How would you rate Rosecrans?

How do you rate Rosecrans?

  • on a scale of one to 10 10 being the best

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Rosecrans was the best Union Commander

    Votes: 2 3.4%
  • Rosecrans was a good general but he drooped the ball at Chickumaga big time

    Votes: 48 82.8%
  • Rosecrans was just a little bit better then the drunk guy in command at the battle of the Crater

    Votes: 7 12.1%

  • Total voters
    58
I appreciate your skepticism about the acoustical shadow and your noting that Grant seemed to lose interest in the battle.
My research will address those things. Part of my interest in Iuka is that it started the rift between Grant and Rosecrans and we know who won that battle. Your emphasis is the military which is essential, mine is more on the political and personal. The war was fought after all to settle political issues not to see who had the better generals or braver soldiers.
Here another quote from Stoker p.325.
"Lincoln kept his eyes on Rosecrans while the movement took place.The generals behavior in the aftermath of Chickumauga worried the president. He said Rosecrans was"confused and stunned like a duck on the head". Lincoln encouraged Burnside and Rosecrans to hold their positions and for Rosecrans to "menace and attack" it at any time.
Leftyhunter
 
I appreciate the link but it does not prove that their was an active conspiracy to damage or place the AoC in danger.
Here's another take on higher ups and Rosecrans
From the book " The Grand Design Strategy and the U.S.Civil War Donald Stoker Professor at the US Naval College Oxford University Press p.321-325
" Has Rosecrans pushed beyond the city, Halleck unsure as to the truth of reports that the rebels had sent part of Bragg's army to Lee, put the brakes Rosecrans advance on September 11,planning to give orders for future movements soon. He directed Burnside to take the gaps in the mountains of North Carolina and link up with Rosecrans at least his cavalry. Rosecrans thought it more likely that reinforcements where coming to Bragg. This was confirmed on the fourteenth. Meanwhile,Rosecrans worried about an attack on his communications . Hallack responded by ordering Burnside to put as many troops as to Chattanooga to reinforce Rosecrans and ordered old Rosy to prevent Bragg from getting back into middle Tennessee. Hallack also began coordinating other forces to meet a possible counter thrust by Bragg by taking troops from various commands further west.
No evidence that any higher up wanted rosecrans to fail. It appears Hallack is trying to get the help Rosecrans need. true more troops at Chicumungua would of helped Rosecrans but troops from Gen. Sheridan and Gen. Davis did reach Thomas but Thomas thought they would get in the way and ordered them to Chattanooga.
Leftyhunter
Halleck wasn't really the problem for Rosecrans. Stanton was. Also Elihu Washburne is the man supporting Grant.
I don't have a smoking gun but few who were in a position to know doubted that politics played a big role in the rise and fall of generals. I have plenty of quotes that show Rosecrans lacked political support that other generals had.
 
Here another quote from Stoker p.325.
"Lincoln kept his eyes on Rosecrans while the movement took place.The generals behavior in the aftermath of Chickumauga worried the president. He said Rosecrans was"confused and stunned like a duck on the head". Lincoln encouraged Burnside and Rosecrans to hold their positions and for Rosecrans to "menace and attack" it at any time.
Leftyhunter
The duck quote was made after Rosecrans had been removed. Lincoln never visited Rosecrans so the information he received about him was second hand mostly from Dana. In a way Lincoln was fighting for his own political survival and was desperate to win the war before the election of 1864. Who ended up as the leading general was less important. He did make a deal of sorts with Grant (Washburne really) that Grant would be made a Lt. General with an understanding he wouldn't be a candidate in 1864. Politics. Politics. Politics.
 
Not just the slows but some timidity in using the army he assembled, much like McClellan
I would say that given the resistance he faced Grant's pace was breakneck.

Seriously? Grant's whole career shows massive periods of inactivity and lethargy.

The question of force ratios was brought up, and Grant went on the offensive in '64 with > 2:1 numerical advantage. The ratios in the east were:

McClellan (Seven Days): 1:1.2 (Confederates stronger)
McClellan (Maryland): 1.2:1 (campaign strength, ignoring straggling on both sides)
Burnside (Fredericksburg): 1.6:1
Hooker (Chancellorsville): 2.3:1
Meade (Gettysburg): 1.4:1
Meade (Mine Run): 1.4:1
Overland Campaign: 2.2:1 (campaign strength)

Grant went inactive for about 8 months until force ratios cam back up to 2:1

Horn%2BPFD%2BPetersburg.png


Rosecrans, like McClellan, was typically fighting equal sized opponents. Grant only really fought with massive numerical advantages, and when he didn't have one he didn't fight.
 

Attachments

  • Horn%2BPFD%2BPetersburg.png
    Horn%2BPFD%2BPetersburg.png
    6.7 KB · Views: 53
The duck quote was made after Rosecrans had been removed. Lincoln never visited Rosecrans so the information he received about him was second hand mostly from Dana. In a way Lincoln was fighting for his own political survival and was desperate to win the war before the election of 1864. Who ended up as the leading general was less important. He did make a deal of sorts with Grant (Washburne really) that Grant would be made a Lt. General with an understanding he wouldn't be a candidate in 1864. Politics. Politics. Politics.

Indeed, and Grant was still on the ballot for the Republican nomination, although he denied having anything to do with it. Fremont pulled out to avoid splitting the right-wing vote.

Lincoln also was putting out feelers to McClellan and via his allies seems to have offered McClellan a return to active command in the Shenandoah.
 
The war was fought for political reasons. It wasn't the Superbowl which is ultimately entertainment. People shouldn't be surprised that politics played an important and even dominant role in the War.
People today expect politics to be involved in almost everything including the military (and the Superbowl.)
Who would control the postwar government was an important question. Recall what happened to Andrew Johnson.
 
Garfield felt that the "political leaders were not unwilling to see evil befall Rosecrans." The story of Greeley's emissary sounding out Rosecrans about the presidency is not disputed by historians. Because I think you are new to this discussion I will repost the letter from JK Herbert to Bejamin Butler that I have posted elsewhere on this site. I'd like to point out that almost all my statements are supported by documentation by people who were at the events. After the war Fisher became a scholar of government and an educator. I for one would be reluctant to dismiss the veracity of what he wrote. You can learn more about him from these links http://www.masshist.org/online/civilwar/index.php?entry_id=712 AND https://books.google.com/books?id=OyhYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA236&dq=horace+newton+fisher+obituary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0i9L_h8PJAhUJ2D4KHXuQDxYQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=horace newton fisher obituary&f=fal

From J. K. Herbert to General Butler Sherman House, Chicago, July 27th, 1863

Dear Sir: On looking about among the politicians here I find that there is more activity here than elsewhere in reference to prospective politics. Hon. E. B. Washburne is making a business already of committing men to Grant for the Presidency. He is wealthy, shrewd, in earnest, determined that Grant shall be the man. I hear good men say he will go into a nominating convention stronger than Lincoln went. They are trying to get Grant in command of Rosecrans' army & his own too, with perhaps additional reinforcements —send him across to the Atlantic and eastward on Richmond — hoping thereby to make him irresistible in a Nominating Convention. If the administration see the joke, they will see to it that he does not get an opportunity. But if Grant & his western friends can do this thing they will — I am not misinformed — they are bending every energy for the enterprise. The P. O. keeps the Tribune almost if not altogether for Lincoln's renomination. Judge Drummond, Judge Higgins, & some other good men of former days are for Lincoln, I learn. Judge Higgins came to my room last night and stayed till midnight. I learned the Lincoln policy here by heart. I mean the notions of men who would renominate & who they are. Dr. D. Brainerd, a former strong Democratic politician, will be one of the Com. men here. He is all right. But he tells me men here are for Grant or Lincoln generally, and "cannot be tied to" as we want them. Men who work and are of much account are apt to talk some Western man. Well, I don't fear the result in any case except Grant's, nor that one much; but it spoils the good Committee timber considerably. Brainerd is a Butler man, & one of the best in the state. He thinks we can get a good Com. by looking it up. I had a talk with the Tribune folks about Mo. They wanted you there instead of Schofield. I told them to talk it up, and the east would take up the cry I'd warrant, & I see in the Tribune yesterday morning a little article on the subject. I send you a paper & one to a friend in Boston to have the Boston papers take it up. I tell you Grant is going to be in the way in the West, & especially if he takes any more Vicksburgs, — such for example as Mobile or Savannah, or Richmond, & because they are crowding him, other men ought to be at work. I am getting the run of the thing in my Diary pretty closely. The League is large in Illinois. About 800 councils & 100,000 members now. All the strong men of the state are in them. There are fears entertained that Trumbull & other leading politicians will not take a bold stand since Burnside's row with the Times. They all backed down, you know. I think I shall have an instructive diary when I get around. Your most obt. servt.,J. K. Herbert
Source:https://books.google.com/books?pg=PA99&dq=herbert+washburne+butler+rosecrans&id=6ywOAAAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q=herbert washburne butler rosecrans&f=false

A question, who was J. K. Herbert? Was he an elected politician? Is there a responding letter from Butler? Because if not, what you're presenting may simply be the ramblings of a politico wanna bee, whose information the real politicians were as likely to disregard as not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sbc
"I can testify to the conspicuous and steady gallantry of Rosecrans on the field. He made all possible efforts to rally the broken columns; nor do I see that there was any fault in the disposition of his forces." Charles A Dana Sept 20, 1863

Interesting that at that point Dana (who was dubbed the bird of ill omen) had such good things to say about Rosecrans because it was he who as Stanton's representative traveling with the army who later along with Garfield did so much to destroy him with the administration. Dana's activities and position reminds me of the commissars or political representatives with the Red Army under Stalin in WWII!
 
A question, who was J. K. Herbert? Was he an elected politician? Is there a responding letter from Butler? Because if not, what you're presenting may simply be the ramblings of a politico wanna bee, whose information the real politicians were as likely to disregard as not.
Jasper K Herbert is the missing link in my research. By that I mean he apparently left no paper trail. He definitely existed, served in the war and I think got into trouble later in cotton speculation. Also he and Butler were on opposing sides in a case that went to the US Supreme Court.
The letter and others from him are included in the multivolume collection of letters that Butler self published. He clearly wanted it to be known.
It is very interesting to read the correspondence between Butler and his wife about politics particularly presidential politics in 1864.
https://archive.org/stream/privateofficialc01butl#page/n5/mode/2up

https://books.google.com/books?id=3YtDJquSH1AC&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=jasper+k+herbert&source=bl&ots=eIqY1sfdw5&sig=u322No4NUkPWZjj9IJC4bk5TLQE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO8YzRrsXJAhVHQiYKHRjLAcgQ6AEIQTAJ#v=onepage&q=jasper k herbert&f=false
 
Last edited:
Interesting that at that point Dana (who was dubbed the bird of ill omen) had such good things to say about Rosecrans because it was he who as Stanton's representative traveling with the army who later along with Garfield did so much to destroy him with the administration. Dana's activities and position reminds me of the commissars or political representatives with the Red Army under Stalin in WWII!
Truth trumped political machinations in the first hours after the battle.
The CW was a revolution. It required breaking a few eggs ( and a few hundred thousand lives.)
 
Jasper K Herbert is the missing link in my research. By that I mean he apparently left no paper trail. He definitely existed, served in the war and I think got into trouble later in cotton speculation. Also he and Butler were on opposing sides in a case that went to the US Supreme Court.
The letter and others from him are included in the multivolume collection of letters that Butler self published. He clearly wanted it to be known.
It is very interesting to read the correspondence between Butler and his wife about politics particularly presidential politics in 1864.
https://archive.org/stream/privateofficialc01butl#page/n5/mode/2up

https://books.google.com/books?id=3YtDJquSH1AC&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=jasper+k+herbert&source=bl&ots=eIqY1sfdw5&sig=u322No4NUkPWZjj9IJC4bk5TLQE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO8YzRrsXJAhVHQiYKHRjLAcgQ6AEIQTAJ#v=onepage&q=jasper k herbert&f=false

Your link seems to lead only to correspondence from 1861. I did read one letter in which Butler's wife expresses a desire to be with him and mentions that she is the only advisor that he can trust. I would expect that to be true of most politicians--the spouse is the only person one can really rely upon.

I wonder how much the Butlers really said to each other in letters, whether they trusted them not to be read "in the mail." My husband and I have never spoken to each other in the elevators of public courthouses.
 
Truth trumped political machinations in the first hours after the battle.
The CW was a revolution. It required breaking a few eggs ( and a few hundred thousand lives.)
It was a rebellion. If the CSA had won, it would have been a revolution.
 
Your link seems to lead only to correspondence from 1861. I did read one letter in which Butler's wife expresses a desire to be with him and mentions that she is the only advisor that he can trust. I would expect that to be true of most politicians--the spouse is the only person one can really rely upon.

I wonder how much the Butlers really said to each other in letters, whether they trusted them not to be read "in the mail." My husband and I have never spoken to each other in the elevators of public courthouses.
The link was to volume 1. There are 5 volumes. Try volumes 3 and 4 to start. https://books.google.com/books?id=z...IB0MQ6AEIKjAD#v=onepage&q= jk herbert&f=false
 
It was a rebellion. If the CSA had won, it would have been a revolution.
Societal and political revolution. Blacks could vote for the first time in some northern states.
First constitutional amendments in 60 years enacted.
Just to name a couple of things.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? Grant's whole career shows massive periods of inactivity and lethargy.

The question of force ratios was brought up, and Grant went on the offensive in '64 with > 2:1 numerical advantage. The ratios in the east were:

McClellan (Seven Days): 1:1.2 (Confederates stronger)
McClellan (Maryland): 1.2:1 (campaign strength, ignoring straggling on both sides)
Burnside (Fredericksburg): 1.6:1
Hooker (Chancellorsville): 2.3:1
Meade (Gettysburg): 1.4:1
Meade (Mine Run): 1.4:1
Overland Campaign: 2.2:1 (campaign strength)

Grant went inactive for about 8 months until force ratios cam back up to 2:1

Horn%2BPFD%2BPetersburg.png


Rosecrans, like McClellan, was typically fighting equal sized opponents. Grant only really fought with massive numerical advantages, and when he didn't have one he didn't fight.


Numbers say nothing about the quality of an opponent. The ANV although outnumbered was a far superior fighting force than anything that was faced in the west. The ANV also had the benefit of the defensive advantage. Grant had his hands full but still prevailed by continuing to move forward.
 

Attachments

  • Horn%2BPFD%2BPetersburg.png
    Horn%2BPFD%2BPetersburg.png
    6.7 KB · Views: 58
I think you are just grasping at straws.this thread is getting old.
I think you are just grasping at straws.this thread is getting old.
I actually asked the question about Grant outlasting Lee hoping for an answer. I don't claim to be an expert on the Overland Campaign. I'd appreciate reading your thoughts on the period from July 1864 to April 1865.
 
Seriously? Grant's whole career shows massive periods of inactivity and lethargy.

The question of force ratios was brought up, and Grant went on the offensive in '64 with > 2:1 numerical advantage. The ratios in the east were:

McClellan (Seven Days): 1:1.2 (Confederates stronger)
McClellan (Maryland): 1.2:1 (campaign strength, ignoring straggling on both sides)
Burnside (Fredericksburg): 1.6:1
Hooker (Chancellorsville): 2.3:1
Meade (Gettysburg): 1.4:1
Meade (Mine Run): 1.4:1
Overland Campaign: 2.2:1 (campaign strength)

Grant went inactive for about 8 months until force ratios cam back up to 2:1

Horn%2BPFD%2BPetersburg.png


Rosecrans, like McClellan, was typically fighting equal sized opponents. Grant only really fought with massive numerical advantages, and when he didn't have one he didn't fight.
I have to ask what is"PFD"? I take it the table represents troops under Grant vs troops under a CSA general? Interesting table and statistics.
Leftyhunter
 

Attachments

  • Horn%2BPFD%2BPetersburg.png
    Horn%2BPFD%2BPetersburg.png
    6.7 KB · Views: 61

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top