How would you rate Rosecrans?

[cash]

So after having done, and continuing to do, twenty five plus years of research I am to listen to your friendly advice and just stop posting and giving my conclusions? I'm sorry I can't when I come upon letters like the ones I have attached to this post. Have you read my book? Joseph Rose's? Albert Castel's, Frank Varney's?
Dare I ask if you've done much primary source research?
Is this what supporting Grant eventually leads to: asking people to stop researching and posting?

Did I say you should stop posting? I think you should assess what you're doing.

Which of Castel's books would you like me to read? I've read Decision in the West and Victors in Blue. Is there another you'd like me to read? I have not read your book, nor have I commented on it. I've not read Rose's book, nor have I commented on it. I've seen Rose's antics on several internet groups and I've not been impressed.

I do plan to read Dr. Varney's book at some point. I may read your book in the future.

I've done quite a bit of primary source research, as anyone who's read my posts here would know.

 

[cash]

So Meade gets the blame Grant the credit?

Well, if we're to understand the proper functions engaged in by commanders, we would understand that Meade gets credit for good tactics and blame for bad tactics, while Grant gets credit for good strategy and blame for bad strategy.

 

[David Moore]

He wrote his view of what happened. I hesitate to call it a history. Some of what he wrote in his book served to justify what he had printed in his newspaper.

"Why sir in the beginning we appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit our newspapers. I have done the best I could in the field, and have not succeeded as I would wish. I am willing to yield my place to these best generals, and I will do my best for the cause editing a newspaper. Even as a poor soldier as I am can generally discover mistakes after it is all over, but if I could only induce these wise gentlemen who see them so clearly beforehand to communicate with me in advance, instead of waiting until the evil has come upon us, to let me know they knew all the time, it would be far better for the country" -- Robert E. Lee to Benjamin Hill

Lee wrote to his wife that he was "disappointed" Rosecrans didn't attack him at Sewell Mtn because he felt he would have defeated him.
Call it what you will who was in the better position in WV at the end of 1861 the union or the confederates?
You accuse me of saying nothing positive about Grant but it appears you have done exactly that in regard to Rosecrans.
I have posted documentation. So far most of what you have posted is opinion.
I am always willing to discuss these issues in any setting. I give talks periodically around the country and of course can be reached via my website rosecransbook.com
My conscience would not allow me to stop researching and discussing the product of my research.
I'm sorry if that disappoints you.

 

[cash]

Lee wrote to his wife that he was "disappointed" Rosecrans didn't attack him at Sewell Mtn because he felt he would have defeated him.
Call it what you will who was in the better position in WV at the end of 1861 the union or the confederates?

Does that mean Rosecrans outgeneraled Lee or does that mean Lee was in a no-win situation? Why doesn't it mean McClellan won the campaign?

You accuse me of saying nothing positive about Grant but it appears you have done exactly that in regard to Rosecrans.

I'm reacting to what you posted, not making a case for or against anyone.

I have posted documentation. So far most of what you have posted is opinion.

Most of what you post is opinion as well--an opinion on what the documentation means.

I am always willing to discuss these issues in any setting. I give talks periodically around the country and of course can be reached via my website rosecransbook.com
My conscience would not allow me to stop researching and discussing the product of my research.
I'm sorry if that disappoints you.

On the contrary, I applaud your tenacity in researching and hope you keep doing so. I also hope you continue to discuss the results of your research. I hope also you will be more objective in your assessments and get more background knowledge in the military aspects of the conflict.

 

[David Moore]

Did I say you should stop posting? I think you should assess what you're doing.

Which of Castel's books would you like me to read? I've read Decision in the West and Victors in Blue. Is there another you'd like me to read? I have not read your book, nor have I commented on it. I've not read Rose's book, nor have I commented on it. I've seen Rose's antics on several internet groups and I've not been impressed.

I do plan to read Dr. Varney's book at some point. I may read your book in the future.

I've done quite a bit of primary source research, as anyone who's read my posts here would know.

If you've read Victors in Blue you know Castel calls for a courageous historian to write a biography of Rosecrans. Amazingly no one in the history academy seems interested in doing that not even Brooks Simpson whose name appears on the book. It has fallen to me to do what I can. If that isn't an indictment of the professional academic community I don't know what is.

Your use of the word antics reveals that you are perhaps not as open minded on this topic as you present yourself to be.
Rose's book has received good comments by several prominent historians. Go to his website grantunderfire.com for verification.
Even the Horace Porter who posts on this site has said he has been surprised at what he's read of it.
In what area has your primary research been? On what threads? I'd like to read it.

 

[David Moore]

Does that mean Rosecrans outgeneraled Lee or does that mean Lee was in a no-win situation? Why doesn't it mean McClellan won the campaign?



I'm reacting to what you posted, not making a case for or against anyone.



Most of what you post is opinion as well--an opinion on what the documentation means.



On the contrary, I applaud your tenacity in researching and hope you keep doing so. I also hope you continue to discuss the results of your research. I hope also you will be more objective in your assessments and get more background knowledge in the military aspects of the conflict.

McClellan was gone from WV in July shortly after Rich Mtn.
I am off to the Youngstown Ohio area to give a talk Monday (Dec 14) evening.
I must end this discussion for now. I am always willing to discuss Rosecrans, the battles he was in and the peripheral issues surrounding him. I appreciate your interest.

 

[Sbc]

Couldn't almost any competent general with an army the size of Grant's have done that and more quickly?

Like Rosecrans? Doubtful, the bullpen was not deep.

 

[cash]

If you've read Victors in Blue you know Castel calls for a courageous historian to write a biography of Rosecrans. Amazingly no one in the history academy seems interested in doing that not even Brooks Simpson whose name appears on the book. It has fallen to me to do what I can. If that isn't an indictment of the professional academic community I don't know what is.

Perhaps they have interests other than what you would like them to have.

Your use of the word antics reveals that you are perhaps not as open minded on this topic as you present yourself to be.

My use of the word "antics" is an accurate description of the behavior Rose has displayed in various discussion groups.

Rose's book has received good comments by several prominent historians.

It has received good comments about research, not about what he's done with the research.

Go to his website grantunderfire.com for verification.
Even the Horace Porter who posts on this site has said he has been surprised at what he's read of it.

That's nice, but having seen what Rose does with evidence before I'm not sanguine about what he does with evidence in his book.

In what area has your primary research been? On what threads? I'd like to read it.

Lincoln, Lee, Gettysburg, Secession, and political questions.

 

[David Moore]

Like Rosecrans? Doubtful, the bullpen was not deep.

The NY Times in 1863 said rosecrans was second in accomplishments only to Grant.
Who knows what he would have done with an army the size of Grant's and perhaps more importantly with the political support Grant had.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Butler became a general only because of politics, nothing to do with military ability.

I know this is straying from the topic of the thread, but I am going to disagree with you. Butler had been an officer in the Mass. Militia for over a decade including several years as Brigadier General; at the time Lincoln selected him to be a general in the US forces, Butler was already commanding forces in Maryland. There was a perception that he had military ability and background to suit the appointment.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I know this is straying from the topic of the thread, but I am going to disagree with you. Butler had been an officer in the Mass. Militia for over a decade including several years as Brigadier General; at the time Lincoln selected him to be a general in the US forces, Butler was already commanding forces in Maryland. There was a perception that he had military ability and background to suit the appointment.

The way Butler achieved his position in the militia was at least partly political. But you're quite right-- the militia tradition was strong and I'm not sure that, having become a BGen in the militia, that Butler would have been named as anything less than brigadier general (of volunteers)... and it must be remembered that, whatever his failings later, Butler was there when Lincoln needed him, in Maryland and then in Washington, in the early days of the war.

 

[Horace Porter]

If you've read Victors in Blue you know Castel calls for a courageous historian to write a biography of Rosecrans. Amazingly no one in the history academy seems interested in doing that not even Brooks Simpson whose name appears on the book. It has fallen to me to do what I can. If that isn't an indictment of the professional academic community I don't know what is.

I don't know whether this assertion is more amusing or amazing. Because a single historian wants someone else to write a book (a book the oft-published Castel declined to write himself, so I guess he wasn't courageous by his own definition), and no one in the academy rushes out to do it (recall that Castel's comment appeared in 2011 ... so it would have to be a hastily-researched and prepared book to satisfy you), it's an indictment of some sort. Yet you claim to have been engaged in doing research for decades, and you continue to do so.

So what you want is a hastily-prepared and poorly-researched book to have appeared to satisfy the whims of a man who did not heed his own call for such a book. The historian who met your demands in such a short time would not be courageous, but foolish.

Tell you what: ask Dr. Varney or Mr. Rose to write such a book. Tell us what they say. Thankyouverymuch.

 

[NedBaldwin]

The NY Times in 1863 said rosecrans was second in accomplishments only to Grant.
Who knows what he would have done with an army the size of Grant's and perhaps more importantly with the political support Grant had.

Rosecrans once had strong political support but he had alienated it.

 

[Jamieva]

I need more popcorn.

I do have to wonder why a historian would use this much of his time arguing with folks that are never going agree with him on the topic no matter how had he tries.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Call it what you will who was in the better position in WV at the end of 1861 the union or the confederates?

This issue isnt really who was in a better position; the issue is why and becuase of whom.
Between when Rosecrans took over and when he was replaced, had the US situation gotten any better or was it about the same as when McClellan left?

 

[Sbc]

The NY Times in 1863 said rosecrans was second in accomplishments only to Grant.
Who knows what he would have done with an army the size of Grant's and perhaps more importantly with the political support Grant had.

Well never have cared too much for the NYT.

 

[Sid J.]

Southern historian EA Pollard writing right after the war used the word "outgeneraled"

Is that the same EA Pollard who said of Chickamauga "The enemy had fought every man that he had, and every one had in turn been beaten" and "The enemy was totally routed from left, right and centre, and was in full retreat to Chattanooga, night alone preventing further pursuit." Do you also accept as unassailable "historian" Pollard in this case?

 

[Sid J.]

Castel calls for a courageous historian to write a biography of Rosecrans.

And we are still waiting.

 

[Horace Porter]

The NY Times in 1863 said rosecrans was second in accomplishments only to Grant.

Do you believe everything you read in the papers? How many times have you pointed this out? Does it get any better in the repetition?

In short, so what?

 

[Horace Porter]

I need more popcorn.

I do have to wonder why a historian would use this much of his time arguing with folks that are never going agree with him on the topic no matter how had he tries.

Rosecrans made far better popcorn than Grant. It takes a courageous historian to remind us of that.