View single post by slowtrot
 Posted: Sat May 16th, 2009 02:46 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
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
 

 

 

 Close Window