I’ve never said that Thomas was always right!  Nor have I said Grant was a lying drunk.  I have said things like “Thomas never lost a battle or a fight he commanded.”  Somewhere I said, when I got one of those silly statements, . . .  why must you tear down G & S to build up Thomas? . . . “Because, it’s easy!  Thomas was never reported drunk.  Or, Thomas was never called crazy.”  Or, when someone called Thomas “Slow.”  I usually answer by asking “where was he slow?”  To date no one has answered.  In fact, I’ve never slandered Grant and Sherman.  I’ve pointed out where or what were their failings.  Are you saying that I can’t point out that Grants’ best buddy Rawlins, wrote a detailed letter about Grant’s alcoholism but failed to give it to him because it embarrassed him.  Or that it is wrong to show that Thomas’ manpower loss was a fraction of Grant’s?  Thomas never lost 60,000 men in one campaign or battle.  Or that it is against your law to point out that Sherman’s wife was constantly worried about his mental imbalance.  Or that two of his older relatives died in a mental home as did his son Thomas?.  Or that his Mother was also unbalanced.  As was his brother John.  And that John died in a mental institution.  Or that Sherman was afraid to fight a battle (as he wrote to one of his daughters).  Or that Halleck felt the same as those above?    Is this what you want leading your men into battle? 

Your speaking of Kennesaw!  I believe that statement was by Logan.  Well, McPherson objected, as did Thomas, of charging, about a mile, UPHILL at an entrenched foe.  Thomas in fact told Sherman what he should do, which is exactly what Sherman did do, after losing 3,000 men in the battle.  In case you forgot, Sherman earlier accepted Thomas plan for the battle of Snake Creek Gap, then perverted it to send his “favorite army (AOTT)” and General (McPherson), with 20,000 Infantry and no cavalry as the main strike force to trap Johnston in Dalton while using 80,000 men as a “diversion.”

They’re not “Ad Hominum.”

 

As defined: -

 

“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.”

 

I’m pointing out facts.  I’m not attacking any ones claims.  You though are attacking my statements by inferring that I should not be stating MY facts.

 

Is that wrong?  How are we to know the truth if we don’t examine ALL the facts?

As I said before, I’d like to think of him as the Union LEE!

OK!  Have it your way, you have a right to your opinion.  As have I‼!

 

 

Slowtrot

Last edited on Sun May 17th, 2009 04:04 am by barrydancer

Last edited on Sun May 17th, 2009 03:57 pm by slowtrot

Last edited on Sun May 17th, 2009 07:51 pm by barrydancer

Funny!  In my post, I left you with several statements that should have incited some discussion.  But the only thing that tested your curiosity was the fact that I didn’t offer cites for an obscure reference that claimed the reason for Sherman’s irrational attack uphill on an entrenched enemy position was a jealousy of Grant’s publicity.  You didn’t give a fig about my statements of Sherman’s mental disabilities.  Or the fact that I claimed Sherman perverted Thomas’ plans for trapping Johnston in Dalton.  Or that the perversion was against all normal military rationale.  E.g. Your diversion is not 80% of your entire Army.  It is usually the reverse.  Am I to believe that you are in entire accord with my statements?  That’ll be a first.  But I did come across a cite regarding Logan’s statement in Lloyd Lewis, “Sherman, Fighting Prophet,” University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, p. 375.

 

You also didn’t respond to my assertion that your accusation of my “Ad Hominem” was incorrect. 

I believe I referenced Logan once on post #22.

I’ve provided information, I haven’t cited all of them tho.  Is that a requirement of this board?  If so I’ll expect your next post to be properly cited.

I’ve provided some information when asked.  I added cites to two web sites and was ridiculed by one on post #4.  Insulted on # 20, told that pointing to web sites was improper #21.

 

Isn’t supplying a web address as adequate as giving a book citation?  The requester would have to go to the book for the info, why not the web if the info is there?

 

 

 

Slowtrot

Last edited on Mon May 18th, 2009 04:26 am by barrydancer