brotherton Field but lacked the support
      to exploit his success. In the meantime Preston's division sat largely
      unengaged and Cleburne was sent on a six mile march to the right flank
      to continue the fight there. Polk can also be faulted. Polk was
      extremely negligent in readying his Corps for battle on the morning of
      the 20th. If Polk had attacked at first light as he was ordered to do,
      the Union position at Kelly field would have been easily overcome and
      there would have been no need for the costly assaults on Snodgrass
      Hill. Bragg can be credited for bringing his Army to the field of
      battle, but one there, his brilliance decided to take a vacation."

      By Rob Pottos
      http://talk. consimworld. com/WebX? 7@...2xI6 h.56@.ee6b335/ 11678

      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
      Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
      3f.

      Re: Bragg and Chickamauga

      Posted by: "Bob Huddleston" huddleston.r@...   huddlestonus

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 9:58 am (PST)

      People often complain about Lincoln tolerating "political generals." A
      bigger command problem during the War was the toleration by Davis of his
      friends.

      In the early years of the Clinton Administration there were those known as
      "FOB," "Friends of Bill."

      During the Civil War, there were the FOJs

      Take care,

      Bob

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

      The war existed long before the cannonade of Sumter, and could not be
      postponed. It might have begun otherwise or elsewhere, but war was in the
      minds and bones of the combatants, it was written on the iron leaf, and you
      might as easily dodge gravitation. Ralph Waldo
      Emerson, "The President's Proclamation, " The Atlantic, November 1862

      _____

      From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com] On
      Behalf Of Tom Mix
      Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 9:59 AM
      To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
      Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Bragg and Chickamauga

      I find these types of discussions fascinating. The personalities that
      participated in the Civil War are always an interesting study.

      What repeatedly comes up to me is how Polk was tolerated again and again by
      his superiors. After making judgment error after judgment error Polk still
      maintained his command position. While Polk is present in virtually every
      major western campaign despite his faults we see Longstreet sent back east,
      Beauregard ignored, Joe Johnston installed in command, removed and brought
      back, Cheatham and Cleburne constantly passed over (the West Point
      prejudice) and I'm sure other questionable commander decisions that I'm
      forgetting at the moment. But yet Polk continues on making error after
      error, being a persistent and consistent weak link in the command structure.
      Such values were destined to undermine a war effort and the did so. We can
      blame Davis but the blame lies with those in direct supervisory positions
      over Polk. Bragg and others seemed to constantly put Polk in vital positions
      like at Chickamauga and leaving him to independently command his field and
      screw it all up when they should have known better.

      Its like Bragg and others were dedicating themselves to insure failure by
      constantly and erroneously viewing Polk as capable of combat command.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com] On
      Behalf Of Carl Williams
      Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 9:30 AM
      To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Bragg and Chickamauga

      Bragg does have his defenders, and certainly it is not crazy to say
      that he deserves respect for a CS win at Chickamauga; in fact it is
      somewhat remarkable that the man showed enough ineptitude then and
      later that he could be denied by many what is usually granted: credit
      for a victory.

      Someone at a game forum granted me permission to repeat his answer to
      anyone who would grant Bragg such. I thought it was rather good. Dave
      Powell also weighed in, but I will let him speak for himself here.

      "To credit Bragg with the victory at Chickamauga is a bit of a stretch
      if you ask me. Bragg won despite all of his efforts. The fact that the
      Confederates won is a small miracle. Bragg, and Polk both did their
      best to sabotage any chance for victory. Bragg can be faulted for not
      providing accurate information to his subordinates. He remained too
      distant from the battlefield to maintain tactical control. If his
      style was a hands off style then he is at fault for not providing one
      of his generals with overall field command. Given his previous
      experience with Polk Bragg should have known better than to give Polk
      oral orders for the attack of the 20th. Bragg can also be faulted for
      not making sure that all his Corps commanders were present for the
      evening meeting where Bragg changed the command structure of the Army.
      To ensure the success of the Right Wing Bragg for the morning of the
      20th Bragg should have set up his headquarters with Polk. Bragg can
      also be faulted for his inflexibility once the battle was joined.
      Despite evidence of the contrary, Bragg continued to operate in the
      belief that the Union left flank was anchored at Lee and Gordon's
      Mill. Stewart's afternoon attack on the 19th is a good example of how
      Bragg was out of touch with the happenings on the battlefield. When
      Stewart asked what his orders were, Bragg told him to be guided by the
      sound of the battle. Stewart eventually punched through the Union
      center in the vicinity of the Brotherton Field but lacked the support
      to exploit his success. In the meantime Preston's division sat largely
      unengaged and Cleburne was sent on a six mile march to the right flank
      to continue the fight there. Polk can also be faulted. Polk was
      extremely negligent in readying his Corps for battle on the morning of
      the 20th. If Polk had attacked at first light as he was ordered to do,
      the Union position at Kelly field would have been easily overcome and
      there would have been no need for the costly assaults on Snodgrass
      Hill. Bragg can be credited for bringing his Army to the field of
      battle, but one there, his brilliance decided to take a vacation."

      By Rob Pottos
      http://talk.
      <http://talk. consimworld. com/WebX? 7@...2xI6 h.56@.ee6b335/ 11678>
      consimworld. com/WebX? 7@...2xI6 h.56@.ee6b335/11678

      3g.

      Re: Bragg and Chickamauga

      Posted by: "James W. Durney" JWD2044@...   james2044

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 12:30 pm (PST)

      --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
      >
      > But yet Polk continues on making error after
      > error, being a persistent and consistent weak link in the command
      structure.
      > Such values were destined to undermine a war effort and the did
      so. We can
      > blame Davis but the blame lies with those in direct supervisory
      positions
      > over Polk. Bragg and others seemed to constantly put Polk in vital
      positions
      > like at Chickamauga and leaving him to independently command his
      field and
      > screw it all up when they should have known better.
      >
      > Its like Bragg and others were dedicating themselves to insure
      failure by
      > constantly and erroneously viewing Polk as capable of combat
      command.
      >

      ISTM that Polk had a very clear "hands off" sign. Davis was very
      close to him and refused to consider that Polk was less than great.
      I do not think it is possible to bypass a Polk in the command chain
      or pretend that he is not there.

      James

      3h.

      Re: Bragg and Chickamauga

      Posted by: "Tom Mix" tmix@...

      Fri Feb 9, 2007 12:39 pm (PST)

      I agree with your comments, James. To me it illustrates how hypocritical
      Davis was as CiC. He had no problem ignoring Beauregard or disregarding
      J.E. Johnston's feelings. For the most part he seemed to ignore Hardee with
      ease as well. Each was highly superior to Polk but yet Polk received
      positives from Jeff. For what ever reason, Davis had no problem putting his
      personal agenda's ahead of the needs of his "cause" or country (CSA). To
      me this illustrates his hypocrisy. Davis may have been more for Jeff Davis
      first than we think.

      Maybe.

      Tom

      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com] On
      Behalf Of James W. Durney
      Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 2:30 PM
      To

      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.