Reomoving Johnston at Atlanta

[samgrant]

I think it would have better for the rebs if Davis had not a mind to micromanage the war. He conflicted with some of his best generals (Johnston, Beaureguard, ...) essentially taking them out of the action, while backing the likes of Bragg.

[ole]

I'm confused! Above you say "you take Grant's side" Then you say "We know Grant was understandably wrong." Are there two arguements here?

No arguments at all. Grant was frustrated and I understand that. Thomas' eventual success proved that Grant's frustration was simply born of impatience and that he needn't have let it worry him. So Grant was wrong in being impatient and frustrated, but it certainly didn't seem so at the time.
Ole

[ole]

I think it would have better for the rebs if Davis had not a mind to micromanage the war. He conflicted with some of his best generals (Johnston, Beaureguard, ...) essentially taking them out of the action, while backing the likes of Bragg.

Davis was...well, Davis. Given the circumstances he was handed, I can't name anyone who might have handled the situation better. He had to manage a fractious "country" while waging a war he didn't think would happen and for which he and his "country" were ill-prepared to prosecute. He had his baggage, (who doesn't) and in this particular case, the baggage held him under.

It is interesting to note that Lincoln had his baggage as well, but he jettisoned it the minute it began to weigh on him. And Grant, and Sherman. They were loyal to their friends as well, but fellowship rarely interfered in what they were focused on -- they went relentlessly to the choice that would advance the cause: putting an end to it.

Just a thought.
Ole

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by ole

they went relentlessly to the choice that would advance the cause: putting an end to it.

Ole

Therein my friend was the difference between winners and losers (not to mention more men and bullets than the opposition).