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

Atlanta Campaign

Expand Messages
  • Michael Mason
    By the time the body count gets done,this might turn out to have in one day ,casualtys in the range of what was total for both sides in the whole Atlanta
    Message 1 of 24 , Sep 13, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      By the time the body count gets done,this might turn out
      to have in one day ,casualtys in the range of what was
      total for both sides in the whole Atlanta campaign..
      But the worse is they were civilians.
      The job before America now seems huge,because were back
      to square one,to "make the world free for democracy".
      But I think this has really woke me up on what democracy
      truely is.
      One of the TV newsmen,said,"we didn't have any attacks here
      in Toledo".
      That I disagree with,in a democracy,if a Government or terrorist
      attacks one single American,they are attacking each and every
      American,,Our job now is to make the world free from these type of terrorist,no matter what the cost in dollars or blood.
      Or give up our way of life. The Baron
    • melchizedek22
      There is a big difference between a Author who has a different opinion on a historical event. And an author who decides to write a book of revised
      Message 2 of 24 , Mar 15, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        There is a big difference between a Author who has a different opinion
        on a historical event. And an author who decides to write a book of
        revised history,because so many other books have already been written
        with the same point of view,so they write "revised history" for the
        sole purpose to SELL BOOKS!
        An example,I belong to a Cump&Co. newsletter,a few months ago,a writer
        came up with the idea that Sherman was named William Tecumseh Sherman
        from birth,and did not have William added after moving in with the
        Ewings. The Author used one line in Shermans memoirs to support their
        idea. Paying no mind to the overwelming amount of historical events
        supplyed by eye witnesses,such as Ellen Ewing Sherman,the Generals step
        sister than wife,and the three brother inlaws,all of who witnessed
        Sherman's baptism and the name William being added to his "heathen"
        given name Tecumseh.
        To many times modern authors write revised history which has no
        resemblence to reality,but does sell books!
        Bob I did read Sherman"s Horsemen
      • Bob Taubman
        I don t subscribe to revised history either. But I also don t subscribe to the notion that because an author has criticized someone he has done a hatchet
        Message 3 of 24 , Mar 15, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't subscribe to "revised history" either.  But I also don't subscribe to the notion that because an author has criticized someone he has done a hatchet job on that person.  Unless there is some supporting evidence to show that.
           
          Sherman was far from perfect, had a lot of political weight going for him, and was treated very well by Grant.  Without Grant's support, I wonder where he would have ended up?   I find Sherman to be one of the more interesting leaders and would not for a minute question his intelligence.
           
          I've read posts in groups that suggest someone reading Days of Glory by Daniel, or Perryville by Noe, will enjoy it/them because they are hard on Thomas.  Ive read both and they are rather innocuous in that sense.
           
          Lately I have broken away from reading ACW books because I've tired of the bickering over books and authors opinions.  I'm reading Crucible of War, by Anderson, and I'm sure most here know it is about the French-Indian wars.  Nice change of pace and this is my first foray into that era so it's new and uncomplicated right now.

          melchizedek22 <melchizedek22@...> wrote:
          There is a big difference between a Author who has a different opinion
          on a historical event. And an author who decides to write a book of
          revised history,because so many other books have already been written
          with the same point of view,so they write "revised history" for the
          sole purpose to SELL BOOKS!
          An example,I belong to a Cump&Co. newsletter,a few months ago,a writer
          came up with the idea that Sherman was named William Tecumseh Sherman
          from birth,and did not have William added after moving in with the
          Ewings. The Author used one line in Shermans memoirs to support their
          idea. Paying no mind to the overwelming amount of historical events
          supplyed by eye witnesses,such as Ellen Ewing Sherman,the Generals step
          sister than wife,and the three brother inlaws,all of who witnessed
          Sherman's baptism and the name William being added to his "heathen"
          given name Tecumseh.
          To many times modern authors write revised history which has no
          resemblence to reality,but does sell books!
          Bob I did read Sherman"s Horsemen







          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:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




        • melchizedek22
          ... subscribe to the notion that because an author has criticized someone he has done a hatchet job on that person. Unless there is some supporting evidence
          Message 4 of 24 , Mar 15, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...> wrote:
            >
            > I don't subscribe to "revised history" either. But I also don't
            subscribe to the notion that because an author has criticized someone
            he has done a hatchet job on that person. Unless there is some
            supporting evidence to show that.
            >
            I believe Albert Castel wrote the book with a plan to criticize
            Sherman at every step,he pretty much says it right in the begining.I
            think we will have to agree to disagree.
            How anybody could criticize Thomas very much is laughable,he was
            careful,but made few mistakes,maybe a bit "slow" at times, but slow
            but sure cost a lot less lives.
            > Sherman was far from perfect, had a lot of political weight going
            for him, and was treated very well by Grant. Without Grant's
            support, I wonder where he would have ended up? I find Sherman to
            be one of the more interesting leaders and would not for a minute
            question his intelligence.
            >
            > I've read posts in groups that suggest someone reading Days of
            Glory by Daniel, or Perryville by Noe, will enjoy it/them because
            they are hard on Thomas. Ive read both and they are rather innocuous
            in that sense.
            >
            > Lately I have broken away from reading ACW books because I've
            tired of the bickering over books and authors opinions. I'm reading
            Crucible of War, by Anderson, and I'm sure most here know it is about
            the French-Indian wars. Nice change of pace and this is my first
            foray into that era so it's new and uncomplicated right now.
            >
            > melchizedek22 <melchizedek22@...> wrote:
            > There is a big difference between a Author who has a different
            opinion
            > on a historical event. And an author who decides to write a book of
            > revised history,because so many other books have already been
            written
            > with the same point of view,so they write "revised history" for the
            > sole purpose to SELL BOOKS!
            > An example,I belong to a Cump&Co. newsletter,a few months ago,a
            writer
            > came up with the idea that Sherman was named William Tecumseh
            Sherman
            > from birth,and did not have William added after moving in with the
            > Ewings. The Author used one line in Shermans memoirs to support
            their
            > idea. Paying no mind to the overwelming amount of historical events
            > supplyed by eye witnesses,such as Ellen Ewing Sherman,the Generals
            step
            > sister than wife,and the three brother inlaws,all of who witnessed
            > Sherman's baptism and the name William being added to his "heathen"
            > given name Tecumseh.
            > To many times modern authors write revised history which has no
            > resemblence to reality,but does sell books!
            > Bob I did read Sherman"s Horsemen
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
          • hank9174
            ... My reading of Castel is that he came to his opinions *after* his research but *before* his writing, which is, of course, great procedure. Like any good
            Message 5 of 24 , Mar 15, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "melchizedek22"
              <melchizedek22@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@> wrote:
              > >
              > > I don't subscribe to "revised history" either. But I also don't
              > subscribe to the notion that because an author has criticized someone
              > he has done a hatchet job on that person. Unless there is some
              > supporting evidence to show that.
              > >
              > I believe Albert Castel wrote the book with a plan to criticize
              > Sherman at every step,he pretty much says it right in the begining.

              My reading of Castel is that he came to his opinions *after* his
              research but *before* his writing, which is, of course, great
              procedure.

              Like any good detective, *all* of the data must fit the theory, or
              there must be a compelling reason to discard the data. However, 'not
              fitting the theory' is not a compelling reason ;)

              Castel wrote an in-depth exploration of the Atlanta campaign; one of
              his conclusions is that Sherman's tactical prowess is overblown. His
              conclusions were born of his research, not before...


              HankC
            • hooperjwboro@comcast.net
              I picked up and read parts while at a bookstore What they did nt tell you about the Civil War. Just in a few minutes I found inconsistencies and errors that
              Message 6 of 24 , Mar 15, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I picked up and read parts while at a bookstore "What they did'nt tell you about the Civil War." Just in a few minutes I found inconsistencies and errors that were ridiculous. The author? wrote many opinions that were merely lacking in research. An example of selling books.

                --
                Regards,
                Hooper
                -------------- Original message ----------------------
                From: "hank9174" <clarkc@...>
              • William H Keene
                ... very well by Grant. Without Grant s support, I wonder where he would have ended up? Probably same place since I dont think Grant s support for Sherman
                Message 7 of 24 , Mar 15, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...> wrote:
                  >...
                  > Sherman was far from perfect, had a lot of political weight going for him, and was treated
                  very well by Grant. Without Grant's support, I wonder where he would have ended up?

                  Probably same place since I dont think Grant's support for Sherman was nearly as important
                  as Halleck's support for Sherman. I think too much has been made of Grant's support for
                  Sherman.
                • Tom Mix
                  Bob, I agree with what you say. In the recent past there was so much rancor that it drove me away from the ACW. I did venture into a nice book on Hooker and
                  Message 8 of 24 , Mar 15, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Bob,

                    I agree with what you say.  In the recent past there was so much rancor that it drove me away from the ACW.  I did venture into a nice book on Hooker and Lee at Chancellorsville but that has been about it.  Crucible of War is an excellent book but I am more into catching up on some baseball reading.  

                    In regards to your not subscribing to a critical work of someone to be viewed as a “hatchet job” I am in full agreement with you.  Just because it is negative does not make it wrong.  I liked Sears’ book on McClellan but many don’t, disregarding it as a pure hatchet job. I didn’t see it that way. I think it is an excellent work that depicts things as they were and if Mac comes out looking bad, well, he earned it. 

                    Well, that all on that.

                    Tom   

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                    Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:58 AM
                    To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Atlanta Campaign

                     

                    I don't subscribe to "revised history" either.  But I also don't subscribe to the notion that because an author has criticized someone he has done a hatchet job on that person.  Unless there is some supporting evidence to show that.

                     

                    Sherman was far from perfect, had a lot of political weight going for him, and was treated very well by Grant.  Without Grant's support, I wonder where he would have ended up?   I find Sherman to be one of the more interesting leaders and would not for a minute question his intelligence.

                     

                    I've read posts in groups that suggest someone reading Days of Glory by Daniel, or Perryville by Noe, will enjoy it/them because they are hard on Thomas.  Ive read both and they are rather innocuous in that sense.

                     

                    Lately I have broken away from reading ACW books because I've tired of the bickering over books and authors opinions.  I'm reading Crucible of War, by Anderson, and I'm sure most here know it is about the French-Indian wars.  Nice change of pace and this is my first foray into that era so it's new and uncomplicated right now.

                    melchizedek22 <melchizedek22@...> wrote:

                    There is a big difference between a Author who has a different opinion
                    on a historical event. And an author who decides to write a book of
                    revised history,because so many other books have already been written
                    with the same point of view,so they write "revised history" for the
                    sole purpose to SELL BOOKS!
                    An example,I belong to a Cump&Co. newsletter,a few months ago,a writer
                    came up with the idea that Sherman was named William Tecumseh Sherman
                    from birth,and did not have William added after moving in with the
                    Ewings. The Author used one line in Shermans memoirs to support their
                    idea. Paying no mind to the overwelming amount of historical events
                    supplyed by eye witnesses,such as Ellen Ewing Sherman,the Generals step
                    sister than wife,and the three brother inlaws,all of who witnessed
                    Sherman's baptism and the name William being added to his "heathen"
                    given name Tecumseh.
                    To many times modern authors write revised history which has no
                    resemblence to reality,but does sell books!
                    Bob I did read Sherman"s Horsemen







                    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:
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                  • GnrlJEJohnston@aol.com
                    In a message dated 3/15/2006 12:34:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, clarkc@missouri.edu writes: Castel wrote an in-depth exploration of the Atlanta campaign;
                    Message 9 of 24 , Mar 16, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 3/15/2006 12:34:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, clarkc@... writes:
                      Castel wrote an in-depth exploration of the Atlanta campaign; one of
                      his conclusions is that Sherman's tactical prowess is overblown. His
                      conclusions were born of his research, not before...


                      HankC
                      I am sure that Sherman's tactical prowness was not his alone.  Sherman, like any good tactitian uses a lot of resources.  Sherman had plenty.  He had Thomas, McPherson, Logan, Schofield, Howard and several others that aided in his decisions.  His problem was, when they worked, he got credit, and when they failed, the failure fell upon the advisor(s).  This has been common with military leaders even with today's modern forces.
                      JEJ
                       
                      "As fast as we gain one position, the enemy (JEJ) has another all ready."
                      William T. Sherman, June 1864
                    • GnrlJEJohnston@aol.com
                      From the words of Pat Cleburne, here is how he defeated Sherman at Tunnel Hill. About 2 p.m. on the 24th November, I received orders to proceed with the
                      Message 10 of 24 , Mar 19, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        From the words of Pat Cleburne, here is how he defeated Sherman at Tunnel Hill.
                         
                         About 2 p.m. on the 24th November, I received orders to proceed with the remaining three brigades and the batteries of my division to the right of Missionary Ridge, near the point where the tunnel of the East Tennessee and Georgia Railroad passes through Missionary Ridge, where I would find an officer of General Hardee's staff, who would show me my position. At the same time General Bragg informed me that the enemy had already a division in line opposite the position I was intended to occupy; that he was rapidly crossing another, and had nearly completed a pontoon bridge over the Tennessee opposite my position. He also told me I must preserve the railroad bridge in my rear, where Brigadier-General Polk was stationed, at all hazards. Galloping forward ahead of my command, I found Major Poole, of General Hardee's staff, at the tunnel, who informed me he had been left by General Hardee to show me my position.
                                I will attempt here a description of the ground. The right of Missionary Ridge, to which I was ordered, runs nearly north and south, parallel to the Tennessee River, which is about 1 miles west of it. From the tunnel north along the ridge it is about a mile to the Chickamauga River, which bounds the ridge on that side, flowing thence westwardly into the Tennessee River. To simplify the description, the two rivers and the ridge may be said to form three sides of a square. The Tennessee Valley, between the rivers and the ridge, is mostly level, with a continuation of cleared fields bordering the ridge, but immediately in front of the center of my position, about 1,200 yards north and 600 yards west of the railroad tunnel, was a high detached ridge, which in a military point of view dominated over every point within cannon range.
                                After passing through the tunnel the railroad runs in a northeasterly direction to the Chickamauga, which it crossed on the bridge Brigadier-General Polk was guarding. From the east side of the main ridge there projected two spurs, one, on the north boundary, with its precipitous north side washed by the Chickamauga; the other, jutting out just north of the tunnel, did not run directly back, but northeasterly for 1,000 yards, forming an acute angle with the parent ridge. Opposite the right of this spur, the main ridge was intersected by a little valley, through which came a road from the Tennessee Valley, where the enemy now was. The highest point on my line, and the point of chief interest in the battle on the right, and which I shall designate in this report as Tunnel Hill, was situated on the main ridge 250 yards north of the tunnel. The position pointed out for my command by Major Poole was to occupy, with one brigade, the detached ridge in the Tennessee Valley, and with the remainder of my command to stretch from the top of Tunnel Hill to the right of Walker's division, three-quarters of a mile south of the tunnel.
                                I sent Major Poole to inform General Hardee that I had but three brigades, and could not cover so long a line. The head of my division, Smith's (Texas) brigade, was now at hand, and at the same moment reported to me from the detached ridge. Private Henry Smith, of the signal corps of my division, informed me he was just from that point; that the enemy was advancing on it in line of battle. I ordered Smith to move his brigade rapidly and try to get possession of it before the enemy had gained a foothold, but if he found the enemy in possession to fall back on the main ridge. General Smith moved into the valley, but was fired on from the top of the detached ridge as he approached its foot. Smith was too late. The enemy had crowned the ridge. He therefore marched by his right flank on to the main or Missionary Ridge, and formed on its top, his two left regiments facing the detached ridge, his right regiment thrown back in an easterly direction to protect his flanks. Smith had scarcely thrown out skirmishers before he was briskly attacked by the skirmishers of the enemy.
                                In the meantime, I had placed Lowrey's brigade in position south of the tunnel and was about placing Govan's brigade on his left so as to complete my connection with Walker's division, when my attention was attracted to the fighting on my right. It was evident the enemy was endeavoring to turn my right flank and get possession of the main ridge between my right and the Chickamauga. If he succeeded, my connection with Brigadier-General Polk and my line of retreat by the bridge he was guarding was cut, and the safety of the whole army was endangered. Instead of placing Govan's brigade on the main ridge, I placed him on that spur in rear of it which jutted out just north of the tunnel and covered the valley and road before described, which led over the main ridge from the direction of the enemy. Govan rapidly threw skirmishers across this road and between it and the Chickamauga.
                                Lieutenant-General Hardee was soon on the ground in person. He approved my dispositions, directed the destruction of a bridge which crossed the Chickamauga close in rear of my right flank, and ordered two regiments of Lowrey's brigade and some artillery into position in rear of my right flank. Between the left of Smith's brigade and Walker's division, a distance of near a mile, there was now but two regiments of Lowrey's brigade, and it so remained all night and until 7 a.m. next day.
                                It was now dark; the fighting had ceased in front of Smith's; he had maintained his position. Hearing of the disaster at Lookout, I supposed our army would fall back beyond the Chickamauga, and accordingly had sent my ordnance and artillery across that river, with the exception of the two pieces of cannon planted beyond my right flank. I sent Captain Buck, my assistant adjutant-general, to headquarters of the army so as to receive any orders that might be given as quickly as possible. About midnight he returned with the information that it was determined to await the enemy's attack on Missionary Ridge. I now ordered my artillery and ordnance to join me at daylight, sent to my train for the axes belonging to the division in order to throw up some defenses, and rode out myself to make a moonlight survey of the ground and line of retreat. I found a hill on the north bank of the Chickamauga, between my right and the railroad bridge, guarded by General Polk, which completely commanded my line of retreat.
                                I ordered Brigadier-General Polk to occupy this hill at once with two regiments of infantry and a section of artillery. Discovering the facility which it afforded for turning me on the extreme right, I determined to immediately throw a line across the other east spur of Missionary Ridge, which jutted out from the north point of the ridge, and was washed by the Chickamauga. I placed the two regiments of Lowrey's brigade, left near the tunnel, on this line. In the meantime, Smith had thrown up some defenses in his front, but at my suggestion he now abandoned them and took up position as follows, viz, his left resting on the crest of the main ridge about 150 yards north of the tunnel, and running north along the crest for the length of one regiment, the Sixth, Tenth, and Fifteenth Texas (consolidated), Col. R. Q. Mills commanding. The right of this regiment rested close under the crest of Tunnel Hill. On the top of Tunnel Hill a space was left clear of infantry, and Swett's battery of four Napoleon guns, commanded by Lieut. H. Shannon, was placed on it so as to sweep north in the direction of Smith's old position. Northwest of the detached ridge, or west into the Tennessee Valley as occasion might require, at a point about 60 yards northeast of the right of Mills' regiment, Smith's line recommenced, but instead of continuing north, it now ran but slightly north of east down the side of the hill for the length of two regiments, the Seventh Texas, Col. H. B. Granbury commanding, and the Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-fifth Dismounted Cavalry (consolidated), Maj. W. A. Taylor commanding. This formation made the angle on the apex of Tunnel Hill, where Swett's battery was planted, the weak point in Smith's line, but it secured Smith's flank by throwing his extreme right back within 200 yards of Govan's left, bringing the latter officer's line nearly at right angles to his north front, thus enabling each line to assist the other if attacked. At a favorable point on Govan's line, selected by General Hardee, I placed Douglas' battery, commanded by Lieut. John H. Bingham, so as to enfilade any line attempting to charge Smith's north front. Lowrey's position, across the spur before mentioned, was en échelon about 200 paces in front of Govan. I ordered the whole of his brigade to occupy this position, and completed my line from Tunnel Hill to Chickamauga. Lowrey had no artillery, the spur being too steep to admit of its being brought up. Calvert's battery, commanded by Lieut. Thomas J. Key, I placed directly over the tunnel, and between the tunnel and left of Smith's brigade were placed three regiments of Brown's brigade, of Stevenson's division. I was determined to construct a slight work in front of my line. I was prevented for some time by an eclipse of the moon, which rendered the morning very dark, but at length, distributing our few axes, we went to work.
                                The day broke hazy, so that it was some time before the enemy could discover our operations. As soon as he did, he commenced a heavy fire on General Smith's working party, and prevented us from erecting any work whatever in front of the battery on the top of Tunnel Hill Up to 10.30 a.m. the enemy contented himself with severe skirmishing, and a heavy artillery fire from batteries erected by him during the night on the detached hill. About this hour he drove in Smith's skirmishers, and possessed himself of the breastworks which Smith had abandoned that morning. A heavy attack on the tunnel and on Smith's line was now imminent. General Hardee sent me directions to take my position at the tunnel, and to take charge of everything in that quarter and to the right of it. The enemy was now in sight, advancing in two long lines of battle, his right stretching far beyond my left, his left, stretching beyond Smith's right, where farther view of it was prevented by the woods that covered and bordered the detached hill. For the full understanding of the fierce conflict that followed, it would be proper for me in this place to give a statement of the force of the enemy opposite my position as ascertained at a later hour from prisoners and other sources. It consisted of the divisions of Maj. Gen. Jef. C. Davis, three divisions of the army brought by Sherman from Vicksburg, and Howard's (Eleventh) corps, of the Army of the Potomac, all under the command of Major-General Sherman.
                                At 11 a.m. the first serious fight of the day commenced. It was heavy along Smith's whole line, and extended some distance south of the tunnel. The right of the enemy's line, exposed to the fire of several pieces of artillery planted over the tunnel, and met by a brigade sent by General Hardee to the foot of the ridge, swayed backward and forward for some time, but did not dare to advance nearer than 400 yards, and finally lay down, contenting itself with sending forward a large body of skirmishers and sending to the rear a much larger number of stragglers. The enemy's left, however, under shelter of Smith's abandoned work of the night before, and protected by the woods on that flank, and by the precipitous, heavily wooded sides of Tunnel Hill, advanced rapidly on Smith's line, and finally made a heavy charge on Swett's battery on the apex of the hill. The artillerymen stood bravely to their guns under a terrible cross-fire, and replied with canister at short range, but still the enemy advanced. When he had reached within 50 steps of the battery, Brigadier-General Smith charged him with the right of Mills regiment and the left of the Seventh Texas, Smith's north front pouring into him from the breastworks a close volley at the same tithe. The enemy was routed and driven back to his cover behind the hill-side and abandoned work.
                                In this charge Brigadier-General Smith and Colonel Mills were both severely wounded at the head of their men. Col. H. B. Granbury, Seventh Texas, now assumed command of Smith's brigade. In less than half an hour the enemy made another desperate charge. He was met by the Texas men and artillery iii front. Douglas' battery enfiladed him from Govan's hill, and Lowrey's extreme left regiment got a long-range volley on his flank. He was driven back in confusion as before.
                                In these attacks Lieut. H. Shannon, commanding Swett's battery, was wounded. The command devolved on Lieut. Joseph Ashton; in a few minutes he was mortally wounded. The command then fell on Corpl. F. M. Williams. So many non-commissioned officers and men had been killed and disabled in the battery, Colonel Granbury was forced to make a detail from the infantry to work the guns. There was now a short lull in the battle, during which, at the request of Colonel Granbury, I detailed the Second, Fifteenth, and Twenty-fourth Arkansas (consolidated), under Lieutenant-Colonel Warfield, from Govan's left, and posted them immediately in rear of the battery on top of the Tunnel Hill. I sent two of Swett's 12-pounders to report to Colonel Govan, as Douglas' guns were too light to be effective in their present position. I ordered Key's battery of four light field pieces to move up and replace the guns sent off, and put Lieutenant Key in command of all the artillery on Tunnel Hill.
                                About 1 p.m. it was evident that another grand attack was soon to be made on my division. In a few minutes after it commenced. The enemy again lined Smith's abandoned works, and from them kept up a close, incessant fire on Smith's north front, and particularly on the artillery on top of the hill. Simultaneously a charge was made on the west face of Tunnel Hill. Warfield's regiment was thrown forward outside of the work to the crest of the hill, looking into the Tennessee Valley, to meet this charge. Key fired rapidly into the charging line as it crossed the open ground at the west foot of the ridge, but it was soon under shelter. At the steep the enemy's line now seemed to form into a heavy column on the march and rushed up the hill in the direction of the batteries. Warfield's fire stopped the head of the charging column just under the crest. Here the enemy lay down behind trees, logs, and projecting rocks, their first line not 25 yards from the guns, and opened fire. Tier after tier of the enemy, to the foot of the hill and in the valley beyond, supplied this fire and concentrated the whole on a space of not more than 40 yards, till it seemed like one continuous sheet of hissing, flying lead. This terrific fire prevented Warfield's men from moving sufficiently forward to fire with effect down the hill, but otherwise it only swept over our heads. The cross-fire from Smith's abandoned work was, however, more fatal. It took Warfield in flank and was constantly disabling men near the top of the hill.
                                This desperate attack had now lasted more than half an hour. Key was depressing his guns to the utmost and firing shell and canister down the hill in the face of the enemy's fire. Discovering the impossibility of reaching the enemy by a direct fire, the officers of Warfield's regiment were pitching down heavy stones, apparently with effect.
                                General Hardee, from a hill south of the tunnel, seeing the stubbornness of the fight, had placed some pieces of artillery in position and was endeavoring to dislodge the enemy,with a flank fire, but his right flank was protected by an intervening projection of the hill he was on and this fire was not effective. General Hardee also sent a brigade to move north along the west face of the ridge to strike the enemy in flank, but this brigade returned without accomplishing anything. At this point of the fight Colonel McConnell, commanding a Georgia regiment of Cumming's brigade, came up to the threatened point, and moved his regiment forward to where Warfield's men were fighting. McConnell was shot through the head, and his regiment fell back or was withdrawn. Brigadier-General Cumming, of Stevenson's division, now reported to me with the remainder of his brigade, and was posted in rear of the threatened point. Brigadier-General Maney, of Walker's division, also reported to me with his brigade, and was posted in rear of Smith's line and parallel to it, with instructions to support the Texas brigade behind the works and the artillery at the angle.
                                The fight had lasted unceasingly for an hour and a half, and the enemy seemed to be constantly re-enforcing. The First and Twenty-seventh Tennessee, of Maney's brigade, Colonel Feild commanding, was moved in front of the work, and placed on Warfield's right, the latter officer and his gallant regiment, still nobly holding their exposed position, although the regiment was diminished in numbers and almost out of ammunition. It was at this critical period of the day that Lieutenant-Colonel Warfield suggested to me that our men were wasting ammunition and becoming disheartened at the persistency of the enemy, and proposed a charge down upon them with the bayonet. Brigadier-General Cumming gallantly proposed to lead the charge with two of his regiments. I immediately consented, and directed General Cumming to prepare for the charge, and went to the left to see that a simultaneous charge was made on the enemy's right flank. I now ordered the left of Mills' (Texas) regiment, being the extreme left of my division, to make the charge on the enemy's flank the moment that Cumming charged them in front, and I remained at the breastwork myself to see the execution of the order.
                                In the meantime, General Cumming, having placed the Fifty-sixth Georgia in line for the charge, and supported it by placing the Thirty-sixth Georgia 10 paces in rear, moved forward to the charge; twice he was checked and had to reform. Warfield's (Arkansas) regiment with empty guns, and the gallant First and Twenty-seventh Tennessee prepared to share his next effort. At the command the whole rushed forward with a cheer, Lieutenant-Colonel Sanders, simultaneously leading the left of Mills' (Texas) regiment on the enemy's flank. The enemy, completely surprised, fled down the foot, the Texas troops on the left pursuing him beyond the foot and nearly across the open ground in front. Our charging columns returned with many prisoners and stand of colors; a fresh force of the enemy, attempting to follow us as we returned from this charge, was quickly met and routed by the Fiftieth Tennessee and with troops of my division. Immediately on his last repulse the enemy opened a rapid and revengeful artillery fire on Tunnel Hill from his batteries on the detached hill, and under cover of this fire he went to work felling trees and fortifying his position.
                                It is but justice for me to state that the brunt of this long day's fight was borne by Smith's (Texas) brigade and the Second, Fifteenth, and Twenty-fourth Arkansas (consolidated), of Govan's brigade, together with Swett's and Key's batteries. The remainder of my division was only engaged in heavy skirmishing. The final charge was participated in and successful through the timely appearance and gallant assistance of the regiments of Cumming's and Maney's brigades before mentioned.
                                Out of the eight stand of colors shown by me to have been captured, four were presented to me by Mills' (Texas) regiment, two were presented by the Fifty-sixth and Thirty-sixth Georgia Regiments, of Cumming's brigade; one flag was presented by the First Tennessee, of Maney's brigade, and one by the Second, Fifteenth, and Twenty-fourth Arkansas (consolidated), of Govan's brigade; in all, eight colors, six of which I herewith transmit. Among them are the flags of the Twenty-seventh Pennsylvania and Ninety-third Illinois. About 500 prisoners were captured. At a critical moment of the battle I lost two of the bravest officers of my division--Brig. Gen. J. A. Smith, commanding the Texas brigade, and Col. R. Q. Mills, the same officer who commanded it in the battle of Chickamauga, after General Deshler fell. Including these gallant officers, other noble officers and men, some of whose names are handed down to history in the reports of brigade and regimental commanders.
                                I suffered the following losses in the three brigades of my division engaged, viz: 42 killed, 178 wounded, and 2 missing.
                                Colonel Sugg, of the Fiftieth Tennessee Regiment, Maney's brigade, was dangerously wounded in the last charge. Colonel McConnell, of Cumming's brigade, and other gallant soldiers who fell in front of my works, I can but lament. I did not personally know them, but I saw and can bear witness to their gallant bearing and noble deaths.
                                The enemy must have suffered severely, the hillside and the valley were thickly strewn with his dead, and if we may credit his published reports of casualties in this fight, he lost 1 major-general, John E. Smith, wounded; 3 brigadier-generals, Corse, Matthies, and Giles Smith, wounded, the latter mortally, and 1 colonel commanding brigade, Colonel Raum, mortally wounded.
                                Soon after the final defeat of the enemy in front of Smith's position. I received a dispatch from General Hardee to send to the center all the troops I could spare, as the enemy were pressing us in that quarter. I immediately ordered Generals Cumming and Maney, with their respective brigades, to report accordingly, and went myself to push them forward. Before I had gone far, however, a dispatch from General Hardee reached me, with the appalling news that the enemy had pierced our center, and were on Missionary Ridge, directing me to take command of my own, Walker's, and Stevenson's divisions and form a line across the ridge, so as to meet an attack upon my flank, and take all other necessary measures for the safety of the right wing. I ordered Brigadier-General Gist, commanding Walker's division, to form it across the ridge; ordered all vehicles, which could be spared, to cross the Chickamauga. Sent Brigadier-General Polk orders to dispatch a force to the Shallow Ford Bridge, and hold it at all hazards, and sent Govan's brigade to dispute the enemy's advance on the Shallow Ford road.
                                Soon after night was upon us, and General Hardee ordered an immediate retreat across the Chickamauga, and that Smith's (Texas) brigade should remain in position and bring up the rear. General Lowrey attacked and drove back the enemy's skirmishers in his front and then retreated. By 9 p.m. everything was across except the dead and a few stragglers lingering here and there under the shadow of the trees for the purpose of being captured, faint-hearted patriots succumbing to the hardships of the war and the imagined hopelessness of the hour. I now ordered Smith's brigade to move in retreat. Sadly, but not fearfully, this band of heroes left the hill they had held so well and followed the army across the Chickamauga.
                         
                        I would easily say, Sherman was out generaled with this one.
                         
                        JEJ
                         
                        "As fast as we gain one position, the enemy (JEJ) has another all ready."
                        William T. Sherman, June 1864
                      • William H Keene
                        ... Tunnel ... What is meant by out generaled in this situation?
                        Message 11 of 24 , Mar 19, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, GnrlJEJohnston@... wrote:
                          >
                          > From the words of Pat Cleburne, here is how he defeated Sherman at
                          Tunnel
                          > Hill.
                          > ...
                          > I would easily say, Sherman was out generaled with this one.
                          >
                          > JEJ

                          What is meant by 'out generaled' in this situation?
                        • GnrlJEJohnston@aol.com
                          In a message dated 3/19/2006 5:09:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, wh_keene@yahoo.com writes: What is meant by out generaled in this situation? Cleburne got
                          Message 12 of 24 , Mar 19, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 3/19/2006 5:09:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, wh_keene@... writes:
                            What is meant by 'out generaled' in this situation?
                            Cleburne got word early on the 24th, and within the short time available, he had one of the strongest defensive positions organized that was on Missionary Ridge.  Sherman tried to come at this position actually from two sides, but both Corse and Loomis failed to take the position.  The assault on Cleburnes position began around 11 o'clock and was defended primarily by Smith's Texans and Swett's Battery.  The Confederate strength was extremely small in comparison to all the brigades Sherman threw against them.  Yet, they failed to fulfill either their misson or their objective, thus Cleburnes planning and placement of his troops, out generaled Sherman.  I am not saying that the Union troops did not do their damndest.  The lead assault regiment was the 40th Illinois and despite the cannister thrown at them, they made three separate assaults upon the Rebel position.  The Confederate report says that they got within fifty paces within Swett's position, but research has determined that at least one member of the 40th crossed over their defensive position but was immediately killed.  The four Napoleons were placed so that they would sweep the terrain from three o'clock to seven o'clock  with six o'clock being due North.  By the end of the second assault, the battery was commanded by a Corporal and manned by Granbury's infantrymen.  In the lull between the second and third assaults, Key's battery came to Swett's aid and thus the third assault was also repulsed.
                             
                            JEJ
                            "As fast as we gain one position, the enemy (JEJ) has another all ready."
                            William T. Sherman, June 1864
                          • Bill Bruner
                            A burning question I have had for some time and have not been able to get a satisfactory answer: why was the RR tunnel at tunnel not destroyed and how would
                            Message 13 of 24 , Sep 8, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              A burning question I have had for some time and have not been able
                              to get a satisfactory answer: why was the RR tunnel at tunnel not
                              destroyed and how would it have affected the Atlanta campaign if it
                              had been?

                              I broached this subject earlier with this group and the subject
                              quickly turned to the question of if it could be destroyed. I hope
                              that Col. Hall may be able to shed light on this.

                              What affect would a train load of black powder set off with both
                              ends of the tunnel tightly closed. I can't help but believe that the
                              destruction of this tunnel would have delayed Sherman's offensive by
                              some time (months maybe).

                              Bill Bruner
                            • Steve Hall
                              Bill, First of all, I am honored that you think I am a Colonel, but I have never been in the military myself, I came of age just after Jimmy Carter was
                              Message 14 of 24 , Sep 8, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Bill,
                                    First of all, I am honored that you think I am a Colonel, but I have never been in the military myself, I came of age just after Jimmy Carter was president and there wasn't any future in the military.  I am commander of the Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
                                 
                                    I have answered this very same question many times today at our annual Battle of Tunnel Hill as I conducted tours through the tunnel.  Gen. Johnston reportedly requested that the tunnel be destroyed to prevent the Union armies from attacking into Georgia.  Gov. Joe Brown of Georgia was dead set against it, after all, Georgia had spent a lot of money and time in building the tunnel.  Pres. Davis also vetoed the idea because he knew that to blow the tunnel meant giving up Tennessee forever because without either this railroad, or the Mississippi, no Confederate army could ever operate in Tennessee for any length of time.  Other than a few raids or short term campaigns, there would be no way to supply any force of any size in Tennessee.  This is the SAME conclusion that the Union army had come to in 1862, but their targets were the bridges along the same railroad in a raid which came to be known as The Great Locomotive Chase. 
                                 
                                    One question which also comes up is whether or not the tunnel could have been blown.  This is due to the construction of the tunnel itself.  The walls of the tunnel, in most places, is over three feet thick, with the roof being just over two feet thick.  I say in most places because there are some places where the walls are actually the native rock with NO lining at all, and in one 65 foot long area, the native rock composes the sides and roof of the tunnel, with nothing to hold up the mountian but the rock itself.  It would have taken a very large explosion to damage the tunnel due to the construction methods used with interlocking layers of rock and brick throughout the structure.  Add to this the fact that the timbers used in the construction were left behind the walls, you can still see some of the timbers through some of the holes in the wall!  The walls are so thick that I can reach through these holes and not touch the timbers! 
                                 
                                    As for blasting the tunnel at both ends, this would not have been the way to destory the tunnel anyway.  The ends of the tunnel, if blown, could be cleaned up fairly easily just by removing the material.  The top of the tunnel has little overburden at the ends of the tunnel and this could be easily removed.  A blast at the west end of the tunnel would also not have much effect since the mountain behind the walls is made up mostly of rock.  A blast here would mostly go out of the tunnel with the structure suffering little damage.  Now, an explosion on the east end of the tunnel, at least 100 foot inside, up to about 500 foot from the east end, could have done some major damage to the tunnel itself due to the fact that the material behind the walls here is made up mostly of loose dirt and clay.  If the blast could collaps the structure of the tunnel, then a lot of material would collapes into the tunnel, possibly leading to a cascade effect  bringing down about 900 foot of the tunnel, more than half way through.  The problem with this is that this type of soil is easy to dig through to rebuild the tunnel.  When building the tunnel, they started working from both ends of the mountain, and in just under 22 months, had the entire tunnel built.  They only dug in 575 feet from the west end, but 902 feet from the east.  The 22 month period includes all of the construction of the tunnel itself, and not just the digging.  The digging only took 15 months.  This sounds like a long time in terms of the war, but repair of the tunnel would not have taken near as long since they could start digging the estimated 900 foot for the repairs from both ends, cutting the time in half right there.  Add to this that most, if not all, of the walls of the tunnel would have been still standing, since it is highly likely that the roof is the only part heavily damage by the blast.  Judging from the progress made in the original constuction, the time to repair would be down to about 5.5 o 6 months, tops.  When your factor in that the rock used in the construction/reconstruction of the tunne would already be on site for the most part, bring this down to about 4.5 months, and with the advances made in the art of tunneling since construction, 3 months would not be a bad estimate for repairs under this worse case scenario.  With the engineers working with the Union armies by this time, and I would bet they had already figured on this possibility and had already been working on a plan to repair the tunnel if necessary, it might have taken 1.5 to 2 months to repair. 
                                 
                                    As for how much this would have slowed Sherman down, I doubt it would have effected him too much in the long run.  If the tunnel was blown before the end of April, he could have launched his attacks in the same way, attacking Johnston's supply line at Resaca, but shifting more of his troops in the Dalton area to the east to be supplied down the East Tennessee and Virginia railroad which ran from Cleveland to Dalton.  I would bet that blowing the tunnel would simply have delayed him a few weeks while rail was brought in to complete the track from Chattanooga to Cleveland Tenn. over the East Tennesse and Virginia line which had been contructed up there, but which had never received the rails due to the intervention of the war.  He would not have even had to track the entire line, especially the part through the other tunnel up in Missionairy Ridge since they could have simply tied that line into the existing W & A line which went around the northern end of the ridge.  That entire line had already been graded and only needed rails, and Sherman had excellent railroad repair crews standing by for his attack on Johnston. 
                                 
                                    Sorry about this being so long, but when I get started about the tunnel, it is hard to stop, just ask the hundreds that I spoke to today and yesterday, we had over 1000 4th and 5th graders up there yesterday morning, and at least 3 to 4 thousand specatators and reenactors up there today (Saturday).  Finished the last tour after 10:00 p.m. tonight!
                                 
                                Steve Hall - Commander
                                Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp #938
                                Sons of Confederate Veterans
                                Chatsworth, Georgia
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:53 PM
                                Subject: [civilwarwest] Tunnel Hill

                                A burning question I have had for some time and have not been able
                                to get a satisfactory answer: why was the RR tunnel at tunnel not
                                destroyed and how would it have affected the Atlanta campaign if it
                                had been?

                                I broached this subject earlier with this group and the subject
                                quickly turned to the question of if it could be destroyed. I hope
                                that Col. Hall may be able to shed light on this.

                                What affect would a train load of black powder set off with both
                                ends of the tunnel tightly closed. I can't help but believe that the
                                destruction of this tunnel would have delayed Sherman's offensive by
                                some time (months maybe).

                                Bill Bruner

                              • Sweetsstar@aol.com
                                Thanks Steve, for the interesting story. You truly love what you do I can tell. Susan Sweet ************************************** See what s new at
                                Message 15 of 24 , Sep 8, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Thanks Steve, for the interesting story.  You truly love what you do I can tell.
                                  Susan Sweet




                                  See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
                                • Tom Mix
                                  Steve, Wow!! Now that is fascinating and thanks for taking the considerable time it must have taken to piece this together. But I have a feeling it was a
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Sep 8, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    Steve,

                                    Wow!!

                                    Now that is fascinating and thanks for taking the considerable time it must have taken to piece this together. But I have a feeling it was a “labor” of love as you seem to be quite knowledgeable about this and, as most of us can testify in such cases, it is a joy to discuss for you.

                                    Thanks again, I learned a lot.

                                    Tom

                                     

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Hall
                                    Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:50 PM
                                    To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Tunnel Hill

                                     

                                    Bill,

                                        First of all, I am honored that you think I am a Colonel, but I have never been in the military myself, I came of age just after Jimmy Carter was president and there wasn't any future in the military.  I am commander of the Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

                                     

                                        I have answered this very same question many times today at our annual Battle of Tunnel Hill as I conducted tours through the tunnel.  Gen. Johnston reportedly requested that the tunnel be destroyed to prevent the Union armies from attacking into Georgia.  Gov. Joe Brown of Georgia was dead set against it, after all, Georgia had spent a lot of money and time in building the tunnel.  Pres. Davis also vetoed the idea because he knew that to blow the tunnel meant giving up Tennessee forever because without either this railroad, or the Mississippi, no Confederate army could ever operate in Tennessee for any length of time.  Other than a few raids or short term campaigns, there would be no way to supply any force of any size in Tennessee.  This is the SAME conclusion that the Union army had come to in 1862, but their targets were the bridges along the same railroad in a raid which came to be known as The Great Locomotive Chase. 

                                     

                                        One question which also comes up is whether or not the tunnel could have been blown.  This is due to the construction of the tunnel itself.  The walls of the tunnel, in most places, is over three feet thick, with the roof being just over two feet thick.  I say in most places because there are some places where the walls are actually the native rock with NO lining at all, and in one 65 foot long area, the native rock composes the sides and roof of the tunnel, with nothing to hold up the mountian but the rock itself.  It would have taken a very large explosion to damage the tunnel due to the construction methods used with interlocking layers of rock and brick throughout the structure.  Add to this the fact that the timbers used in the construction were left behind the walls, you can still see some of the timbers through some of the holes in the wall!  The walls are so thick that I can reach through these holes and not touch the timbers! 

                                     

                                        As for blasting the tunnel at both ends, this would not have been the way to destory the tunnel anyway.  The ends of the tunnel, if blown, could be cleaned up fairly easily just by removing the material.  The top of the tunnel has little overburden at the ends of the tunnel and this could be easily removed.  A blast at the west end of the tunnel would also not have much effect since the mountain behind the walls is made up mostly of rock.  A blast here would mostly go out of the tunnel with the structure suffering little damage.  Now, an explosion on the east end of the tunnel, at least 100 foot inside, up to about 500 foot from the east end, could have done some major damage to the tunnel itself due to the fact that the material behind the walls here is made up mostly of loose dirt and clay.  If the blast could collaps the structure of the tunnel, then a lot of material would collapes into the tunnel, possibly leading to a cascade effect  bringing down about 900 foot of the tunnel, more than half way through.  The problem with this is that this type of soil is easy to dig through to rebuild the tunnel.  When building the tunnel, they started working from both ends of the mountain, and in just under 22 months, had the entire tunnel built.  They only dug in 575 feet from the west end, but 902 feet from the east.  The 22 month period includes all of the construction of the tunnel itself, and not just the digging.  The digging only took 15 months.  This sounds like a long time in terms of the war, but repair of the tunnel would not have taken near as long since they could start digging the estimated 900 foot for the repairs from both ends, cutting the time in half right there.  Add to this that most, if not all, of the walls of the tunnel would have been still standing, since it is highly likely that the roof is the only part heavily damage by the blast.  Judging from the progress made in the original constuction, the time to repair would be down to about 5.5 o 6 months, tops.  When your factor in that the rock used in the construction/ reconstruction of the tunne would already be on site for the most part, bring this down to about 4.5 months, and with the advances made in the art of tunneling since construction, 3 months would not be a bad estimate for repairs under this worse case scenario.  With the engineers working with the Union armies by this time, and I would bet they had already figured on this possibility and had already been working on a plan to repair the tunnel if necessary, it might have taken 1.5 to 2 months to repair. 

                                     

                                        As for how much this would have slowed Sherman down, I doubt it would have effected him too much in the long run.  If the tunnel was blown before the end of April, he could have launched his attacks in the same way, attacking Johnston's supply line at Resaca, but shifting more of his troops in the Dalton area to the east to be supplied down the East Tennessee and Virginia railroad which ran from Cleveland to Dalton.  I would bet that blowing the tunnel would simply have delayed him a few weeks while rail was brought in to complete the track from Chattanooga to Cleveland Tenn. over the East Tennesse and Virginia line which had been contructed up there, but which had never received the rails due to the intervention of the war.  He would not have even had to track the entire line, especially the part through the other tunnel up in Missionairy Ridge since they could have simply tied that line into the existing W & A line which went around the northern end of the ridge.  That entire line had already been graded and only needed rails, and Sherman had excellent railroad repair crews standing by for his attack on Johnston. 

                                     

                                        Sorry about this being so long, but when I get started about the tunnel, it is hard to stop, just ask the hundreds that I spoke to today and yesterday, we had over 1000 4th and 5th graders up there yesterday morning, and at least 3 to 4 thousand specatators and reenactors up there today (Saturday).  Finished the last tour after 10:00 p.m. tonight!

                                     

                                    Steve Hall - Commander
                                    Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp #938
                                    Sons of Confederate Veterans
                                    Chatsworth, Georgia

                                    ----- Original Message -----

                                    Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:53 PM

                                    Subject: [civilwarwest] Tunnel Hill

                                     

                                    A burning question I have had for some time and have not been able
                                    to get a satisfactory answer: why was the RR tunnel at tunnel not
                                    destroyed and how would it have affected the Atlanta campaign if it
                                    had been?

                                    I broached this subject earlier with this group and the subject
                                    quickly turned to the question of if it could be destroyed. I hope
                                    that Col. Hall may be able to shed light on this.

                                    What affect would a train load of black powder set off with both
                                    ends of the tunnel tightly closed. I can't help but believe that the
                                    destruction of this tunnel would have delayed Sherman's offensive by
                                    some time (months maybe).

                                    Bill Bruner

                                  • Bill Bruner
                                    Steve, thank you for your very fine answer. After reading your post I checked out my map, found at csa-railroads.com and have discerned that the tunnel was
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Sep 9, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Steve, thank you for your very fine answer. After reading your post I
                                      checked out my map, found at csa-railroads.com and have discerned that
                                      the tunnel was not the great choke point that I had thought it to be.

                                      As you pointed out, supplies could have been moved from Chat. to
                                      Cleveland and on to Dalton, by-passing Tunnel hill.

                                      Bill Bruner
                                      PS had I known of the festivities at Tunnel Hill Sat. I may have
                                      made the hour and half drive from Stone Mountain to attend.
                                    • James W. Durney
                                      Steve, thank you for that essay on Tunnel Hill. This type of answer is what makes ACW groups worthwhile. James
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Sep 9, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Steve, thank you for that essay on Tunnel Hill. This type of answer is
                                        what makes ACW groups worthwhile.

                                        James
                                      • oneplez
                                        ... wrote: Steve! Fine answer. I ve often wondered why the Tunnel wasn t blown. I assumed maybe black powder technology wasn t sufficient. You cleared it up.
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Sep 11, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Hall" <Tunnelhill@...>
                                          wrote:

                                          Steve! Fine answer. I've often wondered why the Tunnel wasn't blown.
                                          I assumed maybe black powder technology wasn't sufficient.

                                          You cleared it up. You ought to stick this in the "Files"

                                          Thanks


                                          Don
                                        • Steve Hall
                                          We are continuing to learn more and more about the tunnel. It is surprising how the understanding of something that has not changed in 150 years will change
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Sep 11, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            We are continuing to learn more and more about the tunnel.  It is surprising how the understanding of something that has not changed in 150 years will change as we learn more about it.  One of the biggest shocks to me, after several years of work up there, came the first time I walked through the tunnel with a group.  Every other trip had been alone or with one or two others.  I had already learned about the mountain being made up of two different types of soil/rock, but walking through with a group I learned for the first time that there is a heavy echo on the western end of the tunnel, but pass the center of the tunnel and the echo disappears! 
                                             
                                            Steve Hall - Commander
                                            Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp #938
                                            Sons of Confederate Veterans
                                            Chatsworth, Georgia
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: oneplez
                                            Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:00 AM
                                            Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Tunnel Hill

                                            --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Steve Hall" <Tunnelhill@ ...>
                                            wrote:

                                            Steve! Fine answer. I've often wondered why the Tunnel wasn't blown.
                                            I assumed maybe black powder technology wasn't sufficient.

                                            You cleared it up. You ought to stick this in the "Files"

                                            Thanks

                                            Don

                                          • Steve Hall
                                            Well, Come up to Tunnel Hill sometimes and see the site for yourself! It is hard not to fall in love with a structure that has shaped all of north Georgia,
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Sep 11, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Well,
                                                  Come up to Tunnel Hill sometimes and see the site for yourself!  It is hard not to fall in love with a structure that has shaped all of north Georgia, and even help shape the nation, as much as this one has.  As late as WW I, this was such a vital part of our country, that over 30,000 men passed through it on their way to Savanna to board ships for Europe.  I haven't gotten into the new tunnel's influence as much, but I do know that the Western and Atlantic is the busiest single track line in the nation today! 
                                                  If you really want an experience, be inside the old tunnel when a train passes through the new one!  It is an experience you will never forget, and is not what you would expect!
                                               
                                              Steve Hall - Commander
                                              Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp #938
                                              Sons of Confederate Veterans
                                              Chatsworth, Georgia
                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              From: Tom Mix
                                              Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 1:13 AM
                                              Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Tunnel Hill

                                              Steve,

                                              Wow!!

                                              Now that is fascinating and thanks for taking the considerable time it must have taken to piece this together. But I have a feeling it was a “labor” of love as you seem to be quite knowledgeable about this and, as most of us can testify in such cases, it is a joy to discuss for you.

                                              Thanks again, I learned a lot.

                                              Tom

                                               

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwes t@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Steve Hall
                                              Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:50 PM
                                              To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                              Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Tunnel Hill

                                               

                                              Bill,

                                                  First of all, I am honored that you think I am a Colonel, but I have never been in the military myself, I came of age just after Jimmy Carter was president and there wasn't any future in the military.  I am commander of the Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

                                               

                                                  I have answered this very same question many times today at our annual Battle of Tunnel Hill as I conducted tours through the tunnel.  Gen. Johnston reportedly requested that the tunnel be destroyed to prevent the Union armies from attacking into Georgia.  Gov. Joe Brown of Georgia was dead set against it, after all, Georgia had spent a lot of money and time in building the tunnel.  Pres. Davis also vetoed the idea because he knew that to blow the tunnel meant giving up Tennessee forever because without either this railroad, or the Mississippi, no Confederate army could ever operate in Tennessee for any length of time.  Other than a few raids or short term campaigns, there would be no way to supply any force of any size in Tennessee.  This is the SAME conclusion that the Union army had come to in 1862, but their targets were the bridges along the same railroad in a raid which came to be known as The Great Locomotive Chase. 

                                               

                                                  One question which also comes up is whether or not the tunnel could have been blown.  This is due to the construction of the tunnel itself.  The walls of the tunnel, in most places, is over three feet thick, with the roof being just over two feet thick.  I say in most places because there are some places where the walls are actually the native rock with NO lining at all, and in one 65 foot long area, the native rock composes the sides and roof of the tunnel, with nothing to hold up the mountian but the rock itself.  It would have taken a very large explosion to damage the tunnel due to the construction methods used with interlocking layers of rock and brick throughout the structure.  Add to this the fact that the timbers used in the construction were left behind the walls, you can still see some of the timbers through some of the holes in the wall!  The walls are so thick that I can reach through these holes and not touch the timbers! 

                                               

                                                  As for blasting the tunnel at both ends, this would not have been the way to destory the tunnel anyway.  The ends of the tunnel, if blown, could be cleaned up fairly easily just by removing the material.  The top of the tunnel has little overburden at the ends of the tunnel and this could be easily removed.  A blast at the west end of the tunnel would also not have much effect since the mountain behind the walls is made up mostly of rock.  A blast here would mostly go out of the tunnel with the structure suffering little damage.  Now, an explosion on the east end of the tunnel, at least 100 foot inside, up to about 500 foot from the east end, could have done some major damage to the tunnel itself due to the fact that the material behind the walls here is made up mostly of loose dirt and clay.  If the blast could collaps the structure of the tunnel, then a lot of material would collapes into the tunnel, possibly leading to a cascade effect  bringing down about 900 foot of the tunnel, more than half way through.  The problem with this is that this type of soil is easy to dig through to rebuild the tunnel.  When building the tunnel, they started working from both ends of the mountain, and in just under 22 months, had the entire tunnel built.  They only dug in 575 feet from the west end, but 902 feet from the east.  The 22 month period includes all of the construction of the tunnel itself, and not just the digging.  The digging only took 15 months.  This sounds like a long time in terms of the war, but repair of the tunnel would not have taken near as long since they could start digging the estimated 900 foot for the repairs from both ends, cutting the time in half right there.  Add to this that most, if not all, of the walls of the tunnel would have been still standing, since it is highly likely that the roof is the only part heavily damage by the blast.  Judging from the progress made in the original constuction, the time to repair would be down to about 5.5 o 6 months, tops.  When your factor in that the rock used in the construction/ reconstruction of the tunne would already be on site for the most part, bring this down to about 4.5 months, and with the advances made in the art of tunneling since construction, 3 months would not be a bad estimate for repairs under this worse case scenario.  With the engineers working with the Union armies by this time, and I would bet they had already figured on this possibility and had already been working on a plan to repair the tunnel if necessary, it might have taken 1.5 to 2 months to repair. 

                                               

                                                  As for how much this would have slowed Sherman down, I doubt it would have effected him too much in the long run.  If the tunnel was blown before the end of April, he could have launched his attacks in the same way, attacking Johnston's supply line at Resaca, but shifting more of his troops in the Dalton area to the east to be supplied down the East Tennessee and Virginia railroad which ran from Cleveland to Dalton.  I would bet that blowing the tunnel would simply have delayed him a few weeks while rail was brought in to complete the track from Chattanooga to Cleveland Tenn. over the East Tennesse and Virginia line which had been contructed up there, but which had never received the rails due to the intervention of the war.  He would not have even had to track the entire line, especially the part through the other tunnel up in Missionairy Ridge since they could have simply tied that line into the existing W & A line which went around the northern end of the ridge.  That entire line had already been graded and only needed rails, and Sherman had excellent railroad repair crews standing by for his attack on Johnston. 

                                               

                                                  Sorry about this being so long, but when I get started about the tunnel, it is hard to stop, just ask the hundreds that I spoke to today and yesterday, we had over 1000 4th and 5th graders up there yesterday morning, and at least 3 to 4 thousand specatators and reenactors up there today (Saturday).  Finished the last tour after 10:00 p.m. tonight!

                                               

                                              Steve Hall - Commander
                                              Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp #938
                                              Sons of Confederate Veterans
                                              Chatsworth, Georgia

                                              ----- Original Message -----

                                              Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:53 PM

                                              Subject: [civilwarwest] Tunnel Hill

                                               

                                              A burning question I have had for some time and have not been able
                                              to get a satisfactory answer: why was the RR tunnel at tunnel not
                                              destroyed and how would it have affected the Atlanta campaign if it
                                              had been?

                                              I broached this subject earlier with this group and the subject
                                              quickly turned to the question of if it could be destroyed. I hope
                                              that Col. Hall may be able to shed light on this.

                                              What affect would a train load of black powder set off with both
                                              ends of the tunnel tightly closed. I can't help but believe that the
                                              destruction of this tunnel would have delayed Sherman's offensive by
                                              some time (months maybe).

                                              Bill Bruner

                                            • Bill Bruner
                                              ... it would have effected him too much in the long run. If the tunnel was blown before the end of April, he could have launched his attacks in the same way,
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Sep 11, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                > As for how much this would have slowed Sherman down, I doubt
                                                it would have effected him too much in the long run. If the tunnel
                                                was blown before the end of April, he could have launched his
                                                attacks in the same way, attacking Johnston's supply line at Resaca,
                                                but shifting more of his troops in the Dalton area to the east to be
                                                supplied down the East Tennessee and Virginia railroad which ran
                                                from Cleveland to Dalton. I would bet that blowing the tunnel would
                                                simply have delayed him a few weeks while rail was brought in to
                                                complete the track from Chattanooga to Cleveland Tenn. over the East
                                                Tennesse and Virginia line which had been contructed up there, but
                                                which had never received the rails due to the intervention of the
                                                war. He would not have even had to track the entire line,
                                                especially the part through the other tunnel up in Missionairy Ridge
                                                since they could have simply tied that line into the existing W & A
                                                line which went around the northern end of the ridge. That entire
                                                line had already been graded and only needed rails, and Sherman had
                                                excellent railroad repair crews standing by


                                                This seems to diminish the importance of the tunnel in the first
                                                place. If it was so easy to by-pass the Chatoogetta Mt. ( I hope I
                                                got that right) and connect to the Ga. and E. Tenn at Cleveland and
                                                thus Southward to Dalton and the W & A Southward to Atlanta.

                                                I am assuming that this analysis on my part is faulty. Otherwise
                                                they never would have gone to the great expense of building the
                                                tunnel and replacing it later with a new and improved one. I would
                                                love to be enlightened on this. I know I must be missing a key
                                                element to this problem.

                                                Bill Bruner
                                              • Steve Hall
                                                Bill, First of all, it is the Cheetogeeta mountain, but you are not the first to mix that one up! (G) (As a matter of fact, I was working as a Senator s
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Sep 11, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Bill,
                                                      First of all, it is the "Cheetogeeta" mountain, but you are not the first to mix that one up! (G)  (As a matter of fact, I was working as a Senator's Aide for Senator Steve Farrow when the resolution to sell the Tunnel to the city of Tunnel Hill was put through the Georgia General Assembly.  After the resolution passed the Senate, I went to the committee meeting over in the House which was hearing the resolution.  Rep. Greg Kinnamon was presenting the bill and he completely butchered the name, adding several syllables in the process.  One of the other representatives noticed this and, of course, had to ask him what the name of the mountain was.  This time it was different, so another rep. asked for the name again, and again it was different.  When the third rep. asked, he had me tell them so he could finish presenting the resolution, to a good laugh by all in attendance.)
                                                   
                                                      As for the bypassing of the tunnel and not building the new one, remember that the railroads are operated by different companies.  When it came time to build the new tunnel since the newer trains would no longer fit through the old one, there were actually two other routes through the area which could have been used if they had not been owned by other companies.  The one mentioned earlier, through Cleveland, Tenn., and the Central of Georgia route through Lafayette, Summerville, and Rome.  The W & A route was, except for the tunnel, the busiest and most direct of the three, so the Nashville, Chattanooga, and St. Louis railway, which was leasing the W & A from the state of Georgia, spent the money to build the new tunnel.  This has paid off tremendously for that company, now part of the CSX family, in that the W & A is still the busiest single track line in the nation. 
                                                      The Central of Georgia line does not even exist any more, the tracks from Summerville to Rome have been pulled, and the track from Summerville to Chattanooga is only used for excusions by the Tennesse Valley Railroad and occassionally by some rail car enthusiest.  Today, due to the joint agreements by all railroads, any traffic by the Norfolk Southern, which operates the line over to Cleveland and then down to Dalton, is carried by CSX.  As a matter of fact, the tunnel at the northern end of Missionairy Ridge has also been abandoned to the use of the Tennessee Valley Railroad and Museum because it is also too small and the Norfolk Southern line shares right of way with CSX, which operates around the ridge on the original W & A line.
                                                      I guess what happened at Missionairy Ridge is a good example of how things have changed.  The W & A had built its line around the northern end of the ridges, through the only viable path for a railroad in avoiding any steep grades or expensive tunnels or cuts.  The East Tennessee and Virginia, when it tried to reach Chattanooga, had to build a bridge over the W & A, then build a tunnel through the ridge.  The two railroads would not share trackage or right of way, as they do today.  They were businesses which were in competition with each other and would not work together.  The same way of doing business was in effect in 1926 when the new tunnel was started.  The N, C, & St. L. did not want to pay the Central of Georgia to transports any of its cars around the tunnel, so it would rather build a new tunnel.
                                                   
                                                  Steve Hall - Commander
                                                  Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp #938
                                                  Sons of Confederate Veterans
                                                  Chatsworth, Georgia
                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:53 PM
                                                  Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Tunnel Hill


                                                  > As for how much this would have slowed Sherman down, I doubt
                                                  it would have effected him too much in the long run. If the tunnel
                                                  was blown before the end of April, he could have launched his
                                                  attacks in the same way, attacking Johnston's supply line at Resaca,
                                                  but shifting more of his troops in the Dalton area to the east to be
                                                  supplied down the East Tennessee and Virginia railroad which ran
                                                  from Cleveland to Dalton. I would bet that blowing the tunnel would
                                                  simply have delayed him a few weeks while rail was brought in to
                                                  complete the track from Chattanooga to Cleveland Tenn. over the East
                                                  Tennesse and Virginia line which had been contructed up there, but
                                                  which had never received the rails due to the intervention of the
                                                  war. He would not have even had to track the entire line,
                                                  especially the part through the other tunnel up in Missionairy Ridge
                                                  since they could have simply tied that line into the existing W & A
                                                  line which went around the northern end of the ridge. That entire
                                                  line had already been graded and only needed rails, and Sherman had
                                                  excellent railroad repair crews standing by


                                                  This seems to diminish the importance of the tunnel in the first
                                                  place. If it was so easy to by-pass the Chatoogetta Mt. ( I hope I
                                                  got that right) and connect to the Ga. and E. Tenn at Cleveland and
                                                  thus Southward to Dalton and the W & A Southward to Atlanta.

                                                  I am assuming that this analysis on my part is faulty. Otherwise
                                                  they never would have gone to the great expense of building the
                                                  tunnel and replacing it later with a new and improved one. I would
                                                  love to be enlightened on this. I know I must be missing a key
                                                  element to this problem.

                                                  Bill Bruner

                                                • Dave Gorski
                                                  ... I would say that as far as I can tell you are the only one who calls it Cheetogeeta Mountain, pehaps you are just using a phonetic spelling. A Yahoo
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Sep 12, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    > First of all, it is the "Cheetogeeta" mountain, but you are not
                                                    >the first to mix that one up! (G)

                                                    I would say that as far as I can tell you are the only one who
                                                    calls it "Cheetogeeta Mountain,"
                                                    pehaps you are just using a phonetic spelling.

                                                    A Yahoo search provides no hits for that name, while a search for
                                                    Chetoogeta Mountain provides
                                                    145 hits. Four articles I have from the Daily Citizen News of Dalton
                                                    Georgia report the name of
                                                    the mountain as "Chetoogeta" as well. A typed page on the tunnel
                                                    that I picked up at Tunnel
                                                    Hill (back when the police dept. and town offices were in a trailer)
                                                    states that, "The tunnel goes
                                                    thru Chetoogeta Mountain." It should also be noted that the Tunnel
                                                    Hill Heritage Center also
                                                    states the name of the mountain that the tunnel goes through as
                                                    "Chetoogeta Mountain."

                                                    http://www.tunnelhillheritagecenter.com/tunnel.htm


                                                    Regards, Dave Gorski
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.