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

Re: East vs. West/ 200 or so members

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Sep 2, 2001
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.