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

Re: [civilwarwest] yesterday in history

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.