You make some valid points and perhaps “Sherman’s Georgia Campaign” would be more proper and accurate.
I watched part of the Hunley show last night but began to feel so claustrophobic that I had to switch off. I never experienced that before.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Steve Hall
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest]
The focus of Sherman's campaign did not start out to be Atlanta, and Atlanta did not become a focus of the events until very late in the summer of 1864, many months, and lives, after the campaign started. See another message I just sent for other, more fitting, names for the campaign.
As for calling Lee's actions the "Gettysburg Campaign" that is a NORTHERN term for the campaign and Lee NEVER referred to it in that manner. I have seen references by Lee and others that speaks of the "Pennsylvania Campaign" which is really a better name for it since, as you point out, Gettysburg was never the goal of the campaign, for either army.
Just because something has come into general usage in the public is no reason that we, the "history minded" people should follow them. It is us, those who know the history, who should step up and take the lead, not the other way around. To follow the herd in this, or anything, is to be led around by the nose. If we continue to allow the pubic, actually the media, to dictate to us what terms and information we should believe, then we are doomed to forget anything the media does not want us to know. I am currently watching a show I taped last night from the History Channel on the Hunley and if we had allowed the media to dictate what to believe, then the Hunley never would have been found, it would have been forgotten. I have seen several books and other media sources that do not even include the Hunley, or Bushnell's Turtle, in their accounts of submarine history.
Steve Hall - Commander
Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp #938
Sons of Confederate Veterans
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest]
You are correct in as much as Sherman's assigned mission, per Grant,
was to (rough paraphrase) "go against Joe Johnston's army and break
it up, getting into the interior of the country and doing as much
damage as possible".
However, the fact was that the defense of Atlanta---and,
concordantly, its capture by the Federals---became the overwhelming
topic of concern amongst the generals concerned, their civilian
superiors, and the men who were fighting the campaign.
You could make the same argument that Lee's movement across the
Potomac in the summer of 1863 shouldn't be called the Gettysburg
Campaign, since Lee never set out with intention of bringing his army
to the town of Gettysburg, fighting a great battle there, and (he
hoped) winning the war. Nonetheless, what most people would consider
the climactic battle of the campaign (if not necessarily the war)
occured at Gettysburing during this overall movement, and after that
battle, Lee's forces withdrew. Even though Gettysburg wasn't the
Point B that Lee was setting out from Point A to reach, that's where
the largest engagement of the campaign took place. Ergo, we refer to
that three month (June-August) series of movements as the Gettysburg
So if the Atlanta Campaign is a misnomer, then what should we refer
to the May-September movements through Georgia as? The Georgia
Campaign? Probably more accurate, but it misses a point---"The
Atlanta Campaign" has already worked its way into the national and
collective conscious. At this point it's probably too late to change
it, much like it's a fool errand at this point to try to convince
people to call the assault on July 3rd the "Pickett-Pettigrew- Trimble
Assault"; "Pickett's Charge", rightly or wrongly, is the cognomen
that we all refer to that attack as---even those of us who think it
incorrect will, in a hurried moment, refer to it that way.
--- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Steve Hall" <Tunnelhill@ ...>
> One thing that always amazes me is how much people talk about
the "Atlanta Campaign" when that was NEVER the goal of Sherman's
campaign! Calling it the "Atlanta Campaign" was nothing more than a
political ploy to help Lincoln win the upcoming election!
> Steve Hall - Commander
> Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp #938
> Sons of Confederate Veterans
> Chatsworth, Georgia
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel Cone
> To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 11:08 AM
> Subject: [civilwarwest]
> Gents -
> I seem to remember hearing through the web-vine earlier this
summer that there was a planned tour of the Atlanta Campaign coming
up early next year ('08) in March or so. Unfortunately I lost the
digest for that information. Does anything happen to know any
specifics about it?
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> Kick back and relax with hot games and cool activities at the
Messenger Café. Play now!