Re: [civilwarwest] Vicksburg (Was Re: Grant's aggresiveness)
Thank you for helping. I appreciate all the help.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
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.
- 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.
>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,
>--- In email@example.com, "James F. Epperson"
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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.