Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
I am at a loss as to the point of this thread. Sherman took this and couldn't take that. He inflicted punishment and absorbed repulse. At the end of it, Atlanta was his. It really is quite that simple. -- Atlanta was his. He didn't "win" the Battle of Atlanta; he did win the Campaign for Atlanta.
Just an observation.
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
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?
The Confederates were contemplating the evacuation of the city (the object of the campaign) on the 21st and as late as the morning of the 22nd...
...on the morning of the 23rd...they were not-
"HEADQUARTERS, July 21, 1864.
Brigadier-General WRIGHT, Commanding, Atlanta, Ga.:
GENERAL: I am directed to inform you that you must be prepared to-night for an evacuation of Atlanta,
should it become necessary. You will, therefore, without saying anything about it, be prepared to move
when Lieutenant-General Stewart's troops move into town, should the evacuation take place.
Most respectfully, your obedient servant,
A. P. MASON, Major and Assistant Adjutant-General."
***
"CIRCULAR.] HEADQUARTERS,
July 22, 1864-6.20 a. m.
Lieutenant-General Stewart directs that you have everything ready for action, everything hitched up
and ready to move should the contingency arise.....
By command of Lieutenant-General Stewart:
DOUGLAS WEST,
Acting Assistant Adjutant-General."
~~~
The Federal Army of the Tennessee was within 5 miles of the last rail link open to the city of Atlanta-
I am at a loss as to the point of this thread. Sherman took this and couldn't take that. He inflicted punishment and absorbed repulse. At the end of it, Atlanta was his. It really is quite that simple. -- Atlanta was his. He didn't "win" the Battle of Atlanta; he did win the Campaign for Atlanta.
Just an observation.
Ole
Yes, you have been complaining about this thread quite a bit...
...but why do we have an entire forum devoted to Gettysburg?
What has been said about that battle that hasn't been said 20 times over?
Yes, you have been complaining about this thread quite a bit...
...but why do we have an entire forum devoted to Gettysburg?
What has been said about that battle that hasn't been said 20 times over?
~
...and I see you have been posting over there without these type of remarks......
...so what gives?
Maybe it is the premise of this thread; about as comical as if you were to title one "Confederate Victory in the East: The Battle of Gettysburg..."
__________________ 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
Why don't you take your jackass insults somewhere else?
What insult? The one calling me names? Please; grow some thicker skin.
__________________ 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
Yes, you have been complaining about this thread quite a bit...
...but why do we have an entire forum devoted to Gettysburg?
What has been said about that battle that hasn't been said 20 times over?
Perhaps I should explain "Stunned Silence." I have no idea what in the heck you are talking about! Ergo (that means therefore), stunned silence.
You frequently bring up some rather brilliant points. On the other hand, some of your brilliant points seem to lack connection with what is being discussed. I have no doubt that you will eventually get in the groove and start making some sense. In the interim, I read your posts avidly, and fervently believe that you have something of value to say. What, I haven't quite figured out yet, but I know it is there. Do keep on posting. We'll find some common ground here yet.
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
Sorry, Sam. I think Battalion has something to say within this universe. He speaks in a riddle we haven't yet solved. Sooner or later, perferably the former, we will figure out where he's coming from. I'll advise patience. Tomorrow, we can reevaluate.
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
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
Re Howard or Logan, according to Lloyd Lewis, in Fighting Prophet (in which by chance I am in the thick of the Battles around Atlanta), logan had earned the command, but Logan and Thomas did not get along....
"Howard would be better for the campaign; Logan would be better in battle. And Sherman cared not who won the battles so long as the Federals won the campaign."
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
