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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Chattanooga

Expand Messages
  • Ronald black
    I agree with Barry about the bickering in favor of your favorite general draws attention from the events. We all have our favorites but get on with it. I also
    Message 1 of 59 , Jun 12, 2007
      I agree with Barry about the bickering in favor of your favorite general draws attention from the events.  We all have our favorites but get on with it.  
      I also agree with Barry about Grant's actions to get the complete picture.  Once again, Grant's determination reversed a tough situation and gained the victory.  He did this over and over during the war.  Remember Lincoln's statements about the barrel of whiskey, more like him, etc.  Please remember that I'm not really a fan of Grant but I would not like to have to fight against him.  Concerning the battle of Missionary Ridge, the greatest contribution towards union victory was made by Braxton Bragg, aided by John C. Breckinridge.  Sherman was stalled before Tunnel hill and Cleburne, Hooker did OK at Lookout Mountain but left the army because of his hurt fellings.  Many don't care for Burnsides but he was still there when the campaign ended having defended Knoxville.  This battle came closest to being a soldier's victory because they deemed the time was right for attack up the ridge. 
      What about the positions and the manevers during the battle. 
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: bjer50010
      Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:25 AM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Chattanooga


      > > > Thomas seems to have slighted Grant from when he showed up;
      > > to
      > > > show him the respect due a commanding officer. His actions seem to
      > > be
      > > > much less than what is expected as basic kindness.
      > > >
      > > > You are correct! Thomas seems! This legend was started by James
      > > Harrison
      > > > Wilson and is the only mention of this incident extant. Porter
      > > echoes
      > > > 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?"

      Who really cares? The fact is that this entire point gets over
      emphasized in discussions of Chattanooga and masks larger issues,
      especially about Grant. Grant had had a horrible trip getting to
      Chattanooga. However, his first concern upon his arrival was to
      ascertain the condition of the AotC, to ensure that they would not be
      retreating any time soon and to determine the dispositions of both Union
      and Confederates forces around the city. Then he listened to Smith's
      proposal of his plan to open the Cracker Line and within 12 hours had
      made his own recon and given Smith approval to carry out the plan. IMHO
      he showed a level of professionalism which is ignored in discussions of
      this man. BTW, many of Thomas' officers had shown lukewarm support for
      the plan, so Grant should be given credit, as should Thomas, for
      realizing the plan would work.


      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 6:39 AM
    • william
      Thnk you, I was under the impression that Cleburne was pretty much alone in the defence of the northern end. Bill Bruner
      Message 59 of 59 , Oct 25, 2010
        Thnk you, I was under the impression that Cleburne was pretty much alone in the defence of the northern end.

        Bill Bruner

        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.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 _civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.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
        > Hooker
        > > 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
        > on
        > > Missionary Ridge was untenable. With both Lookout and Chattanooga
        > Vallies
        > > in union control and large forces on both north and southern flanks in
        > easy
        > > position to move to his (Braggs) rear and cut his communications and
        > line
        > > of retreat he would have been forced to retire after dark on the 15th
        > even
        > > 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
        > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.