MODERATOR'S NOTE Re: [civilwarwest] Re: The retreat to Jackson?
- Take it to PRIVATE EMAIL now, please. If you can't respond civilly on the board, don't respond PUBLICLY at all. I'm ready to start unsubscribing people. The rules aren't difficult to understand or follow. If you can't respond in a cordial manner, don't respond at all on the board. Take the ugliness to private email.Thank you.----- Original Message -----From: ngreadermailSent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:14 PMSubject: [civilwarwest] Re: The retreat to Jackson?
You look like you're the one looking for a fight. As I said before,
I'll rest content with contesting your arguments.
When someone speculates about someone's possible response to an
event, I'd like to see evidence that this speculation is grounded in
some reasonable appreciation of the personality of the person and the
situation. You've offered none.
A "theory of projected history"? Can you point me to the Wikipedia
entry on that? LOL!
I haven't made up any events. For example, I didn't say that the
Confederare retreated to Jackson after Shiloh. You must have me
confused with someone else.
--- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
> We both said that Halleck might have retreated in the face of an
attack as a
> hypothesis and nothing else. There are not facts to back up
> never occurred. Are you not aware that the Confederates never put
> concentrated attack on Halleck?
> Or maybe you know of such an attack and if so when and where did it
> Who led it? What and where was this mysterious battle that is no
> the records of the American Civil War? And who won? Enlighten us
> We suggested some thing that might have occurred if something might
> happened? It is called a theory of projected history that never
> this point it is apparent you are a neophyte to the study of
history as you
> are making up events and wanting citations for these events even
> never occurred. Well, now we know where you are coming from.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
[mailto:civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com] On
> Behalf Of ngreadermail
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:55 PM
> To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The retreat to Jackson?
> Your argument is quite weak on facts. Have you presented any?
> Besides, if you've met a talking fact I'd like to see and hear it.
> I asked you for facts on Halleck when you suggested he'd cut and
> run. You had none (and at least admitted it). I cited Williams on
> Beauregard and Corinth, and you haven't brought up a fact. Mr.
> Keene's brought up facts as well.
> So, since you let the facts speak for themselves, cite a work that
> supports your interpretation. Silence will also speak for itself.
> I'm not looking for a fight, and so far I haven't found one, either.
> --- In civilwarwest@ <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
> yahoogroups. com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@> wrote:
> > I don't feel I'm making any "assertions" the facts speak for
> > Tom
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: civilwarwest@ <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
> yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:civilwarwes t@ <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
> yahoogroups. com] On
> > Behalf Of ngreadermail
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:40 PM
> > To: civilwarwest@ <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
> > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The retreat to Jackson?
> > --- In civilwarwest@ <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
> > yahoogroups. com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It was with out a doubt one continuous retreat in retrograde
> > Pittsburgh
> > > Landing. They may be divided up into nice neat little segments
> > > different commanders but they were still united in the same
> > retreat,
> > > in good order.
> > At best you confuse intent with result. Otherwise, I see
> > after assertion, with nary a wisp of evidence or a decent
> > people who cite sources. Your side asks for sources, and when
> > provided, you simply wave them aside. You simply haven't made
> > case.