Re: sherman's better opponent
- --- In email@example.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...> wrote:
> Since Johnston favored waiting till a more powerful opponent made a mistake, I think we have to admit this would have been a better plan to follow Sherman and try to catch him in a mis-step and Johnston would have done just that IMO. So certainly Johnston wins out as the better strategist and thus better opponent, for my 2 cents.I agree whole heartily Carl, but then again, I wouldn't be biased would I . :-)
- 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.