 |
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 05:57 am |
|
1st Post |
susansweet
Member
|
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.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 11:06 am |
|
2nd Post |
PvtClewell
Member
|
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?
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 11:26 am |
|
3rd Post |
susansweet
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:02 pm |
|
4th Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
It would be another term for a Pontoon Bridge, IIRC flying bridge refered only one section.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 02:16 pm |
|
5th Post |
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 02:33 pm |
|
6th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
Why on earth anyone anywhere would like "uncle billy" is beyond me, but I know you are a good judge of folks
Ed
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 07:28 pm |
|
7th Post |
ole
Member
|
You're just mad because Alabama wasn't worth tearing up.
ole
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 07:31 pm |
|
8th Post |
The Iron Duke
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
9th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
He made war on women, old men (like Ole) and children. That is a defintion of a war criminal in anybody's book.
Sheridan just tried to eradicate a people...."the only good indian....."
They were two peas in a pod and my disdain for both is enormous
Ed
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 08:23 pm |
|
10th Post |
Texas Defender
Member
|
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.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 08:47 pm |
|
11th Post |
The Iron Duke
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 09:00 pm |
|
12th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
TD.. the two are different, and I thought I made that distinction... ethnic cleansing...eradicate a people..."the only dead indian...." I view them all the same.
I have read letters from Sherman to his wife that seem to contradict his desire for people to submit.... IIRC he believed that the southern people should "Welcome Death"
I have believed he was the devil personfied all my life and right or wrong, it is unlikely I will change my belief.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 09:57 pm |
|
13th Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
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.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 10:03 pm |
|
14th Post |
susansweet
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 10:44 pm |
|
15th Post |
| Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 11:20 pm |
|
16th Post |
The Iron Duke
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 12:00 am |
|
17th Post |
pamc153PA
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 12:31 am |
|
18th Post |
The Iron Duke
Member
|
"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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 12:38 am |
|
19th Post |
CleburneFan
Member
|
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. 
Last edited on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 12:40 am by CleburneFan
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 01:13 am |
|
20th Post |
CleburneFan
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 05:34 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|
|
