RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Chattanooga
As for you claim of Hooker’s “brilliance” and that others believe your statements to be true, I don’t think so. Hooker did a fine job but brilliant? No, I can’t that far but that is subjective thought. As for your tremendous support in your evaluation, I don’t see that either and that is not subjective.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of oneplez
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:46 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Chattanooga
--- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "William H Keene" <wh_keene@.. .>
>"oneplez" <oneplez@> wrote:
> --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com,
> > ...possibly
> > Hooker performed brilliantly on the Rebels left.
> By what standard? I cant think of how his performance could
> be called brilliant.flanked
> > 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
> > Rebel position and threatened Chickamauga Station, where Bragg
> > 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
> > 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!
> No matter what pace Sherman set (and I see nothing wrong with the
> speed he moved) he would face someone. Walker's division had been
> position south of the Tunnel since the day before and Cleburne wason
> his way.My opinion that Hookers performance was brilliant is as valid as
yours that Sherman moved at your acceptable speed rate.
Mine may be more acceptable since it is generally perceived by others
as true. Nobody ever accused Sherman of moving rapidly, viz his
slowness in getting to Chattanooga once Grant ordered him to drop the
- Thnk you, I was under the impression that Cleburne was pretty much alone in the defence of the northern end.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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 email@example.com_ (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)
> , 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