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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 28 , Jul 12 7:43 PM
    • 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 2 of 28 , Jul 15 4:05 AM
      • 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 3 of 28 , Jul 15 7:38 AM
        • 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 4 of 28 , Jul 15 7:53 AM
          • 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.