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


Sherman's March - Other Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:    1  2  3  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 05:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

My Civil War book discussion group just read Sherman's Memoirs .  In discussing it tonight one of the people asked what is a FLYING BRIDGE  which was used by Sherman's troops to cross some of the rivers on the March.  I said I didn't know but bet some of you would know.  Come on Johan you always have the information .  Do you know this one?

Thanks so much.

Susan

 

By the way many of us have a different view of Sherman after reading this book. 

 



 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 11:06 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
PvtClewell
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 13th, 2007
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Susan,

Found this definition on the Internet:

"Flying bridge, a temporary bridge suspended or floating, as for the passage of armies; also, a floating structure connected by a cable with an anchor or pier up stream, and made to pass from bank to bank by the action of the current or other means. --"

I hope this helps. Couldn't find any pictures, though. Maybe somebody else can.

By the way, what view of Sherman do you have now?



 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 11:26 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thanks Pvt .  I was so tired last night when I got home I didn't google it , I will pass the information on to the others.

I have always disliked Sherman but after reading his Memoirs I am beginning to like him. 

Susan



 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It would be another term for a Pontoon Bridge, IIRC flying bridge refered only one section.



 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 02:16 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thanks Johan I figured you might know

Susan



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 07:28 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
ole
Member


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

  back to top

You're just mad because Alabama wasn't worth tearing up.

ole



 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 07:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
The Iron Duke
Member


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

  back to top

I'd take Sherman over Sheridan any day of the week. Sheridan, IMO, was a complete ass. Sherman at least was civil at the surrender negotiations in North Carolina.



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


You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 08:23 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama-

  I agree with you on many things, but I can't go along with your description of General Sherman as a : "war criminal." Sherman certainly made war on property, but he wasn't into systematic killing. All he wanted to do was force the southerners to submit to what he referred to as: "proper authority." (The US Gov't).

  General Sheridan, when it came to the Indians, conducted a war of extermination. Today it would probably be referred to as: "ethnic cleansing."

  The two seem different to me.



 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 08:47 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
The Iron Duke
Member


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

  back to top

I have to agree with Texas defender that Sheridan was 20 times worse.  Just compare Sheridan at Appomattox with Sherman at Bennet's Place.

Last edited on Wed Aug 13th, 2008 08:48 pm by The Iron Duke



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


You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 09:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Sherman's men adored him because he didn't waste them in useless campaigns and battles. He won with them and beat the enemy w/ a minimum of casualties, on either side.

Sherman is one of those men who has his weaknesses. But I go by what the men who served under had to say, and frankly they adored "Uncle Billy." Much of the idea that Sherman made war on women and children is postwar Lost Cause propoganda. He destroyed the infastructure of the CS, hastening the end and he's hated for it even today.



 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 10:03 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

After reading the memiors I am tending to agree with Johan on this one.  Many of the things said of him are just not true.  He destroyed the military infrastructure on his march to the sea, anything that could be used for the military.  

Susan



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 11:20 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
The Iron Duke
Member


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

  back to top

Sherman is certainly not as bad as he is sometimes portrayed but his men did get out of control and plunder the countryside. And his men were primarily responsible for what happened at Columbia.  Another example is the way his men behaved in Milledgeville which at the time was the capitol of Georgia.  To say that Sherman's men only targeted military infrastructure is just as disingenuous as the claim that he executed thousands of civilians and poured salt into the soil.

I also believe Sherman makes the claim in his memoirs that he wasn't surprised at Shiloh which is definitely not true.  Memoirs are always self-serving which is why I try to avoid them if possible.

Last edited on Wed Aug 13th, 2008 11:28 pm by The Iron Duke



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


 Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 12:00 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
pamc153PA
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Boyertown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 407
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I just finished reading the fiction book The March by E.L.Doctorow. I thought it was a pretty good piece of CW fiction, though I think Doctorow sometimes made Sherman alittle too "thoughtful," maybe for the sake of a good fictional story. But the one thing I wondered about was Sherman's relationship with Kilpatrick (Kill-Calvary) during the March. The author kind of leaves it foggy. How did Sherman really feel about Kilpatrick's actions on the March? He was, after all, accomplishing that goal of destroying the CS army's infrastructure, wasn't he?

Pam



 Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 12:31 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
The Iron Duke
Member


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

  back to top

"I know Kilpatrick is a hell of a damn fool but that is just the type of man I want for this expedition."

At Waynesboro, Georgia Kilpatrick was getting whipped so good by Wheeler's men that Sherman had to send over Jeff Davis's infantry as support. Later during the Carolinas campaign Sherman got completely fed up with Kilpatrick.



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


 Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 12:38 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
19th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

As I recall Sherman called Kilpatrick a "damned fool...but just the kind of cavalry man I need." Tell you what, I'll look up the exact quote in my book on Kilpatrick. Maybe I can find something about their relationship as the Atlanta Campaign and subsequent "march" played out.

Iron Duke, it looks as if we were posting at the same time. :D

Last edited on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 12:40 am by CleburneFan



 Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 01:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
20th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Some quick thoughts grabbed from "The life of Union General Hugh Judson  Kilpatrick" by Samuel Martin.

1. General Sherman did not attend Kilpatrick's grand reunion for Civil War veterans that he hosted at his New Jersey farm on August 1887. Page 230

2. James H Wilson, cavalry division commander of the Army of the Potomac, questioned Sherman about whether Kilpatrick was qualified for the important  role he occupied in the Atlanta campaign. Sherman replied, "I know [that] Kilpatrick is a hell of a damned fool , but I want just that sort of a man to command my cavalry on this expedition." Later, however, Sherman that the slur was used because...that was what a good many of [my] officers were in the habit of calling [him]. Page 192

3. When Kilpatrick was relieved of duty after the disgraceful Dahlgren raid on Richmond, it was Sherman who gave him a reprieve and offered him a command in the his Atlanta campaign. Pages 235 & 236.

4. Sherman openly praised Kilpatrick for his performance in North Carolina in 1864, but in private warned him about his scandalous involvement with girls such as  Marie Boozer.  Page 226.

 My own personal impression is that Sherman did eventually feel quite embarassed by Kilkpatrick's shananigans.  I do wonder, however, if Sherman would have been more tolerant if KIlpatrick had been more effective, say, on the calibre of J.E.B. Stuart.

Last edited on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 01:16 am by CleburneFan



 Current time is 08:12 pmPage:    1  2  3  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4389 seconds (9% database + 91% PHP). 30 queries executed.