CivilWarTalk.com - A free and friendly Civil War community.
CivilWarTalk.com
The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk  

Go Back   The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk > The Backpack - Essential Discussions > Civil War History - The South & Western Theaters

Civil War History - The South & Western Theaters Check this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-23-2006, 05:14 PM
johan_steele's Avatar
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 3,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Well, Logan certainly did.....

McPherson, commander of the Army of the Tennessee (15th, 16th, 17th Army Corps) was killed in the battle and
had to be replaced.**

Logan was politicking for the job...

...by claiming the battle a 'victory.' So did his comanding officer, the other Corps Commanders, Division Commanders and most importantly the men who did the actual fighting...
More on this later. Please... I'm still looking for some evidence other than your fantasies.
~~~~~


**I believe this was the only time a Federal army commander was killed in battle.For once you are correct; how did that happen? And no vitriol in the way it was said...
I really wish you were capable of doing some simple reading... I gave you ample sources and because you do not like the conclusion... typical. Any notable historians consider the Battle for Atlanta a CS victory or are you just attempting to further rewrite history?
__________________
Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-23-2006, 05:15 PM
johan_steele's Avatar
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 3,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Lost Ground

The 17th A.C. (on the right of map, page 479) was entirely driven from the field (nearly a mile). They did not regain the ground.

The fighting involving the 16th A.C. went back and forth...but eventually they had to fall back to close with the new line of the 17th A.C. (map, page 482).

After a few days of occupying the new line the Federals totally evacuated the sector.
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-b...3DANU4519-0074

More reasoning from the Somme? Driven from the field... I don't think that statement flies.
__________________
Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-23-2006, 06:19 PM
Will Posey's Avatar
Private (25+ posts)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Posts: 178
Default

We lost Atlanta; we lost the War. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.

Our forefathers fought hard and honorably, but they did not win the War. We do them no dishonor by acknowledging that fact.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-23-2006, 10:41 PM
Battalion's Avatar
Sergeant Major (1750+ posts)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,877
Default

Sherman to Halleck, 27 July 1864
"...All are well pleased with General Howard's appointment [command of the Army of the Tennessee] but Generals Logan and Hooker. The former thought he ought to have been allowed the command of the army in the field until the end of the campaign..."
O.R., Series 1, Vol. 38, Part 5, p.272
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-23-2006, 11:05 PM
johan_steele's Avatar
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 3,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Sherman to Halleck, 27 July 1864
"...All are well pleased with General Howard's appointment [command of the Army of the Tennessee] but Generals Logan and Hooker. The former thought he ought to have been allowed the command of the army in the field until the end of the campaign..."
O.R., Series 1, Vol. 38, Part 5, p.272

Read both Shermans Memoirs and Woodworth's account as to why Logan was not made Commander of the AoT. Should he have been? It's a what if but I think he would likely have done as well... If you are implying that Logan losing command of the AoT was a CS victory... I don't see as it makes any difference or adds to your assertion that Atlanta was somehow a CS victory.
__________________
Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-23-2006, 11:36 PM
johan_steele's Avatar
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 3,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Posey
We lost Atlanta; we lost the War. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.

Our forefathers fought hard and honorably, but they did not win the War. We do them no dishonor by acknowledging that fact.
Will, the average fighting men of the CS were some of their eras toughest fighting men. IMHO right behind the Apache, Cheyenne & Lakota and heads and shoulders above anything on the European continent. And IMHO very few Union forces were the direct equal of their opponents; the AoT US was perhaps the only Union Army that might honestly claim so and every battle they engaged in only strengthens that idea You can judge an Army by their opponents. Frankly, if you gave me carte blance to create any Infantry Army in history I would choose an Army composed of both AoT's and feel pretty confident I could counquer hell with a bucket of cold water. There is no doubt in my opinion that the men of both AoT's were the best in their respective armies. The biggest difference was not equipment, courage or even supply; it was their respective upper leadership. Bragg, Johnston & Hood were all outclassed by Sherman.

Why do I include Bragg in such a list even though he never really faced the AoT? Bragg put his stamp on the CS AoT from it's creation. Battalion has a thing about Logan and his politicking (load of... when compared to McClerelend or most any other political General or West Pointer for that matter) but the politicking in the AoT under Sherman was nothineg when compared to the backbiting and outright backstabbing in the CS AoT; frankly I believe that as much as anything damaged the CS AoT and kept it from becoming the equal of the US AoT.

Hood was certainly an accomplished... liar IMHO and his only way of fighting seemed to be blind attacking. That worked well enough in the ANV when he had commanders that could point him in the right direction and let him loose. But what he was most accomplished at was getting his men killed and politicking for a higher rank. By the end of the war he wasn't half the man he had been; both literally and as a figure of speech. Raw courage doesn't win battles; brains and wits are a big part of that... and in this department he was outclassed in all regards by Sherman.

That said there were few CO's of the caliber of Cleburne in the AoT. Of all the CO's I have read mention of in Union letters & diaries it is Cleburne & his men who are mentioned w/ the most respect. I cannot tell you how many mentions of Cleburne are alongside words like: tough fight, sharp fight, insane courage, the impossible etc...
__________________
Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-24-2006, 12:22 AM
ole's Avatar
ole ole is online now
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,285
Default

Quote:
Sherman to Halleck, 27 July 1864
"...All are well pleased with General Howard's appointment [command of the Army of the Tennessee] but Generals Logan and Hooker. The former thought he ought to have been allowed the command of the army in the field until the end of the campaign..." O.R., Series 1, Vol. 38, Part 5, p.272
Have no idea what this has to do with the thread, but ....

Hooker was dead in the water. He was entitled to the command with but one intervening factor: Sherman didn't like him. (He had been soured on Hooker since their California days.) Hooker was licentious, overly ambitious, a braggart and, quite possibly a liar. To cap it off, he committed the cardinal sin (in Sherman's eyes): he showed that he was more devoted to his position and prestige than he was to cause and country. Sherman appreciated Logan's talent and Logan may have been his first choice. There are alternative explanations out there. One is that Thomas didn't want Logan in charge of the AotT. Another is the "West Point" attitude. Another is that Sherman didn't care for Logan's absences for politicking (even though the latest episode was Lincoln's request) which is almost the same as the West Point attitude except that Sherman really hated politicians (almost more than newspaper reporters)!

Then, it might just be that Sherman simply preferred Howard. Howard was pious (almost to a fault), dependable, selfless, and given to obeying orders, no matter how much he might disagree with them. Howard didn't have Logan's dash and daring, but he was a team player.
Ole
__________________
I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-24-2006, 07:49 AM
First Sergeant (1000+ posts)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,451
Default

Dear Folks,

I don't enough about the Battle of Atlanta to comment usefully, but Hanny's traditional definition of victory(possession of the field), is IMO too limited. What was Hood trying to accomplish? Did he accomplish it? Were the losses worth the gains? What were the subsequent movements of the armies?

Was Atlanta like Bunker Hill where the British assault eventually succeeded, but at a terrible cost, and no improvement in the overall situation?

Was it like Antietam, where Lee held his ground after a day's brutal fighting, then would retreat back to Virginia, the invasion of Maryland a failure, and the hope of European intervention diminished.

Was it like Jutland, where the Germans inflicted heavier losses on the British fleet, but in the aftermath, the German admiral stated he would need four months to refit for another battle(and in fact the German surface fleet wouldn't challenge the British again), while the British admiral reported he needed four hours to prepare for another fight.

Dear Ole,
The politicking in the various armies and governments always stun me. I somethings think that Lee's greatest quality as a commander was his keeping his commanders pulling in the same direction, and saving a lot of the infighting for their memoirs.

Now someone is going to post about backstabbing in the ANV!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-24-2006, 07:52 AM
johan_steele's Avatar
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 3,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Have no idea what this has to do with the thread, but ....

Hooker was dead in the water. He was entitled to the command with but one intervening factor: Sherman didn't like him. (He had been soured on Hooker since their California days.) Hooker was licentious, overly ambitious, a braggart and, quite possibly a liar. To cap it off, he committed the cardinal sin (in Sherman's eyes): he showed that he was more devoted to his position and prestige than he was to cause and country. Sherman appreciated Logan's talent and Logan may have been his first choice. There are alternative explanations out there. One is that Thomas didn't want Logan in charge of the AotT. Another is the "West Point" attitude. Another is that Sherman didn't care for Logan's absences for politicking (even though the latest episode was Lincoln's request) which is almost the same as the West Point attitude except that Sherman really hated politicians (almost more than newspaper reporters)!

Then, it might just be that Sherman simply preferred Howard. Howard was pious (almost to a fault), dependable, selfless, and given to obeying orders, no matter how much he might disagree with them. Howard didn't have Logan's dash and daring, but he was a team player.
Ole
Ole, IMHO I believe Sherman didn't promote Logan more because he was worried about his lack of administrive & logistical experiance. While Sherman was not likely to pass on a man he thought capable and I believe Logan was certainly capable Sherman was not going to put a man he did not 100% confidence in with the command of his baby the AoT. The man Sherman chose was a good choice IMHO. As good as Logan would have been? Don't know.

I think Battalion is grasping at any straw he can... his position is pretty hard to back up when every legit historian or author I can think of fails to agree w/ him; the ORs fail to agree w/ him and most importantlythe men who were there fail to agree w/ him.
__________________
Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-26-2006, 05:20 PM
Battalion's Avatar
Sergeant Major (1750+ posts)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johan_steele
Driven from the field... I don't think that statement flies.
17th Army Corps
"...the enemy again advanced from the direction of Atlanta, and at the same time attacked from the flank and rear, using his artillery loaded with grape and canister,and heavy musketry, rendering it necessary to abandon a large portion of the works which had been held by the Fourth Division and by part of the Third Division. A new line was now formed facing south and extending east from the crest of the bald hill..."
Report of Major General Frank P. Blair, jr. U. S. Army, commanding 17th Army Corps.

3rd Division
"...a heavy column (Cheatham's division, Hardee's corps) moved directly upon the left flank of the Fourth Division, which compelled it to change front and leave its works. As the approaching column advanced and reached to the vicinity of my left, I caused the Second Brigade of my command to follow the movements of the Fourth Division..."
Report of Brigadier General Mortimer D. Leggett, U. S. Army, commanding Third Division, 17th Army Corps

2nd Brigade, 3rd Div.
"...On the morning of the 22nd the enemy in heavy force turned the left flank of the Seventeenth Army Corps, and all the troops on the left of the Second Brigade were driven from their position, which left us very much exposed. We continued fighting in this position from 11.30 a. m. until 5 p. m., when we changed front to the rear on the first battalion..."
Report of Lieutenant Colonel Greenberry F. Wiles, Seventy-eighth Ohio Infantry, commanding Second Brigade. Third Div., 17th Army Corps

1st Brigade, 4th Div.
"...About 1.20 p. m. of the 22nd instant the enemy attacked Colonel Hall's brigade with great impetuosity and turned his left flank. I was directed...to move my reserve regiment to the left of Colonel Hall's brigade and repel the enemy...but soon met an overwhelming force of the enemy, and after a severe fight of a few minutes were compelled to fall back to the works.

In a few moments after my brigade occupied the works it was attacked on the front, flank, and rear....I moved my brigade to the east of the line of works and formed it in the ravine below and advanced my line until I met a superior force of the enemy, and after a sharp engagement, lasting for a considerable time, I withdrew to the rifle-pits....where the brigade remained for the night.
Report of Colonel William L. Sanderson, Twenty-third Indiana Infantry, commanding First Brigade, Fourth Div., 17th Army Corps

3rd Brigade, 4th Div.
"...The fire again coming in rear and flank, the brigade again formed in rear of the works, but, owing to a severe fire of artillery and musketry on the flank, were finally compelled to retire to a line facing south and perpendicular to the line of works..."
Report of Colonel William Hall, Eleventh Iowa Infantry, commanding Third Brigade, Fourth Div., 17th Army Corps

~~~


HEADQUARTERS SEVENTEENTH ARMY CORPS, July 21 [22], 1864-4.30 p.m.

GENERAL: The enemy attacked this morning on our left and rear, and Generals Smith and Leggett have been fighting from both sides of the works thrown up last night, repulsing Hardee's corps with heavy loss. The enemy have become quiet, and if I had a fresh brigade I could recover all that I have lost and drive the enemy easily.

FRANK P. BLAIR, JR.,
Major-General, Commanding.

They didn't.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Confederate Accounts

Report of Brig. Gen. Daniel C. Govan, C. S. Army, commanding brigade [of Cleburne's Division], of operations July 22, 1864

"...I directed the right to change direction to the left, in order to take them in flank and rear. This was promptly and opportunely done, and compelled the immediate surrender of all who did not take flight in the confusion. This timely success rescued those of the Second and Twenty-fourth Arkansas who had been entrapped, and the officers of this command now received the swords of their late captors....The First and Fifteenth Arkansas took the 2 guns which were placed upon the road. The whole affair was gallantly, brilliantly executed, and has never been excelled in dash and spirit by any previous action of these veteran soldiers....I can scarcely conceive how the left, being a very attenuated line, succeeded in gaining the works under the murderous fire to which they were exposed in passing the abatis. In some places the enemy were bayoneted in their trenches, so stubbornly did they resist my little band. With a single, unsupported line the work was done--a largely superior force, protected by formidable lines of intrenchments, had been routed and many hundred prisoners taken. The success was great and signal..."


Report of Brig. Gen. James A. Smith, C. S. Army, commanding brigade[of Cleburne's Division], of operations July 22, 1864

"...Owing to the long march the night before and the heavy fire it had been subjected to throughout the previous day, the brigade was much worn and exhausted when it went into action. After advancing in line for about a mile and a half through an almost impenetrable thicket of undergrowth, we struck the enemy, who, after a feeble resistance of a few minutes, fled in great confusion, abandoning his artillery, ordnance, and tool wagons and ambulances..."


Report of Capt. J. William Brown, Seventh Texas Infantry

"...22d, we attacked the enemy, driving him from his position, taking two sets of earth-works, capturing near 900 prisoners, and 10 or 19 pieces of cannon, of which 6 or 8 pieces were brought off the field with safety; also, a number of wagons and teams. The enemy were severely punished...."


Report of Maj. William A. Taylor, Twenty-fourth Texas Cavalry, Commanding Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth Texas Cavalry (dismounted)

"...On the morning of the 22d instant this regiment took position upon the left of the brigade, and, after marching some distance, it was formed in line of battle, its left resting upon the right of General Govan's brigade, with orders to conform to the movements of that brigade. The country in front was broken and covered with very thick undergrowth, which made it difficult to march in line of battle with any regularity. After marching some distance, Govan's brigade became engaged with the enemy, and from the shouting I was led to believe he was driving the enemy in his front. Nothing could be seen in his front for the undergrowth. We still continued to advance for several hundred yards before meeting the enemy, crossing a very boggy marsh, fringed with thick bushes, which scattered the lines very much, entirely separating us from Govan's brigade upon the left. A short distance from this we came upon an outer line of the enemy's breast-works; drove him from them without difficulty, passing over a number of cannon, caissons, two wagons loaded with tools, and a second line of breast-works, capturing a large number of prisoners. The regiment, now almost become a line of skirmishers, still continued forward, passing over a small stream and deep ravine close to and under the breast-works of the enemy, which was their third line, capturing the battle and State flags of the Third Iowa Infantry...."


Official Records, Series 1, Volume 38, Part 3.

Last edited by Battalion; 07-27-2006 at 10:27 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Back to top
Bringing the American Civil War to Life. Copyright © 1999 - 2008, CivilWarTalk.com. Site Version 4.3
The American Civil War | Forum | Resource Center | Image Gallery | Links | Site Map | XML | Donations