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

East vs. West

Expand Messages
  • Dick Weeks
    Good Evening CWWTers, It is interesting how the war in the East got the press while, in my opinion, the war in the West provided the means to victory. I have
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 1 8:03 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Good Evening CWWTers,

      It is interesting how the war in the East got the press while, in my
      opinion, the war in the West provided the means to victory. I have told
      this story before but I will tell it again for our newer members. Up until
      the last few years I had spent most of my reading and studying time of the
      Civil War looking at those battles in the East. I, like most, fell into the
      trap of looking at the Civil War as a series of battles up and down
      Interstate 95 in Virginia. But then some years back a very dear friend of
      mine, whom I had never met face to face but met in a chatroom, (Professor
      Ernest Butner, a.k.a. Irish) kept pounding me with questions. He would ask
      "Why Gettysburg as the turning point? Why not Vicksburg? Why did Lincoln put
      so much value on the great rivers; the Ohio, the Mississippi, the
      Cumberland, etc. when Davis did not. What do you think of Grant? He lost
      most every battle in the East but yet forced Lee into a surrender. Why, how
      or both did he do this? These type questions went on, day after day. Irish
      didn't do email but he figured out how to use the old WebAmerica Webmail and
      used it to its fullest. It got to where I felt as if I was back in class
      again and the prof had singled me out. I was, in fact, back in class and
      was too stupid to realize it. Irish saw that I had a very large audience
      and he was going to force me to learn, kicking and screaming as I might be
      doing, to look at the war in the broader context than just the Eastern
      Theater. This was a war of one nation against another nation and was fought
      on several fronts, the East, the West, the rivers, and the seaports. When
      one looks at a war it must be viewed in its entirety. Why it came about,
      how it was conducted, and the consequences of both victory and defeat. Only
      then can one go back and start to pick apart the various actions. Of course
      this is just my opinion of what I thought Irish was trying to teach me as I
      never got the opportunity to really ask him.

      After Irish left us, we in the chatroom struggled on for some time with
      business as usual. Taking a subject as it came along and having scheduled
      discussions when the opportunity allowed. Then one day a couple of very
      dear friends of mine, whom I have met personally, (Laurie and Pat, both
      moderators in this forum) asked why we didn't discuss the Western Theater
      more. I suggested that it was probably because most of us were dumb as a box
      of rocks when it comes to that area. Most of us are more comfortable
      discussing something we know about rather than plowing new ground. Then the
      question was asked, "why don't we (we meaning me) start a discussion group
      that discusses the Western Theater? I told them that I had the skills and
      the means to set such a group up but they had to agree to help moderate the
      group. They did, and I did, and here we are.

      My friends, anyone can set a discussion group up. It is merely a few clicks
      of the mouse. Getting members is something else again. However, I have a
      distinct advantage in this area since my website is one of the most popular
      of its kind on the Internet. Last year I got a high of over 120,000 hits in
      a day. One week it "averaged" over a 100,000 a day. These kind of hits
      equate to more than 40,000 distinct visitors a day. For a Civil War site
      that is virtually unheard of. The site, at least according to one source,
      is in the top 2% of the most "linked" sites, of any kind, on the Internet.
      This is not bragging, these are facts that I can document. However, getting
      members is only part of the problem. I do that by simply providing the link
      on the Index page of my site. Keeping them is another problem altogether.
      That is where you, the more knowledgeable members come in. For the past few
      months we have been averaging between 200 and 220 members. Is that where you
      want it to stay? Heck, its fine with me but I would think that most would
      want as much knowledge to be shared as possible. The only way you can
      really do that is increase the membership and the only way that can happen
      is to make the group interesting. If you have a question, post it. However,
      don't get your feelings hurt because no one answers. It could be that no one
      knew the answer. Post another one. Of course I could post a question of the
      day but then the question would be coming from someone who is not that
      knowledgeable in the area. Besides, school has started now and whereas a
      week ago the site was coasting along at about 20,000 hits a day (a little
      high but not out of line for the summer) and this week they jumped to 35,000
      hits a day and will ramp up from there. The email associated with these
      hits increases proportionally. So I am fairly well occupied with the
      "student" email.

      Anyway folks, sorry to take up so much bandwidth but keep up the good work
      by keeping the discussions keenly focused on the "Western Theater!!"

      I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
      Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
      http://www.civilwarhome.com
    • carlw4514@yahoo.com
      Well, Dick, I think we can keep it interesting, thanks for providing the forum so that I can participate. The interest comes naturally to me, I can t turn it
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 2 7:39 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, Dick, I think we can keep it interesting, thanks for providing
        the forum so that I can participate. The interest comes naturally to
        me, I can't turn it off!
        As for the number of members, some here have probably figured
        out that I am an advocate of NOT participating in the group by email!
        I really think that when we see someone request "unsubscribe" we are
        seeing the frustration of trying to deal with hundreds of emails
        a month jamming one's personal email system. If you participate on the
        website only, without email, why bother unsubscribing? I would even
        suggest that you set it up at your website, Dick, that new people
        interested in subscribing be directed directly to the website rather
        than sending you an email, sort of getting off on the wrong foot, IMO.
        Perhaps this is none of my business. And clearly, not all agree, as
        there are people who participate here faithfully by their email
        systems. Anyhoo, for anyone who might not know, you can participate by
        going directly to the website at
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest .
        Carl
      • dmercado@worldnet.att.net
        ... Carl, I agree, using the website to view the messages is much better. If possible, Dick should make it the default selection rather than email for new
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 2 11:20 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In civilwarwest@y..., carlw4514@y... wrote:
          >I would even suggest that you set it up at your website, Dick, that
          >new people interested in subscribing be directed directly to the
          >website rather than sending you an email, sort of getting off on the
          >wrong foot, IMO.
          > Perhaps this is none of my business. And clearly, not all agree, as
          > there are people who participate here faithfully by their email
          > systems. Anyhoo, for anyone who might not know, you can participate
          >by going directly to the website at
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest .
          > Carl

          Carl, I agree, using the website to view the messages is much better.
          If possible, Dick should make it the 'default' selection rather
          than 'email' for new members. New members should be made aware of the
          useful 'search' feature of the website to review what has been posted
          on their favorite topics. Best regards, Dave
        • Bill Merritt
          Well, I have to lodge an objection, then. One cannot discuss the Western theatre out of context to what was happening in the East. If anyone remembers, this
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, I have to lodge an objection, then. One cannot discuss the Western theatre out of context to what was happening in the East.
             
            If anyone remembers, this discussion of McClellan came out of a discussion of Hood; the statement was made that Hood was too liberal with the deaths of his troops. Someone else said that a general could not worry about the death of his men; that the goal was to win, and death was a part of that goal, and that McClellan DID care about the death of his men, and he was a poor general because of that. We HAD to get that discussion over before we could move on.
             
            In addition, it is important to make the contrast with the armies in the East and the armies in the West. There were distinct differences. One can very well compare Sherman's forces with Lee's army of Northern Virginia, and the Army of the Potomac with the Confederate Army of Tennessee; the problems and strengths of these armies were similar, but the REASONS for the similarities were different. If we cannot mention the Eastern armies, and their commanders, we cannot have this discussion.
             
            The AoT was poorly led, and that poor leadership, at the top, spread down to the ranks. The AoP was also poorly led, at the top. The REASON for the poor leadership was different, and I think the contrast is interesting. Many say that the AoT got the refuse from the ANV; I don't know if this is absolutely true, but I do think there was better leadership in the ANV...thus the ANV was better lead because it was so near Richmond. One reason why the AoP, was more poorly lead because it was so close to Washington. Grant and Sherman, OTOH, were distant from Washington and better able to choose capable commanders from a larger pool.

            Daniel Giallombardo <ParrotheadDan@...> wrote:

                                                            I believe this is �off topic� per a recent message from �Shotgun.�

             


            From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@...]
            Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 09:41 AM
            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton Bragg...

             

            I don't think Mac was afraid to fight. I don't get the impression, though, that he was eager for a fight, either, certainly not in the way that fighting got the blood flowing in Lee and Jackson.

             

            To me, McClellan was an engineer, not a general, and his actions have to be viewed in that light. He built a wonderful machine in the AoP. Like any engineer, he didn't build the machine to be destroyed, so he didn't want to use it unless it would survive, pretty much intact.

             

            Mind you, that is JUST AN OPINION. You can dispute it, if you wish, and you probably would be able to find others who have the same opinion, but there are NO writings you will find that will support that opinion. I say this, ahead of time.

            Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@...> wrote:

            Bill,

             

            Actually, people went into great detail saying Mac was afraid to fight.  No detail was given regarding motivation.  If you can find it, post it.

             

            Harry

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@...]
            Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:06 AM
            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton Bragg...

             

            Harry, people went into detail of why Gen. M. Did not want to fight. You simply refused to accept any of the arguments. One can lead a horse to water, but if it refuses to drink, there is little one can do about it.

            Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@...> wrote:

            I can commiserate with Lee (and Dave and Sam) here, I think.

             

            Not long ago, a statement was made regarding another commander and his supposed motivation for a tendency not to fight.  I questioned the validity of the supposed motivation, and did so very specifically.  The responses of several individuals did not address my request for evidence of the motivation, and redirected the focus to the tendency itself, which I did not question (though, in fact, I disagree with it totally).

             

            It appears the same thing has happened here.  A statement was made regarding how Bragg was viewed in general, and this statement was brought into question by several individuals who most in this group recognize as possessing a certain expertise.  In the face of rather incontrovertible evidence that the picture of Bragg as an individual enjoying universal derision is distorted, the person who made the statement has tried to shift the focus to Braggs performance in general.  This of course has nothing to do with the original topic.

             

            Funny how this just happens over and over again.  Its called obfuscation.  To Lee, Dave, and Sam, I offer the same advice offered to Rambo by Richard Crenna: Just let it die, Johnny.

             

            Harry

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: LWhite64@... [mailto:LWhite64@...]
            Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:07 PM
            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton Bragg...

             

            In a message dated 3/4/04 9:08:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, bilmerritt@... writes:

            SO, you are saying that, sending Longstreet off to Knoxville was a calculated risk? That Longstreet was going to destroy Burnside and be back to Chattanooga by the time Sherman got there?
             



            Not just saying, that was the plan.

             

             

             

             


          • tasimmo
            I agree with Bill on this one...as long as comparisons are being made between West and East, regardless of issue, this activity should be acceptable. This is
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 5, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I agree with Bill on this one...as long as comparisons are being made
              between West and East, regardless of issue, this activity should be
              acceptable. This is why I just tied McClellan back to Hood in my last
              (long-winded) dissertation. I submit that we should not start NEW
              topics that relate directly to the East (only); otherwise, both
              should be "fair game" for discussion.

              Tom S. (Civil War Vignettes)

              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
              wrote:
              > Well, I have to lodge an objection, then. One cannot discuss the
              Western theatre out of context to what was happening in the East.
              >
              > If anyone remembers, this discussion of McClellan came out of a
              discussion of Hood; the statement was made that Hood was too liberal
              with the deaths of his troops. Someone else said that a general could
              not worry about the death of his men; that the goal was to win, and
              death was a part of that goal, and that McClellan DID care about the
              death of his men, and he was a poor general because of that. We HAD
              to get that discussion over before we could move on.
              >
              > In addition, it is important to make the contrast with the armies
              in the East and the armies in the West. There were distinct
              differences. One can very well compare Sherman's forces with Lee's
              army of Northern Virginia, and the Army of the Potomac with the
              Confederate Army of Tennessee; the problems and strengths of these
              armies were similar, but the REASONS for the similarities were
              different. If we cannot mention the Eastern armies, and their
              commanders, we cannot have this discussion.
              >
              > The AoT was poorly led, and that poor leadership, at the top,
              spread down to the ranks. The AoP was also poorly led, at the top.
              The REASON for the poor leadership was different, and I think the
              contrast is interesting. Many say that the AoT got the refuse from
              the ANV; I don't know if this is absolutely true, but I do think
              there was better leadership in the ANV...thus the ANV was better lead
              because it was so near Richmond. One reason why the AoP, was more
              poorly lead because it was so close to Washington. Grant and Sherman,
              OTOH, were distant from Washington and better able to choose capable
              commanders from a larger pool.
              >
              > Daniel Giallombardo <ParrotheadDan@l...> wrote:
              > v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
              w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
              st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
              > I believe this
              is "off topic" per a recent message from "Shotgun."
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              >
              >
              > From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@y...]
              > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 09:41 AM
              > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton
              Bragg...
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > I don't think Mac was afraid to fight. I don't get the impression,
              though, that he was eager for a fight, either, certainly not in the
              way that fighting got the blood flowing in Lee and Jackson.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > To me, McClellan was an engineer, not a general, and his actions
              have to be viewed in that light. He built a wonderful machine in the
              AoP. Like any engineer, he didn't build the machine to be destroyed,
              so he didn't want to use it unless it would survive, pretty much
              intact.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Mind you, that is JUST AN OPINION. You can dispute it, if you wish,
              and you probably would be able to find others who have the same
              opinion, but there are NO writings you will find that will support
              that opinion. I say this, ahead of time.
              >
              > Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@c...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Bill,
              >
              >
              >
              > Actually, people went into great detail saying Mac was afraid to
              fight. No detail was given regarding motivation. If you can find
              it, post it.
              >
              >
              >
              > Harry
              >
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@y...]
              > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:06 AM
              > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton
              Bragg...
              >
              >
              >
              > Harry, people went into detail of why Gen. M. Did not want to
              fight. You simply refused to accept any of the arguments. One can
              lead a horse to water, but if it refuses to drink, there is little
              one can do about it.
              >
              > Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@c...> wrote:
              >
              > I can commiserate with Lee (and Dave and Sam) here, I think.
              >
              >
              >
              > Not long ago, a statement was made regarding another commander and
              his supposed motivation for a tendency not to fight. I questioned
              the validity of the supposed motivation, and did so very
              specifically. The responses of several individuals did not address
              my request for evidence of the motivation, and redirected the focus
              to the tendency itself, which I did not question (though, in fact, I
              disagree with it totally).
              >
              >
              >
              > It appears the same thing has happened here. A statement was made
              regarding how Bragg was viewed in general, and this statement was
              brought into question by several individuals who most in this group
              recognize as possessing a certain expertise. In the face of rather
              incontrovertible evidence that the picture of Bragg as an individual
              enjoying universal derision is distorted, the person who made the
              statement has tried to shift the focus to Braggs performance in
              general. This of course has nothing to do with the original topic.
              >
              >
              >
              > Funny how this just happens over and over again. Its called
              obfuscation. To Lee, Dave, and Sam, I offer the same advice offered
              to Rambo by Richard Crenna: Just let it die, Johnny.
              >
              >
              >
              > Harry
              >
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: LWhite64@a... [mailto:LWhite64@a...]
              > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:07 PM
              > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton
              Bragg...
              >
              >
              >
              > In a message dated 3/4/04 9:08:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
              bilmerritt@y... writes:
              >
              > SO, you are saying that, sending Longstreet off to Knoxville was a
              calculated risk? That Longstreet was going to destroy Burnside and be
              back to Chattanooga by the time Sherman got there?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Not just saying, that was the plan.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
              > Click Here
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
            • Dick Weeks
              It is not up to you or anyone else to determine what can or cannot be discussed in this group. It is up to Pat and I. Everyone knew the rules of the group
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                It is not up to you or anyone else to determine what can or cannot be discussed in this group.  It is up to Pat and I.  Everyone knew the rules of the group when they joined.  I don't break them and I don't tolerate those that do.  I have said that I did not want a discussion on McClellan and that is exactly what I meant.  I fully realize how it evolved from a discussion of Hood.  However, it devolved into just a discussion of McClellan and that is off topic.  I hope everyone is fully aware of what I am saying because I don't intend to make another post on this subject. 
                 
                I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                http://www.civilwarhome.com
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:29 AM
                Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] East vs. West

                Well, I have to lodge an objection, then. One cannot discuss the Western theatre out of context to what was happening in the East.
                 
                If anyone remembers, this discussion of McClellan came out of a discussion of Hood; the statement was made that Hood was too liberal with the deaths of his troops. Someone else said that a general could not worry about the death of his men; that the goal was to win, and death was a part of that goal, and that McClellan DID care about the death of his men, and he was a poor general because of that. We HAD to get that discussion over before we could move on.
                 
                In addition, it is important to make the contrast with the armies in the East and the armies in the West. There were distinct differences. One can very well compare Sherman's forces with Lee's army of Northern Virginia, and the Army of the Potomac with the Confederate Army of Tennessee; the problems and strengths of these armies were similar, but the REASONS for the similarities were different. If we cannot mention the Eastern armies, and their commanders, we cannot have this discussion.
                 
                The AoT was poorly led, and that poor leadership, at the top, spread down to the ranks. The AoP was also poorly led, at the top. The REASON for the poor leadership was different, and I think the contrast is interesting. Many say that the AoT got the refuse from the ANV; I don't know if this is absolutely true, but I do think there was better leadership in the ANV...thus the ANV was better lead because it was so near Richmond. One reason why the AoP, was more poorly lead because it was so close to Washington. Grant and Sherman, OTOH, were distant from Washington and better able to choose capable commanders from a larger pool.

                Daniel Giallombardo <ParrotheadDan@...> wrote:

                                                                I believe this is “off topic” per a recent message from “Shotgun.”

                 


                From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@...]
                Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 09:41 AM
                To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton Bragg...

                 

                I don't think Mac was afraid to fight. I don't get the impression, though, that he was eager for a fight, either, certainly not in the way that fighting got the blood flowing in Lee and Jackson.

                 

                To me, McClellan was an engineer, not a general, and his actions have to be viewed in that light. He built a wonderful machine in the AoP. Like any engineer, he didn't build the machine to be destroyed, so he didn't want to use it unless it would survive, pretty much intact.

                 

                Mind you, that is JUST AN OPINION. You can dispute it, if you wish, and you probably would be able to find others who have the same opinion, but there are NO writings you will find that will support that opinion. I say this, ahead of time.

                Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@...> wrote:

                Bill,

                 

                Actually, people went into great detail saying Mac was afraid to fight.  No detail was given regarding motivation.  If you can find it, post it.

                 

                Harry

                 

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@...]
                Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:06 AM
                To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton Bragg...

                 

                Harry, people went into detail of why Gen. M. Did not want to fight. You simply refused to accept any of the arguments. One can lead a horse to water, but if it refuses to drink, there is little one can do about it.

                Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@...> wrote:

                I can commiserate with Lee (and Dave and Sam) here, I think.

                 

                Not long ago, a statement was made regarding another commander and his supposed motivation for a tendency not to fight.  I questioned the validity of the supposed motivation, and did so very specifically.  The responses of several individuals did not address my request for evidence of the motivation, and redirected the focus to the tendency itself, which I did not question (though, in fact, I disagree with it totally).

                 

                It appears the same thing has happened here.  A statement was made regarding how Bragg was viewed in general, and this statement was brought into question by several individuals who most in this group recognize as possessing a certain expertise.  In the face of rather incontrovertible evidence that the picture of Bragg as an individual enjoying universal derision is distorted, the person who made the statement has tried to shift the focus to Braggs performance in general.  This of course has nothing to do with the original topic.

                 

                Funny how this just happens over and over again.  Its called obfuscation.  To Lee, Dave, and Sam, I offer the same advice offered to Rambo by Richard Crenna: Just let it die, Johnny.

                 

                Harry

                 

                -----Original Message-----
                From: LWhite64@... [mailto:LWhite64@...]
                Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:07 PM
                To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton Bragg...

                 

                In a message dated 3/4/04 9:08:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, bilmerritt@... writes:

                SO, you are saying that, sending Longstreet off to Knoxville was a calculated risk? That Longstreet was going to destroy Burnside and be back to Chattanooga by the time Sherman got there?
                 



                Not just saying, that was the plan.

                 

                 

                 

                 



              • tasimmo
                Dick, I respectfully submit that the East can be discussed if not an original thread, and if the subtopic relates to a comparison or a similarity with an
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dick,

                  I respectfully submit that "the East" can be discussed if not an
                  original thread, and if the subtopic relates to a comparison or a
                  similarity with an original thread about "the West".

                  Tom Simmons

                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Dick Weeks" <shotgun@c...>
                  wrote:
                  > It is not up to you or anyone else to determine what can or cannot
                  be discussed in this group. It is up to Pat and I. Everyone knew
                  the rules of the group when they joined. I don't break them and I
                  don't tolerate those that do. I have said that I did not want a
                  discussion on McClellan and that is exactly what I meant. I fully
                  realize how it evolved from a discussion of Hood. However, it
                  devolved into just a discussion of McClellan and that is off topic.
                  I hope everyone is fully aware of what I am saying because I don't
                  intend to make another post on this subject.
                  >
                  > I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                  > Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                  > http://www.civilwarhome.com
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: Bill Merritt
                  > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:29 AM
                  > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] East vs. West
                  >
                  >
                  > Well, I have to lodge an objection, then. One cannot discuss the
                  Western theatre out of context to what was happening in the East.
                  >
                  > If anyone remembers, this discussion of McClellan came out of a
                  discussion of Hood; the statement was made that Hood was too liberal
                  with the deaths of his troops. Someone else said that a general could
                  not worry about the death of his men; that the goal was to win, and
                  death was a part of that goal, and that McClellan DID care about the
                  death of his men, and he was a poor general because of that. We HAD
                  to get that discussion over before we could move on.
                  >
                  > In addition, it is important to make the contrast with the armies
                  in the East and the armies in the West. There were distinct
                  differences. One can very well compare Sherman's forces with Lee's
                  army of Northern Virginia, and the Army of the Potomac with the
                  Confederate Army of Tennessee; the problems and strengths of these
                  armies were similar, but the REASONS for the similarities were
                  different. If we cannot mention the Eastern armies, and their
                  commanders, we cannot have this discussion.
                  >
                  > The AoT was poorly led, and that poor leadership, at the top,
                  spread down to the ranks. The AoP was also poorly led, at the top.
                  The REASON for the poor leadership was different, and I think the
                  contrast is interesting. Many say that the AoT got the refuse from
                  the ANV; I don't know if this is absolutely true, but I do think
                  there was better leadership in the ANV...thus the ANV was better lead
                  because it was so near Richmond. One reason why the AoP, was more
                  poorly lead because it was so close to Washington. Grant and Sherman,
                  OTOH, were distant from Washington and better able to choose capable
                  commanders from a larger pool.
                  >
                  > Daniel Giallombardo <ParrotheadDan@l...> wrote:
                  > I believe this
                  is "off topic" per a recent message from "Shotgun."
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                  --------
                  >
                  > From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@y...]
                  > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 09:41 AM
                  > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about
                  Braxton Bragg...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I don't think Mac was afraid to fight. I don't get the
                  impression, though, that he was eager for a fight, either, certainly
                  not in the way that fighting got the blood flowing in Lee and
                  Jackson.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To me, McClellan was an engineer, not a general, and his
                  actions have to be viewed in that light. He built a wonderful machine
                  in the AoP. Like any engineer, he didn't build the machine to be
                  destroyed, so he didn't want to use it unless it would survive,
                  pretty much intact.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Mind you, that is JUST AN OPINION. You can dispute it, if you
                  wish, and you probably would be able to find others who have the same
                  opinion, but there are NO writings you will find that will support
                  that opinion. I say this, ahead of time.
                  >
                  > Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@c...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Bill,
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Actually, people went into great detail saying Mac was afraid
                  to fight. No detail was given regarding motivation. If you can find
                  it, post it.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Harry
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@y...]
                  > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:06 AM
                  > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about
                  Braxton Bragg...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Harry, people went into detail of why Gen. M. Did not want to
                  fight. You simply refused to accept any of the arguments. One can
                  lead a horse to water, but if it refuses to drink, there is little
                  one can do about it.
                  >
                  > Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@c...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I can commiserate with Lee (and Dave and Sam) here, I think.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Not long ago, a statement was made regarding another
                  commander and his supposed motivation for a tendency not to fight.
                  I questioned the validity of the supposed motivation, and did so very
                  specifically. The responses of several individuals did not address
                  my request for evidence of the motivation, and redirected the focus
                  to the tendency itself, which I did not question (though, in fact, I
                  disagree with it totally).
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > It appears the same thing has happened here. A statement was
                  made regarding how Bragg was viewed in general, and this statement
                  was brought into question by several individuals who most in this
                  group recognize as possessing a certain expertise. In the face of
                  rather incontrovertible evidence that the picture of Bragg as an
                  individual enjoying universal derision is distorted, the person who
                  made the statement has tried to shift the focus to Braggs
                  performance in general. This of course has nothing to do with the
                  original topic.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Funny how this just happens over and over again. Its called
                  obfuscation. To Lee, Dave, and Sam, I offer the same advice offered
                  to Rambo by Richard Crenna: Just let it die, Johnny.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Harry
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: LWhite64@a... [mailto:LWhite64@a...]
                  > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:07 PM
                  > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about
                  Braxton Bragg...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 3/4/04 9:08:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                  bilmerritt@y... writes:
                  >
                  > SO, you are saying that, sending Longstreet off to Knoxville
                  was a calculated risk? That Longstreet was going to destroy Burnside
                  and be back to Chattanooga by the time Sherman got there?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Not just saying, that was the plan.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                  ----------
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
                  >
                  > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  Service.
                • James L. Choron
                  Dick, I think I may have contributed to this in some of my comemnts regarding to Bragg. If so, I appologize. You are absolutely right. The East has no place as
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 5, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dick,
                     
                    I think I may have contributed to this in some of my comemnts regarding to Bragg. If so, I appologize. You are absolutely right. The East has no place as a topic, in and of itself, this forum, and I don't see too many ways that it could be relevant as a secondary topic.
                     
                    Jim
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:51 PM
                    Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] East vs. West

                    It is not up to you or anyone else to determine what can or cannot be discussed in this group.  It is up to Pat and I.  Everyone knew the rules of the group when they joined.  I don't break them and I don't tolerate those that do.  I have said that I did not want a discussion on McClellan and that is exactly what I meant.  I fully realize how it evolved from a discussion of Hood.  However, it devolved into just a discussion of McClellan and that is off topic.  I hope everyone is fully aware of what I am saying because I don't intend to make another post on this subject. 
                     
                    I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                    Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                    http://www.civilwarhome.com
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:29 AM
                    Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] East vs. West

                    Well, I have to lodge an objection, then. One cannot discuss the Western theatre out of context to what was happening in the East.
                     
                    If anyone remembers, this discussion of McClellan came out of a discussion of Hood; the statement was made that Hood was too liberal with the deaths of his troops. Someone else said that a general could not worry about the death of his men; that the goal was to win, and death was a part of that goal, and that McClellan DID care about the death of his men, and he was a poor general because of that. We HAD to get that discussion over before we could move on.
                     
                    In addition, it is important to make the contrast with the armies in the East and the armies in the West. There were distinct differences. One can very well compare Sherman's forces with Lee's army of Northern Virginia, and the Army of the Potomac with the Confederate Army of Tennessee; the problems and strengths of these armies were similar, but the REASONS for the similarities were different. If we cannot mention the Eastern armies, and their commanders, we cannot have this discussion.
                     
                    The AoT was poorly led, and that poor leadership, at the top, spread down to the ranks. The AoP was also poorly led, at the top. The REASON for the poor leadership was different, and I think the contrast is interesting. Many say that the AoT got the refuse from the ANV; I don't know if this is absolutely true, but I do think there was better leadership in the ANV...thus the ANV was better lead because it was so near Richmond. One reason why the AoP, was more poorly lead because it was so close to Washington. Grant and Sherman, OTOH, were distant from Washington and better able to choose capable commanders from a larger pool.

                    Daniel Giallombardo <ParrotheadDan@...> wrote:

                                                                    I believe this is “off topic” per a recent message from “Shotgun.”

                     


                    From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@...]
                    Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 09:41 AM
                    To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton Bragg...

                     

                    I don't think Mac was afraid to fight. I don't get the impression, though, that he was eager for a fight, either, certainly not in the way that fighting got the blood flowing in Lee and Jackson.

                     

                    To me, McClellan was an engineer, not a general, and his actions have to be viewed in that light. He built a wonderful machine in the AoP. Like any engineer, he didn't build the machine to be destroyed, so he didn't want to use it unless it would survive, pretty much intact.

                     

                    Mind you, that is JUST AN OPINION. You can dispute it, if you wish, and you probably would be able to find others who have the same opinion, but there are NO writings you will find that will support that opinion. I say this, ahead of time.

                    Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@...> wrote:

                    Bill,

                     

                    Actually, people went into great detail saying Mac was afraid to fight.  No detail was given regarding motivation.  If you can find it, post it.

                     

                    Harry

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@...]
                    Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:06 AM
                    To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton Bragg...

                     

                    Harry, people went into detail of why Gen. M. Did not want to fight. You simply refused to accept any of the arguments. One can lead a horse to water, but if it refuses to drink, there is little one can do about it.

                    Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@...> wrote:

                    I can commiserate with Lee (and Dave and Sam) here, I think.

                     

                    Not long ago, a statement was made regarding another commander and his supposed motivation for a tendency not to fight.  I questioned the validity of the supposed motivation, and did so very specifically.  The responses of several individuals did not address my request for evidence of the motivation, and redirected the focus to the tendency itself, which I did not question (though, in fact, I disagree with it totally).

                     

                    It appears the same thing has happened here.  A statement was made regarding how Bragg was viewed in general, and this statement was brought into question by several individuals who most in this group recognize as possessing a certain expertise.  In the face of rather incontrovertible evidence that the picture of Bragg as an individual enjoying universal derision is distorted, the person who made the statement has tried to shift the focus to Braggs performance in general.  This of course has nothing to do with the original topic.

                     

                    Funny how this just happens over and over again.  Its called obfuscation.  To Lee, Dave, and Sam, I offer the same advice offered to Rambo by Richard Crenna: Just let it die, Johnny.

                     

                    Harry

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: LWhite64@... [mailto:LWhite64@...]
                    Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:07 PM
                    To:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Billy Lied To Me:" about Braxton Bragg...

                     

                    In a message dated 3/4/04 9:08:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, bilmerritt@... writes:

                    SO, you are saying that, sending Longstreet off to Knoxville was a calculated risk? That Longstreet was going to destroy Burnside and be back to Chattanooga by the time Sherman got there?
                     



                    Not just saying, that was the plan.

                     

                     

                     

                     




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