David Moore on William S. Rosecrans

Status
Not open for further replies.

Horace Porter

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Location
Absoltely Nowhere Now, MA
David Moore is the author of a recent biography on William S. Rosecrans. He is also a member of this discussion group. Several posters have recently observed that discussions between Mr. Moore and several posters, including yours truly, tend to veer far from the original subject line, although that doesn't stop the discussion.

I'm establishing this thread header and requesting that Mr. Moore, his defenders, and his friends continue their discussions in this thread. If the moderators have the time, the energy, and the interest, I'd appreciate it if they could move those off-topic discussions to this thread. I'd also appreciate it if in the future, Mr. Moore, his critics, and his friends use this thread when they engage in their discussions about Rosecrans, Grant, and Mr. Moore's work.
 
David Moore is the author of a recent biography on William S. Rosecrans. He is also a member of this discussion group. Several posters have recently observed that discussions between Mr. Moore and several posters, including yours truly, tend to veer far from the original subject line, although that doesn't stop the discussion.

I'm establishing this thread header and requesting that Mr. Moore, his defenders, and his friends continue their discussions in this thread. If the moderators have the time, the energy, and the interest, I'd appreciate it if they could move those off-topic discussions to this thread. I'd also appreciate it if in the future, Mr. Moore, his critics, and his friends use this thread when they engage in their discussions about Rosecrans, Grant, and Mr. Moore's work.
Just like a bad penny it keeps coming back.
 
David Moore is the author of a recent biography on William S. Rosecrans. He is also a member of this discussion group. Several posters have recently observed that discussions between Mr. Moore and several posters, including yours truly, tend to veer far from the original subject line, although that doesn't stop the discussion.

I'm establishing this thread header and requesting that Mr. Moore, his defenders, and his friends continue their discussions in this thread. If the moderators have the time, the energy, and the interest, I'd appreciate it if they could move those off-topic discussions to this thread. I'd also appreciate it if in the future, Mr. Moore, his critics, and his friends use this thread when they engage in their discussions about Rosecrans, Grant, and Mr. Moore's work.

Since you have in the past expressed a desire that I should stop posting ("enough" you once said) I suspect this is an attempt to put my views of Rosecrans into a ghetto. I've noticed that the threads I have posted on have quite a high viewing number. Horace you are under no obligation to read or respond to what I post. If it bothers you , you can block me. Unless I am formally banned from the other threads I will continue to post on those threads where people can follow the continuity of the discussion posts. If it is possible to transfer all the posts pertinent to the Rosecrans discussion from the other threads to this one I have no problem in posting on this site but all means all. I would also rename the thread to eliminate my name in the title.
 
David Moore is the author of a recent biography on William S. Rosecrans. He is also a member of this discussion group. Several posters have recently observed that discussions between Mr. Moore and several posters, including yours truly, tend to veer far from the original subject line, although that doesn't stop the discussion.

I'm establishing this thread header and requesting that Mr. Moore, his defenders, and his friends continue their discussions in this thread. If the moderators have the time, the energy, and the interest, I'd appreciate it if they could move those off-topic discussions to this thread. I'd also appreciate it if in the future, Mr. Moore, his critics, and his friends use this thread when they engage in their discussions about Rosecrans, Grant, and Mr. Moore's work.
In my humble opinion Mr.Moore has some very interesting sourced information on Rosecrans. We don't see eye to eye on everything but he does point out that Rosecrans is an interesting figure in the CW. I can't speak for other posters who have responded to Mr. Moore's thread but I will speculate at great risk that they would fall into the Einholf school of thought in that Rosecrans was all in all a good general but at Chickumuaga he drooped the ball big time and it was left to Thomas to salvage the situation as best he could with the able assistance of Gen. Granger. Would you agree with that assessment?
Leftyhunter
 
In my humble opinion Mr.Moore has some very interesting sourced information on Rosecrans. We don't see eye to eye on everything but he does point out that Rosecrans is an interesting figure in the CW. I can't speak for other posters who have responded to Mr. Moore's thread but I will speculate at great risk that they would fall into the Einholf school of thought in that Rosecrans was all in all a good general but at Chickumuaga he drooped the ball big time and it was left to Thomas to salvage the situation as best he could with the able assistance of Gen. Granger. Would you agree with that assessment?
Leftyhunter
I believe Rosecrans was set up to fail. I know that is a terrible thing to say but based on my twenty five years of research I believe it to be the case. However my main goal is to have more people become aware of him and hopefully help commemorate him with a modest statue in Washington DC. I also feel much of the ambition of US Grant was really the ambition of Congressman Elihu Washburne. Grant was in many ways the actor not the author. I believe he didn't have a strong desire to run for the presidency in 1864 BUT Washburne certainly entertained that idea.
 
Last edited:
From what I've read, what happened at Chickamauga had more to do with a difficult subordinate than any particular error of Rosecrans'. One could perhaps lay the difficult relationship between the subordinate and the commanding general at Rosecrans' feet, and the commanding general is ultimately responsible; but the fact remains that in the Civil War time period, generals were highly dependent on their subordinate commanders to both make accurate reports and to follow orders intelligently, which did not happen in this case. (Had to look it up; I don't have this battle memorized... the offender was Brigadier General Thomas A. Wood. I paid attention to this because the division removed from the line that Wood was supposed to cover was Brannan's, which included my great-great-grandfather's unit.)
 
From what I've read, what happened at Chickamauga had more to do with a difficult subordinate than any particular error of Rosecrans'. One could perhaps lay the difficult relationship between the subordinate and the commanding general at Rosecrans' feet, and the commanding general is ultimately responsible; but the fact remains that in the Civil War time period, generals were highly dependent on their subordinate commanders to both make accurate reports and to follow orders intelligently, which did not happen in this case. (Had to look it up; I don't have this battle memorized... the offender was Brigadier General Thomas A. Wood. I paid attention to this because the division removed from the line that Wood was supposed to cover was Brannan's, which included my great-great-grandfather's unit.)
The Thomas Wood/fatal order, which is arguably the most famous part of the Chickamauga narrative, is poorly sourced. Historians Glenn Robertson and Dave Powell have doubts about the story's accuracy and its importance. They feel Rosecrans' right probably would have been flanked regardless of the gap created by carrying out the order. To me the biggest factor of Chickamauga is that the Confederates had more men on the field than the Federals.
 
I've just read Cozzens so far, but I have Powell & Friedrich's "Maps" and the two Powell books ("Mad Irregular Battle" and "Glory & the Grave") coming up soon in my reading rotation.
 
I've just read Cozzens so far, but I have Powell & Friedrich's "Maps" and the two Powell books ("Mad Irregular Battle" and "Glory & the Grave") coming up soon in my reading rotation.
You might want to add Dave Powell's book " Failure in the Saddle" which deals with the mistakes that Forrest and Wheeler made during Chickamauga.it will add and give you more of the full picture.
 
I've just read Cozzens so far, but I have Powell & Friedrich's "Maps" and the two Powell books ("Mad Irregular Battle" and "Glory & the Grave") coming up soon in my reading rotation.
For a short overview try Lee White's Bushwacking on a Grand Scale. Sometimes it's good to start small to master the basic facts and then go deeper. Glenn Robertson had a multipart series on Chickamauga in Blue and Gray Magazine a few years ago. It can be tough to follow at times but is worth plowing through. Btw I tend to discount Cozzens' interpretation of Wood's "fatal order" actions.
 
I believe Rosecrans was set up to fail. I know that is a terrible thing to say but based on my twenty five years of research I believe it to be the case. However my main goal is to have more people become aware of him and hopefully help commemorate him with a modest statue in Washington DC. I also feel much of the ambition of US Grant was really the ambition of Congressman Elihu Washburne. Grant was in many ways the actor not the author. I believe he didn't have a strong desire to run for the presidency in 1864 BUT Washburne certainly entertained that idea.
Let us apply Ockam's razor. It is much more likely that failure can be attributed to incompetence rather a conspiracy to remove a average general. Anyone what to create a poll? I'm too lazy.
 
Let us apply Ockam's razor. It is much more likely that failure can be attributed to incompetence rather a conspiracy to remove a average general. Anyone what to create a poll? I'm too lazy.
Many from the CW period-Garfield, Butler, Ord, McClellan to name but a few -would disagree with you.
One Mexican and CW veteran had some interesting thoughts on politics and the Mexican War:
The Mexican war was a political war, and the administration conducting it desired to make party capital out of it. General Scott was at the head of the army, and, being a soldier of acknowledged professional capacity, his claim to the command of the forces in the field was almost indisputable, and does not seem to have been denied by President Polk, or Marcy, his Secretary of War. Scott was a Whig and the administration was Democratic. General Scott was also known to have political aspirations, and nothing so popularizes a candidate for high civil positions as military victories. It would not do, therefore, to give him command of the " army of conquest." The plans submitted by Scott for a campaign in Mexico were disapproved by the administration, and he replied, in a tone possibly a little disrespectful, to the effect that if a soldier's plans were not to be supported by the administration, success could not be expected. This was on the 27th of May, 1846. Four days later General Scott was notified that he need not go to Mexico. General Gaines was next in rank, but he was too old and feeble to take the field. Colonel Zachary Taylor — a brigadier-general by brevet — was therefore left in command. He too was a Whig, but was not supposed to entertain any political ambitions ; nor did he ; but after the fall of Monterey — his third battle and third complete victory — the Whig papers at home began to speak of him as the candidate of their party for the Presidency. Something had to be done to neutralize his growing popularity. He could not be relieved from duty in the field, where all his battles had been victories; the design would have been too transparent. It was finally decided to send General Scott, and to authorize him to carry out his own original plan: that is, capture Vera Cruz and march upon the capital of the country. It was no doubt supposed that Scott’s ambition would lead him to slaughter Taylor or destroy his chances for the Presidency, and yet it was hoped that he would not make sufficient capital himself to secure the prize. The administration had indeed a most embarrassing problem to solve. It was engaged in a war of conquest which must be carried to a successful issue, or the political object would be unattained. Yet all the capable officers of the requisite rank belonged to the opposition, and the man selected for his lack of political ambition had himself become a prominent candidate for the Presidency. It was necessary to destroy his chances promptly. The problem was to do this without the loss of conquest and without permitting another general of the same political party to acquire like popularity. The fact is, the administration of Mr. Polk made every preparation to disgrace Scott, or, to speak more correctly, to drive him to such desperation that he would disgrace himself .
The veteran who wrote the preceeding was US Grant.
 
Very interesting but still appears that Rosecrans fell flat on his face after taking Chattanooga. His performance was not even as good as McCllelan who was sacked after better troop handling.
 
Very interesting but still appears that Rosecrans fell flat on his face after taking Chattanooga. His performance was not even as good as McCllelan who was sacked after better troop handling.
I disagree with you but I'm a firm believe in the First Amendment :smile:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sbc
:smile coffee:
I disagree with you but I'm a firm believe in the First Amendment :smile:
Btw I actually like Rosecrans a bit. His conversion to me signifies intellectual courage and independent thought, qualities that helped him whip the AotC into an effective force. His excitability and intemperate communications rendered him ineffective in dealing with stress(combat) and superiors in the War Dept. I wish you luck on the statue venture but won't be a contributor.
 
:smile coffee:
Btw I actually like Rosecrans a bit. His conversion to me signifies intellectual courage and independent thought, qualities that helped him whip the AotC into an effective force. His excitability and intemperate communications rendered him ineffective in dealing with stress(combat) and superiors in the War Dept. I wish you luck on the statue venture but won't be a contributor.
I actually think raising money will be the easiest part. Getting support from the historical establishment will be more difficult. Political support will depend, as always, on which way the wind is blowing. One would think a coalition of midwesterners, Californians, Catholics, the religiously inclined in general, northern sympathizers, engineers, southerners (he sought out Lee after the war to try and foster North-South reconciliation (and also to defeat Grant) in 1868) African Americans (he deeply believed the war was God's instrument to end slavery and was among the first to use blacks to help in the war effort. He was a Democrat hoverver and not a radical) would be quite a formidable block for getting the statue built.
I realize some reading the last paragraph must be ready to retch. They probably think it confirms me as a pro Rosecrans zealot. However my conclusions are based on my research. One hundred years ago Methodist bishop David H. Moore (absolutely no relation to me) died. (I read the Washington Evening Star from 1915 on line every day. I highly recommend the exercise. It's like traveling back in time) Bishop Moore, (who was a veteran of the 125th Ohio) wrote the following upon Rosecrans' death in 1898:


"There died last Friday, in Los Angeles, the ablest tactician among the great generals of the Civil War.
An impartial study of the history of that immortal contest will show that in this respect no man, on either
side, surpassed William Starke Rosecrans. Whitelaw Reid styles him the American Jomini.
"Was there ever a better planned movement than that which resulted in the first fight 'above the clouds,'
where Rosecrans headed the 13th Indiana in a headlong charge that sent Pegram flying from Rich Moun-
tain and Garrett from Laurel Hill? It lacked only thepromised co-operation of McClellan to have bagged
the game so cleverly started. Was there any other Union officer who outgeneraled Robert E. Lee? Yet
when that incomparable Confederate leader undertook to win back West Virginia from our Wreath of Roses,
capping the summit of Cheat Mountain, he was out-maneuvered at every point, his Kanawha division only
escaping capture by the failure of Benham to obey Rosecrans' orders. luka and Corinth added new
laurels to this Wreath, when Price and Van Dorn were compelled to acknowledge his victorious prowess. Had Phil Sheridan and not McCook commanded the pivot at Murfreesboro, there had hardly been a remnant of Bragg's army left. As it was, never was a battle-plan more speedily and successfully changed in the teeth of impending disaster.
"The chess-board of .war has not witnessed more brilliant moves than those by which he maneuvered
Bragg out of Tullahoma. Opinion will forever be divided on Chickamauga; but Chickamauga was fought for Chattanooga, and the prize was won. If there Rosecrans' military sun set, it bathed the heavens in its efifulgence.
"Three things are alleged to have blocked his way to the very front: his inability to select competent
lieutenants; his kind-hearted reluctance to remove a ■commander whose weakness had been demonstrated;
and his lack of tact in managing his superior officers. If permitted to develop his own plans, Rosecrans, in
our judgment, would have topped the immortals.
'Old Rosey,' the boys called him; and they loved him for his cheer and care and kindness.
He was the Roman Catholic Howard. A devouter Christian there was not. We have not escaped the
clutches of prejudice; but all must admit that, though wholly a Romanist, he was Catholic in his charity
to those from whom he differed. He believed in God with all his heart.
He was a native of Kingston Township, Delaware County, Ohio, and lived from September 6, 1819, to
March 11, 1898. His paternal ancestors were from Amsterdam ; his Dutch patronymic meaning, 'a wreath
of roses' — the perfume of which will sweeten American historv."
 
I have no idea why this thread is being moderated. It seems like a harmless thread for I never thought of Rosencrans as a controversial character in the war. I know little of him but he did seems to **** off is superiors so when he fails he seems to fall hard. He had a great run and was challenging Grant in the West as hero of the republic. He failed horribly at Chickamauga. He left the field of battle way ahead of his men and that doom him, not the bads orders, he panicked. No army can have its leader panic and run faster then his men. In Chattanooga, he seem not to have recovered his confidence and kept his weaken mental state. His bad behavior was a gift to his political rivals and doomed his career.

I compare Rosencrans mental breakdown at Chickamauga to the mental breakdown Hooker had at Chancellorsville, except after the battle Hooker recovered his wits. No Rosencrans did not seem to recover his wits until he was relieved of command. I think he could have recovered his career if he had worked to break the siege... Lets be honest Rosencrans men were worst for wear but Bragg's men were even in worst shape. Rosencrans could have broken the siege or at least open a safe supply line if he had the will.
 
I have no idea why this thread is being moderated. It seems like a harmless thread for I never thought of Rosencrans as a controversial character in the war. I know little of him but he did seems to **** off is superiors so when he fails he seems to fall hard. He had a great run and was challenging Grant in the West as hero of the republic. He failed horribly at Chickamauga. He left the field of battle way ahead of his men and that doom him, not the bads orders, he panicked. No army can have its leader panic and run faster then his men. In Chattanooga, he seem not to have recovered his confidence and kept his weaken mental state. His bad behavior was a gift to his political rivals and doomed his career.

I compare Rosencrans mental breakdown at Chickamauga to the mental breakdown Hooker had at Chancellorsville, except after the battle Hooker recovered his wits. No Rosencrans did not seem to recover his wits until he was relieved of command. I think he could have recovered his career if he had worked to break the siege... Lets be honest Rosencrans men were worst for wear but Bragg's men were even in worst shape. Rosencrans could have broken the siege or at least open a safe supply line if he had the will.
He did come up with the plan to open the cracker line. page 20 https://archive.org/stream/reportofboardofa00unit#page/20/mode/2up
I know all of these pro Rosecrans postings seem incredible at best and a fantasy at worst but they are what I have discovered in 25 plus years of researching. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to post and share what I have found and the conclusions my research has led me to. I would hope I wouldn't be banned for simply posting information and opinions that run counter to the accepted wisdom. I try to have corroborating documentation for most statements I make on this site.
 
He did come up with the plan to open the cracker line. page 20 https://archive.org/stream/reportofboardofa00unit#page/20/mode/2up
I know all of these pro Rosecrans postings seem incredible at best and a fantasy at worst but they are what I have discovered in 25 plus years of researching. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to post and share what I have found and the conclusions my research has led me to. I would hope I wouldn't be banned for simply posting information and opinions that run counter to the accepted wisdom. I try to have corroborating documentation for most statements I make on this site.

I run counter to public desire on this board but never really felt they band me. They stopped me from posting on threads.
I would not worry just do what you think is right and do not be rude. You should be fine... just have fun. You have done what most on this forum members desire to do, publish a book.

My question I have is these false reports Grant filed. Do we have the original OR's and then the OR's Grant supposing to have doctor. Or did Grant jest updated the OR's with backed dated OR's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top