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

FW: [civilwarwest] Re: Well I'll be!

Expand Messages
  • Harry Smeltzer
    Tony, I honestly don t understand how you can t see the ambiguity in Bearss s account - the account that your original post concerned, the one in his Vicksburg
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 28, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Tony,

      I honestly don’t understand how you can’t see the ambiguity in Bearss’s account – the account that your original post concerned, the one in his Vicksburg book.

      This illustrates what I meant by “half formed thoughts” – not Bearss’s, but rather yours.  All in all, you made good points, but you didn’t make them concisely.  Unless you’re just now finding these other Bearss accounts, you would have been better served to make your whole case at the get-go, and I think you would have been better received.  It’s something you might want to consider as you write your book on Raymond.

      Don’t be so cryptic.  Don’t assume everyone knows what you know.  I’m talking from experience.  It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it.  If it rubs people the wrong way, they’re going to be much less receptive.

      Harry

       

      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony Gunter
      Sent:
      Wednesday, February 28, 2007 5:08 AM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Well I'll be!

       

      --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@...> wrote:

      >
      > FWIW, I think Tony has provided good evidence to question
      the "accepted"
      > account, though I think he overstates somewhat the degree to which
      the
      Ohio
      > troops have been "maligned". Bearss' words contain some ambiguity,
      perhaps
      > reflective of some uncertainty on his part.

      I honestly don't see why you feel there's any ambiguity in Bearss
      assertion, but if you're still unconvinced then perhaps this
      restatement of his assertion from an article he wrote for Blue & Gray
      will do the trick:

      "The 20th Ohio east of the bridge held its ground, but as the Buckeyes
      looked to their right they saw that the 68th Ohio had bolted for the
      rear."

      I will admit that "half-formed thoughts" are at play here, but I would
      politely suggest that maybe they were half-formed 20 years ago.

      :)

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