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

Re: Bobrick, at face value:

Expand Messages
  • William H Keene
    ... I think you are wrong. I think the historic records agree with me. ... Whats with the reconstituted ? ... I doubt any of them ran to Murfreesboro. Some
    Message 1 of 63 , Apr 27, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "jack" <jlawrence@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "William H Keene" <wh_keene@...>
      > To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 9:01 PM
      > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Bobrick, at face value:
      >
      >
      > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "jack" <jlawrence@> wrote:
      > >> ...
      > >> They no longer existed as a military force.
      > >> Did they?
      > >They did.
      >
      > Not on Jan. 20th, 1862.

      I think you are wrong. I think the historic records agree with me.

      > They no longer existed as a military force and did until they were
      > reconstituted into, asyou popinted out earlier, Johnston's reorganized
      > forces.


      Whats with the 'reconstituted'?


      > These boys didn't just pull back, some of them ran all the way to
      > Murfessboro.

      I doubt any of them ran to Murfreesboro. Some of them did run toward Knoxville. Straggling and desertion wasnt unique to this force and those that ran were from a few of the regiments that were from eastern Tennessee -- didnt effect the whole force.


      > ... It was disintergration of a force that left Midle Tennessee
      > wide open, lost Kentucky and
      > paved the way for Donelso and Henry-and set a pattern for the war in the
      > west of linear defeat that didn't stop unti the Georgia border. Sounds like
      > obliteration to me.

      Sounds like you just prefer to imagine history rather than have it be based on source material. Middle Tennessee was not wide open (note how Thomas decided he could not advance in that direction, and instead went back the way he had come); Kentucky was already lost to the CSA; Mill Springs didnt pave the way for Donelson; and I dont see what pattern you are talking about.


      > They were not a military f rce when they fled. they wee combat neffectiv
      > and, as ar as the soputh was cncerned, they were obliterated from the order
      > of battle.

      Not true, as far as the south was concerned.


      > They had ceased to exist as a military force.

      Again, not true.


      > You know, they buned their transport to avoid pursuit.

      Right -- a good move to keep Thomas from capturing the boats.


      > An opposed river crossing is probably the most dfficult problem a
      > commander might face. They were incapable of even opposing it.

      No river crossing was attempted, since Thomas decided it was impossible to do.


      > ... They didn't
      > run because they were cowards. They ran because hey were whipped and had no
      > fight left.

      The marched away because there was no point in staying. They needed to reach a new base, as Crittenden wrote "the want of commissary stores compelled me at once to move to Gainesborough".
    • Tony Gunter
      ... As evidenced by the claim that an enemy army was obliterated at Mill Springs. By those definitions, I would say that McPherson obliterated a Confederate
      Message 63 of 63 , Apr 28, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...> wrote:
        >
        > What are "Thomas fan definitions"?

        As evidenced by the claim that an enemy army was obliterated at Mill Springs.

        By those definitions, I would say that McPherson obliterated a Confederate army at Raymond.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.