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

Re: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history

Expand Messages
  • Bob Huddleston
    My points about Thomas are not meant to demean or lessen his very real accomplishments. Here is one: The interments [at Chattanooga National Cemetery] are
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 19, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      My points about Thomas are not meant to demean or lessen his very real
      accomplishments. Here is one:

      "The interments [at Chattanooga National Cemetery] are made without
      regard to States, as we think justly, though members of same regiments
      are kept together as far as practicable, on a good suggestion of a
      distinguished Major-General, as we learn, that “there had been [319]
      quite enough of State Rights; that these soldiers had died fighting for
      the Union, against rebellious States, and now we had better mix them up
      and nationalize them a little.” He thought our poor fellows would like
      that best, if they could have a voice in the matter, and we heartily
      concur in the opinion….

      "It stands out a truly Union and national work as far as completed,
      simple but grand in its conception and execution; and General Thomas
      well deserves high praise and the united thanks of the army and the
      country for what has there been done so promptly and appropriately for
      our slain and dead soldiery."

      James F. Russling, “National Cemeteries,” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine.
      Volume 33, Issue 195, (August 1866), pp. 318-319.


      Take care,

      Bob

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

      “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
      fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
      belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
      Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.
    • Jack Lawrence
      And both times he pursued an attacking bforce into disintergation. ... From: Bob Huddleston To:
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 20, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        And both times he pursued an attacking bforce into disintergation.
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Bob Huddleston" <huddleston.r@...>
        To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:07 PM
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history


        > Thomas commanded in only two battles: Mill Springs, a small (4,500
        > Federals to about 5900 Rebels) action where the total casualties were
        > about 246 Union to 533 Confederate. Hardly much of a battle, since
        > Thomas was forced to fall back after it was over. Thomas commanded some
        > ten regiments and Crittenden eight; roughly two divisions fighting it
        > out. Thomas casualties were low – but then so were Crittenden’s.
        >
        > From Mill Springs, January 19, 1862, until Nashville, almost exactly
        > three years later, Thomas was never in command of a single battle; he
        > was always in the position of having someone immediately over him, as
        > the commander – and the one responsible for the victory or the defeat.
        >
        > I already posted the box score for Nashville.
        >
        > Take care,
        >
        > Bob
        >
        > Judy and Bob Huddleston
        > 10643 Sperry Street
        > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
        > Huddleston.r@...
        >
        > “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
        > fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
        > belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
        > Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.
        >
        > On 12/18/2010 7:39 AM, Jack Lawrence wrote:
        >> This is an old argument.
        >>
        >> No one says cannae when talking about Thomas.
        >>
        >> But he had a habit of turning back assaults and then pursuing a
        >> retreating
        >> enemy ( under modern doctrine this is de rigor) to the point that it was
        >> rendered combat ineffective to the point that it had to be reconstituted
        >> and
        >> rearmed.
        >>
        >> That's what Thomas did. No matter how many survivors, the opposing force
        >> was
        >> destroyed.
        >>
        >> Regards,
        >>
        >> Jack
        >>
        >> Amateur military historians study units an numbers. Professional military
        >> historians study battles.
        >> ----- Original Message -----
        >> From: "Bob Huddleston" <huddleston.r@...
        >> <mailto:huddleston.r%40comcast.net>>
        >> To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        >> <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>>
        >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:53 PM
        >> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history
        >>
        >> >
        >> > In our discussion of the importance of George Thomas, the statement is
        >> > made that he is unique because he destroyed a Civil War army. Leaving
        >> > aside the thought that if that is the sign of greatness, then John
        >> Bell
        >> > Hood should be considered the greatest general of all time :>) I did
        >> > some checking in the various secondary sources on the two battles of
        >> > Franklin and Nashville. What I found, and please correct me if my
        >> > figures are wrong, was that the destruction of the AoT was done at
        >> > Franklin and that it would appear that the Rebels at Nashville were
        >> > hardly destroyed, not if they had twenty something thousand when
        >> Thomas
        >> > attacked and still had 20,000 a month or so later.
        >> >
        >> > At Franklin:
        >> >
        >> > Schofield:23,939
        >> >
        >> > Hood started north with about approximately 40,000 maximum, but only
        >> had
        >> > about 29,000 left at Franklin (there are no decent Confederate
        >> numbers)
        >> >
        >> > Losses at Franklin, November 30, 1864:
        >> >
        >> > Schofield:2326
        >> >
        >> > Hood:6200
        >> >
        >> > At Nashville, December 15-16, 1864:
        >> >
        >> > Thomas: 52,000-60,000 (I am startled at the disagreement over the
        >> number
        >> > of men Thomas had available!)
        >> >
        >> > Hood:22,000-25,000
        >> >
        >> > Casualties:
        >> >
        >> > Thomas: 3,061 killed, wounded and missing.
        >> >
        >> > Hood: No reports – but there is agreement that Thomas captured 4462
        >> > Confederates and that, when the Army of Tennessee reached Tupelo at
        >> the
        >> > beginning of 1865, it had about 20,000 men.
        >> >
        >> > Take care,
        >> >
        >> > Bob
        >> >
        >> > Judy and Bob Huddleston
        >> > 10643 Sperry Street
        >> > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
        >> > Huddleston.r@... <mailto:Huddleston.r%40comcast.net>
        >> >
        >> > “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were
        >> generals
        >> > fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
        >> > belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
        >> > Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.
        >> >
        >> >
        >> > On 12/17/2010 3:39 PM, chris bryant wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> I'd say it was pretty well sealed before that;any other opinions?
        >> >> Chris Bryant
        >> >> --- On *Fri, 12/17/10, hank9174 /<clarkc@...
        >> <mailto:clarkc%40missouri.edu>>/* wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> From: hank9174 <clarkc@... <mailto:clarkc%40missouri.edu>>
        >> >> Subject: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history
        >> >> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        >> <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>
        >> >> Date: Friday, December 17, 2010, 12:41 PM
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> 146 years ago George H. Thomas created his magnum opus, his
        >> >> masterpiece, his pièce de résistance: the battle of nashville.
        >> >>
        >> >> If any event truly sealed the fate of the CSA it was the virtual
        >> >> destruction of the AoT...
        >> >>
        >> >> HankC
        >> >>
        >> >> p.s. I kind of miss old joseph rose ;)
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >
        >> >
        >> > ------------------------------------
        >> >
        >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Bob Taubman
        Here we go again .  Thomas, according to Mr. Huddleston, is forced to fall back .  I wonder why he would be forced to fall back when in fact After it was
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 20, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Here we go again .  Thomas, according to Mr. Huddleston, is "forced to fall back".  I wonder why he would be forced to fall back when in fact "After it was clear that the enemy had abandoned his entrenchments in great haste....", General George H. Thomas, the Idomitable Warrior,  p.180, author; Wilbur Thomas.   Also, p.179, "A large quantity of ammunition, commissary stores, camp tools, and garrsion eqiupment, in addition to six Confederate flags, were also found by the victors."  Also, p.179, "Although the Confederates escaped, the opposite bank displayed evidence of their flight by the number of wagons left behind;  and since the boats use in crossing were destroyed, an immediate chase was impossible, although during the day the Fourteenth Ohio succeeded in effecting a crossing for reconnaissance purposes and to collect enemy property left behind."
           
          Mr. Huddleston has in previous correspondence on this topic,  used the term "retreated" in relation to Thomas's actions at Mill Springs.  Now the wording is "forced to fall back."  Why would he have been forced to fall back when the enemy had abandoned the field;  Thomas's forces were able to examine the enemy's entrenchments, and even crossed the river "for reconnaissance purposes and to collect enemy property left behind." 
           
          ISTM leaving the field of battle after successfully routing the enemy, hardly qualifies as a "retreat" or being "forced to fall back."   How many days, months, etc was he to remain at Mill Springs field of battle?
           
          Some collaboration of a "retreat" or "forced to fall back" situation would be appreciated. 
           

           


          From: Bob Huddleston <huddleston.r@...>
          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 12:07:36 AM
          Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history

          Thomas commanded in only two battles: Mill Springs, a small (4,500
          Federals to about 5900 Rebels) action where the total casualties were
          about 246 Union to 533 Confederate. Hardly much of a battle, since
          Thomas was forced to fall back after it was over. Thomas commanded some
          ten regiments and Crittenden eight; roughly two divisions fighting it
          out. Thomas casualties were low – but then so were Crittenden’s.

          From Mill Springs, January 19, 1862, until Nashville, almost exactly
          three years later, Thomas was never in command of a single battle; he
          was always in the position of having someone immediately over him, as
          the commander – and the one responsible for the victory or the defeat.

          I already posted the box score for Nashville.

          Take care,

          Bob

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

          “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
          fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
          belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
          Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.

          On 12/18/2010 7:39 AM, Jack Lawrence wrote:
          > This is an old argument.
          >
          > No one says cannae when talking about Thomas.
          >
          > But he had a habit of turning back assaults and then pursuing a retreating
          > enemy ( under modern doctrine this is de rigor) to the point that it was
          > rendered combat ineffective to the point that it had to be reconstituted
          > and
          > rearmed.
          >
          > That's what Thomas did. No matter how many survivors, the opposing force
          > was
          > destroyed.
          >
          > Regards,
          >
          > Jack
          >
          > Amateur military historians study units an numbers. Professional military
          > historians study battles.
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Bob Huddleston" <huddleston.r@...
          > <mailto:huddleston.r%40comcast.net>>
          > To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>>
          > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:53 PM
          > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history
          >
          >  >
          >  > In our discussion of the importance of George Thomas, the statement is
          >  > made that he is unique because he destroyed a Civil War army. Leaving
          >  > aside the thought that if that is the sign of greatness, then John Bell
          >  > Hood should be considered the greatest general of all time :>) I did
          >  > some checking in the various secondary sources on the two battles of
          >  > Franklin and Nashville. What I found, and please correct me if my
          >  > figures are wrong, was that the destruction of the AoT was done at
          >  > Franklin and that it would appear that the Rebels at Nashville were
          >  > hardly destroyed, not if they had twenty something thousand when Thomas
          >  > attacked and still had 20,000 a month or so later.
          >  >
          >  > At Franklin:
          >  >
          >  > Schofield:23,939
          >  >
          >  > Hood started north with about approximately 40,000 maximum, but only had
          >  > about 29,000 left at Franklin (there are no decent Confederate numbers)
          >  >
          >  > Losses at Franklin, November 30, 1864:
          >  >
          >  > Schofield:2326
          >  >
          >  > Hood:6200
          >  >
          >  > At Nashville, December 15-16, 1864:
          >  >
          >  > Thomas: 52,000-60,000 (I am startled at the disagreement over the number
          >  > of men Thomas had available!)
          >  >
          >  > Hood:22,000-25,000
          >  >
          >  > Casualties:
          >  >
          >  > Thomas: 3,061 killed, wounded and missing.
          >  >
          >  > Hood: No reports – but there is agreement that Thomas captured 4462
          >  > Confederates and that, when the Army of Tennessee reached Tupelo at the
          >  > beginning of 1865, it had about 20,000 men.
          >  >
          >  > Take care,
          >  >
          >  > Bob
          >  >
          >  > Judy and Bob Huddleston
          >  > 10643 Sperry Street
          >  > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
          >  > Huddleston.r@... <mailto:Huddleston.r%40comcast.net>
          >  >
          >  > “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
          >  > fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
          >  > belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
          >  > Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.
          >  >
          >  >
          >  > On 12/17/2010 3:39 PM, chris bryant wrote:
          >  >>
          >  >>
          >  >> I'd say it was pretty well sealed before that;any other opinions?
          >  >> Chris Bryant
          >  >> --- On *Fri, 12/17/10, hank9174 /<clarkc@...
          > <mailto:clarkc%40missouri.edu>>/* wrote:
          >  >>
          >  >>
          >  >> From: hank9174 <clarkc@... <mailto:clarkc%40missouri.edu>>
          >  >> Subject: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history
          >  >> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>
          >  >> Date: Friday, December 17, 2010, 12:41 PM
          >  >>
          >  >>
          >  >> 146 years ago George H. Thomas created his magnum opus, his
          >  >> masterpiece, his pièce de résistance: the battle of nashville.
          >  >>
          >  >> If any event truly sealed the fate of the CSA it was the virtual
          >  >> destruction of the AoT...
          >  >>
          >  >> HankC
          >  >>
          >  >> p.s. I kind of miss old joseph rose ;)
          >  >>
          >  >>
          >  >>
          >  >
          >  >
          >  > ------------------------------------
          >  >
          >  > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >  >
          >  >
          >  >
          >  >
          >
          >


          ------------------------------------

          Yahoo! Groups Links

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

          <*> Your email settings:
              Individual Email | Traditional

          <*> To change settings online go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/join
              (Yahoo! ID required)

          <*> To change settings via email:
              civilwarwest-digest@yahoogroups.com
              civilwarwest-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

        • Bob Huddleston
          See Einholf, George Thomas: Virginian for the Union, p. 120-124 for an analysis of what Thomas did at Mill Springs and the fact that Thomas failed to follow up
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 20, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            See Einholf, George Thomas: Virginian for the Union, p. 120-124 for an
            analysis of what Thomas did at Mill Springs and the fact that Thomas
            failed to follow up the victory, allowing Zollicoffer to escape. When
            Speed Fry asked Thomas why he did not send a demand for the Confederates
            to escape, “Thomas thought for a moment and then replied, ‘Hang it, Fry!
            I never once thought of it!” (p. 120) See also Larry Daniel, Days of
            Glory, pp. 54-56, where he points out that Buell was pushing Thomas to
            pursue and Thomas was stalling..

            Mind you, I am not saying that Thomas did not win and win impressively,
            but he did not destroy Zollicoffer, nor did he pursue him. Instead he
            “fell back” or “retreated,” pick your word. He was, BTW,, in my opinion,
            doing the correct thing – the hills of Appalachia were a nightmare to
            maneuver in during the Civil War and Thomas was right to “fall back”.
            But let’s don’t call it “destruction of an enemy army”: whatever
            destruction occurred to Zollicoffer occurred because he was also trying
            to retreat through a hostile environment, not because Thomas was pursuing.

            Mill Springs was, to repeat, a small battle, even by January 1862
            standards. Compare the few men Thomas – and Zollicoffer – had with the
            forces, on both sides, the next month at Donelson.

            Also remember, whatever the value of Thomas’ justifications for refusing
            to accept army command until after Chickamauga, the fact remains that he
            did not command in another battle for almost three years, and that
            against an already defeated foe.

            Take care,

            Bob

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

            “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.


            On 12/20/2010 10:24 AM, Bob Taubman wrote:
            > Here we go again . Thomas, according to Mr. Huddleston, is "forced to
            > fall back". I wonder why he would be forced to fall back when in fact
            > "After it was clear that the enemy had abandoned his entrenchments in
            > great haste....", General George H. Thomas, the Idomitable Warrior,
            > p.180, author; Wilbur Thomas. Also, p.179, "A large quantity of
            > ammunition, commissary stores, camp tools, and garrsion eqiupment, in
            > addition to six Confederate flags, were also found by the victors."
            > Also, p.179, "Although the Confederates escaped, the opposite bank
            > displayed evidence of their flight by the number of wagons left
            > behind; and since the boats use in crossing were destroyed, an
            > immediate chase was impossible, although during the day the Fourteenth
            > Ohio succeeded in effecting a crossing for reconnaissance purposes and
            > to collect enemy property left behind."
            > Mr. Huddleston has in previous correspondence on this topic, used the
            > term "retreated" in relation to Thomas's actions at Mill Springs. Now
            > the wording is "forced to fall back." Why would he have been forced
            > to fall back when the enemy had abandoned the field; Thomas's forces
            > were able to examine the enemy's entrenchments, and even crossed the
            > river "for reconnaissance purposes and to collect enemy property left
            > behind."
            > ISTM leaving the field of battle after successfully routing the enemy,
            > hardly qualifies as a "retreat" or being "forced to fall back." How
            > many days, months, etc was he to remain at Mill Springs field of battle?
            > Some collaboration of a "retreat" or "forced to fall back" situation
            > would be appreciated.
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > *From:* Bob Huddleston <huddleston.r@...>
            > *To:* civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            > *Sent:* Mon, December 20, 2010 12:07:36 AM
            > *Subject:* Re: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history
            >
            > Thomas commanded in only two battles: Mill Springs, a small (4,500
            > Federals to about 5900 Rebels) action where the total casualties were
            > about 246 Union to 533 Confederate. Hardly much of a battle, since
            > Thomas was forced to fall back after it was over. Thomas commanded some
            > ten regiments and Crittenden eight; roughly two divisions fighting it
            > out. Thomas casualties were low – but then so were Crittenden’s.
            >
            > From Mill Springs, January 19, 1862, until Nashville, almost exactly
            > three years later, Thomas was never in command of a single battle; he
            > was always in the position of having someone immediately over him, as
            > the commander – and the one responsible for the victory or the defeat.
            >
            > I already posted the box score for Nashville.
            >
            > Take care,
            >
            > Bob
            >
            > Judy and Bob Huddleston
            > 10643 Sperry Street
            > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
            > Huddleston.r@... <mailto:Huddleston.r@...>
            >
            > “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
            > fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
            > belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
            > Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.
            >
            > On 12/18/2010 7:39 AM, Jack Lawrence wrote:
            > > This is an old argument.
            > >
            > > No one says cannae when talking about Thomas.
            > >
            > > But he had a habit of turning back assaults and then pursuing a
            > retreating
            > > enemy ( under modern doctrine this is de rigor) to the point that it was
            > > rendered combat ineffective to the point that it had to be reconstituted
            > > and
            > > rearmed.
            > >
            > > That's what Thomas did. No matter how many survivors, the opposing force
            > > was
            > > destroyed.
            > >
            > > Regards,
            > >
            > > Jack
            > >
            > > Amateur military historians study units an numbers. Professional
            > military
            > > historians study battles.
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: "Bob Huddleston" <huddleston.r@...
            > <mailto:huddleston.r@...>
            > > <mailto:huddleston.r%40comcast.net>>
            > > To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            > <mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
            > <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>>
            > > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:53 PM
            > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history
            > >
            > > >
            > > > In our discussion of the importance of George Thomas, the statement is
            > > > made that he is unique because he destroyed a Civil War army. Leaving
            > > > aside the thought that if that is the sign of greatness, then John
            > Bell
            > > > Hood should be considered the greatest general of all time :>) I did
            > > > some checking in the various secondary sources on the two battles of
            > > > Franklin and Nashville. What I found, and please correct me if my
            > > > figures are wrong, was that the destruction of the AoT was done at
            > > > Franklin and that it would appear that the Rebels at Nashville were
            > > > hardly destroyed, not if they had twenty something thousand when
            > Thomas
            > > > attacked and still had 20,000 a month or so later.
            > > >
            > > > At Franklin:
            > > >
            > > > Schofield:23,939
            > > >
            > > > Hood started north with about approximately 40,000 maximum, but
            > only had
            > > > about 29,000 left at Franklin (there are no decent Confederate
            > numbers)
            > > >
            > > > Losses at Franklin, November 30, 1864:
            > > >
            > > > Schofield:2326
            > > >
            > > > Hood:6200
            > > >
            > > > At Nashville, December 15-16, 1864:
            > > >
            > > > Thomas: 52,000-60,000 (I am startled at the disagreement over the
            > number
            > > > of men Thomas had available!)
            > > >
            > > > Hood:22,000-25,000
            > > >
            > > > Casualties:
            > > >
            > > > Thomas: 3,061 killed, wounded and missing.
            > > >
            > > > Hood: No reports – but there is agreement that Thomas captured 4462
            > > > Confederates and that, when the Army of Tennessee reached Tupelo
            > at the
            > > > beginning of 1865, it had about 20,000 men.
            > > >
            > > > Take care,
            > > >
            > > > Bob
            > > >
            > > > Judy and Bob Huddleston
            > > > 10643 Sperry Street
            > > > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
            > > > Huddleston.r@... <mailto:Huddleston.r@...>
            > <mailto:Huddleston.r%40comcast.net>
            > > >
            > > > “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were
            > generals
            > > > fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
            > > > belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
            > > > Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > On 12/17/2010 3:39 PM, chris bryant wrote:
            > > >>
            > > >>
            > > >> I'd say it was pretty well sealed before that;any other opinions?
            > > >> Chris Bryant
            > > >> --- On *Fri, 12/17/10, hank9174 /<clarkc@...
            > <mailto:clarkc@...>
            > > <mailto:clarkc%40missouri.edu>>/* wrote:
            > > >>
            > > >>
            > > >> From: hank9174 <clarkc@... <mailto:clarkc@...>
            > <mailto:clarkc%40missouri.edu>>
            > > >> Subject: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history
            > > >> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            > <mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
            > <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>
            > > >> Date: Friday, December 17, 2010, 12:41 PM
            > > >>
            > > >>
            > > >> 146 years ago George H. Thomas created his magnum opus, his
            > > >> masterpiece, his pièce de résistance: the battle of nashville.
            > > >>
            > > >> If any event truly sealed the fate of the CSA it was the virtual
            > > >> destruction of the AoT...
            > > >>
            > > >> HankC
            > > >>
            > > >> p.s. I kind of miss old joseph rose ;)
            > > >>
            > > >>
            > > >>
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > ------------------------------------
            > > >
            > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            > civilwarwest-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
            > <mailto:civilwarwest-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com>
            >
            >
            >
          • Bob Taubman
            You have failed to explain why/how Thomas  retreated  or now, was   forced to fall back .  Your use of retreated or forced to fall back ,  are used to
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 20, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              You have failed to explain why/how Thomas "retreated" or now, was  "forced to fall back".  Your use of "retreated" or "forced to fall back",  are used to intimate some sort of failing on Thomas's part.  I see your use of these phrases as empty rhetoric, nothing else.  Thomas neither retreated nor was he forced to fall back as you have claimed.  Your other arguments are smoke screens for your inability to clarify your words.
               
              Retreat:  "When an army retreats, it moves away from enemy forces in order to avoid fighting them."  Collins English Dictionary.  Methinks you got your northern and southern forces reversed.
               
              Forced to fall back:  your definition, with respect to Mill Springs, is anticipated.
               

               


              From: Bob Huddleston <huddleston.r@...>
              To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 2:09:41 PM
              Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history

              See Einholf, George Thomas: Virginian for the Union, p. 120-124 for an
              analysis of what Thomas did at Mill Springs and the fact that Thomas
              failed to follow up the victory, allowing Zollicoffer to escape. When
              Speed Fry asked Thomas why he did not send a demand for the Confederates
              to escape, “Thomas thought for a moment and then replied, ‘Hang it, Fry!
              I never once thought of it!” (p. 120) See also Larry Daniel, Days of
              Glory, pp. 54-56, where he points out that Buell was pushing Thomas to
              pursue and Thomas was stalling..

              Mind you, I am not saying that Thomas did not win and win impressively,
              but he did not destroy Zollicoffer, nor did he pursue him. Instead he
              “fell back” or “retreated,” pick your word. He was, BTW,, in my opinion,
              doing the correct thing – the hills of Appalachia were a nightmare to
              maneuver in during the Civil War and Thomas was right to “fall back”.
              But let’s don’t call it “destruction of an enemy army”: whatever
              destruction occurred to Zollicoffer occurred because he was also trying
              to retreat through a hostile environment, not because Thomas was pursuing.

              Mill Springs was, to repeat, a small battle, even by January 1862
              standards. Compare the few men Thomas – and Zollicoffer – had with the
              forces, on both sides, the next month at Donelson.

              Also remember, whatever the value of Thomas’ justifications for refusing
              to accept army command until after Chickamauga, the fact remains that he
              did not command in another battle for almost three years, and that
              against an already defeated foe.

              Take care,

              Bob

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

              “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.


              On 12/20/2010 10:24 AM, Bob Taubman wrote:
              > Here we go again .  Thomas, according to Mr. Huddleston, is "forced to
              > fall back".  I wonder why he would be forced to fall back when in fact
              > "After it was clear that the enemy had abandoned his entrenchments in
              > great haste....", General George H. Thomas, the Idomitable Warrior, 
              > p.180, author; Wilbur Thomas.  Also, p.179, "A large quantity of
              > ammunition, commissary stores, camp tools, and garrsion eqiupment, in
              > addition to six Confederate flags, were also found by the victors." 
              > Also, p.179, "Although the Confederates escaped, the opposite bank
              > displayed evidence of their flight by the number of wagons left
              > behind;  and since the boats use in crossing were destroyed, an
              > immediate chase was impossible, although during the day the Fourteenth
              > Ohio succeeded in effecting a crossing for reconnaissance purposes and
              > to collect enemy property left behind."
              > Mr. Huddleston has in previous correspondence on this topic,  used the
              > term "retreated" in relation to Thomas's actions at Mill Springs.  Now
              > the wording is "forced to fall back."  Why would he have been forced
              > to fall back when the enemy had abandoned the field;  Thomas's forces
              > were able to examine the enemy's entrenchments, and even crossed the
              > river "for reconnaissance purposes and to collect enemy property left
              > behind."
              > ISTM leaving the field of battle after successfully routing the enemy,
              > hardly qualifies as a "retreat" or being "forced to fall back."  How
              > many days, months, etc was he to remain at Mill Springs field of battle?
              > Some collaboration of a "retreat" or "forced to fall back" situation
              > would be appreciated.
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > *From:* Bob Huddleston <huddleston.r@...>
              > *To:* civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              > *Sent:* Mon, December 20, 2010 12:07:36 AM
              > *Subject:* Re: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history
              >
              > Thomas commanded in only two battles: Mill Springs, a small (4,500
              > Federals to about 5900 Rebels) action where the total casualties were
              > about 246 Union to 533 Confederate. Hardly much of a battle, since
              > Thomas was forced to fall back after it was over. Thomas commanded some
              > ten regiments and Crittenden eight; roughly two divisions fighting it
              > out. Thomas casualties were low – but then so were Crittenden’s.
              >
              > From Mill Springs, January 19, 1862, until Nashville, almost exactly
              > three years later, Thomas was never in command of a single battle; he
              > was always in the position of having someone immediately over him, as
              > the commander – and the one responsible for the victory or the defeat.
              >
              > I already posted the box score for Nashville.
              >
              > Take care,
              >
              > Bob
              >
              > Judy and Bob Huddleston
              > 10643 Sperry Street
              > Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
              > Huddleston.r@... <mailto:Huddleston.r@...>
              >
              > “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals
              > fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
              > belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
              > Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.
              >
              > On 12/18/2010 7:39 AM, Jack Lawrence wrote:
              > > This is an old argument.
              > >
              > > No one says cannae when talking about Thomas.
              > >
              > > But he had a habit of turning back assaults and then pursuing a
              > retreating
              > > enemy ( under modern doctrine this is de rigor) to the point that it was
              > > rendered combat ineffective to the point that it had to be reconstituted
              > > and
              > > rearmed.
              > >
              > > That's what Thomas did. No matter how many survivors, the opposing force
              > > was
              > > destroyed.
              > >
              > > Regards,
              > >
              > > Jack
              > >
              > > Amateur military historians study units an numbers. Professional
              > military
              > > historians study battles.
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: "Bob Huddleston" <huddleston.r@...
              > <mailto:huddleston.r@...>
              > > <mailto:huddleston.r%40comcast.net>>
              > > To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
              > <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>>
              > > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 7:53 PM
              > > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history
              > >
              > > >
              > > > In our discussion of the importance of George Thomas, the statement is
              > > > made that he is unique because he destroyed a Civil War army. Leaving
              > > > aside the thought that if that is the sign of greatness, then John
              > Bell
              > > > Hood should be considered the greatest general of all time :>) I did
              > > > some checking in the various secondary sources on the two battles of
              > > > Franklin and Nashville. What I found, and please correct me if my
              > > > figures are wrong, was that the destruction of the AoT was done at
              > > > Franklin and that it would appear that the Rebels at Nashville were
              > > > hardly destroyed, not if they had twenty something thousand when
              > Thomas
              > > > attacked and still had 20,000 a month or so later.
              > > >
              > > > At Franklin:
              > > >
              > > > Schofield:23,939
              > > >
              > > > Hood started north with about approximately 40,000 maximum, but
              > only had
              > > > about 29,000 left at Franklin (there are no decent Confederate
              > numbers)
              > > >
              > > > Losses at Franklin, November 30, 1864:
              > > >
              > > > Schofield:2326
              > > >
              > > > Hood:6200
              > > >
              > > > At Nashville, December 15-16, 1864:
              > > >
              > > > Thomas: 52,000-60,000 (I am startled at the disagreement over the
              > number
              > > > of men Thomas had available!)
              > > >
              > > > Hood:22,000-25,000
              > > >
              > > > Casualties:
              > > >
              > > > Thomas: 3,061 killed, wounded and missing.
              > > >
              > > > Hood: No reports – but there is agreement that Thomas captured 4462
              > > > Confederates and that, when the Army of Tennessee reached Tupelo
              > at the
              > > > beginning of 1865, it had about 20,000 men.
              > > >
              > > > Take care,
              > > >
              > > > Bob
              > > >
              > > > Judy and Bob Huddleston
              > > > 10643 Sperry Street
              > > > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
              > > > Huddleston.r@... <mailto:Huddleston.r@...>
              > <mailto:Huddleston.r%40comcast.net>
              > > >
              > > > “There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were
              > generals
              > > > fighting it, and, of the two groups, the historians are the more
              > > > belligerent.” David Donald, “Refighting the Civil War,” Lincoln
              > > > Reconsidered (New York, 1956), 82.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > On 12/17/2010 3:39 PM, chris bryant wrote:
              > > >>
              > > >>
              > > >> I'd say it was pretty well sealed before that;any other opinions?
              > > >> Chris Bryant
              > > >> --- On *Fri, 12/17/10, hank9174 /<clarkc@...
              > <mailto:clarkc@...>
              > > <mailto:clarkc%40missouri.edu>>/* wrote:
              > > >>
              > > >>
              > > >> From: hank9174 <clarkc@... <mailto:clarkc@...>
              > <mailto:clarkc%40missouri.edu>>
              > > >> Subject: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history
              > > >> To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
              > <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>
              > > >> Date: Friday, December 17, 2010, 12:41 PM
              > > >>
              > > >>
              > > >> 146 years ago George H. Thomas created his magnum opus, his
              > > >> masterpiece, his pièce de résistance: the battle of nashville.
              > > >>
              > > >> If any event truly sealed the fate of the CSA it was the virtual
              > > >> destruction of the AoT...
              > > >>
              > > >> HankC
              > > >>
              > > >> p.s. I kind of miss old joseph rose ;)
              > > >>
              > > >>
              > > >>
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > ------------------------------------
              > > >
              > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              > civilwarwest-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:civilwarwest-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com>
              >
              >
              >


              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/

              <*> Your email settings:
                  Individual Email | Traditional

              <*> To change settings online go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/join
                  (Yahoo! ID required)

              <*> To change settings via email:
                  civilwarwest-digest@yahoogroups.com
                  civilwarwest-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.