Book Chat
No Better Place To Die
The Battle of Stones River
Peter Cozzen's

This chat took place in the Civil War Home Chatroom on 04/29/07 and covered Chapters 10, 11, & 12

4/29/2007 8:05 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I feel like the substitute teacher tonight : ) WELCOME to Book Chat everyone, as we continue our discussion of NO BETTER PLACE TO DIE, by Peter Cozzens. Tonight, we are about to look at chapters 10, 11, and 12. In Chapter 10, “Rosecrans Rallies the Right,” we witness not only Rosecrans’s disregard for personal safety, but his meddling all the way down to the company level. Any thoughts on this or anything else in chapter ten?

4/29/2007 8:05 pm (et) Widow: It also didn't say which way the men were crossing the river. Again, Cozzens assumes we have more knowledge than we really do.

4/29/2007 8:06 pm (et) Widow: Rosecrans was at best unpredictable, but evidently his men loved him.

4/29/2007 8:06 pm (et) ks: The material on Rosecrans being such an inspiration to his men surprised me, AHG. Though IIRC there was at least one account by a soldier who didn't share that opinion. Meddling and micro-managing...

4/29/2007 8:07 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Some readers, myself included at times, have at times felt a bit lost in our reading. I think that it is important to recognize that Cozzens is really looking at this confusing battle under a microscope. IMO, doing so is like looking at an elephant under a microscope. We really don’t recognize what we are seeing.

4/29/2007 8:07 pm (et) Widow: I liked that regimental historian's observation that Rosecrans should have been doing something more important than directing a regiment.

4/29/2007 8:07 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Interesting how the common soldier views the commander’s willingness to put himself under fire as a positive. I’d just as soon have the pilot flying the plane as out trying to boost passenger morale.

4/29/2007 8:08 pm (et) Widow: THANK YOU, AHG! When YOU say it, I feel so much better about my trouble with that author.

4/29/2007 8:08 pm (et) ks: And I have to admit I take comfort in seeing you say that others (yourself included) have at time felt lost in the reading, AHG. That's most definitely been my mindset.

4/29/2007 8:08 pm (et) ks: Looks like we're in agreement. ;)

4/29/2007 8:08 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I don't think the common soldier understood what the role of the commanding general was, they were reassured by seeing him.

4/29/2007 8:09 pm (et) Widow: Still, Cozzens is good in certain passages to describe how at battery moved, or who got lost and why. It helps to know more than just what's in the OR.

4/29/2007 8:09 pm (et) ks: Probably makes as much sense as electing some company favorite as your commander. If you could look good to the guys, you came off as "all right".

4/29/2007 8:09 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I've read a number of diaries and letters from men at Chickamauga who commented on the "countanance" visible on Rosey's face.

4/29/2007 8:09 pm (et) Widow: How A battery moved.

4/29/2007 8:10 pm (et) ks: What do you mean, AHG? The countenance?

4/29/2007 8:10 pm (et) Widow: KS, until he blunders and wastes his men's lives. They figure that out right away.

4/29/2007 8:11 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I think one of the points that Cozzens is trying to make in regards to Rosecrans's micro management, is that he felt he needed to "do something."

4/29/2007 8:11 pm (et) Widow: Newbie question of the day? Was the Round Forest really round?

4/29/2007 8:12 pm (et) ks: And doing something was better than doing nothing? I guess...

4/29/2007 8:12 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Widow, you'd have to ask one of those men who wrote it, but I take it to mean they saw a look of determination, and confidence that reassured them.

4/29/2007 8:13 pm (et) Widow: AHG, a look of determination could also be read as grim, serious, concerned, etc. Just not relaxed.

4/29/2007 8:13 pm (et) amhistoryguy: In Rosecrans's mind doing something was better than nothing, but in reality it gummed up the works and undid what was being done to some point.

4/29/2007 8:14 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Widow, the men added comments like, "if anyone can win the day, Rosey can," so I take that is more determined than grim.

4/29/2007 8:15 pm (et) Widow: We're reading this account in the comfort of our 21st century homes. So it's no wonder people were confused at that battle site.

4/29/2007 8:15 pm (et) ks: Interesting in this chapter to read Sam Watkins account of Cheatham leading the charge on the Wilkinson Pike. Read right noble it did, until one read the follow-up comments concerning mistaking drunkenness for courage and clarity of thought.

4/29/2007 8:16 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The "Round Forest," if I recall correctly, is round, sort of conical, and only about 4 or five feet tall.

4/29/2007 8:16 pm (et) Widow: Example: Federal commander named Harker, and CSA had Harper. Had to re-read the paragraph 2-3 times to figure that one out.

4/29/2007 8:16 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Cozzens is not clear about many names, CSA & US.

4/29/2007 8:17 pm (et) Widow: AHG, a "forest" is 4-5 feet tall? Sounds more like a thicket to me.

4/29/2007 8:17 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Trying to keep track of who is who on the battlefield, along with where they are going and what they are trying to accomplish is more complicated than about any other battlefield I’ve ever tried to study. I can only imagine how confusing it must have been to those commanders on the field. Perhaps it is as important to recognize that confusion, as it is to clearly understand the x’s and o’s of the battle.

4/29/2007 8:17 pm (et) ks: Widow, can't help but smile reading your question regarding the Round Forest. First, I have absolutely no idea if it was round. But I do know that as I read the name repeatedly, all of my Tolkein reading was influencing me. Visions of Sam, Frodo, Merry, Pippin and a host of orcs kept entering my mind. ;) A short forest would still be a forest for a Hobbitt. :)

4/29/2007 8:17 pm (et) amhistoryguy: That's really all it is Widow. Names can be deceiving.

4/29/2007 8:18 pm (et) Babs: I don't find consistency on what names he decides to put on the maps.

4/29/2007 8:18 pm (et) ks: Nor did I, Babs. The maps only frustrated me with regard to troop placement.

4/29/2007 8:18 pm (et) Widow: Exactly right, AHG. We have maps, sort of, and hindsight, and the OR, but in the fog of war, the noise, terrain, panic - it's a wonder anybody could accomplish anything.

4/29/2007 8:19 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I think that there is value in Cozzens approach, especially when we get familiar with participants at a more personal level. But, it can also leave a person feeling that they have no understanding of the big picture. Really, I think it will come together as you walk the ground. It will be like going to the zoo and seeing an elephant. Try not to worry about understanding all the troop movements in this first read of the book. It will mean much more to you if you re read it after seeing the ground.

4/29/2007 8:20 pm (et) Widow: Babs and KS, another criticism of the maps: The regimental designations sometimes had the number and state top and bottom, sometimes left and right, and too damn small to read.

4/29/2007 8:20 pm (et) amhistoryguy: If you should decide to do so at a later date.

4/29/2007 8:20 pm (et) Widow: I'd rather see the elephant at the zoo than on the battlefield.

4/29/2007 8:21 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I'd rather not see one under a microscope.

4/29/2007 8:22 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Cozzens mentions Rosecrans’s decision to post the Chicago board of Trade guns, and the Pioneer Brigade on a rise near headquarters. It should be noted that this is the “Heart” of the Stones River Battlefield Park. You will understand much more clearly when we visit, just how important those positions are.

4/29/2007 8:22 pm (et) Widow: The title of chap. 10 is Rosecrans Rallies the Right. Even after I finished it, I wasn't aware of any rallying on the right.

4/29/2007 8:22 pm (et) Widow: Again, AHG, I guess I have microphobia :=)).

4/29/2007 8:23 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Those of you who are used to a Gettysburg size or style of Battlefield Park are in for a shock. It's pretty small.

4/29/2007 8:23 pm (et) mobile_96: I have "Illustrated Atlas of the Civil War, has 3 maps for stones river, 2 for the 31st, and being in color make it a bit easier to read movements than Cozzen's Maps

4/29/2007 8:24 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The rally was actually more of a collapse to a better position. I would not consider it a rally either.

4/29/2007 8:24 pm (et) Widow: Goodie, mobile, as AHG says, it will all be clearer when we get there. If I don't forget what I've just read and mix it up with Spring Hill.

4/29/2007 8:24 pm (et) Widow: :=))

4/29/2007 8:25 pm (et) ks: Pretty small would lend itself to possibly being understood better. :) Good for you who'll walk it in June.

4/29/2007 8:26 pm (et) amhistoryguy: It becomes easier to understand that part of the battle.

4/29/2007 8:26 pm (et) Widow: ks, the park may be small, but I bet it's got some respectable hills.

4/29/2007 8:27 pm (et) amhistoryguy: You'd be wrong there Widow, pretty darn flat.

4/29/2007 8:27 pm (et) Widow: AHG, I'm not sure if I'm jumping ahead, but it looks to me like Cleburne did very well that morning.

4/29/2007 8:27 pm (et) ks: Flat, small and well cleared of obstructions to sight? Dang, that would be awesome.

4/29/2007 8:28 pm (et) Widow: Good decisions made promptly.

4/29/2007 8:28 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Cedar thickets, rocky ground, and open fields make up most of the park.

4/29/2007 8:28 pm (et) Widow: Oh, yeah, I love thickets. Just like those Virginia briar patches that untie my shoelaces.

4/29/2007 8:29 pm (et) amhistoryguy: That 800 yards of open ground that Rosecrans has the Chicago Board of Trade Battery positioned to defend is completely open.

4/29/2007 8:29 pm (et) Widow: AHG, Cozzens mentioned the lime outcrops where the soldiers hid. One pulled himself between two boulders to die.

4/29/2007 8:29 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Shall we move on to Chapter Eleven?

4/29/2007 8:30 pm (et) Babs: If I were planning to attend I would ask about ticks. The ones at Gettysburg seek me out.

4/29/2007 8:30 pm (et) ks: Lets.

4/29/2007 8:31 pm (et) amhistoryguy: There are rocky areas on the south end of the battlefield, but they are limestone like crags.

4/29/2007 8:31 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Chapter Eleven, “ Our Boys Were Forced Back In Confusion.” Confusion, lack of communications and Bragg’s obsessions while failing to take in the big picture are the focus here. Any comments or observations?

4/29/2007 8:31 pm (et) ks: Something we've learned at past musters concerning ticks is that DEET *MELTS* the ink on merchandise. Be careful in application. ;)

4/29/2007 8:32 pm (et) amhistoryguy: While the title of this chapter refers to the Confederates, it could have applied just as easily to many Union units.

4/29/2007 8:32 pm (et) Widow: Cleburne's explanation why his men stopped on the edge of a big win, page 150. He said they were exhausted, hungry, and ran out of ammo. Sounds like a reasonable description.

4/29/2007 8:33 pm (et) Widow: AHG, I thought that chapter title was about the Union boys. Both sides were forced back in confusion, several times.

4/29/2007 8:33 pm (et) Babs: Sounds like shortage of ammo was a problem for most.

4/29/2007 8:34 pm (et) mobile_96: Going for almost 24 hours would certainly get you a bit drowsy

4/29/2007 8:34 pm (et) Widow: Babs, those who started with 40 rounds used them up fairly fast. Those who had sticks could fight all day. :=))

4/29/2007 8:34 pm (et) ks: Can hardly imagine fighting under those conditions. And to have started the day with a shot of whiskey wouldn't help any, IMO.

4/29/2007 8:35 pm (et) Widow: Mobile, I suppose the adrenalin pumping hard is in itself very fatiguing, but you don't notice it until later.

4/29/2007 8:35 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Page 150, Confederate George Blackmore says, "Our boys charged repeatedly...but each time were forced back in confusion."

4/29/2007 8:36 pm (et) Babs: ahh. missed that. I too thought it referred to the Union.

4/29/2007 8:36 pm (et) mobile_96: But when your already tired that rush wouldn't last all that long.

4/29/2007 8:36 pm (et) Widow: What must a private have thought when told to charge with no weapon but a stick? Hope that his buddies get wounded so he can use their musket?

4/29/2007 8:37 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Interesting just how much was out of the hands of commanders, as far as winning and losing, the best man did not always win.

4/29/2007 8:37 pm (et) Babs: The attack of the zombies.

4/29/2007 8:37 pm (et) mobile_96: Or that he get grazed quickly so he could retire the field

4/29/2007 8:38 pm (et) amhistoryguy: We're getting ahead a bit, that's in the next chapter, but if there is no more on chapter Eleven, we can go there.

4/29/2007 8:39 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Chapter Twelve - “Whirlwind in the Round Forest.” Imagine being marched into battle, unarmed - That’s what happened to the CSA 44th Mississippi Infantry. The men had to wonder what kind of leadership they had. When CSA Brig. Gen. Chalmers goes down with a serious wound, his staff fails to inform the next officer in the chain of command, creating even more confusion. Any thoughts or comments on Chapter Twelve?

4/29/2007 8:40 pm (et) Widow: AHG, why was Bragg so focused on that little 5-foot high thicket?

4/29/2007 8:40 pm (et) amhistoryguy: He was stubborn.

4/29/2007 8:41 pm (et) Widow: OK, stubborn but why about that place instead of another?

4/29/2007 8:41 pm (et) mobile_96: Commanded the Field maybe?

4/29/2007 8:42 pm (et) ks: The episode described of being sent in unarmed does stand out. I suspect one would hope to come across an incapcitated friend or foe.

4/29/2007 8:42 pm (et) ks: Or incapacitated even...

4/29/2007 8:42 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Can't answer you Widow. As far as I could gather, he wanted it, and was willing to pay for it. As far as I recall, while it provides some cover, but I would not say it commanded the field.

4/29/2007 8:43 pm (et) Widow: Seems to me that regiments and brigades were shifted from left to right and back again as conditions changed. Poor foot soldiers were footsore soldiers.

4/29/2007 8:43 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I would have to think that marching into battle in the hope of finding a weapon, might take the fight out of someone.

4/29/2007 8:43 pm (et) mobile_96: Or controlled the railroad line and the Nashville Pike.

4/29/2007 8:44 pm (et) amhistoryguy: It does provide some cover, on the way to the Nashville Pike, which was his objective.

4/29/2007 8:44 pm (et) Widow: Mobile, I had the impression that it was surrounded by fields. Or that it surrounded some fields, either way, doesn't look like prime real estate.

4/29/2007 8:45 pm (et) amhistoryguy: It is surrounded by fields.

4/29/2007 8:46 pm (et) Widow: AHG, is the Round Forest in the park? Will we be able to see it?

4/29/2007 8:47 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The entire Fourth Brigade of Major General Rousseau’s First Division was made up of U. S. Regulars. It always surprised me that Regulars were not spread out to act as “glue” within the division.

4/29/2007 8:47 pm (et) mobile_96: Map shows it butted against the railroad.

4/29/2007 8:48 pm (et) mobile_96: maybe the regs preferred being within their own 'kind' and not mixed with vols.?

4/29/2007 8:48 pm (et) ks: is the battlefield map provided on the NPS site. Appears to be a part of the national battlefield land.

4/29/2007 8:49 pm (et) ole: Or vice versa?

4/29/2007 8:49 pm (et) Widow: ks, thanks.

4/29/2007 8:49 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The use of U.S. regulars fighting alongside the volunteers raises other questions for me too. While it’s commonly accepted that there was mistrust and animosity between regular officers and volunteer officers, I wonder how the men felt about each other. Were Regulars admired, looked to for a higher standard, or viewed as equals - no better no worse - any thoughts?

4/29/2007 8:50 pm (et) ole: I'd suspect there was some divisiveness. Who didn't like whom might be a wash.

4/29/2007 8:50 pm (et) Widow: AHG, I haven't read much about the volunteers' opinions of their Regular counterparts. Maybe they didn't see enough of each other to form an impressions.

4/29/2007 8:51 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I could see that mobile, the regs not wanting to be mixed with the vols.

4/29/2007 8:51 pm (et) ks: No idea based upon reading. I wonder if it was pretty much an individual thing? By that I mean, some may have resented the regulars and looked upon them through a lens that was colored with that bias. That's all speculation on my part though.

4/29/2007 8:52 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I guess I could compare it to the atitude of Regular army soldiers towards the National Guard or Army Reserve while I was in the army. We had no particular use for the them.

4/29/2007 8:52 pm (et) Widow: Hazen, Hascall, and Harker in the same place on the same day. If the couriers could keep the names straight and find them on the field, they did very well.

4/29/2007 8:52 pm (et) amhistoryguy: And for no real reason.

4/29/2007 8:53 pm (et) Babs: Based on human nature, I would think there would be "attitude" between them.

4/29/2007 8:53 pm (et) Widow: AHG, the real reason is THEY AIN'T LIKE US.

4/29/2007 8:53 pm (et) Widow: And therefore THEY AIN'T AS GOOD AS US.

4/29/2007 8:54 pm (et) Babs: Widow, precisely

4/29/2007 8:54 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Then again, why would commanders listen to the wants of regular soldiers. I would have thought it an advantage to have reg. army vets in and among vols.

4/29/2007 8:54 pm (et) Widow: That's the basis of bigotry, and prejudice.

4/29/2007 8:54 pm (et) ole: And each one of can lick ten of them.

4/29/2007 8:55 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Some truth to the "ain't as good as us," when it comes to amount and type of training.

4/29/2007 8:55 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Not to mention discipline.

4/29/2007 8:55 pm (et) ole: Don't be introducing logic into the equation.

4/29/2007 8:56 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Sorry ole, forgot I was talkiing about the army : )

4/29/2007 8:56 pm (et) Widow: :=))

4/29/2007 8:56 pm (et) mobile_96: I think those are big reasons ahmg,

4/29/2007 8:58 pm (et) Widow: Unit cohesion was important, so mixing the regs and vols might have caused more problems than it would have solved.

4/29/2007 8:59 pm (et) Widow: Help, AHG. On what date was chap 12, the Whirlwind in the Round Forest?

4/29/2007 9:00 pm (et) amhistoryguy: You certainly could not have done it during the battle, but the reorganization in the Army of the Cumberland had just taken place, and while keeping regiments or battalions together may have been a good idea, my surprise is that they were all kept in the same brigade.

4/29/2007 9:02 pm (et) mobile_96: Wonder how many were worried about getting thru the day alive, the fighting was certainly vicious much of the day.

4/29/2007 9:03 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Action at the Round Forest was on December 31st. IIRC.

4/29/2007 9:03 pm (et) Widow: AHG, thx.

4/29/2007 9:04 pm (et) amhistoryguy: January 1st the troops took the day off, and on the 2nd of January the battle was rejoined.

4/29/2007 9:05 pm (et) Widow: No hangovers and bowl games for them. :=))

4/29/2007 9:06 pm (et) ks: I'd be interested in others' take on the Breckinridge/Bragg disagreement described in Chapter 12. Have any of you done other reading that sheds light there? Who was really at fault??

4/29/2007 9:06 pm (et) mobile_96: Maybe some fishing.

4/29/2007 9:06 pm (et) Babs: Well, maybe hangovers.

4/29/2007 9:06 pm (et) amhistoryguy: There was a famous sing along the night of the 31st.
4/29/2007 9:07 pm (et) ks: The Asa Lewis/6th Kentucky incident probably did contribute.
Sing along, AHG??

4/29/2007 9:07 pm (et) Widow: Mobile, you raise a good point. It seems to me that every battle I've read about was vicious, intense, deadly, etc. I'm sure those were'nt cliches, but true descriptions. Freezing on New Year's Eve after a hard fight sounds like no fun.

4/29/2007 9:08 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Good question ks. I have not done any further reading on the relationship between them, and the Asa Lewis incident probably added fuel to the fire.

4/29/2007 9:08 pm (et) Widow: ks, the soldiers on both sides listened and sang as the bands played. They sang together when it ended with Home Sweet Home. Lots of tears that night, I expect.

4/29/2007 9:09 pm (et) Widow: It wasn't planned or organized, more like a battle of the bands.

4/29/2007 9:09 pm (et) ks: Have heard and read of such an incident (speaking of the sing along) Didn't realize it was the night of teh 31st.

4/29/2007 9:10 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The same thing happened along the Rappahanock in the East.

4/29/2007 9:10 pm (et) Widow: I don't know if it was either, ks, but I've read of the big sing at Murfreesboro.

4/29/2007 9:11 pm (et) amhistoryguy: And I believe it was that same night.

4/29/2007 9:11 pm (et) Widow: Something about rivers that divide and unite, just as songs do.

4/29/2007 9:11 pm (et) ks: Another surreal moment for the soldiers, I'd imagine.

4/29/2007 9:12 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I have seen it mentioned that commanders were afraid that the troops might not be willing to go into battle again, and waited a day to push forward again. That may be folklore, but the sing along was real.

4/29/2007 9:13 pm (et) mobile_96: Was there much mingling of the pickets during that stay in action?

4/29/2007 9:14 pm (et) Widow: AHG, Cozzens says one of the Tennessee regiments suffered the heaviest casualties in the war. 68% casualty. 301 killed and wounded. That can't possibly be the heaviest losses, by absolute number or percentage.

4/29/2007 9:14 pm (et) amhistoryguy: My impression was that the pickets were driven in early by the larger bodies of troops.

4/29/2007 9:14 pm (et) Widow: Heaviest casualties in the CSA, that is.

4/29/2007 9:15 pm (et) mobile_96: I mean after the fighting stopped on the 31st thru the start of fighting on the 2nd

4/29/2007 9:15 pm (et) Widow: Page 157, close to the bottom.

4/29/2007 9:15 pm (et) ole: Seems heaviest belongs to the 26th Alabama at Gettysburg -- 84 percent if my memory hasn't left home.

4/29/2007 9:15 pm (et) mobile_96: Trading articles as some were know to do.

4/29/2007 9:16 pm (et) mobile_96: i was thinking a unit at Getts also

4/29/2007 9:17 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Perhaps over a specific period of time? Cozzens is usually pretty good with his facts and he does cite the OR.

4/29/2007 9:17 pm (et) ks: Heaviest loss by a Confederate regiment in any single battle. Not agreeing or disagreeing. Repeating what's on the page in question.

4/29/2007 9:18 pm (et) Widow: Maybe Cozzens meant heaviest CSA casualties in Western Theater? In Tennessee? In 1862? In December? Anyhoo, it seems a little too low to rank as "heaviest."

4/29/2007 9:19 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Those kind of statistics can be really misleading too, considering the quality of Confederate records.

4/29/2007 9:19 pm (et) ole: Agreed. He must have forgotten to add the caveat, "in one day," or highest percent casualties without anyone missing," or some such.

4/29/2007 9:20 pm (et) mobile_96: Think thats it ole, without anyone in the captured list.

4/29/2007 9:20 pm (et) ole: You did say killed and wounded, didn't you. Maybe that's the key, he wasn't counting missing.

4/29/2007 9:21 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Cozzens makes the point that the regiment had no one missing.

4/29/2007 9:21 pm (et) ks: My apologies, must depart. Phone call. Thank YOU for taking the helm tonight, amhistoryguy. :)

4/29/2007 9:22 pm (et) ole: By George! I think we've got it!

4/29/2007 9:22 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I don't know that that is especially important. Missing does not necessarily mean deserted or captured.

4/29/2007 9:23 pm (et) ole: Depending on how long they're missing and when the roll was taken.

4/29/2007 9:23 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Are we about winded down?

4/29/2007 9:23 pm (et) Widow: Those distinctions were important to the survivors, but to me, it's a distinction without a difference. Out of the fight means O-U-T. Hors de combat. Killed, wounded, missing/captured. Still out.

4/29/2007 9:23 pm (et) mobile_96: No, but after a fight the list usually shows killed, wounded, and missing,

4/29/2007 9:23 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Missing can mean dead and between some rocks.

4/29/2007 9:24 pm (et) ole: Missing can also mean "went home." If the roll was taken after the skedaddlers returned, there would be no missing.

4/29/2007 9:24 pm (et) Widow: Or blown into unidentifiable smithereens.

4/29/2007 9:25 pm (et) Babs: From the pride with which it was expressed, I took it to mean there were no runaways.

4/29/2007 9:25 pm (et) ole: Looks like it Dave. You might mark a spot for Shotgun to use as a cutoff.

4/29/2007 9:26 pm (et) amhistoryguy: True, mobile, but I've seen enough records of "missing" who were in hospital or died the week before to question the accuracy of the records of missing. Many men really had to jump through hoops to get their pensions, and had plenty of proof they had never left the unit.

4/29/2007 9:27 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Any further thoughts or comments on tonight's chapters? If not, for next week, I would suggest that we try and finish up rather than sticking to the 3 chapters that we have been doing. It only adds one chapter, chapter 16 - total assignment - just 51 pages. If there are no objections, next week - chapters 13, 14, 15, and 16. Thanks for your participation.

4/29/2007 9:27 pm (et) ole: Chuck. Did you mention the maps?

4/29/2007 9:27 pm (et) amhistoryguy: And there you have it, another chat in the books.

4/29/2007 9:27 pm (et) mobile_96: I understand, but maybe he meant in the 1st count after the fight, everyone not known dead was available for roll call.

4/29/2007 9:28 pm (et) Widow: Thanks, AHG. As always, a most pleasant evening.

4/29/2007 9:28 pm (et) Babs: Thank you for hosting.