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

Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

Expand Messages
  • hank9174
    In another context, Logan s proposed promotion is similar to promoting a temporary employee (volunteer) to CEO (army commander) and overpassing all other
    Message 1 of 28 , Jul 10, 2008
      In another context, Logan's proposed promotion is similar to
      promoting a temporary employee (volunteer) to CEO (army commander)
      and overpassing all other managers (regular army officers).

      Regular army officers are in for their career, war or no. Logan, et
      al, leave once the volunteers are dismissed.


      HankC

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Huddleston"
      <huddleston.r@...> wrote:
      >
      > Which begs the point. Incompetence was hardly limited to the
      amateurs.
      > Logan, Frank Blair on the North and Forrest and Wade Hampton for
      the South
      > all stood out and all were limited in commands by the Ring
      Knockers, North
      > and South.
      >
      >
      >
      > Ironically (and I say this as a Black Jack Fan) after Sherman
      passed him
      > over for command of the AotT, arguing that Logan was too political,
      Black
      > Jack promptly took leave and went back to Illinois to campaign!
      >
      >
      >
      > Question for the day: what is Logan's connection to the greatest
      American
      > novel?
      >
      >
      >
      > Take care,
      >
      >
      >
      > Bob
      >
      >
      >
      > Judy and Bob Huddleston
      >
      > 10643 Sperry Street
      >
      > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
      >
      > <mailto:huddleston.r@...> huddleston.r@...
      >
      >
      >
      > "The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are
      insane."
      > ---Mark Twain, 1907
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of Ronald black
      > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:22 AM
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Was Logan dissed for higher command?
      >
      >
      >
      > It was strong against political generals for many reasons, most
      common was
      > lack of performance.
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      >
      > From: Carl Williams <mailto:carlw4514@...>
      >
      > To: civilwarwest@ <mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:58 AM
      >
      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Was Logan dissed for higher command?
      >
      >
      >
      > Finished the book "Black Jack: John A. Logan and Southern Illinois
      in
      > the Civil War Era" I Recommend it.
      >
      > The author discusses whether Logan was unjustly passed over as a
      > replacement for McPherson when he was KIA. Interestingly, he gave
      > Sherman's views on what he didnt like about "political generals."
      > Seems that there is more to it than unthinking prejudice. I loaned
      the
      > book to someone, so can't quote from it, but basically Sherman just
      > felt that these guys typically just weren't full time. He was
      > especially resentful when they would go home to campaign for
      > reelection just as things were critical in the field.
      >
      > I have to admit Sherman has a case there, if true.
      >
      > Makes you wonder if the prejudice against non-west point was a
      little
      > more founded in solid reasons than you might think.
      >
      > Carl
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > size=2 width="100%" align=center>
      >
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG.
      > Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1542 - Release Date:
      7/9/2008
      > 6:50 AM
      >
    • DORR64OVI@aol.com
      In a message dated 7/10/2008 11:46:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, holywham@yahoo.com writes: Sherman fighting Prophet by Lloyd Lewis,says Sherman was thinking
      Message 2 of 28 , Jul 10, 2008
        In a message dated 7/10/2008 11:46:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, holywham@... writes:
        Sherman fighting Prophet" by Lloyd Lewis,says Sherman was thinking of
        putting Logan to take over for Mac. but Thomas was very much against
        it and talked Sherman out of it. BvT

        About a year ago (maybe longer) we had a discussion here about this.  After Thomas was dead, Sherman claimed he let Old Pap talk him out of promoting Logan.  However, it turns out that Sherman was basically trying to shift the blame for this from himself.  At the time he wrote that statement, Logan was a powerful leader in Congress and had a large say in the military's budget.  As General of the Army, Sherman correctly feared political retribution from Logan.
         
        Kent Dorr




        Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
      • Bob Huddleston
        The problem with that theory is that a great many of the West Point generals had returned from civilian life. Vide Grant, Sherman, McClellan, etc. Until they
        Message 3 of 28 , Jul 10, 2008

          The problem with that theory is that a great many of the West Point generals had returned from civilian life. Vide Grant, Sherman , McClellan, etc. Until they received a USA commission, their USV commissions were as transitory as those of the rest of the Volunteers. USG and WTS both received Regular commissions after Vicksburg .   

           

          Take care,

           

          Bob

           

          Judy and Bob Huddleston

          10643 Sperry Street

          Northglenn, CO   80234-3612

          huddleston.r@...

           

          "The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."
          ---Mark Twain, 1907

           


          From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hank9174
          Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:53 AM
          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

           


          In another context, Logan 's proposed promotion is similar to
          promoting a temporary employee (volunteer) to CEO (army commander)
          and overpassing all other managers (regular army officers).

          Regular army officers are in for their career, war or no. Logan , et
          al, leave once the volunteers are dismissed.

          HankC


        • Bob Huddleston
          Not feared but received retribution. See Logan s _Volunteer Soldier_ for his version. Take care, Bob Judy and Bob Huddleston 10643 Sperry Street Northglenn,
          Message 4 of 28 , Jul 10, 2008

            Not “feared” but received retribution. See Logan ’s _Volunteer Soldier_ for his version.

             

            Take care,

             

            Bob

             

            Judy and Bob Huddleston

            10643 Sperry Street

            Northglenn, CO   80234-3612

            huddleston.r@...

             

            "The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."
            ---Mark Twain, 1907

             


            From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DORR64OVI@...
            Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:00 AM
            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

             

            In a message dated 7/10/2008 11:46:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, holywham@yahoo. com writes:

            Sherman fighting Prophet" by Lloyd Lewis,says Sherman was thinking of
            putting Logan to take over for Mac. but Thomas was very much against
            it and talked Sherman out of it. BvT

            About a year ago (maybe longer) we had a discussion here about this.  After Thomas was dead, Sherman claimed he let Old Pap talk him out of promoting Logan .  However, it turns out that Sherman was basically trying to shift the blame for this from himself.  At the time he wrote that statement, Logan was a powerful leader in Congress and had a large say in the military's budget.  As General of the Army, Sherman correctly feared political retribution from Logan .

             

            Kent Dorr




            Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!

          • Chadd Vail
            I don t think Logal was dissed or anything. I think it was a matter of who was more experienced and qualified to lead armies. And of course the political
            Message 5 of 28 , Jul 10, 2008
              I don't think Logal was dissed or anything. I think it was a matter of who was more experienced and qualified to lead armies. And of course the political arena. Wasn't Logan running for something political around the time of the Savannah campaign? Could that have been a reason why Sherman didn't give Logan command of the AOT.

              Chadd M. Vail


              --- On Thu, 7/10/08, DORR64OVI@... <DORR64OVI@...> wrote:

              > From: DORR64OVI@... <DORR64OVI@...>
              > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?
              > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 12:00 PM
              > In a message dated 7/10/2008 11:46:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight
              > Time,
              > holywham@... writes:
              >
              > Sherman fighting Prophet" by Lloyd Lewis,says Sherman
              > was thinking of
              > putting Logan to take over for Mac. but Thomas was very
              > much against
              > it and talked Sherman out of it. BvT
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > About a year ago (maybe longer) we had a discussion here
              > about this. After
              > Thomas was dead, Sherman claimed he let Old Pap talk him
              > out of promoting
              > Logan. However, it turns out that Sherman was basically
              > trying to shift the
              > blame for this from himself. At the time he wrote that
              > statement, Logan was a
              > powerful leader in Congress and had a large say in the
              > military's budget. As
              > General of the Army, Sherman correctly feared political
              > retribution from
              > Logan.
              >
              > Kent Dorr
              >
              >
              >
              > **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest
              > shows and the live music
              > scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
              > (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
            • Jason
              I love Sherman but its seems to me this was West Point snobbery. Logan was a very good corps. commander, had fought in the west from the beginning, the
              Message 6 of 28 , Jul 10, 2008
                I love Sherman but its seems to me this was West Point snobbery. Logan was a very good corps. commander, had fought in the west from the beginning, the soldiers liked him, and left the front for the most part on recruiting drives (IIRC). While Howard was a fine soldier his history as a corps commander in the east was not always exemplary to say the least.

                ----- Original Message ----
                From: Chadd Vail <cvail19@...>
                To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:11:38 PM
                Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                I don't think Logal was dissed or anything. I think it was a matter of who was more experienced and qualified to lead armies. And of course the political arena. Wasn't Logan running for something political around the time of the Savannah campaign? Could that have been a reason why Sherman didn't give Logan command of the AOT.

                Chadd M. Vail

                --- On Thu, 7/10/08, DORR64OVI@aol. com <DORR64OVI@aol. com> wrote:

                > From: DORR64OVI@aol. com <DORR64OVI@aol. com>
                > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?
                > To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                > Date: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 12:00 PM
                > In a message dated 7/10/2008 11:46:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight
                > Time,
                > holywham@yahoo. com writes:
                >
                > Sherman fighting Prophet" by Lloyd Lewis,says Sherman
                > was thinking of
                > putting Logan to take over for Mac. but Thomas was very
                > much against
                > it and talked Sherman out of it. BvT
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > About a year ago (maybe longer) we had a discussion here
                > about this. After
                > Thomas was dead, Sherman claimed he let Old Pap talk him
                > out of promoting
                > Logan. However, it turns out that Sherman was basically
                > trying to shift the
                > blame for this from himself. At the time he wrote that
                > statement, Logan was a
                > powerful leader in Congress and had a large say in the
                > military's budget. As
                > General of the Army, Sherman correctly feared political
                > retribution from
                > Logan.
                >
                > Kent Dorr
                >
                >
                >
                > ************ **Get the scoop on last night's hottest
                > shows and the live music
                > scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!
                > (http://www.tourtrac ker.com?NCID= aolmus0005000000 0112)

              • keeno2@aol.com
                In a message dated 7/10/2008 6:36:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jvt1976@yahoo.com writes: I love Sherman but its seems to me this was West Point snobbery.
                Message 7 of 28 , Jul 10, 2008
                  In a message dated 7/10/2008 6:36:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jvt1976@... writes:
                  I love Sherman but its seems to me this was West Point snobbery.
                  Possibly. But Sherman did agonize over the choice. It must have been tough. Sherman liked and trusted Logan. He also had an innate preference for someone who would be there and follow orders. We can whip this puppy, but it will end up in the same place: Sherman picks Howard. And he apologizes to Logan by having him lead the AotT during the Grand Review. It would have been a difficult decision and I can't toss it off as West Point snobbery.
                   
                  ken




                  Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
                • Carl Williams
                  apparently Howard getting the job was too much for Hooker, who asked to be relieved and ...finished the war in the quiet sector of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana,
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jul 11, 2008
                    apparently Howard getting the job was too much for Hooker, who asked
                    to be relieved and "...finished the war in the quiet sector of
                    Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. "* The author of the
                    aforementioned book seems to suggest he would not have done this if
                    Logan had gotten the job. In other words, he didnt stomp off because
                    he didnt get the job himself.

                    * http://www.civilwarhome.com/hookbio.htm


                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Jason <jvt1976@...> wrote:
                    ... While Howard was a fine soldier his history as a corps commander
                    in the east was not always exemplary to say the least.
                  • Chadd Vail
                    Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to eye with each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that one lols. And I agree I think if
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jul 11, 2008
                      Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to eye with each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that one lols.

                      And I agree I think if Logan might have been give command of AOT, Hooker would have stayed in the war.

                      Chadd M. Vail


                      --- On Fri, 7/11/08, Carl Williams <carlw4514@...> wrote:

                      > From: Carl Williams <carlw4514@...>
                      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?
                      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                      > Date: Friday, July 11, 2008, 11:18 AM
                      > apparently Howard getting the job was too much for Hooker,
                      > who asked
                      > to be relieved and "...finished the war in the quiet
                      > sector of
                      > Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. "* The author
                      > of the
                      > aforementioned book seems to suggest he would not have done
                      > this if
                      > Logan had gotten the job. In other words, he didnt stomp
                      > off because
                      > he didnt get the job himself.
                      >
                      > * http://www.civilwarhome.com/hookbio.htm
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Jason
                      > <jvt1976@...> wrote:
                      > ... While Howard was a fine soldier his history as a corps
                      > commander
                      > in the east was not always exemplary to say the least.
                    • SDE80@aol.com
                      In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cvail19@yahoo.com writes: Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to eye with
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jul 11, 2008
                        In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cvail19@... writes:
                        Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to eye with each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that one lols.

                        And I agree I think if Logan might have been give command of AOT, Hooker would have stayed in the war.
                         
                        Hooker got mad because Howard, a regular officer like him, was placed in command of the AotT, yet  he'd been OK with a non-professional volunteer being placed in command in his place?    I doubt it.   Probably would have made him much more upset.    Bottom line is that he was the senior of Sherman's corps commanders and had commanded an army once before.   Logan would have made him just as mad, if not madder.
                         
                        Sam Elliott




                        Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
                      • Jason
                        Wasn t Hooker pissed off about Slocum getting a command as well, or am I getting my facts screwed up? ... From: SDE80@aol.com To:
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jul 11, 2008
                          Wasn't Hooker pissed off about Slocum getting a command as well, or am I getting my facts screwed up?

                          ----- Original Message ----
                          From: "SDE80@..." <SDE80@...>
                          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:00:21 PM
                          Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                          In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cvail19@yahoo. com writes:
                          Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to eye with each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that one lols.

                          And I agree I think if Logan might have been give command of AOT, Hooker would have stayed in the war.
                           
                          Hooker got mad because Howard, a regular officer like him, was placed in command of the AotT, yet  he'd been OK with a non-professional volunteer being placed in command in his place?    I doubt it.   Probably would have made him much more upset.    Bottom line is that he was the senior of Sherman's corps commanders and had commanded an army once before.   Logan would have made him just as mad, if not madder.
                           
                          Sam Elliott




                          Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!
                        • Tom Mix
                          No, you are partially correct but it was Slocum who refused to server under Hooker. He simply despised the man. Hooker could tolerate Slocum but would never
                          Message 12 of 28 , Jul 11, 2008

                            No, you are partially correct but it was Slocum who refused to server under Hooker.  He simply despised the man.  Hooker could tolerate Slocum but would never serve under him. Hooker had to learn to tolerate those who resented him since it was such a large club.  But his animosity toward Howard was justified as Howard had failed to bolster, heck, even make an effort, to build up a defensive position on the right flank of the Union Army at Chancellorsville.  Slocum’s animosity toward Hooker was just as justifiable. 

                            To pacify Slocum and keep him from resigning rather than server under Hooker, he was given command of the Vicksburg occupation and supply base where he was exceptional. Once Hooker left the army prior to Atlanta falling, Sherman quickly moved Slocum in where he rose to be Hooker’s number 2 man.  It was Slocum who first received the surrender of Atlanta and forwarded it on to Sherman’s HQ and it was Slocum who was the first Union force to enter Atlanta. Just after Atlanta Sherman divided his army into 2 separate army’s, confirmed by D.C. and used them as 2 independent wings under Sherman’s command. Slocum had one and Howard the other and Slocum performed excellently throughout the march to the sea and the fighting in the Carolina’s.  

                            Tom

                             

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason
                            Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:22 PM
                            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroupscom
                            Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                             

                            Wasn't Hooker pissed off about Slocum getting a command as well, or am I getting my facts screwed up?

                            ----- Original Message ----
                            From: "SDE80@..." <SDE80@...>
                            To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                            Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:00:21 PM
                            Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                            In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cvail19@yahoo. com writes:

                            Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to eye with each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that one lols.

                            And I agree I think if Logan might have been give command of AOT, Hooker would have stayed in the war.

                             

                            Hooker got mad because Howard, a regular officer like him, was placed in command of the AotT, yet  he'd been OK with a non-professional volunteer being placed in command in his place?    I doubt it.   Probably would have made him much more upset.    Bottom line is that he was the senior of Sherman's corps commanders and had commanded an army once before.   Logan would have made him just as mad, if not madder.

                             

                            Sam Elliott




                            Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!

                          • keeno2@aol.com
                            In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:21:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jvt1976@yahoo.com writes: Logan would have made him just as mad, if not madder. Wasn t no way
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jul 11, 2008
                              In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:21:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jvt1976@... writes:
                              Logan would have made him just as mad, if not madder.
                              Wasn't no way Sherman was going to appoint Hooker. Howard is a bit of a surprise, and Sherman had some agonizing to do. In the end, he chose a man who thought as he did and would react to orders as he wanted. I'd guess, when you're in Sherman's spot, you get to have things the way you'd like them to be.
                               
                              Sherman had a bellyfull of Hooker in the old days back in California. It's not so strange for a man like Sherman to keep those embers burning. He did have an enormous personal problem in turning away from Logan. And I don't doubt that the West Point syndrome was a factor.
                               
                              ken




                              Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
                            • Carl Williams
                              what happened there?
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                                what happened there?

                                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@... wrote:
                                >
                                >

                                > Sherman had a bellyfull of Hooker in the old days back in California.
                              • guitarmandanga
                                As far as I know, Hooker didn t blame Slocum for the outcome of Chancellorsville as much as he blamed Howard (whom he considered to be largely responsible for
                                Message 15 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                                  As far as I know, Hooker didn't blame Slocum for the outcome of
                                  Chancellorsville as much as he blamed Howard (whom he considered to
                                  be largely responsible for it). For his part though, Slocum
                                  detested Hooker for seemingly slaughtering the XII Corps at C'ville
                                  with little to show for it, and then abandoning the campaign. The
                                  rancor on Slocum's part ran so deep that when the XII Corps was sent
                                  with the XI Corps to help out at Chattanooga under Hooker's overall
                                  commander, Slocum requested to be reassigned. So the War Department
                                  promptly placed him in command of the Vicksburg garrison &
                                  environs. It was only after Hooker resigned in protest over
                                  Howard's promotion that Slocum was tapped to take command of
                                  Hooker's XX Corps. More than likely that choice was based on the
                                  fact that the XX Corps was in part composed of Slocum's former
                                  command (the XI Corps) anyway, and he would have been the most
                                  senior general in the immediate area. Of course, the fact that
                                  Slocum was Hooker's enemy could be those who wanted to see it as yet
                                  another slap in Hooker's face by Sherman & the War Department, one
                                  last rubbing of salt in the wounds as it were.

                                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Jason <jvt1976@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Wasn't Hooker pissed off about Slocum getting a command as well,
                                  or am I getting my facts screwed up?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ----- Original Message ----
                                  > From: "SDE80@..." <SDE80@...>
                                  > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:00:21 PM
                                  > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher
                                  command?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                                  > cvail19@yahoo. com writes:
                                  > Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to eye with
                                  each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that one lols.
                                  >
                                  > And I agree I think if Logan might have been give command of AOT,
                                  Hooker would have stayed in the war.
                                  >
                                  > Hooker got mad because Howard, a regular officer like him, was
                                  placed in
                                  > command of the AotT, yet he'd been OK with a non-professional
                                  volunteer
                                  > being placed in command in his place? I doubt it.
                                  > Probably would have made him much more upset. Bottom line is
                                  > that he was the senior of Sherman's corps commanders and had
                                  commanded an army
                                  > once before. Logan would have made him just as mad, if not
                                  > madder.
                                  >
                                  > Sam Elliott
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ________________________________
                                  > Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
                                  scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!
                                  >
                                • keeno2@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 7/12/2008 9:12:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, carlw4514@yahoo.com writes: what happened there? This is off the top of my head so bear with
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                                    In a message dated 7/12/2008 9:12:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, carlw4514@... writes:
                                    what happened there?
                                    This is off the top of my head so bear with me and ignore anything purported to be a fact. You'll recollect that Cump was a civilian out there, while Hooker was in command of something or another, but it appears that Hooker played somewhat fast and loose with Army funds and Cump, being civilian, couldn't mess with the doings. But he did know about it and presumably carried that with him to taint any possible relationship with Hooker.
                                     
                                    However, Hooker did a good job in the western theater and Sherman wasn't one to bite off his own foot. When it came time to name a replacement for McPherson, old memories came back with a vengeance. For anyone else at the time, Hooker deserved the spot. Not, understandably, to Sherman who simply never liked the man.
                                     
                                    ken




                                    Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
                                  • Jason van Teylingen
                                    thanks for the explanation ... From: Tom Mix To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:00:30 PM Subject: RE:
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                                      thanks for the explanation

                                      ----- Original Message ----
                                      From: Tom Mix <tmix@...>
                                      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:00:30 PM
                                      Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                                      No, you are partially correct but it was Slocum who refused to server under Hooker.  He simply despised the man.  Hooker could tolerate Slocum but would never serve under him. Hooker had to learn to tolerate those who resented him since it was such a large club.  But his animosity toward Howard was justified as Howard had failed to bolster, heck, even make an effort, to build up a defensive position on the right flank of the Union Army at Chancellorsville.  Slocum’s animosity toward Hooker was just as justifiable. 

                                      To pacify Slocum and keep him from resigning rather than server under Hooker, he was given command of the Vicksburg occupation and supply base where he was exceptional. Once Hooker left the army prior to Atlanta falling, Sherman quickly moved Slocum in where he rose to be Hooker’s number 2 man.  It was Slocum who first received the surrender of Atlanta and forwarded it on to Sherman’s HQ and it was Slocum who was the first Union force to enter Atlanta. Just after Atlanta Sherman divided his army into 2 separate army’s, confirmed by D.C. and used them as 2 independent wings under Sherman’s command. Slocum had one and Howard the other and Slocum performed excellently throughout the march to the sea and the fighting in the Carolina’s.  

                                      Tom

                                       

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwes t@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Jason
                                      Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:22 PM
                                      To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroupscom
                                      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                                       

                                      Wasn't Hooker pissed off about Slocum getting a command as well, or am I getting my facts screwed up?

                                      ----- Original Message ----
                                      From: "SDE80@..." <SDE80@...>
                                      To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                      Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:00:21 PM
                                      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                                      In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cvail19@yahoo. com writes:

                                      Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to eye with each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that one lols.

                                      And I agree I think if Logan might have been give command of AOT, Hooker would have stayed in the war.

                                       

                                      Hooker got mad because Howard, a regular officer like him, was placed in command of the AotT, yet  he'd been OK with a non-professional volunteer being placed in command in his place?    I doubt it.   Probably would have made him much more upset.    Bottom line is that he was the senior of Sherman's corps commanders and had commanded an army once before.   Logan would have made him just as mad, if not madder.

                                       

                                      Sam Elliott




                                      Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!

                                    • Tom Mix
                                      You are more than welcome. I hope it helps. I actually wrote it and sent it on the 10th. It must have got held up some where. Tom ... From:
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008

                                        You are more than welcome.  I hope it helps.

                                        I actually wrote it and sent it on the 10th. It must have got held up some where.

                                        Tom

                                         

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason van Teylingen
                                        Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 1:33 PM
                                        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroupscom
                                        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                                         

                                        thanks for the explanation

                                        ----- Original Message ----
                                        From: Tom Mix <tmix@insightbb. com>
                                        To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                        Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:00:30 PM
                                        Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                                        No, you are partially correct but it was Slocum who refused to server under Hooker.  He simply despised the man.  Hooker could tolerate Slocum but would never serve under him. Hooker had to learn to tolerate those who resented him since it was such a large club.  But his animosity toward Howard was justified as Howard had failed to bolster, heck, even make an effort, to build up a defensive position on the right flank of the Union Army at Chancellorsville.  Slocumʼs animosity toward Hooker was just as justifiable. 

                                        To pacify Slocum and keep him from resigning rather than server under Hooker, he was given command of the Vicksburg occupation and supply base where he was exceptional. Once Hooker left the army prior to Atlanta falling, Sherman quickly moved Slocum in where he rose to be Hookerʼs number 2 man.  It was Slocum who first received the surrender of Atlanta and forwarded it on to Shermanʼs HQ and it was Slocum who was the first Union force to enter Atlanta. Just after Atlanta Sherman divided his army into 2 separate armyʼs, confirmed by D.C. and used them as 2 independent wings under Shermanʼs command. Slocum had one and Howard the other and Slocum performed excellently throughout the march to the sea and the fighting in the Carolinaʼs.  

                                        Tom

                                         

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwes t@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Jason
                                        Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:22 PM
                                        To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroupscom
                                        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                                         

                                        Wasn't Hooker pissed off about Slocum getting a command as well, or am I getting my facts screwed up?

                                        ----- Original Message ----
                                        From: "SDE80@..." <SDE80@...>
                                        To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                        Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:00:21 PM
                                        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                                        In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cvail19@yahoo. com writes:

                                        Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to eye with each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that one lols.

                                        And I agree I think if Logan might have been give command of AOT, Hooker would have stayed in the war.

                                         

                                        Hooker got mad because Howard, a regular officer like him, was placed in command of the AotT, yet  he'd been OK with a non-professional volunteer being placed in command in his place?    I doubt it.   Probably would have made him much more upset.    Bottom line is that he was the senior of Sherman's corps commanders and had commanded an army once before.   Logan would have made him just as mad, if not madder.

                                         

                                        Sam Elliott

                                         


                                        Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!

                                      • Tom Mix
                                        What you say is pretty spot on. Slocum did a commendable job at C ville but detested Hooker for a variety of reasons of which only some involved
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008

                                          What you say is pretty spot on. Slocum did a commendable job at C’ville but detested Hooker for a variety of reasons of which only some involved Chancellorsville.  A lot of personal conduct behaviors troubled Slocum plus he felt Hooker stabbed McClellan in the back to get Mac removed in favor of Burnside and later in favor of himself.  

                                          Another reason for the promotion to replace Hooker in the west was that Slocum earned it.  Prior to his arrival in Vicksburg if was rife with corruption and Emancipation issues that Slocum cleaned up to the best of his ability given the situation and the limited time he was there.  The crooks were glad to see him leave.

                                          As I mentioned earlier, Slocum did an excellent job when he commanded the new army/wing for Sherman.  

                                          Tom

                                           

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of guitarmandanga
                                          Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 9:40 AM
                                          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroupscom
                                          Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                                           

                                          As far as I know, Hooker didn't blame Slocum for the outcome of
                                          Chancellorsville as much as he blamed Howard (whom he considered to
                                          be largely responsible for it). For his part though, Slocum
                                          detested Hooker for seemingly slaughtering the XII Corps at C'ville
                                          with little to show for it, and then abandoning the campaign. The
                                          rancor on Slocum's part ran so deep that when the XII Corps was sent
                                          with the XI Corps to help out at Chattanooga under Hooker's overall
                                          commander, Slocum requested to be reassigned. So the War Department
                                          promptly placed him in command of the Vicksburg garrison &
                                          environs. It was only after Hooker resigned in protest over
                                          Howard's promotion that Slocum was tapped to take command of
                                          Hooker's XX Corps. More than likely that choice was based on the
                                          fact that the XX Corps was in part composed of Slocum's former
                                          command (the XI Corps) anyway, and he would have been the most
                                          senior general in the immediate area. Of course, the fact that
                                          Slocum was Hooker's enemy could be those who wanted to see it as yet
                                          another slap in Hooker's face by Sherman & the War Department, one
                                          last rubbing of salt in the wounds as it were.

                                          --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, Jason <jvt1976@... > wrote:

                                          >
                                          > Wasn't Hooker pissed off about Slocum getting a command as well,
                                          or am I getting my facts screwed up?
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ----- Original Message ----
                                          > From: "SDE80@..." <SDE80@...>
                                          > To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                          > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:00:21 PM
                                          > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher
                                          command?
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                                          > cvail19@yahoo. com writes:
                                          > Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to eye with
                                          each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that one lols.
                                          >
                                          > And I agree I think if Logan might have been give command of AOT,
                                          Hooker would have stayed in the war.
                                          >
                                          > Hooker got mad because Howard, a regular officer like him, was
                                          placed in
                                          > command of the AotT, yet he'd been OK with a non-professional
                                          volunteer
                                          > being placed in command in his place? I doubt it.
                                          > Probably would have made him much more upset. Bottom line is
                                          > that he was the senior of Sherman's corps commanders and had
                                          commanded an army
                                          > once before. Logan would have made him just as mad, if not
                                          > madder.
                                          >
                                          > Sam Elliott
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ____________ _________ _________ __
                                          > Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
                                          scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!
                                          >

                                        • Chadd Vail
                                          Thanks for the information, this sheds some light for me on the Hooker Issue in the Altanta and Savannah Campaign. I totally appoligize for stealing the
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                                            Thanks for the information, this sheds some light for me on the Hooker Issue in the Altanta and Savannah Campaign. I totally appoligize for stealing the thunder from the original post which delt with Logan.

                                            Chadd M. Vail



                                            --- On Sat, 7/12/08, Tom Mix <tmix@...> wrote:

                                            > From: Tom Mix <tmix@...>
                                            > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?
                                            > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Date: Saturday, July 12, 2008, 6:56 PM
                                            > What you say is pretty spot on. Slocum did a commendable job
                                            > at C'ville but
                                            > detested Hooker for a variety of reasons of which only some
                                            > involved
                                            > Chancellorsville. A lot of personal conduct behaviors
                                            > troubled Slocum plus
                                            > he felt Hooker stabbed McClellan in the back to get Mac
                                            > removed in favor of
                                            > Burnside and later in favor of himself.
                                            >
                                            > Another reason for the promotion to replace Hooker in the
                                            > west was that
                                            > Slocum earned it. Prior to his arrival in Vicksburg if was
                                            > rife with
                                            > corruption and Emancipation issues that Slocum cleaned up
                                            > to the best of his
                                            > ability given the situation and the limited time he was
                                            > there. The crooks
                                            > were glad to see him leave.
                                            >
                                            > As I mentioned earlier, Slocum did an excellent job when he
                                            > commanded the
                                            > new army/wing for Sherman.
                                            >
                                            > Tom
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > -----Original Message-----
                                            > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                            > [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
                                            > Behalf Of guitarmandanga
                                            > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 9:40 AM
                                            > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher
                                            > command?
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > As far as I know, Hooker didn't blame Slocum for the
                                            > outcome of
                                            > Chancellorsville as much as he blamed Howard (whom he
                                            > considered to
                                            > be largely responsible for it). For his part though, Slocum
                                            >
                                            > detested Hooker for seemingly slaughtering the XII Corps at
                                            > C'ville
                                            > with little to show for it, and then abandoning the
                                            > campaign. The
                                            > rancor on Slocum's part ran so deep that when the XII
                                            > Corps was sent
                                            > with the XI Corps to help out at Chattanooga under
                                            > Hooker's overall
                                            > commander, Slocum requested to be reassigned. So the War
                                            > Department
                                            > promptly placed him in command of the Vicksburg garrison
                                            > &
                                            > environs. It was only after Hooker resigned in protest over
                                            >
                                            > Howard's promotion that Slocum was tapped to take
                                            > command of
                                            > Hooker's XX Corps. More than likely that choice was
                                            > based on the
                                            > fact that the XX Corps was in part composed of Slocum's
                                            > former
                                            > command (the XI Corps) anyway, and he would have been the
                                            > most
                                            > senior general in the immediate area. Of course, the fact
                                            > that
                                            > Slocum was Hooker's enemy could be those who wanted to
                                            > see it as yet
                                            > another slap in Hooker's face by Sherman & the War
                                            > Department, one
                                            > last rubbing of salt in the wounds as it were.
                                            >
                                            > --- In civilwarwest@
                                            > <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>
                                            > yahoogroups.com, Jason <jvt1976@...> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > Wasn't Hooker pissed off about Slocum getting a
                                            > command as well,
                                            > or am I getting my facts screwed up?
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > ----- Original Message ----
                                            > > From: "SDE80@..." <SDE80@...>
                                            > > To: civilwarwest@
                                            > <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>
                                            > yahoogroups.com
                                            > > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:00:21 PM
                                            > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for
                                            > higher
                                            > command?
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Eastern
                                            > Standard Time,
                                            > > cvail19@yahoo. com writes:
                                            > > Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to
                                            > eye with
                                            > each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that
                                            > one lols.
                                            > >
                                            > > And I agree I think if Logan might have been give
                                            > command of AOT,
                                            > Hooker would have stayed in the war.
                                            > >
                                            > > Hooker got mad because Howard, a regular officer like
                                            > him, was
                                            > placed in
                                            > > command of the AotT, yet he'd been OK with a
                                            > non-professional
                                            > volunteer
                                            > > being placed in command in his place? I doubt it.
                                            > > Probably would have made him much more upset. Bottom
                                            > line is
                                            > > that he was the senior of Sherman's corps
                                            > commanders and had
                                            > commanded an army
                                            > > once before. Logan would have made him just as mad, if
                                            > not
                                            > > madder.
                                            > >
                                            > > Sam Elliott
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > ________________________________
                                            > > Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and
                                            > the live music
                                            > scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!
                                            > >
                                          • Tom Mix
                                            No problem. Free discussion of topics should always be welcome. And it is a good question and subject. Tom ... From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008

                                              No problem. Free discussion of topics should always be welcome.  And it is a good question and subject. 

                                              Tom

                                               

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chadd Vail
                                              Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:52 PM
                                              To: civilwarwest@yahoogroupscom
                                              Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                                               

                                              Thanks for the information, this sheds some light for me on the Hooker Issue in the Altanta and Savannah Campaign. I totally appoligize for stealing the thunder from the original post which delt with Logan.

                                              Chadd M. Vail

                                              --- On Sat, 7/12/08, Tom Mix <tmix@insightbb. com> wrote:

                                              > From: Tom Mix <tmix@insightbb. com>
                                              > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?
                                              > To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                              > Date: Saturday, July 12, 2008, 6:56 PM
                                              > What you say is pretty spot on. Slocum did a commendable job
                                              > at C'ville but
                                              > detested Hooker for a variety of reasons of which only some
                                              > involved
                                              > Chancellorsville. A lot of personal conduct behaviors
                                              > troubled Slocum plus
                                              > he felt Hooker stabbed McClellan in the back to get Mac
                                              > removed in favor of
                                              > Burnside and later in favor of himself.
                                              >
                                              > Another reason for the promotion to replace Hooker in the
                                              > west was that
                                              > Slocum earned it. Prior to his arrival in Vicksburg if was
                                              > rife with
                                              > corruption and Emancipation issues that Slocum cleaned up
                                              > to the best of his
                                              > ability given the situation and the limited time he was
                                              > there. The crooks
                                              > were glad to see him leave.
                                              >
                                              > As I mentioned earlier, Slocum did an excellent job when he
                                              > commanded the
                                              > new army/wing for Sherman.
                                              >
                                              > Tom
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > -----Original Message-----
                                              > From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                              > [mailto:civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com]
                                              On
                                              > Behalf Of guitarmandanga
                                              > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 9:40 AM
                                              > To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                              > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher
                                              > command?
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > As far as I know, Hooker didn't blame Slocum for the
                                              > outcome of
                                              > Chancellorsville as much as he blamed Howard (whom he
                                              > considered to
                                              > be largely responsible for it). For his part though, Slocum
                                              >
                                              > detested Hooker for seemingly slaughtering the XII Corps at
                                              > C'ville
                                              > with little to show for it, and then abandoning the
                                              > campaign. The
                                              > rancor on Slocum's part ran so deep that when the XII
                                              > Corps was sent
                                              > with the XI Corps to help out at Chattanooga under
                                              > Hooker's overall
                                              > commander, Slocum requested to be reassigned. So the War
                                              > Department
                                              > promptly placed him in command of the Vicksburg garrison
                                              > &
                                              > environs. It was only after Hooker resigned in protest over
                                              >
                                              > Howard's promotion that Slocum was tapped to take
                                              > command of
                                              > Hooker's XX Corps. More than likely that choice was
                                              > based on the
                                              > fact that the XX Corps was in part composed of Slocum's
                                              > former
                                              > command (the XI Corps) anyway, and he would have been the
                                              > most
                                              > senior general in the immediate area. Of course, the fact
                                              > that
                                              > Slocum was Hooker's enemy could be those who wanted to
                                              > see it as yet
                                              > another slap in Hooker's face by Sherman & the War
                                              > Department, one
                                              > last rubbing of salt in the wounds as it were.
                                              >
                                              > --- In civilwarwest@
                                              > <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
                                              > yahoogroups. com, Jason <jvt1976@... > wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > Wasn't Hooker pissed off about Slocum getting a
                                              > command as well,
                                              > or am I getting my facts screwed up?
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > ----- Original Message ----
                                              > > From: "SDE80@..." <SDE80@...>
                                              > > To: civilwarwest@
                                              > <mailto:civilwarwes t%40yahoogroups. com>
                                              > yahoogroups. com
                                              > > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:00:21 PM
                                              > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for
                                              > higher
                                              > command?
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > In a message dated 7/11/2008 4:19:30 P.M. Eastern
                                              > Standard Time,
                                              > > cvail19@yahoo. com writes:
                                              > > Well everyone knows Hooker and Howard never saw eye to
                                              > eye with
                                              > each other. I think you can blame Chancelorsville on that
                                              > one lols.
                                              > >
                                              > > And I agree I think if Logan might have been give
                                              > command of AOT,
                                              > Hooker would have stayed in the war.
                                              > >
                                              > > Hooker got mad because Howard, a regular officer like
                                              > him, was
                                              > placed in
                                              > > command of the AotT, yet he'd been OK with a
                                              > non-professional
                                              > volunteer
                                              > > being placed in command in his place? I doubt it.
                                              > > Probably would have made him much more upset. Bottom
                                              > line is
                                              > > that he was the senior of Sherman's corps
                                              > commanders and had
                                              > commanded an army
                                              > > once before. Logan would have made him just as mad, if
                                              > not
                                              > > madder.
                                              > >
                                              > > Sam Elliott
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > ____________ _________ _________ __
                                              > > Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and
                                              > the live music
                                              > scene in your area - Check out TourTracker. com!
                                              > >

                                            • Carl Williams
                                              I certainly felt I should not give the answer to this, since I was involved the first time the question came up in our little group. No one else has answered,
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Jul 15, 2008
                                                I certainly felt I should not give the answer to this, since I was
                                                involved the first time the question came up in our little group. No
                                                one else has answered, I see, but then again the question is phrased a
                                                little cryptically.

                                                Here's a hint: Mark Twain wrote that novel.

                                                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Huddleston"
                                                <huddleston.r@...> wrote:

                                                [...]

                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Ironically (and I say this as a Black Jack Fan) after Sherman passed him
                                                > over for command of the AotT, arguing that Logan was too political,
                                                Black
                                                > Jack promptly took leave and went back to Illinois to campaign!
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Question for the day: what is Logan's connection to the greatest
                                                American
                                                > novel?
                                              • Tony Gunter
                                                ... in ... From the moment he picked up a musket and fought as a citizen at First Bull Run, Logan was sold on military life. He loved being in the field and
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Jul 15, 2008
                                                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
                                                  wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Finished the book "Black Jack: John A. Logan and Southern Illinois
                                                  in
                                                  > the Civil War Era" I Recommend it.
                                                  >
                                                  > The author discusses whether Logan was unjustly passed over as a
                                                  > replacement for McPherson when he was KIA. Interestingly, he gave
                                                  > Sherman's views on what he didnt like about "political generals."
                                                  > Seems that there is more to it than unthinking prejudice. I
                                                  > loaned the book to someone, so can't quote from it, but
                                                  > basically Sherman just felt that these guys typically just weren't
                                                  > full time. He was especially resentful when they would go
                                                  > home to campaign for reelection just as things were critical
                                                  > in the field.

                                                  From the moment he picked up a musket and fought as a citizen at
                                                  First Bull Run, Logan was sold on military life. He loved being in
                                                  the field and would have remained in the field. It was only a direct
                                                  request from the POTUS himself that sent Logan home to campaign.

                                                  I think there's a lot of smoke and misdirection when it comes to
                                                  Sherman's decision ... didn't Sherman blame it on Thomas? Another
                                                  Sherman correspondence, IIRC, claimed that Logan didn't pay close
                                                  enough attention to logistics. I'm not sure I have ever seen an
                                                  analysis that supports any of these assertions sufficiently.

                                                  Just my opinion, I believe Logan was mentored by the best in the
                                                  business (McPherson) and deserved a shot at army command.
                                                • Harry Smeltzer
                                                  In the interest of full disclosure, Logan fought at Blackburn s Ford on July 19, two days before First Bull Run. He helped evacuate wounded from that affair
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Jul 15, 2008

                                                    In the interest of full disclosure, Logan fought at Blackburn’s Ford on July 19, two days before First Bull Run.  He helped evacuate wounded from that affair and was in in Washington on the 21st.  You can read about it here:

                                                    http://bullrunnings.wordpress.com/2007/04/19/ecelbarger-on-logan/

                                                    Harry

                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony Gunter
                                                    Sent:
                                                    Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:39 AM
                                                    To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

                                                     

                                                    --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@. ..>
                                                    wrote:

                                                    >
                                                    > Finished the book "Black Jack: John A. Logan and Southern Illinois
                                                    in
                                                    > the Civil War Era" I Recommend it.
                                                    >
                                                    > The author discusses whether Logan was unjustly passed over as a
                                                    > replacement for McPherson when he was KIA. Interestingly, he gave
                                                    > Sherman's views on what he didnt like about "political
                                                    generals."
                                                    > Seems that there is more to it than unthinking prejudice. I
                                                    > loaned the book to someone, so can't quote from it, but
                                                    > basically Sherman just felt that these guys typically just weren't
                                                    > full time. He was especially resentful when they would go
                                                    > home to campaign for reelection just as things were critical
                                                    > in the field.

                                                    From the moment he picked up a musket and fought as a citizen at
                                                    First Bull Run, Logan was sold on military life. He loved being in
                                                    the field and would have remained in the field. It was only a direct
                                                    request from the POTUS himself that sent Logan home to campaign.

                                                    I think there's a lot of smoke and misdirection when it comes to
                                                    Sherman's decision ... didn't Sherman blame it on Thomas? Another
                                                    Sherman correspondence, IIRC, claimed that Logan didn't pay close
                                                    enough attention to logistics. I'm not sure I have ever seen an
                                                    analysis that supports any of these assertions sufficiently.

                                                    Just my opinion, I believe Logan was mentored by the best in the
                                                    business (McPherson) and deserved a shot at army command.

                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.