Blue & Gray Magazine "The Battle of Franklin"

Buckeye Bill

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,777
#1
http://www.bluegraymagazine.com/page/current.html

The current issue of this magazine is packed with a punch!

The article by Eric A. Jacobson entitled, "Hood's Tennessee Campaign" is very informative.

The General's Tour starts at the city of Columbia, then tours Spring Hill and concludes with Franklin.

Pictures and marked tour stops are highly recommended!!!

Bill
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

gunny

First Sergeant
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
1,448
Location
Spring Hill, Tennessee
#5
I got a copy and was blown away by the bias. If you want to know who was solely responsible for the failure read this. Really- do. Just don't take it to heart. Do your own research before making up your mind. The author is very selective in his sources and basically discounts ALL of Cheatham's claims even though they may be substantiated by many other sources.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
529
#7
I got a copy and was blown away by the bias. If you want to know who was solely responsible for the failure read this. Really- do. Just don't take it to heart. Do your own research before making up your mind. The author is very selective in his sources and basically discounts ALL of Cheatham's claims even though they may be substantiated by many other sources.
This is rich. Cheatham and Forrest had plenty to do with what happened (and didn't happen) that night. Unlike some, I choose not to hold Hood exclusively at fault. Alleging bias is a cheap accusation when one considers the sources for both the article and my book. Also, you know the "author" personally so it's okay to use my name.
 

gunny

First Sergeant
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
1,448
Location
Spring Hill, Tennessee
#8
This is rich. Cheatham and Forrest had plenty to do with what happened (and didn't happen) that night. Unlike some, I choose not to hold Hood exclusively at fault. Alleging bias is a cheap accusation when one considers the sources for both the article and my book. Also, you know the "author" personally so it's okay to use my name.
Me. Eric Jacobson, I love you brother, but we don't see eye to eye on this matter. I get your gist, and I agree that Hood isn't solely responsible, but he is the major factor. Like Stewart later said, if he felt that he or Cheatham weren't doing their jobs, he could have easily gone to the front himself to ensure success. He didn't. There in lies the failure. There are moments in time that are all important and even in this case, hours that are all important, but Hood failed to rise to the occasion either due to ignorance of the situation (owing to Lee's failure to maintain contact) or simply underestimating the opponent. If he wanted something to happen he could have easily ensured it but he didn't. Cheatham did everything he could in the 30 minutes before sunset and subsequent 30 minutes before EENT. It just wasn't in the cards. Forget about Forrest and Cheatham and concentrate on Bate and Johnson. They were the main culprits. Just sayin.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
529
#10
Me. Eric Jacobson, I love you brother, but we don't see eye to eye on this matter. I get your gist, and I agree that Hood isn't solely responsible, but he is the major factor. Like Stewart later said, if he felt that he or Cheatham weren't doing their jobs, he could have easily gone to the front himself to ensure success. He didn't. There in lies the failure. There are moments in time that are all important and even in this case, hours that are all important, but Hood failed to rise to the occasion either due to ignorance of the situation (owing to Lee's failure to maintain contact) or simply underestimating the opponent. If he wanted something to happen he could have easily ensured it but he didn't. Cheatham did everything he could in the 30 minutes before sunset and subsequent 30 minutes before EENT. It just wasn't in the cards. Forget about Forrest and Cheatham and concentrate on Bate and Johnson. They were the main culprits. Just sayin.
Jamie,

You know what I think of you AND your research. I have told you (and said so in my first book) that you changed my thinking about Spring Hill. We can agree to disagree - I am fine with that. But the bias word chafes me. It is a cheap charge like "politically correct." I'll leave it at that.
 
Last edited:

gunny

First Sergeant
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
1,448
Location
Spring Hill, Tennessee
#12
Jamie,

You know what I think of you AND your research. I have told you (and said so in my first book) that you changed my thinking about Spring Hill. We can agree to disagree - I am fine with that. But the bias word chafes me. It is a cheap charge like "politically correct." I'll leave it at that.
Didn't mean it crappy! Sorry brother.
 

gunny

First Sergeant
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
1,448
Location
Spring Hill, Tennessee
#13
@nitrofd

I like everything written on this subject but there are things that are often left out either due to knowledge of a source's existence or the choice to leave the source out.

Much of the article in question leaves information out that is pertinent to the conversation. It may be that Eric was unaware of its existence. There was the mention of Egbert Martin (I believe) who was Johnson's nephew. He claimed many years after the war that Johnson had begged Cheatham to allow him to attack the pike in total darkness, but what was left out of the article was the other source - Jospeh Bostick. Bostick had gone to rouse Johnson after Hood informed Cheatham that a private had informed him of enemy troops on the pike in confusion. It was suggested that Cheatham should advance a line of skirmishers or a regiment if necessary in order to further impede or confuse the enemy on the pike. Bostick supposedly related that Johnson "bitterly complained" that his division had been "loaned out" to Cheatham and questioned why Cheatham didn't send one of his own divisions as he was "ignorant" of the field and was afraid he might fire into some of his own troops.

We know that Johnson's men were in fact roused, and they prepared to go into action but they didn't. Now was it because Johnson got his men up on his own initiative and sent word to Cheatham that he wanted to attack the pike immediately or was it because when his men were roused he didn't want to send his men into something he was unaware of?

We know that his division was placed on the field after 10 pm and probably even later. We know Johnson had no idea of the field. We know that (according to Bostick and Cheatham) that Johnson didn't want to attack, and that Bostick said it wasn't up to him to decide, but at Johnson's suggestion rode toward the pike where they heard nothing. Johnson then rode with Bostick back to Cheatham's headquarters at which time Cheatham upon hearing the news relented.

There are two stories here but only one was presented in the article. We have to remember that Egbert Martin was Johnson's nephew and likely would not want anything to reflect poorly on his uncle. But we also have to consider Cheatham's testimony that Bostick told him this. So who do we believe? That's up to the individual, but knowing that Johnson arrived on the field after dark and was unaware of his exact position on the field- being a military man - I can see why Johnson would object.

On the same note, militarily it makes no sense to me that he would WANT to attack as he was unaware of the exact situation.

This is one example of the points I would like to make. There are others that I can bring up after I review it. Haven't read it in a long time!
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
14,026
Location
north central florida
#14
@nitrofd

I like everything written on this subject but there are things that are often left out either due to knowledge of a source's existence or the choice to leave the source out.

Much of the article in question leaves information out that is pertinent to the conversation. It may be that Eric was unaware of its existence. There was the mention of Egbert Martin (I believe) who was Johnson's nephew. He claimed many years after the war that Johnson had begged Cheatham to allow him to attack the pike in total darkness, but what was left out of the article was the other source - Jospeh Bostick. Bostick had gone to rouse Johnson after Hood informed Cheatham that a private had informed him of enemy troops on the pike in confusion. It was suggested that Cheatham should advance a line of skirmishers or a regiment if necessary in order to further impede or confuse the enemy on the pike. Bostick supposedly related that Johnson "bitterly complained" that his division had been "loaned out" to Cheatham and questioned why Cheatham didn't send one of his own divisions as he was "ignorant" of the field and was afraid he might fire into some of his own troops.

We know that Johnson's men were in fact roused, and they prepared to go into action but they didn't. Now was it because Johnson got his men up on his own initiative and sent word to Cheatham that he wanted to attack the pike immediately or was it because when his men were roused he didn't want to send his men into something he was unaware of?

We know that his division was placed on the field after 10 pm and probably even later. We know Johnson had no idea of the field. We know that (according to Bostick and Cheatham) that Johnson didn't want to attack, and that Bostick said it wasn't up to him to decide, but at Johnson's suggestion rode toward the pike where they heard nothing. Johnson then rode with Bostick back to Cheatham's headquarters at which time Cheatham upon hearing the news relented.

There are two stories here but only one was presented in the article. We have to remember that Egbert Martin was Johnson's nephew and likely would not want anything to reflect poorly on his uncle. But we also have to consider Cheatham's testimony that Bostick told him this. So who do we believe? That's up to the individual, but knowing that Johnson arrived on the field after dark and was unaware of his exact position on the field- being a military man - I can see why Johnson would object.

On the same note, militarily it makes no sense to me that he would WANT to attack as he was unaware of the exact situation.

This is one example of the points I would like to make. There are others that I can bring up after I review it. Haven't read it in a long time!
You are fortunate that you live in Spring Hill and that ground speaks to you everyday. I envy you.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
529
#15
Well to be clear, since my article has been indirectly brought up again....

I related the Bostick version in the B&G article, and also included the Martin version as related by Old, which cannot be discounted any more than Bostick's. Thanks to Sam Hood we now know about the Martin version. All that being said, in my book (now over a decade old) I only included the Bostick version because that is all we knew at the time. Now we know more, and I think we are the better for it.

So I did not really leave out info pertinent to the question. Rather I included both accounts.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top