Re: sherman's better opponent
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...> wrote:
>But James, Johnston did try to do some fighting along the way, however, his plans went awry by the actions of his subordinates, namely Hood and Polk. Lets not put all the blame on Johnston.
> I think Joe Johnston is the "better" of the two. I do not think that he did a great job in holding Sherman off. While agreeing stopping Sherman cold is not a realistic option, he could have delaid him longer. This would have required some fighting along the way.
- Point is basing future operations based on what the enemy may or may not do is less planning than it is praying.
John D. Beatty
Co-Author of "What Were They Thinking" from Merriam Press/Lulu
"History is our only test for the consequences of ideas"-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: sherman's better opponent
From: "gnrljejohnston" <GnrlJEJohnston@...>
Date: Tue, April 07, 2009 7:56 pm
While "waiting till a more powerful opponent made a mistake" has a visceral appeal, the Federals were orders of magnitude more powerful than the Confederates. It would have to have been a whopper, and Sherman just didn't blunder that badly by 1864.
The mistake may have been made not necessarily by Sherman, but by Schofield, McPherson, or Thomas or by one of their subordinates. This came close to be several times. Johnston acted on these a couple of times, but his orders were not followed by subordinates, and thus any victorious action by the Confederates, was defeated before it even started Granted, the Confederates with their disfunctional command structure were more apt to make a mistake, the Union could do so also.