David Moore on William S. Rosecrans

[DanSBHawk]

So he was lying when he wrote that on the evening of Sept 20?

Dana reported his impressions. As he learned more, he reported that information.

 

[ole]

All this Rosecrans talk is quite stimulating. I think I'll go back to bed now.

 

[David Moore]

Dana reported his impressions. As he learned more, he reported that information.

Dana in his first reports says he can testify to Rosecrans' "steady gallantry"at Chickamauga.
Then he learns things from other, unspecified, officers that turns him against Rosecrans.
Years later when his reports are about to be published he prints articles in the NY Sun, which he edited ,
blaming Garfield, who is dead and unable to respond, for the removal of Rosecrans.
He also admits to Rosecrans that some of the things he wrote were "unjust" and "misinformed."
He is also accused by Gordon Granger of being part of group that was set on Granger's "destruction."
Dana admitted that he had lied about Grant's drinking.
Later as editor of the NY Sun Dana attacks President Grant.
To me Dana is not the most trustworthy source for information.
I suppose you find him sufficiently trustworthy to base your opinions about Rosecrans on what Dana wrote
(even though Dana himself admitted they weren't completely trustworthy.)
In that case we have a difference of opinion based on our own interpretation of what Dana wrote and Dana's character.
We must agree to disagree.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Dana in his first reports says he can testify to Rosecrans' "steady gallantry"at Chickamauga.
Then he learns things from other, unspecified, officers that turns him against Rosecrans.
Years later when his reports are about to be published he prints articles in the NY Sun, which he edited ,
blaming Garfield, who is dead and unable to respond, for the removal of Rosecrans.
He also admits to Rosecrans that some of the things he wrote were "unjust" and "misinformed."
He is also accused by Gordon Granger of being part of group that was set on Granger's "destruction."
Dana admitted that he had lied about Grant's drinking.
Later as editor of the NY Sun Dana attacks President Grant.
To me Dana is not the most trustworthy source for information.
I suppose you find him sufficiently trustworthy to base your opinions about Rosecrans on what Dana wrote
(even though Dana himself admitted they weren't completely trustworthy.)
In that case we have a difference of opinion based on our own interpretation of what Dana wrote and Dana's character.
We must agree to disagree.

If Dana is so untrustworthy as a source, why did YOU bring him up in this thread as saying something positive about Rosecrans?

Eric Calistri above perfectly described how you utilize sources... "You simply dismiss, as always, parts of the statement not complementary to Rosecrans, and accept as the complete statement any sections that are complementary to Rosecrans. This is why folks find your "process" so singularly unconvincing."

 

[David Moore]

If Dana is so untrustworthy as a source, why did YOU bring him up in this thread as saying something positive about Rosecrans?

Eric Calistri above perfectly described how you utilize sources... "You simply dismiss, as always, parts of the statement not complementary to Rosecrans, and accept as the complete statement any sections that are complementary to Rosecrans. This is why folks find your "process" so singularly unconvincing."

Because as I say in my book in the first few hours after Chickamauga truth was paramount. The War Dept needed to know what the real situation was. Dana in his first telegram calls the situation a disaster then in the second says it is not as bad as he thought and makes the statement about Rosecrans' gallantry. It is not until Sept 27 that his messages to Washington become critical of Rosecrans. I didn't make up that sequence of telegram sending, it is how it happened. Dana saw Rosecrans on Sept 20 after the breakthrough on the Union right. Talking to officers later wouldn't change his assessment of what he personally witnessed and reported hours after it happened.
In my book I reproduce Dana's critical telegram of Sept 27. I also reproduce Meig's positive telegram written the same day. The reader may choose to believe one or the other but I didn't hide Dana's telegram. You choose to believe Dana. So be it. Don't you think it important that I show a telgram written the same day that contrasts with Dana's? Should I have left it out?

I have often documented what I post here. I will always provide documentation if asked.
Many if not not most of the criticisms made about my conclusions about Rosecrans ( and others) are opinions without much if any documentation.
All I can do is post what I have found and concluded. I can't force people to agree with it. The object of my postings is, believe it or not, to try and get to the truth of what happened in 1861-5 and afterwards.
I take comfort in that my conclusions are not unique. People in the past and people today have come to similar conclusions.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Because as I say in my book in the first few hours after Chickamauga truth was paramount. The War Dept needed to know what the real situation was. Dana in his first telegram calls the situation a disaster then in the second says it is not as bad as he thought and makes the statement about Rosecrans' gallantry. It is not until Sept 27 that his messages to Washington become critical of Rosecrans. I didn't make up that sequence of telegram sending, it is how it happened. Dana saw Rosecrans on Sept 20 after the breakthrough on the Union right. Talking to officers later wouldn't change his assessment of what he personally witnessed and reported hours after it happened.
In my book I reproduce Dana's critical telegram of Sept 27. I also reproduce Meig's positive telegram written the same day. The reader may choose to believe one or the other but I didn't hide Dana's telegram. You choose to believe Dana. So be it. Don't you think it important that I show a telgram written the same day that contrasts with Dana's? Should I have left it out?

I have often documented what I post here. I will always provide documentation if asked.
Many if not not most of the criticisms made about my conclusions about Rosecrans ( and others) are opinions without much if any documentation.
All I can do is post what I have found and concluded. I can't force people to agree with it. The object of my postings is, believe it or not, to try and get to the truth of what happened in 1861-5 and afterwards.
I take comfort in that my conclusions are not unique. People in the past and people today have come to similar conclusions.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Dana is credible when he is complementary of Rosecrans, and then not credible when he is critical of Rosecrans.

It's obvious why Dana's opinion evolved over that week. He talked to more people. He states that in his reports. He got more information from a variety of sources. His opinion became MORE informed as to the full picture of the battle, rather than relying just on his own initial impressions.

 

[johan_steele]

I call barnyard scat. This author has cherry picked himself into a corner. If it isn't complimentary he views it as non credible. A real historian cannot look at only a pre conceived conclusion while discounting all other views. With every passing post where he ignores what he doesn't like credibility of the book sinks further into the abyss of editorial instead of history.

For the cost of this authors work I would expect something more than a grossly biased work.

 

[1SGDan]

Mr. Moore has presented his opinion of Rosecrans on several threads now. It has become apparent that his opinion is the only one that actually matters.....to him. He came to a place where others have educated opinions as well. He has attempted to dismiss these as uninformed. In my time here I have found very few uninformed posters here but many I have disagreed with. Disagreement makes for good discussion. Arrogance does not.

 

[David Moore]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Dana is credible when he is complementary of Rosecrans, and then not credible when he is critical of Rosecrans.

It's obvious why Dana's opinion evolved over that week. He talked to more people. He states that in his reports. He got more information from a variety of sources. His opinion became MORE informed as to the full picture of the battle, rather than relying just on his own initial impressions.

But did that information change the truth of what he wrote about Rosecrans on Sept 20?
In other words was he telling the truth when he said I can testify to the steady gallantry of General Rosecrans?

 

[DanSBHawk]

Yes, I would think he was telling truth, based on some observation of Rosecrans at some time on that day. But he wasn't at Rosecrans side all day. Also, I think his criticism of Rosecrans on the 27th had to do with Rosecrans being incapable after the battle of assessing and admitting what went wrong.

 

[Horace Porter]

Thomas J. Wood later wrote of Chickamauga:

"When Cowards and Drunkards and men who lost their heads in the hour of danger and trial abandoned the battlefield and fled miles to the rear."

Guess someone didn't like Rosecrans.

 

[David Moore]

Thomas J. Wood later wrote of Chickamauga:

"When Cowards and Drunkards and men who lost their heads in the hour of danger and trial abandoned the battlefield and fled miles to the rear."

Guess someone didn't like Rosecrans.

I'd like the source for that quote. I don't doubt it exists I want to read more of it.

 

[Horace Porter]

I do think Rosecrans - and others - have been neglected by historians.
I do think he accomplished a lot maybe more than any other general.

Number of armies surrendering to Grant: 3.
Number of armies surrendering to Rosecrans: 0.

Yet Rosecrans might have accomplished more than any other general? Only in generating threads on this newsgroup in relation to actual accomplishment over the last year.

Apparently not even Lee, Sherman, or Thomas rank so high.

 

[Horace Porter]

I'd like the source for that quote. I don't doubt it exists I want to read more of it.

https://books.google.com/books?id=c...ILTAE#v=onepage&q=Emerson Opdyke Wood&f=false

 

[Philip Leigh]

Number of armies surrendering to Grant: 3.
Number of armies surrendering to Rosecrans: 0.

Yet Rosecrans might have accomplished more than any other general? Only in generating threads on this newsgroup in relation to actual accomplishment over the last year.

Apparently not even Lee, Sherman, or Thomas rank so high.

Number of armies surrendered to Grant because the besieged enemy was prevented from escaping by the US Navy: 2

Number of victories often credited to Grant but earned by Rosecrans: 2

Number of days required by Grant to capture Petersburg: Over 300

Number of days required by Sherman to capture Atlanta: 42

Number of days required by Jackson to capture Harpers Ferry: 2

Number of days required by Bragg to capture Munfordville: 2

Number of times that Grant faced an enemy army that was supported by a naval force: 0

 

[David Moore]

https://books.google.com/books?id=ccvKY8xKPSIC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=Emerson+Opdyke+Wood&source=bl&ots=OiFxgsiNym&sig=rqkMXazX7AVdKQpa0o8bg0Zqxgs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl-a75_tbJAhVJ52MKHbc2DoIQ6AEILTAE#v=onepage&q=Emerson Opdyke Wood&f=false

Is this a specific reference to Rosecrans as a drunk? Do you have the whole quotation. Is it in the Wood or Opdycke papers? I'd like to check it out.
Btw Opdycke had an interesting comment about Grant after Shiloh. He wrote "he should lose his office if not his life."
Opdycke wrote that he began to change his opinion about Grant after listening to Mr. Dana.
Granger wrote that Dana was part of Grant and Sherman's "satellites" that were out for "destruction."
I find that pattern interesting. I'm guessing you don't.
But thanks for the link to the Wood quote. I'll try to find out where the original is

 

[Horace Porter]

Number of armies surrendered to Grant because the besieged enemy was prevented from escaping by the US Navy: 2

Number of victories often credited to Grant but earned by Rosecrans: 2

Number of days required by Grant to capture Petersburg: Over 300

Number of days required by Sherman to capture Atlanta: 42

Number of days required by Jackson to capture Harpers Ferry: 2

Number of days required by Bragg to capture Munfordville: 2

Number of times that Grant faced an enemy army that was supported by a naval force: 0

And yet still ... number of Confederate armies who surrendered to Rosecrans: ZERO.

 

[Jamieva]

Number of armies surrendered to Grant because the besieged enemy was prevented from escaping by the US Navy: 2

Number of victories often credited to Grant but earned by Rosecrans: 2

Number of days required by Grant to capture Petersburg: Over 300

Number of days required by Sherman to capture Atlanta: 42

Number of days required by Jackson to capture Harpers Ferry: 2

Number of days required by Bragg to capture Munfordville: 2

Number of times that Grant faced an enemy army that was supported by a naval force: 0

These are some of the worst comparisons I have ever seen. Laughably bad

 

[Horace Porter]

These are some of the worst comparisons I have ever seen. Laughably bad

Hey, when you're trying to defend Rosecrans, you work with what you have.

 

[Philip Leigh]

And yet still ... number of Confederate armies who surrendered to Rosecrans: ZERO.

And, in contrast to Grant, the number of times Rosecrans was dependent upon the US Navy for victories: ZERO