How would you rate Rosecrans?

[David Moore]

NO! They should allow a standing statue of him at his grave site in Arlington like AoC society members wanted... Plus no one going to paid for it unless you get his hometown and home state and Catholic church to paid for it... His home town did him right after 150 years and gave him a statue...

No one's is asking anyone for money. New statues are not likely to be allowed in Arlington. Some of the veterans preferred a statue in Washington. Catholic Church unlikely to pay for a statue and shouldn't.
I assume you have learned from and maybe even enjoyed some of the things I've posted. Perhaps you know more about the CW than you did a few months ago. Wouldn't a simple statue with inscriptions outlining what Rosecrans did in the war and a few quotations- certainly the "can never forget" one by Lincoln- interest the visitor to the nation's capital and perhaps lead him or her to learn more about the man the NY Times in 1863 said was second only to Grant in military accomplishments?
In an age of talk of removing statues isn't it a good thing to actually erect a statue? Why would any CW fan/student be against that -particularly those who are Union sympathizers? Can you imagine confederate sympathizers objecting to a statue of a confederate general? Isn't this ultimately about education and commemoration?

 

[5fish]

No one's is asking anyone for money. New statues are not likely to be allowed in Arlington. Some of the veterans preferred a statue in Washington. Catholic Church unlikely to pay for a statue and shouldn't.
I assume you have learned from and maybe even enjoyed some of the things I've posted. Perhaps you know more about the CW than you did a few months ago. Wouldn't a simple statue with inscriptions outlining what Rosecrans did in the war and a few quotations- certainly the "can never forget" one by Lincoln- interest the visitor to the nation's capital and perhaps lead him or her to learn more about the man the NY Times in 1863 said was second only to Grant in military accomplishments?
In an age of talk of removing statues isn't it a good thing to actually erect a statue? Why would any CW fan/student be against that -particularly those who are Union sympathizers? Can you imagine confederate sympathizers objecting to a statue of a confederate general? Isn't this ultimately about education and commemoration?

It would be nice to put up a statue to Rosencrans because he was a remarkable man. Have you thought why one never was put up? He was a disgraced general so no one going to go out on the limb for him to have an equestrian statue put in a park in D C. Arlington today rules would not allow it but history points that his men wanted at his statue at his grave.

 

[David Moore]

It would be nice to put up a statue to Rosencrans because he was a remarkable man. Have you thought why one never was put up? He was a degressed general so no one going to go out on the limb for him to have an equestrian statue put in a park in D C. Arlington today rules would not allow it but history points that his men wanted at his statue at his grave.

He died in 1898. had he died in 1870, like Thomas , there probably would have been a statue erected.
I also think politics played a part. One reason comments on this topic sometimes get a bit strident is that the Grant-Rosecrans dispute can't be bridged. One rose as the other fell.
This all sounds unbelievable if one hasn't done much reading of 19th century sources. It was a topic of public conversation then.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I also think politics played a part.

"Played a part" is different from "was victim of a conspiracy".

One reason comments on this topic sometimes get a bit strident is that the Grant-Rosecrans dispute can't be bridged. One rose as the other fell.

Grant rose plenty without Rosecrans: Forts Henry and Donelson and especially Vicksburg.

 

[David Moore]

"Played a part" is different from "was victim of a conspiracy".



Grant rose plenty without Rosecrans: Forts Henry and Donelson and especially Vicksburg.

You are leaving out what came in between. There is much in the record to show that Grant was in trouble in 1862-3
and was saved by Elihu Washburne. I have posted some of it on this site (search Washburne.) A lot of it can be found online. It is of course in several recently published books.

 

[18thVirginia]

I think we got on this subject because you doubted the reliability of JK Herbert.
I mentioned that Butler and his wife were politically ambitious.
I sent you a couple of links in which you find "nothing." You cite no examples of "nothing" just give your opinions.
It is hard for me to respond to a comment that has nothing in the way of citatio
Btw Vol V is available on line https://archive.org/stream/privateofficialc05butl#page/n5/mode/2up
Here is another interesting letter page 512. The letters before it are interesting and put this one in context.
I would ask that if you comment on this letter that you be a bit more specific than just saying it has "nothing."
from page 512 Vol 4

From Colonel Shaffer to General Butler

Headquarters, Department Va. and N. C, Fort Monroe, July 9.3rd, 1864

[Not in chronological order]

Dear General: I have been thinking the matter over contained in Conkling's letter. I have always supposed that Fremont held himself in readiness to withdraw whenever he could thereby aid any good man that was a candidate, and don't now think there will be trouble on that score.

I can think of no plan as feasible as the one Conkling mentions to bring you out. This has been a troublesome point to settle in my own mind. I now believe if the War Democracy will go to Chicago on the 9th of August (which I believe is [[the date] of convention), and split off from balance of their party and nominate you on your own platform, that the way is clear. All other suggestions will settle themselves.

This appears to me the only safe way to get at the thing. And if you are sure that this can be done, it is better that Davis should not publish his protest against Lincoln until after the 9th of August, after you get the endorsement of War Democracy. Then have Davis come out with his paper, and have other leading Republicans come out and call a mass meeting at New York, or elsewhere, to endorse the action of War Democracy, and I think it will settle the matter. Of course everything depends on you holding your own with the public until you get out of the army. If you have no objections, I will go to Baltimore and have a chat with Davis. Seward has gone up, — let me know what he is after. v

Yours truly, J. W. Shaffer

Butler and his wife were "politically ambitious?" With all due respect, Mr. Moore, that's how politicians are, it's what they do, just like anyone in any other profession. I believe that biographers of Robert E. Lee talk about his concerns prior to the Civil War of advancing in rank. That's what career military officers do--move up the ranks. Politicians aspire to a higher office.

Butler had been relieved of a command which he'd been given originally because he was a politician able to recruit troops and raise money at the beginning of the War, when those were needed. What was required before the Election of 1864, however, were military victories. While it's my opinion that Butler was very good as a military administrator in New Orleans, probably because he was a clever lawyer, he doesn't seem to have been a great general.

However, as an ongoing politician, he needed to save face. From the letter which you've copied, can we tell whether the talk about running against Lincoln was a face-saving measure because he'd lost his command, or part of a genuine belief that Butler had the political support to attain the presidency? Unless you have letters or statements from Butler, this particular letter doesn't prove anything, it's just another set of musings by one who doesn't belong to the fraternity of elected officials.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

You are leaving out what came in between. There is much in the record to show that Grant was in trouble in 1862-3 and was saved by Elihu Washburne.

What does Washburn's support of Grant have to do with Rosecrans?

 

[David Moore]

Butler and his wife were "politically ambitious?" With all due respect, Mr. Moore, that's how politicians are, it's what they do, just like anyone in any other profession. I believe that biographers of Robert E. Lee talk about his concerns prior to the Civil War of advancing in rank. That's what career military officers do--move up the ranks. Politicians aspire to a higher office.

Butler had been relieved of a command which he'd been given originally because he was a politician able to recruit troops and raise money at the beginning of the War, when those were needed. What was required before the Election of 1864, however, were military victories. While it's my opinion that Butler was very good as a military administrator in New Orleans, probably because he was a clever lawyer, he doesn't seem to have been a great general.

However, as an ongoing politician, he needed to save face. From the letter which you've copied, can we tell whether the talk about running against Lincoln was a face-saving measure because he'd lost his command, or part of a genuine belief that Butler had the political support to attain the presidency? Unless you have letters or statements from Butler, this particular letter doesn't prove anything, it's just another set of musings by one who doesn't belong to the fraternity of elected officials.

Short answer: Lincoln was not really the choice of the more radical wing of the Republican party. Many felt he wouldn't (and shouldn't) be renominated much less reelected. No president had been reelected since Andrew Jackson in 1832. From early in the war politicians latched on to generals with the hope that they ride that general's success to political power. Butler, Fremont and Banks were three of the most prominent generals who were mentioned as potential candidates. All of them were quite willing to be president. Fremont was a third party candidate for a short period in 1864. Elihu Washburne's general was US Grant and Grant did become president in 1868. Related to this is the need to keep a democrat general - and most of the generals had been democrats- from emerging as the great victor of the war. This explains in part the problems that generals like McClellan, McClernand, Rosecrans even Thomas had in getting the political support from a republican controlled government. Short of doing research in libraries around the country which is impossible for most people the best way to learn about these machinations are from the Butler correspondence books and Gideon Welles diary which are online.
Don't read just a letter (or entry) or two but go through them slowly. There is much in them.

 

[David Moore]

What does Washburn's support of Grant have to do with Rosecrans?

That is a central theme of my book. Basically politics determined which generals rose and fell in the war. Many generals had political patrons in Washington. Roserans' was Salmon Chase, Grant's was Elihu Washburne. These were mutally beneficial relationships as the politicians hoped to gain power if their general became an elected official. Grant was in serious trouble in 1862-3. Washburne did all he could to keep Grant afloat and he succeeded. It was also said by political insiders that Washburne planned to get Grant head of Rosecrans' army, march him on Virginia and make him irresistible to a nominating convention. Therefore Washburne had to not only bolster Grant but keep the other successful general of 1862-3, Rosecrans, from out-achieving Grant. I know this must sound crazy to you but I document these statements in my book. (A book which many have attacked without having read.)
I will close with a quote from Gen EOC Ord written to his wife in 1864:
July 17, 1864
….the politicians still control matters here[Washington] or control them so that a general who is simply governed by military interests, and discards politics would be pulled to pieces and turned away -

 

[18thVirginia]

Short answer: Lincoln was not really the choice of the more radical wing of the Republican party. Many felt he wouldn't (and shouldn't) be renominated much less reelected. No president had been reelected since Andrew Jackson in 1832. From early in the war politicians latched on to generals with the hope that they ride that general's success to political power. Butler, Fremont and Banks were three of the most prominent generals who were mentioned as potential candidates. All of them were quite willing to be president. Fremont was a third party candidate for a short period in 1864. Elihu Washburne's general was US Grant and Grant did become president in 1868. Related to this is the need to keep a democrat general - and most of the generals had been democrats- from emerging as the great victor of the war. This explains in part the problems that generals like McClellan, McClernand, Rosecrans even Thomas had in getting the political support from a republican controlled government. Short of doing research in libraries around the country which is impossible for most people the best way to learn about these machinations are from the Butler correspondence books and Gideon Welles diary which are online.
Don't read just a letter (or entry) or two but go through them slowly. There is much in them.

Mr. Moore, I'll thank you to leave off the condescending attitude of constantly explaining to me what I don't understand about politics. I've been the wife of an elected official, who was elected to office in 2 different states, some 40 years apart. My views on current politics or those of the past will be different than yours, but not necessarily inferior to your personal reliance on letters from those who've never been elected to office.

 

[David Moore]

Mr. Moore, I'll thank you to leave off the condescending attitude of constantly explaining to me what I don't understand about politics. I've been the wife of an elected official, who was elected to office in 2 different states, some 40 years apart. My views on current politics or those of the past will be different than yours, but not necessarily inferior to your personal reliance on letters from those who've never been elected to office.

What does that have to do with political maneuverings during the Civil War? I merely presented a short summary of what I think happened in 1861-5 regarding politicians and generals. I will always be an advocate for primary source research.
Btw I have lived in Washington DC all my life so I know a bit about politicians both from a local and national perspective. (I am not involved in politics at any level and never have been.)

 

[18thVirginia]

If you haven't been elected to office, what you know about how politicians deal with each other and how politics really gets conducted is minimal. And I, too, have lived in Washington, D.C. for a period during my life.

You asked me to look at Mrs. Butler's letters and I did--those are primary sources, correct? I gave you my opinion, that they were the kinds of letters one could expect from a political wife--but you didn't like to read that, as it doesn't conform to the theories that you've woven from historical hindsight about why one Civil War general wasn't as revered as you think he should be. I've tried to point out from the primary sources of letters which you yourself directed me to, that we really can't know what exactly Butler was doing--because politicians don't put that kind of thing in writing and don't speak of real politics to those who are not their brethren, part of their fraternity.

Politicians deal with the here and now, which many would be historians have trouble grasping. Talk of what happened since 1832 is for pundits and journalists--politicians know that anything can happen leading up to an election and that a good portion of success is due to luck. Along with incredible determination.

What we know about Ben Butler is that he seems to have been a master politician who didn't ever let one failure stop him from his pursuit. His successor in Louisiana, also from Massachusetts, retired from political life after his problems there. Butler had losses and was removed from command, but that didn't end his career. He got back up and went back to stomping for votes and wrangling other politicians to help him out.

I will never be the expert that many of the posters here are about military campaigns. So, I don't really know about Rosecrans. However, I do know that politicians sometimes have a dislike and distrust of someone who doesn't play well with others and from what's been said about Rosecrans, it appears that he was one of those. I also know that it's the kind of thing that is said by one politician to another, but isn't something they're going to write down. I was once privy to a conversation in which a well-respected politician told another elected official that a person running for higher office as a reformer would be a disaster because he couldn't get along with other politicians. She was completely correct in her forecast and next election, the voters returned to a guy with a reputation for corruption...and for getting things done. Sorta like Ben Butler. Whom I only cite because you brought him up.

What from I've read from the military campaign people here, Butler deserved to lose his command. He would have been far better utilized as an administrative general, as in New Orleans. But, I don't see the same conspiracy against him.

 

[David Moore]

I think we got into this because of your question about the reliability of JK Herbert which is a fair question.
I would only say that politics was a big part of the war- perhaps the biggest. The war was fought to change the political structure and culture of the country. There is nothing bad about that in and of itself but some generals gained and some lost because of politics and not their military ability. I will post again the words of Gen Ord to his wife. They are important in understanding the war:
July 17, 1864
….the politicians still control matters here [Washington] or control them so that a general who is simply governed by military interests, and discards politics would be pulled to pieces and turned away -

 

[18thVirginia]

I think we got into this because of your question about the reliability of JK Herbert which is a fair question.
I would only say that politics was a big part of the war- perhaps the biggest. The war was fought to change the political structure and culture of the country. There is nothing bad about that in and of itself but some generals gained and some lost because of politics and not their military ability. I will post again the words of Gen Ord to his wife. They are important in understanding the war:
July 17, 1864
….the politicians still control matters here [Washington] or control them so that a general who is simply governed by military interests, and discards politics would be pulled to pieces and turned away -

"The war was fought to change the political structure and culture of the country." I can understand that the Confederacy wanted a new nation based on having a slaveocracy occupy as much of the North American continent as possible. But, how does your assertion relate to the general whom you've demanded that I research--Ben Butler?

Butler became a general only because of politics, nothing to do with military ability. And nothing to do with the southern elites desire to change the political structure of the country to slaveocracy.

 

[David Moore]

"The war was fought to change the political structure and culture of the country." I can understand that the Confederacy wanted a new nation based on having a slaveocracy occupy as much of the North American continent as possible. But, how does your assertion relate to the general whom you've demanded that I research--Ben Butler?

Butler became a general only because of politics, nothing to do with military ability. And nothing to do with the southern elites desire to change the political structure of the country to slaveocracy.

This is a new topic that I really don't want get into because of the time it would take. There was an expression "to restore the Union as it was." That was the goal of some peace democrats. The US that emerged after the war was changed from what it had been just a few years before. There would be a new competitive political party whereas the democrats had dominated the presidency with two exceptions since Andrew Jackson's election in 1828. Before the war blacks had full voting rights in only a handful of northern states now on paper at least there was universal manhood suffrage. The political leaders knew that after the war there would be great changes and they wanted to be positioned to reap the benefit of that change. They knew that the man who would emerge as the military hero of the war would probably become president - as the examples of Washington, Jackson, WH Harrison and Taylor proved- and so there was jockeying to be that military hero. Butler was one of the jockeys.
One could argue that Grant was a political general as he had been out of the army since 1854 and got his position as a result of Elihu Washburne. He of course was the winning jockey.
I'll leave it at that.

 

[18thVirginia]

This is a new topic that I really don't want get into because of the time it would take. There was an expression "to restore the Union as it was." That was the goal of some peace democrats. The US that emerged after the war was changed from what it had been just a few years before. There would be a new competitive political party whereas the democrats had dominated the presidency with two exceptions since Andrew Jackson's election in 1832. Before the war blacks had full voting rights in only a handful of northern states now on paper at least there was universal manhood suffrage. The political leaders knew that after the war there would be great changes and they wanted to be positioned to reap the benefit of that change. They knew that the man who would emerge as the military hero of the war would probably become president - as the examples of Washington, Jackson, WH Harrison and Taylor proved- and so there was jockeying to be that military hero. Butler was one of the jockeys.
One could argue that Grant was a political general as he had been out of the army since 1854 and got his position as a result of Elihu Washburne. He of course was the winning jockey.
I'll leave it at that.

So, all this talk about Rosecrans and the effort to diminish Grant as a general and a leader is nothing more than dressed up Lost Causism?

Which is also inconsistent political theorizing. If the Democratic political leaders--as generals--wanted to keep the nation the same and continue to allow the Southern elites to have their way about slavery, how could they also want to emerge as the military hero that would preside over non-existent changes to the status of blacks in the South?

But comparisons of Grant and Butler? Grant attended West Point, served in the Mexican War and afterwards in the U. S. military. As I've said, I'm not a military campaign expert, but it doesn't take that kind of expertise to understand that the suggestion that he was a political general in the same way as Butler...is just silly.

 

[David Moore]

Not sure what you mean in your first sentence. Rosecrans was one of the strongest anti-slavery generals in the war. That is even more interesting since he was a democrat. He actually saw the war as being God's instrument for ending slavery.

The political leaders were almost all republicans. I'd say the generals were for the most part passive players in the political game as far as policy decisions. What they got from the political leaders was support to stay in command. It was the politicians who latched on to them and did the political maneuverings. A problem was most of the political leaders were republicans while most of the generals were democrats. Butler had been a democrat. Fremont was probably the only real republican general at the beginning of the war. McClellan was of course the most famous famous democrat and was a candidate in 1864.
The political leaders had to not only find a general but then also possibly "convert" a democrat to a republican. Btw Rosecrans was sounded out by an emissary from Horace Greeley about being a candidate.

Grant was asked to leave the military in 1854. Without the influence of Washburne it is doubtful he would have risen so fast or survived the rough period of 1862-2.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Not sure what you mean in your first sentence. Rosecrans was one of the strongest anti-slavery generals in the war. That is even more interesting since he was a democrat. He actually saw the war as being God's instrument for ending slavery.

The political leaders were almost all republicans. I'd say the generals were for the most part passive players in the political game as far as policy decisions. What they got from the political leaders was support to stay in command. It was the politicians who latched on to them and did the political maneuverings. A problem was most of the political leaders were republicans while most of the generals were democrats. Butler had been a democrat. Fremont was probably the only real republican general at the beginning of the war. McClellan was of course the most famous famous democrat and was a candidate in 1864.
The political leaders had to not only find a general but then also possibly "convert" a democrat to a republican. Btw Rosecrans was sounded out by an emissary from Horace Greeley about being a candidate.

Grant was asked to leave the military in 1854. Without the influence of Washburne it is doubtful he would have risen so fast or survived the rough period of 1862-2.

Rosecrans also left the military before the war, and had a politician intercede to get him a commission after the war had begun. Does that make Rosecrans a "political general," as well?

 

[David Moore]

Rosecrans also left the military before the war, and had a politician intercede to get him a commission after the war had begun. Does that make Rosecrans a "political general," as well?

He wasn't asked to leave. He left because of financial considerations. He was asked to reconsider his decision.
Washburne's role in promoting and protecting Grant should be well know to you by now. I won't repost the documentation.

 

[leftyhunter]

This is a new topic that I really don't want get into because of the time it would take. There was an expression "to restore the Union as it was." That was the goal of some peace democrats. The US that emerged after the war was changed from what it had been just a few years before. There would be a new competitive political party whereas the democrats had dominated the presidency with two exceptions since Andrew Jackson's election in 1828. Before the war blacks had full voting rights in only a handful of northern states now on paper at least there was universal manhood suffrage. The political leaders knew that after the war there would be great changes and they wanted to be positioned to reap the benefit of that change. They knew that the man who would emerge as the military hero of the war would probably become president - as the examples of Washington, Jackson, WH Harrison and Taylor proved- and so there was jockeying to be that military hero. Butler was one of the jockeys.
One could argue that Grant was a political general as he had been out of the army since 1854 and got his position as a result of Elihu Washburne. He of course was the winning jockey.
I'll leave it at that.

Heres Bruce Catton's take on Rosecrans. "The American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War" American Heritage Publishing Co Inc 1960 p.283 "He was brave, well-liked by his men who fought under him, and a brilliant strategist : but"Old Rosey" was badly handicapped by a fire cracker temper and an almost hypnotic self complacency."
Leftyhunter