Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Master of War by Benson Bobrick - Civil War Books - Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3   
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Mon Apr 20th, 2009 05:13 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
41st Post
The Iron Duke
Member


Joined: Tue Jul 29th, 2008
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 333
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I thought I mentioned two books.  Did you look at them?  I thought it was in both 

I gave two cites.  One had a page # because I had the book at hand the other was in another room.  I believed the statment was in both books.  If he really wanted both statements then yes, he could look thru the multipaged book.  The other book gave the cite.  Since the subject was Logans opinions of why Grant was getting headlines and Shermans problems.  However he wanted to play a gotchagame game because I assume he knew  that the first book did not have the passage.

 

I have read Castel's book 3 times cover to cover but I don't remember the Logan quote.  That's why I was looking for a page number so I could look it up.  I don't see why that is such a hard thing to ask for when you are the one making the claims.

 

I stated on the web site that “Some” see parallels to Frederick the Great.  I don’t see what kind of explanation you need unless you want a definition of “SOME.”  Here’s one definition:  “An indefinite or unspecified number or portion.”  I remembered the comparison from something I read a while ago.

 

I also included a comparison of the Battle of Nashville being compared to some of Frederick the greats that I used on by web site.  He apparently misread it.  The cite said "Some" think the battle of Nashville is comparable . . ..  Now, in that context the statement is inclusive of a number of people thinking something similar.  I remember reading it and included it on my site.  Now he's nit picking statements on my web site and telling me to defend them here?


 

The explanation I'm looking for is quite simple.  You state on your website that Thomas' victory at Nashville has parallels with Frederick the Great. 

In what way are there similarities?  Leadership style?  Tactics?  Specific battlefield victories? 

That's what I'm looking for. 



____________________
"Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill


 Posted: Tue Apr 21st, 2009 06:27 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
42nd Post
slowtrot
Member


Joined: Sat Sep 1st, 2007
Location: Spring Hill, Florida USA
Posts: 38
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

There is a video tape of Bobrick's speech discussing his new book "Master of War" shown at this web site:

http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=FV-10295


Slowtrot



 Posted: Fri May 1st, 2009 11:44 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
43rd Post
slowtrot
Member


Joined: Sat Sep 1st, 2007
Location: Spring Hill, Florida USA
Posts: 38
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

http://thismightyscourge.com/

 

A review of Benson Bobrick's "Master of War" is posted on the URL above.

 

Slowtrot



 Posted: Sat May 16th, 2009 02:46 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
44th Post
slowtrot
Member


Joined: Sat Sep 1st, 2007
Location: Spring Hill, Florida USA
Posts: 38
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

berrydance said in Post #20:

 

 

I must concur with The Iron Duke's first post above. In defending Thomas, you're guilty of the same things you accuse Grant and Sherman of doing, namely slander. Thomas was always right, but Grant was a lying drunk.

 

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? 
 

Thomas had the best plans, but they were corrupted by that crazy Sherman who got jealous of Grant's butchery back East.

 

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.”
 

You do your argument no justice if you rely on ad hominem attacks in order to make it.

 

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?
 

That being said, Thomas was an excellent commander. (I like to think of him as the Union Longstreet. )

 

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

He performed ably throughout the war, and was superb at Chickamauga. I do agree that he has often gotten short shrift by history, though I don't believe it's because of some "liberal academic" conspiracy, as you mentioned in your initial posting.

 

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

 

 

Slowtrot
 

 

 



 Posted: Sun May 17th, 2009 02:59 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
45th Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

So, you're not going to answer The Iron Duke's questions?

I have neither the Castel book, nor the other one previously mentioned with the Logan quote, so could you provide it here? I'm curious as to what he actually said. I haven't studied Logan, but a cursory look at his record seems to indicate that he gained his advancements under the patronage of Grant and Sherman. Seems odd that he would denigrate them publicly in such a way.

Last edited on Sun May 17th, 2009 03:04 am by barrydancer



 Posted: Sun May 17th, 2009 02:38 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
46th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

When Logan was passed over for McPherson's spot, he finished off the war with his mouth mostly shut. After the war comes another story.

Ole



 Posted: Sun May 17th, 2009 02:56 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
47th Post
slowtrot
Member


Joined: Sat Sep 1st, 2007
Location: Spring Hill, Florida USA
Posts: 38
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Nah!  As I said, I don't play gotcha games.  And if that's the purpose of your question, I won't play yours either.

The books I cited are Library books that I don't have.

Slowtrot 

Last edited on Sun May 17th, 2009 02:57 pm by slowtrot



 Posted: Sun May 17th, 2009 06:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
48th Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

No, the purpose of my question is to ascertain what Logan said. I do not have access to either work referenced. Since you keep referencing Logan, I assumed that you had the quote. I've googled every combination of Logan, Grant, Sherman, Jealous, and Butchery that I can and come up with no hits.

You've been asked repeatedly to provide information, but instead of doing so, you accuse the people asking of playing games, presumably with the intent to catch you in a lie. I can only image the tongue lashing I would have gotten from one of my professors if, when asked to provide a reference or information, I instead told them to go look it up and to stop trying to play gotcha!

Perhaps Logan did say something to the effect we have been discussing. I don't know anything about the man, which is why I asked for more info. You are apparently either unable or unwilling to provide it. I'm not trying to play any games, I'm genuinely curious.

Last edited on Sun May 17th, 2009 06:51 pm by barrydancer



 Posted: Sun May 17th, 2009 11:40 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
49th Post
slowtrot
Member


Joined: Sat Sep 1st, 2007
Location: Spring Hill, Florida USA
Posts: 38
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Berrydancer said:

 

No, the purpose of my question is to ascertain what Logan said. I do not have access to either work referenced. Since you keep referencing Logan, I assumed that you had the quote. I've googled every combination of Logan, Grant, Sherman, Jealous, and Butchery that I can and come up with no hits. 

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. 


No, the purpose of my question is to ascertain what Logan said. I do not have access to either work referenced. Since you keep referencing Logan,  

I believe I referenced Logan once on post #22.
I assumed that you had the quote. I've googled every combination of Logan, Grant, Sherman, Jealous, and Butchery that I can and come up with no hits.

You've been asked repeatedly to provide information, but instead of doing so, you accuse the people asking of playing games, presumably with the intent to catch you in a lie. I can only image the tongue lashing I would have gotten from one of my professors if, when asked to provide a reference or information, I instead told them to go look it up and to stop trying to play gotcha! 


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.
Perhaps Logan did say something to the effect we have been discussing. I don't know anything about the man, which is why I asked for more info. You are apparently either unable or unwilling to provide it. I'm not trying to play any games, I'm genuinely curious.

 

You've been asked repeatedly to provide information, but instead of doing so, you accuse the people asking of playing games, presumably with the intent to catch you in a lie. I can only image the tongue lashing I would have gotten from one of my professors if, when asked to provide a reference or information, I instead told them to go look it up and to stop trying to play gotcha! 

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



 Posted: Mon May 18th, 2009 01:40 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
50th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Slowtrot,

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this back and forth will ever end short of everyone proclaiming you're correct. That's not going to happen. What's ironic is that if you had just come on and posted that Thomas was one hell of a fine officer, I doubt you would have had a single dissent.

Instead, you feel it necessary to demean Grant and Sherman in order to raise the stature of your hero. I honestly don't think many of us understand the reason for this. You then hinge your argument on the fact that you didn't say it, so-and-so did, and mention two books, therefore making those books integral to your theory. I don't understand why you couldn't give those quotes, in context, for the benefit of those who don't own the books. After all, you did say one was in front of you and one was in "the other room", so it shouldn't have been a problem.

You dismiss highly-regarded historians due to their "liberal academic" democratic voting tendencies. Yet you don't mind using Castel as a source when he states something you agree with. After all, he was a professor at a Michigan University. How do you know he can be trusted? Perhaps you asked him how he voted.

You have even asserted one battle a draw rather than a Union loss, contrary to what the majority of historians (and even the NPS) say.

But what I find most troubling is your over-all tone. You convey a rather dismissive disregard for any opinion that does not jive 100% with yours. When someone asks you to expand on a citation, you accuse them of game playing. You have accused people of being close minded when they refuse to bow to your perceived expertise. Frankly, I can't believe you thought you could present your rather controversial view on things and not expect to be challenged. The fact that you seem surprised when you are is just non-sensical.

 



 Posted: Mon May 18th, 2009 03:26 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
51st Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

For those interested, here is the relevant passage regarding Logan, from Lewis' Sherman, Fighting Prophet, as mentioned above on page 375. 

"Jealousy of Grant was the curious reason given by Don Piatt for Sherman's decision to attack Kenesaw [sic].  Piatt, who disliked Sherman, said after the war that Logan had told him of a dramatic interview in McPherson's tent on the night of June 26.  Sherman was reading a newspaper filled with accounts of how, early in the month, Grant, abandoning his bloody frontal assaults on Lee, had dropped below the James River and suddenly appeared on Lee's flank, attacking from the south-his Vicksburg technique again.  Logan said that Sherman had looked up from the newspaper to say

that the whole attention of the country was fixed on the Army of the Potomac and that his army was entirely forgotten.  Now it would fight.  Tomorrow he would order the assault.  McPherson quietly said that there was no necessity for the step, sicne Johnston could be outflanked and that the assualt would be too dear.

But Sherman had answered that 'it was necessary to show that his men could fight as well as Grants.'"

The book's citations are atrocious, so I have no clue as to where Piatt's account comes from, but some things stand out.  One, the anecdote is second hand.  The source for Logan's assertions is not Logan himself, but rather Don Piatt, to whom Logan told this story sometime "after the war."  Was Logan still alive to corroborate the story when Piatt made his claim?  Was anyone else present for Logan's telling of the story?  If Piatt didn't like Sherman, as Lewis claims, then does that cast some doubt on his Piatt's criticisms of Sherman?

Secondly, I think it's a leap, at least from what is presented by Lewis, to accuse Sherman of being jealous of Grant's "butchery."  From this, it sounds more like Sherman is jealous of the Army of the Potomac getting all the headlines, and Grant for managing to slip below and outflank the Army of Northern Virginia.  Sherman then made his mind up to go at Johnston so he too could get in the paper for a grand battle.

I'm not sure how this is presented in the Castel and McKinney works, but their sources may be Piatt, as well.

Last edited on Mon May 18th, 2009 03:26 am by barrydancer



 Posted: Mon May 18th, 2009 03:58 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
52nd Post
The Iron Duke
Member


Joined: Tue Jul 29th, 2008
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 333
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thanks Barry for sharing that. 

First, Sherman had a notorious reputation for hating reporters so why would he all of a sudden get jealous of someone else getting all the press attention?

Second, at Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga he never expressed any kind jealousy towards Grant.  In fact, at Vicksburg he proclaimed that Grant deserves all the credit for the victory.  So why in the middle of June '64 would he become jealous of Grant?

Sherman had that "I don't give a damn what other people think" mentality.  I don't see where jealousy comes to play in his actions. 



____________________
"Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill


 Posted: Mon May 18th, 2009 04:14 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
53rd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I also noted the Piatt link.

There's some logic in the citation, but I don't believe it. Sherman came to worship Grant. That he might have wanted to emulate him sounds reasonable, but it remains that someone's remarks about what someone else said are not exactly citable history. There's the flaw.

Ole



 Current time is 05:49 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3   
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.3709 seconds (10% database + 90% PHP). 24 queries executed.