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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.