--- In email@example.com, "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "oneplez" oneplez@ wrote:
> > No one that I know of has ever reported that they thought Thomas
> > have been named commander of the Division of the Mississippi rather
> > Grant. Many of Thomas' contemporaries thought so because of
> > Thomas' seniority and infinitly better battle performances. But,
> > even they realized Shermy had his nose buried so deep it was a
> > conclusion.
> I was not talking about department command but about command at
> Chattanooga. The Thomas fan club, always seems upset that Grant
> showed up at all.
Where does that appear?
> > In addition, the anti-Sherman group has a field day with Tunnel
> > Well, Sherman continued his unmilitary bumbling at MR. He was slow
> > getting his troops into position, Slow advancing them (Had he
> > immediately he would have found no resistance). Slow in making a
> > reconnaissance (Made it just before he was to attack), and found he
> > a hill short of his target. He seems to have learned his strategy
> > Butler and Burnside.
> What you say may or may not be fully correct but this is not unique
> to Sherman or to Tunnel Hill area. In addition, one can alwyas
> question why this area had not be scouted prior to Grant's arrival.
How do you know whether or not it is "fully" correct? Why would it have been scouted? No one knew what plans Grant was to come up with until he showed up?
> > To top things off, this seems to be one of Grant's poorer efforts
> > that releases the anti-Grant groups.
> > You've established a new standard by indicating Grant had a poor
> > day. Congratulations!
> Everyone has apoor day and the higher up you get the better your
> chances of are having more of them.
Spoken like a true Grant Groupie!
> > Hooker, still smarting from summer is the joker in the deck.
> > Hooker performed brilliantly on the Rebels left.
> It was very hard not to perform "brilliantly" against the majority of
> the AoT at that time. Most of the army had very bad supply and moral
> problems and had hit bottom. Pat's division was an exception and
> shows what an exceptional leader he was.
Why didn't Grant perform "brilliantly then?
> > Thomas seems to have slighted Grant from when he showed up; failing
> > show him the respect due a commanding officer. His actions seem to
> > much less than what is expected as basic kindness.
> > You are correct! Thomas seems! This legend was started by James
> > Wilson and is the only mention of this incident extant. Porter
> > Wilson's statement but is a poor witness since he came with Baldy
> > Smith after the alleged "insult" occurred and could not have been
> > witness.
> If half the story is true, Thomas was wrong and insulting. I
> used "seems" becuse of the questions but I feel their is a factual
> foundation for it.
What's the "factual foundation?" "Feeling" only counts in horseshoes.
> > Sherman, favored by Grant, is stuck with problems that no one
> > or expected. The tactical problems of the Tunnel Hillcomplex is made
> > worse by facing one of the few real fightingdivisions in the AoT.
> > Sorry! He was faced with no one if he had not been so slow. Don't
> > understand the tactical problems you mention. He could have flanked
> > Rebel position and threatened Chickamauga Station, where Bragg had
> > stores. That would have grabbed the Reb's by the short hairs.
> > Cleburne did not have his whole division up. He had some of it plus
> > couple other brigades. Against Sherman's uninspired straight-up
> > charges, that's all he needed. Sherman had 5 or 6 division's and
> > Thomas cavalry and still couldn't get `er done!
> You continue to overlook some very real problems in your attack on
What are they? Please enlighten me?
> > Bragg is in an impossible task having lost total control of his
> army and
> > unable to move forward or fall back.
> > I thought he fell back to Dalton, Ga.
> I was talking about Bragg's position prior to the battle during
> the "seige". He didn't have the men or transportation to maintain
> the "seige" BUT he was unable to fall back due to other
That's fairly convoluted. Seems to me that he fell back pretty quick once Thomas knocked him off the Ridge. Didn't he? What am I missing?
- Thnk you, I was under the impression that Cleburne was pretty much alone in the defence of the northern end.
--- In email@example.com, SDE80@... wrote:
> Well, the whole point of Sherman assaulting the north end of the Ridge was
> to both capture Chickamauga Station and cut Bragg off from Longstreet at
> Knoxville. That, too, would have made MR untenable. Bragg properly
> discerned that was Grant's main effort and concentrated 4 divisions in a
> relatively small area. He counted on the natural strength and defensibility of MR
> to try to hold the rest of it with three divisions. A. P. Stewart's
> division basically had responsibility for three miles of ridge with only enough
> men in a single rank to hold a little over a mile.
> Sam Elliott
> In a message dated 10/25/2010 3:45:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> banbruner@... writes:
> I was thinking also of Sherman's force to the north which was much larger
> and much closer to Chickamauga Station.
> Bill Bruner
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org_ (mailto:email@example.com)
> , SDE80@ wrote:
> > Bragg would have indeed had a hard time holding MR with a Federal corps
> > (Hooker's "column" had three divisions" at Rossville. Of course, Grant's
> > original plan did not contemplate Hooker being a part of the attack, or
> > having more than one division.
> > Sam Elliott
> > In a message dated 10/25/2010 10:35:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > banbruner@ writes:
> > I am looking forward to a trip in Nov. celebrating the Battle of
> > Chattanooga.
> > Looking the map in preparation, a peculiar thought occurred to me.
> > That once Lookout Mountain and Rossville had been taken Braggs position
> > Missionary Ridge was untenable. With both Lookout and Chattanooga
> > in union control and large forces on both north and southern flanks in
> > position to move to his (Braggs) rear and cut his communications and
> > of retreat he would have been forced to retire after dark on the 15th
> > if no charge had been made on his front.
> > I'm wondering if this analysis has been put forth before or if I am
> > completely wrongheaded.
> > Bill Bruner