RE: [civilwarwest] books
I think you’ll find that his theory of Slocum as a “reflector of light” is found by the author to be applicable when it suits him.
I reviewed the book (somewhat) here:
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Tom Mix
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] books
There is a lot of “probably” there but, all in all, I’m still enjoying the book. Being a psych type (I’m a licensed therapist: retired) I’m with holding my judgment regarding his conjecture until I get a little more into the book.
From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwes t@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Harry Smeltzer
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:29 PM
To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroupscom
Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] books
I thought the Melton book to be one of the poorest bios I’ve read. I wonder how many times the word “probably” was used? He gets some Bull Run stuff just plain wrong, and the pop-psychology crap really hacked me off. He works backwards from his diagnosis, which is what all these unlicensed forensic psychologists pull.
I wish I had my money back.
From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwes t@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Tom Mix
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:49 PM
To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [civilwarwest] books
As we are now fully into the Christmas any body have any good books to recommend? In the past we have always been allowed to discuss all books, East and West, here for the Christmas season. I hope we can do it again for 2007.
I’m reading one now that I really like called “Sherman’s Forgotten General: Henry W. Slocum” by Brian C. Melton. Well written, researched as well as possible considering the inherent limitations of the subject, and 292 pages.
By “inherent limitations” I mean most of Slocum’s correspondence were gathered by a biographer named William Fox for his 1902 bio reproducing many of those correspondence. Fox then did who knows what with them. So Melton used Fox’s as the only link to primary sources other than the papers like Sherman’s located at Notre Dame In all, very interesting bio though.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "derylsellm" <gsandds@...> wrote:
>I don't think it was possible to find a way to ship 10,000 men across
> The title "How the South Could Have Won the Civil War: The Fatal
> Errors That Led to Confederate Defeat" strikes a nerve with me. It
> seems the fate of the Confederacy in 1864 turned on whether Lincoln
> would be elected again. I recently visited a Civil War battlefield
> park at Franklin, Tennessee, commemorating the terrible Confederate
> defeat there. I really wondered "what if" General Kirby Smith had
> found a way to obey President Davis's order to send Lieutenant
> General Richard Taylor's infantry corps across the Mississippi during
> the summer of 1864. Could ten thousand more veteran infantry have
> made a difference at the battle at Spring Hill, Tennessee, and
> changed the outcome at Franklin, and perhaps the war? Or would
> General Hood have just got them killed?
> Best Regards,
> Deryl P. Sellmeyer
> Author, Jo Shelby's Iron Brigade
the Mississippi in 1864. Even if their was, I fail to see how the CSA
would have moved them to TN in time for Hood's invasion. Lastly, I
don't see more men helping Hood. The problem isn't men but supplies
and transport. The AoT just lacks the ability to supply an army in the
field. Richmond sent the majority of supplies to the AoNV and that
included wagons and the teams to pull them.