Sherman Vs Slowtrot Thomas

footie

Private
Joined
May 15, 2010
Location
robinson,il
OR Thomas vs Slowtrot Sherman?

From "The Shipwreck of Their Hopes" by Peter Cozzens regarding actions on the left wing of the Union Army at Missionary Ridge. Page 150

"Bragg had handed Sherman the chance to destroy his army; the Ohioan let it slip through his fingers. As the morning passed, he kept the two Smiths busy digging in while waiting for Ewing to get his entire division across the river. Down in Fort Wood, Grant was growing impatient with his friend. Still, reflecting both his confidence in and unwillingness to offend his touchy compatriot, Grant stopped short of peremptorily ordering him forward, Instead, at 11:20 A.M., he wrote him a solicitous note:

Thomas' forces are confronting enemy's line of rifle pits, which seem to be weakly lined with troops. Considerable movement has taken place on the ridge toward you. Howard has sent a force to try and flank the enemy on our left, and to send through to communicate with you. Until I hear from you I am loath to give any orders for a general engagement. Hooker seems to have been engaged for some time, but how I have not heard. Does there seem to be a force prepared to receive you east of the ridge? Send me word what can aid you.

Nothing short of a kick in the pants, would start Sherman on his way before he was ready. The normally compassionate James Wilson, who had gotten off the Dunbar to watch the attack, was both mystified and angry with Sherman. With or without Ewing, Wilson believed,

there was nothing left for him to do but move against the enemy. The country was entirely open, and, while the ground was high and rolling, the way both to the enemy,s flank and rear lay straight out from the river. Nothing could be more favorable to a direct attack or to a turning movement against the enemy's right flank and rear, but from the first...Sherman's movements were slow and ineffective. Instead of pushing resolutely to the attack he lost several hours in digging rifle pits to cover the brigade....The simple fact is that Sherman with all his brilliancy, was not the man for such bold and conclusive operation.

Wilson's opinion was gotten by Cozzens from Wilson's book "Under the old Flag."

Ever read about Sherman having a case of the slows?
 
"Bragg had handed Sherman the chance to destroy his army; the Ohioan let it slip through his fingers.

While Sherman did move rather slowly the above statement seems to be an exaggeration. The terrain on that side of the battlefield favored the defender. IIRC, Sherman had also been provided inaccurate maps. The ground that he eventually occupied was believed to be the far eastern end of Missionary Ridge. It wasn't. It was simply a spur that jutted out from the Ridge. Sherman still had to move further on and that's when he ran into Cleburne.
 
Thomas was the total package. He demonstrated his superb tactical ability early in the war at Mill Springs.

He used his cavalry, artillery and infantry to the utmost effect as time went on.

He had one major problem, he was a Virginian.
 
Is Post #1, in reference to the Battle of Tunnel Hill? If so, then James Wilson's description of the opportunity available to Sherman is considerably overstated.
Although, I tend to agree with those who believe Lincoln promoted a good GeneraL over a better one, when he passed over Thomas and promoted Rosecrans; but, at Tunnel Hill even Thomas(or Grant, even) could not have taken the position, as planned.
Is it not common knowledge that Sherman's hand was less sure and confident at the tactical level than at the strategic?
 
dvrmte said:
He had one major problem, he was a Virginian.

He was also quite methodical and not one to take risks lightly.

coronet said:
Is Post #1, in reference to the Battle of Tunnel Hill? If so, then James Wilson's description of the opportunity available to Sherman is considerably overstated.

It has to be Tunnel Hill because I don't know what else the passage could be referring to. Sherman's performance at Chattanooga was probably the worst of his career, excluding his brief command in Kentucky, but I immediately raise a red flag when historians make grand sweeping statements like, "If only so and so had done this the entire army would have been wiped off the face of the Earth." The terrain where Sherman fought was so bad I'm not really convinced that anyone could have accomplished what Grant intended Sherman to do.
 
He was also quite methodical and not one to take risks lightly.



It has to be Tunnel Hill because I don't know what else the passage could be referring to. Sherman's performance at Chattanooga was probably the worst of his career, excluding his brief command in Kentucky, but I immediately raise a red flag when historians make grand sweeping statements like, "If only so and so had done this the entire army would have been wiped off the face of the Earth." The terrain where Sherman fought was so bad I'm not really convinced that anyone could have accomplished what Grant intended Sherman to do.
It was OK, the Union still had its version of Sam Hood in Fighting Joe Hooker.
 
That Sherman's failure at Tunnel Hill, was a golden opportunity lost through his ineptitude, is unproven by the posted ref. of Peter Cozzens. In Fact, if there is blame to be assigned, a closer study of the battle at Tunnel Hill, would tend to prove the ineptitude of Grant, Thomas and Sherman; they all inspected the attack site,
 

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