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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Was Logan dissed for higher command?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 28 , Jul 11, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 28 , Jul 11, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 28 , Jul 11, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 28 , Jul 11, 2008
          • 0 Attachment

            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 5 of 28 , Jul 11, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment

                        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 11 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment

                          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 12 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 28 , Jul 12, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment

                              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 14 of 28 , Jul 15, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 28 , Jul 15, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- 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 16 of 28 , Jul 15, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    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.