Re: [civilwarwest] Vicksburg (Was Re: Grant's aggresiveness)
- In a message dated 5/30/01 1:23:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< I thought Franklin is where Hood pretty
much destroyed his army in those frontal assults. >>
They are two separate battles yet in some ways, tied together. Hood's army
was decimated at Franklin but not totally whipped to a point that he could
not form up and attack again. At Nashville, Thomas not only whipped him to a
point that either Hood had insuffient troops for have a realistic army, or
those that fought under Hood had enough and went back home. In the end
result, historians generally say that appromately only five thousand of
Hood's Army of Tennessee were able to join up with Johnston in North
Carolina. Basically, one could say that when Thomas took care of Hood, Hood
no longer had an army.
Your obedient servant,
- 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.