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

RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Joseph E. Johnston

Expand Messages
  • Tom Mix
    Of course not. Davis was example # 1 of the class filled Southern society. No middle class, only slaves and poor whites expected to serve the rich upper class
    Message 1 of 68 , Aug 2, 2008

      Of course not. Davis was example # 1 of the class filled Southern society.  No middle class, only slaves and poor whites expected to serve the rich upper class holding all the cards of power, money and prestige as well as a decent future. That is what they were fighting to maintain.  That horrible locked in class based system of denying individual work ethics, accomplishments and potential to better one’s self through hard work and education, etc.

      Remember the lines of the Sergeant to Chamberlain in “Gettysburg” : “I dam all gentlemen. I’ll be judged by what I do not by what my father did.”  A beautiful statement.



      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of huddleston.r@...
      Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 9:50 PM
      To: Civil War West
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Joseph E. Johnston


      It was Lincoln who said, vis-a-vis McClellan, that he, Lincoln, would hold the horse of the man who brought victory. Considering that holding a horse was a job for a little slave boy, the statement showed AL's willingness to do what ever it took for preserve the Union. Again, one can not imagine Jeff Davis even thinking that, let alone doing it.

      Take care,


      Judy and Bob Huddleston
      10643 Sperry Street
      Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
      huddleston.r@ comcast.net

      "All arrogance will reap a harvest rich in tears. God calls men to a heavy reckoning for overweening pride." Aeschylus

      Regardless of the pettiness Johnston was showing, it certainly is
      instructive to note that Davis never seemed to be able to de-fuse a
      situation, only make it worse. Just read how Lincoln handled John
      Logan when that gentleman was grumbling about the direction things
      were taking in the early days [Logan was anti-sechesh but
      South-sympathetic] . Abe apparently promises the leadership of a
      regiment to Logan to mollify him, with more favors possibly to come.
      Next thing you know, Logan, while still sometimes grumbling, manages
      to stay on board until ultimately becoming as die-hard Union side as
      can be imagined.

      I'm sticking Lincoln and Logan in here as a comparison, although the
      situation was different. Davis would probably have seen no value in
      someone like Logan, and plotted to hold him back and put in a
      incompetent crony instead. Lincoln would have seen great value in a JE
      Johnston and figured out a way to smooth those ruffled feathers.

      For those that don't know, I am quite the Davis Basher. [g]


    • Dick Weeks
      Carl, feel free to make comparisons between the eastern and western theaters. They were clearly two different theaters of operation and lend themselves to
      Message 68 of 68 , Sep 4, 2008
        Carl, feel free to make comparisons between the eastern and western
        theaters. They were clearly two different theaters of operation and lend
        themselves to comparison. What I don't want to happen is have the
        discussion centered on the east and then after about 20-30 posts look around
        and wonder how in the heck we got into a discussion on Gettysburg. This is
        a very easy trap to fall into.

        In my own mind I often make comparisons between east and west. While I live
        in the battlefield country of Northern Virginia (about 25 west of
        Washington, D.C.) and have devoted most of my studies to the war in the
        east, I found myself wondering about the war in the west. That is why I
        started this discussion group. Before the group I often wondered why Lee
        was so successful in the east and the western generals such as Johnston
        weren't as good in their theater of operation. As the discussions in the
        group progressed over the years I think I know, at least in my own mind,

        The war in the east covered territory that was about 100 miles wide by about
        150 miles long. This lent itself to Lee's style of fighting. That is,
        maneuver for position, consolidate the army, and attack when the opportunity
        presented itself. I am not so sure Lee could have done as well in the west.
        There was just too much territory to cover. The west was more campaigns
        than battles. The two campaigns that Lee conducted, the Maryland Campaign
        in September 1862 and the Gettysburg Campaign June/July 1863, were both
        failures. Lee was extremely adapt at identifying the enemy's mistakes and
        capitalizing on them, such as Chancellorsville. Johnston on the other hand
        could maneuver his army but couldn't seem to identify the time nor place
        where to attack and destroy his opponent's army.

        The bottom line is, to make a football analogy, I think Joe Johnston was
        playing not to lose. He was not playing to win. Whereas Lee was playing to
        win all the time. Johnston's style will get you through several mediocre
        seasons, but it will never get you to the Super Bowl. Having said that, I
        think had Lee been in the west, the war would probably not have lasted as
        long as it did. Lee, in my personal opinion, was every bit as lucky as he
        was good. He was facing inept commanders in the Union army most of the
        time. This might not have been true in the west. Just something to ponder
        and just my personal opinion..

        I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
        Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
        To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:16 AM
        Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Joseph E. Johnston

        > Perhaps we will be allowed to mention eastern theater on a 'comparison
        > to the west' basis.
        > Tom, surely it is valid to include battles in 1861 and 1862? If
        > including such CSA generals were pretty impressive... well, maybe not
        > in the western theater [g]. That's just the problem, the South just
        > kept losing in the West. As far as the East, you can find some battles
        > after Antietam that the CSA won, you know, The Wilderness and Cold
        > Harbor come to mind quickly.
        > If you look at battles rather than campaigns, some other battles were
        > won by the CS side in the west... Sherman lost a few I'm thinking, our
        > boy JEJ handed it to him at Kennesaw Mountain for example... but the
        > US always won the campaigns.
        > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
        >> Beginning with Antietam, where did this great job take place outside of
        >> Chancellorsville? Longstreet was great at Chickamauga but the others
        > were
        >> fairly well stopped, not across the board but it was Pete's break
        > through,
        >> allowed by a Union foul up, that won there. So, where did this
        > "great job"
        >> take place? Gettysburg? Vicksburg? Chattanooga? Atlanta? Franklin?
        >> Tom
        > ------------------------------------
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.