Was the Loss of the Battle of Chancellorsville really the fault of Joe Hooker

It has been pretty well established that Hooker probably never said that and it is inconsistent with everything else he ever said about the campaign. I would recommend that you seriously study these issues before just repeating tropes on each thread.

I don't mean disrespect, but it is important to actually approach evidence in a serious manner. The third appendix of Sears Chancellorsville does a good job of going through the evidence on that front regarding that alleged quote from Hooker.
I would recommend that you keep in mind that people are expressing their opinions based on their own reading over their lifetimes, and it is certainly no guarantee that you are right and they are wrong. You stand just as much chance of being wrong as any other person here, so don't presume to lecture others about studying more.
 
I would recommend that you keep in mind that people are expressing their opinions based on their own reading over their lifetimes, and it is certainly no guarantee that you are right and they are wrong. You stand just as much chance of being wrong as any other person here, so don't presume to lecture others about studying more.
No Sears covered that in great detail, and it's pretty much been debunked, and Rhea has a major habit of just restating stuff, with little or no proof, and when confronted with evidence against him, he ignores, and will just table pound his argument over and over.
 
No Sears covered that in great detail, and it's pretty much been debunked, and Rhea has a major habit of just restating stuff, with little or no proof, and when confronted with evidence against him, he ignores, and will just table pound his argument over and over.
Yes, I know you have an issue with Rhea.

You claim to want to keep things civil, and yet you support a guy that has been here less than two weeks lecturing long-time posters about being unserious and just repeating tropes and needing to study more?
 
That is what I was wondering. A year later, did Generals Meade and Grant anticipate there would be a horrific battle when the US force crossed the Rapidan? Were they prepared operationally to move on no matter how that battle turned out?
Grant thought he could move fast across the Rapidan and get to Richmond before Lee could block him. The union army that eventually reached the James River was an exhausted and demoralized force.
 
The answer is Hooker was to blame he is the army commander and the buck rest with him. Give Grant his due that narcissistic butcher would not have withdrawn but found a way to keep pushing forward.
 
Yes, I know you have an issue with Rhea.

You claim to want to keep things civil, and yet you support a guy that has been here less than two weeks lecturing long-time posters about being unserious and just repeating tropes and needing to study more?
Rhea is unserious. He refuses to engage with any argument, he simply resisted his claims without actual evidence ever. That's no knock against im the person who is probsbly very nice, but it is a knock against hiw he discusses on here. I dont support any oerisn here. I support arguments and evidence. That is all that should matter. Whether the person has been here for years or a day, they either make a claim backed by facts or they don't.
 
Rhea is unserious. He refuses to engage with any argument, he simply resisted his claims without actual evidence ever. That's no knock against im the person who is probsbly very nice, but it is a knock against hiw he discusses on here. I dont support any oerisn here. I support arguments and evidence. That is all that should matter. Whether the person has been here for years or a day, they either make a claim backed by facts or they don't.
Yes, I already said that I know that you have an issue with Rhea.

Everything posted on here is an opinion, unless it is the actual source. And even then it might just be someone's opinion.

There is nothing written in stone here. I think that many of the people that like to get down in the weeds - with numbers and maps and specious arguments - are in my opinion some of the biggest liars. Not all, of course. There are some serious historians here as well.

But no one here is the supreme arbiter of the truth.
 

Learn About Us
►About CivilWarTalk
►Contact the Webmaster
►Meet the Staff
►Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
►Register
►Browse Forums
►View Today's Discussions
►Search the Forum
Get Help
►FAQ
►Student Guide
►Forum Rules & Etiquette
►Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top