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

Re: [civilwarwest] Vicksburg (Was Re: Grant's aggresiveness)

Expand Messages
  • kamills
    Cash Thank you for helping. I appreciate all the help. Andy ... Andy, Your confusion stems from the fact that the two battles are normally treated together,
    Message 1 of 170 , May 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Cash

      Thank you for helping. I appreciate all the help.

      Andy

      ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------

      Andy,

      Your confusion stems from the fact that the two battles are
      normally treated together, but they are in fact two separate
      battles.� The battle of Nashville occurred after the battle of
      Franklin, and after a "siege" by the Confederate troops.� I put
      the word in quotations because the Federal troops in Nashville
      were never in any real danger of capitulating while the Rebels
      starved and froze outside the city.� I'll leave it to the experts
      to fill in the details.

      Regards,

      Cash
    • David Wall
      Let me shed some light on this. If I suffer a wound, it is very serious. If a friend suffers a wound, it is serious. If you suffer a wound, it may be
      Message 170 of 170 , Jan 10, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Let me shed some light on this.

        If I suffer a wound, it is "very" serious. If a friend suffers a wound, it
        is serious. If you suffer a wound, it may be serious. If an enemy of the
        U.S. (I don't mean Confederates here, that's over and long gone) suffers a
        wound, it isn't serious enough. You see, it depends.

        Now that's my definention of how serious a wound is I think I know what
        Grant meant! It was serious. Your mileage may vary.


        >From: Jfepperson@...
        >Reply-To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        >To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Sherman's wound
        >Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:36:24 EST
        >
        >
        >In a message dated 1/9/2006 11:47:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        >josepharose@... writes:
        >
        >--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Epperson"
        ><Jfepperson@a...> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@y...>
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > But I'm NOT saying that Grant's *assessment* of Sherman's wound was
        > > > wrong.
        > >
        > > Sure you are. Grant called it "severe," and on that basis
        > > you say Grant was a liar. Grant's assessment *has* to be
        > > wrong or else we can conclude that you are ... never mind ;-)
        >
        >I was very explicit. Grant had sufficient experience in war to assess
        >the wound and, as it didn't come close to being severe, I'm sure that
        >he *assessed* it correctly.
        >
        >
        >=====
        >But it is a supposition on your part that he did. Maybe he did have the
        >experience to assess it correctly --- although that in itself is an
        >assumption on your part. It doesn't mean that he *did assess it
        >correctly*. Maybe it bled a lot and this misled Grant. Maybe it
        >wasn't known whether or not a bone had been hit. Maybe Grant
        >simply projected his concern for a valued colleague and friend.
        >All of that is possible, and none of it makes Grant a liar. That's
        >the problem with your "analysis" here.
        >
        >I have the educational and professional background to judge mathematical
        >issues. That doesn't mean I answer every question correctly 100%
        >of the time. Sometimes I simply make a mistake. Making a mistake
        >doesn't make me a liar; it doesn't make my mistaken answer a lie.
        >
        >JFE
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.