 |
JoanieReb
Member
|
Yeah, but before TWBTS, it was in remission, and had changed from an STD to prostitis due to long-term infection. And, Id'a married him, anyway. He was one fine man, even with the STD-related problems, he beat "little" Mac all to heck!
(Also, Dottie was 7-months preggers when he died - third child, I think, and she was a fine and healthy woman, if I recall.)
Last edited on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 01:47 am by JoanieReb
|
|
Back To Top
|
Kentucky_Orphan
Member
|
One of my favorite quotes ever is an Army of the Potomac veteran (during the time Mac was the army commander) who, when Hills division began an attack on his section of the line, groaned "Lord, Nelly, why didn't you marry him?"
|
|
Back To Top
|
Texas Defender
Member
|
Joanie-
A.P. Hill's wife, Kitty Morgan McClung, was called: "Dolly." I'm not sure how healthy she was , but I do know that she bore him four daughters, and survived until 1920. (outliving three husbands.)
Here is a short history of Dolly by our resident authority on A.P. Hill:
Draw the Sword (and Throw Away the Scabbard)
|
|
Back To Top
|
JoanieReb
Member
|
Kentucky_Orphan wrote: One of my favorite quotes ever is an Army of the Potomac veteran (during the time Mac was the army commander) who, when Hills division began an attack on his section of the line, groaned "Lord, Nelly, why didn't you marry him?"
That one cracks me up.
I'll say one thing for Little Mac; he and Little Powell were good little friends before The Late UnPleasantness; and despite his being smitten with Miss Nellie, when Miss Nellie's parents played the STD card to try to dissuade Nellie from Marrying AP, Mac wrote them a letter protesting their doing so and standing up for AP.
Lookee, lookee, Pvt. Clewell - we've hijacked another thread together!!!!!
Back to business, sigh...
|
|
Back To Top
|
JoanieReb
Member
|
"five months after Cold Harbor, Hood loses 6,300 men in a frontal assault at Franklin. Guess he must have skipped class the day that the Cold Harbor lesson was being taught."
Hood was a special case, I think; horribly injured and mutilated, he was heavily reliant on opiates and, by some accounts, alcohal, which simply HAD to have impaired his ability to learn and act reasonably - it's a discussion we've had before, I think. He also seemed to have been emotionally-driven at the time.
One thing that is bothering me, in going through this thread (I'm not speaking of this particular post, mind you, but several other ones), is that numerous defenses of Grant depend upon comparisons: so-and-so lost so many here; this army lost so many over such a period of time, 7000 was a drop in the bucket....
I'm all for the big picture, but is it so hard to defend Grant's actions just looking at this single battle? Certainly, the type of warfare needs to be considered. But the whole thing about making Grant seem less culpable based on how many men were killed over a three-month period, or who else screwed up where - well, those points have been made.
I think you, Pvt. Clewell, put forth an excellent defense in the arguments I sited earlier.
"As a friend PM'd to remind me, this was Napoleanic warfare fought with technologicalladvanced weapons. It was a hard lesson for all to learn."
A good thing to always remember. I believe Antietum was the poster-child for this argument. And I am going to start a new thread about that.
|
|
Back To Top
|
Michael C. Hardy
Member
|
Joanie Reb:
It is unfortunate that Hood was placed in command of the Army of Tennessee after his Chickamauga wounding. I’ll take Joe Johnston any day!
The idea about Hood being strung out on drugs during the Tennessee campaign appears to be a myth. There was an article about this in a popular Civil War Magazine (maybe Blue and Gray) three or four years ago. There appears to be do evidence to support the idea of Hood taking drugs.
Regards,
Michael
|
|
Back To Top
|
JoanieReb
Member
|
I shall look for this article, Michael, thank you.
If it is the case that this is a myth, it means we had a serious discussion some time back that seriously considered a myth as a reality.
If he were alive today, I wouldn't be surprised if Hood would rather we thought him drug-addled during that campaign...I'll see if I can find the thread again.Last edited on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 01:40 pm by JoanieReb
|
|
Back To Top
|
ole
Member
|
I personally think there may be merit to the myth - just not documentation to support it.
That's about the size of it Michael. -- at least in my understanding.
From what I've gathered, it's largely based on "what was Hood thinking?" The assualt on Franklin was so horrendous that Hood could not possibly have been thinking clearly. He must have been in pain therefore he must have been taking laudanum. Yeah. That's it! The supposition does make sense, but there is no proof.
Someone mentioned that Hood felt that the long, defensive retreat to Atlanta had taken the fighting ability out of the AoT. And that his frustration at not being able to bag Schofield led to anger and a determination to harden up the AoT in a headlong charge against a defensive line. Hood did mention in his apologetic "Advance and Retreat," that he felt the troops needed hardening up.
And thus we have two possibilities and ignore a third: Hood, in bagging or severly damaging Schofield, would have been hampering Thomas' defense of Nashville. Accomplishing that goal may have made the effort worthwhile. He might well have been taking an outside chance to make great gains in Tennessee. Where I fault him the most is in that, after being so thoroughly broken, he went to Nashville anyway.
Related to Cold Harbor, or Malvern Hill, or the 3rd Day? Seems that all of them were terrible choices in that they failed. Consider the condition of the war as we know it, if any one or combination of these had succeeded? Worth a shot? Oh yes.
ole
Last edited on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 03:52 pm by ole
|
|
Back To Top
|
HankC
Member
|
Interesting data:
Most casualties in eastern battle : Gettysburg – Lee and Meade
2nd Most casualties in eastern battle : Chancellorsville – Lee and Hooker
Most single day casualties in the east: Antietam 9/17/62 – Lee and McClellan
Most casualties in western battle : Chickamauga – Bragg and Rosecrans
2nd Most casualties in western battle : Stones River – Bragg and Rosecrans
Most single day casualties in the west: Stones River 12/31/62 – Bragg and Rosecrans
Masterful campaign east – Jackson in the valley 1862
Masterful campaign west – Grant in Mississippi 1863
Interestng that no one ever calls Lee, Bragg or Rosecrans a 'butcher'...
HankC
http://civilwarmissouri.blogspot.com/
|
|
Back To Top
|
JoanieReb
Member
|
I had also asked if there were any alternatives to the Battle of Cold Harbor. Other than attack as he did - or don't attack as he did.
I believe Pvt. Clewell said "No". Do others agree? Could Grant have used another strategy?Last edited on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 11:54 pm by JoanieReb
|
|
Back To Top
|
Dixie Girl
Southern Belle
|
possibly. there could be something that wasnt recorded and so we could not know if he used a different strategy or not.
____________________
War Means Fighting And Fighting Means Killing - N. B. Forrest
When war does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Stonewall Jackson
Sic Semper Tyrannis - John Wilkes Booth
|
|
Back To Top
|
connyankee
Member
|
Alternative to the attack at Cold Harbor?
I am inclined to say no. With each maneuver of the spring campaign, Grant's army came closer to Richmond. While Richmond was not Grant's objective, the Confederates had their backs to the capitol. There is evidence to suggest (a letter to Halleck after North Anna, I think) Grant thought Lee's army was whipped. Grant skillfully abandoned North Anna once he understood Lee's deployment. The position there was observed by many of his commanders to be too strong.
The move by the armies to Cold Harbor is an interesting one marked by numerous engagements (e.g. Haw's Shop) and the crossing of rivers. I don't believe the Federals had any clue how strong the Confederates had dug in at C.H. They had the better part of three days to improve their works after Sheridan cleared the crossroads. As before in the campaign, an attack in hopes of finding a weakness seemed a logical thing to do. Could Grant have fainted an attack at C.H. and simply crossed the James? I really don't know the answer to that.
connyankee
|
|
Back To Top
|
JoanieReb
Member
|
Dixie - Good point. And then, there are always the conflicting accounts to deal with.
ConnYankee - thanks. I need to get my maps out. Love maps! Not feeling so well tonight, the cold has gotten into my bones. I'll try tomorrow.
|
|
Back To Top
|
JoanieReb
Member
|
Hey, at the thought of maps, I started to perk up!
Once, when we were discussing G-Burg, Mr. Joe came up with all kinds of good maps for us, what a boon! (Thanks again, Joe!). Are there any good maps on-line that we could use for the purposes of this discussion that anyone knows of?
I've gotta get to sleep before I get really sick, but I'll look around tomorrow if no one else has an answer to that.
|
|
Back To Top
|
JoanieReb
Member
|
And also, speaking of omissions and conflicts in information, I remember reading accounts that said Grant was actually so physically removed from the battle that he didn't really understand the extent of its failure until after it was over, thus ordering the third wave. Anyone else read this? Last edited on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 02:35 am by JoanieReb
|
|
Back To Top
|
ole
Member
|
Heard something to that effect, Joanie. But I've not really studied the actual campaign, let alone the battle.
ole
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 09:26 pm | Page:   ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   |
|
|
|
