Replacing Rosecrans with Thomas: October 1863

[David Moore]

Clearly the person who read it claimed to have seen it. That's how reading works.

That person was Grant in his memoirs. The person who said in the 1890s that it existed was Dana.
Dana the mind changer in your words. Dana the man who said in 1882 that he couldn't remember what was in the telegrams he sent in 1863.
Dana the man who dictated his own memoirs in the late 1890s.
Grant the author of memoirs that have been called campfire stories. I needn't mention Frank Varney.
Until someone produces the telegram I choose to believe it doesn't exist. Call me wrong or even stupid for believing that
but that's my position.

 

[David Moore]

Clearly the person who read it claimed to have seen it. That's how reading works.

Speaking of reading, have you read the documents I have attached to some of my posts?
Especially Meigs' comments on Rosecrans being put on the retirement list?
I'm always willing to repost.

 

[Horace Porter]

Speaking of reading, have you read the documents I have attached to some of my posts?
Especially Meigs' comments on Rosecrans being put on the retirement list?
I'm always willing to repost.

I always read the documents you post. I am not obligated to respond to them. I assume that you will repost only that information that supports your argument. I take those posts as offering a selection of a far larger set of documents that together offer a far more robust and interesting story.

You are always willing to repost, rehash, repeat, and recycle. No debate there.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Interesting comments by General Steedman on these events. Two points from the interview... he completely discredits any notion of a conspiracy against Rosecrans, and he is critical of Rosecrans performance as a general.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B06E7D91431E53ABC4C51DFB7678382669FDE

 

[David Moore]

I always read the documents you post. I am not obligated to respond to them. I assume that you will repost only that information that supports your argument. I take those posts as offering a selection of a far larger set of documents that together offer a far more robust and interesting story.

You are always willing to repost, rehash, repeat, and recycle. No debate there.

So refute them Horace. Or does your silence speak volumes?

 

[ErnieMac]

I think the decision to replace Rosecrans was the proper one. I also find it similar to the replacement of Hooker four months previously. Rosecrans, like Hooker, lost a battle. In the cases of Chickamauga and Chancellorsville losing was not the end of the world. Lincoln's and Stanton's response in both cases was in effect 'OK, you lost. What's next.' Neither general had an answer to that question and pretty much did nothing as the Confederates took the initiative. The decision in Washington was replacement in both cases as Lincoln and Stanton had lost confidence in the command abilities of both generals. Lincoln and Stanton pretty much used Halleck to force Hooker's resignation before Gettysburg. After Chickamauga they shuffled the responsibility for the removal of Rosecrans onto Grant, whom I suppose had no doubt which decision Stanton expected him to make.

 

[David Moore]

I think the decision to replace Rosecrans was the proper one. I also find it similar to the replacement of Hooker four months previously. Rosecrans, like Hooker, lost a battle. In the cases of Chickamauga and Chancellorsville losing was not the end of the world. Lincoln's and Stanton's response in both cases was in effect 'OK, you lost. What's next.' Neither general had an answer to that question and pretty much did nothing as the Confederates took the initiative. The decision in Washington was replacement in both cases as Lincoln and Stanton had lost confidence in the command abilities of both generals. Lincoln and Stanton pretty much used Halleck to force Hooker's resignation before Gettysburg. After Chickamauga they shuffled the responsibility for the removal of Rosecrans onto Grant, whom I suppose had no doubt which decision Stanton expected him to make.

Rosecrans devised the plan to open the cracker line. He would have put it in motion earlier but Hooker wasn't ready.
The supply line would have been opened if Grant had never been in Chattanooga.
There was no chance Grant would keep Rosecrans in command of the AotC.
Lincoln felt obligated to do something for Rosecrans after Chickamauga and he did putting him in command in Missouri.
Documentation for my points has been posted elsewhere on this site and will gladly be furnished if requested.

 

[nitrofd]

Here is an article from the Chattanooga Free Press from Jan.04,2014 titled "A Viper In Rosecrans Tent".
I know Mr Moore will enjoy this one and agree with it.
www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/columns/story/2015/jan/04/virosecrans-tent/280531

 

[Dave Powell]

It is always useful to remember bias. Regarding Steedman, bear in mind that he was not really a Rosecrans loyalist. When interviewed, he was on his way home for a furlough. He was angry at Rosecrans for not continuing him in divisional command after the army consolidation of early October. Steedman thought he earned a divisional command after Chickamauga (and he probably did) but in the re-organisation which merged the 20st and 21st corps into the 14st and newly renamed 4th Corps, Steedman lost his command to a more senior officer.

There is a great deal of "Bah! Humbug!" in Steedman's statement.

 

[ErnieMac]

Rosecrans devised the plan to open the cracker line. He would have put it in motion earlier but Hooker wasn't ready.
The supply line would have been opened if Grant had never been in Chattanooga.
There was no chance Grant would keep Rosecrans in command of the AotC.
Lincoln felt obligated to do something for Rosecrans after Chickamauga and he did putting him in command in Missouri.
Documentation for my points has been posted elsewhere on this site and will gladly be furnished if requested.

No need to document as I agree with your points, but that does not alter my own thoughts. Stanton had been aggravated with Rosecrans for months because he didn't move at Stanton's behest. Justified, no, but that was the case. Those communications are well documented in the Official Records. Lincoln's 'stunned duck' comment expresses his thoughts at the time. An army commander who has lost the confidence of his superiors is going to be replaced whether with good cause or not. It's only a question of how and how soon.

I can't imagine that Grant's feeling about Rosecrans were unknown to Stanton and vice-versa. Both sides of the equation knew what the other wanted and both got what they wanted. Win-win. Anyone who imagines Grant was apolitical has, IMO, been drinking too much Kool Aid.

As far as Lincoln placing Rosecrans in command in Missouri, the assignment of displaced army commanders to other stations was commonplace during the war. McDowell, Pope, Burnside and Hooker all found themselves commanding Union Military Departments after they were removed from the main theaters of operations. Only McClellan and Buell seemed to have been permanently sidelined.

 

[Horace Porter]

So refute them Horace. Or does your silence speak volumes?

My silence speaks boredom with your approach. For example, so what if the New York Times once ranked Rosecrans second to Grant? There's no need to refute that, just to place it in context. After all, you yourself have dismissed newspaper assessments when it suited your agenda. You haven't refuted accusations that Rosecrans was a drunkard and an opium-eater, or that on the battlefield his emotions got the best of him.

What we know is that when Grant was in trouble, he rode to the front. When Rosecrans got in trouble, he broke for the rear.

It is always useful to remember bias.

It is also always useful to remember bias when the bias supports your agenda as well as when the bias runs in the opposite direction. I'm tired of the usual litany of "objective=supports my argument; subjective/biased=challenges my argument." Piatt and Boynton were biased in favor of Rosecrans, for example, but you would think someone's committed a high crime to point that out to a certain recent biographer of Rosecrans.

What goes around comes around.

 

[David Moore]

My silence speaks boredom with your approach. For example, so what if the New York Times once ranked Rosecrans second to Grant? There's no need to refute that, just to place it in context. After all, you yourself have dismissed newspaper assessments when it suited your agenda. You haven't refuted accusations that Rosecrans was a drunkard and an opium-eater, or that on the battlefield his emotions got the best of him.

What we know is that when Grant was in trouble, he rode to the front. When Rosecrans got in trouble, he broke for the rear.



It is also always useful to remember bias when the bias supports your agenda as well as when the bias runs in the opposite direction. I'm tired of the usual litany of "objective=supports my argument; subjective/biased=challenges my argument." Piatt and Boynton were biased in favor of Rosecrans, for example, but you would think someone's committed a high crime to point that out to a certain recent biographer of Rosecrans.

What goes around comes around.

For someone who bores you, you seem to want to engage me a lot.
I'd say most people on this site would be surprised that any newspaper, much less a Republican one, ranked Rosecrans second to Grant in 1863. I know the people I speak to at CW related events are surprised. Many know little about Rosecrans. Are you against these things being mentioned? I sometimes sense you object to the fact that I post certain things more than you object to the accuracy of them.

Who said Rosecrans was an opium eater or a drunkard? Dana denied saying it and said he would deny it to anyone who said it (it's in the Dana letter attachment I posted.) Opydke does call him a drunkard but doesn't give any personal evidence of Rosecrans drinking. He didn't like Rosecrans after Chickamauga - he did before- but he didn't like Grant after Shiloh. But I will partially count Opdyke. Anyone eyewitness accounts? Shall we employ the Iuka standard of proof? i.e. second hand accounts don't count.

Did Rosecrans break for the rear at Rich Mtn? at Iuka? at Corinth? at Stones River?
Did he break for the rear at Chickamuaga or did he go to Chattanooga after trying and failing to stem the flight of his troops and after consulting with Garfield?

Here is an article from the Chattanooga Free Press from Jan.04,2014 titled "A Viper In Rosecrans Tent".
I know Mr Moore will enjoy this one and agree with it.
www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/columns/story/2015/jan/04/virosecrans-tent/280531

I appreciate you posting this and yes I do agree with it.

 

[Horace Porter]

For someone who bores you, you seem to want to engage me a lot.
I'd say most people on this site would be surprised that any newspaper, much less a Republican one, ranked Rosecrans second to Grant in 1863. I know the people I speak to at CW related events are surprised. Many know little about Rosecrans. Are you against these things being mentioned? I sometimes sense you object to the fact that I post certain things more than you object to the accuracy of them.

You may choose to believe whatever you so desire. I simply pointed out the inconsistency in your arguments. So have other posters.

Who said Rosecrans was an opium eater or a drunkard? Dana denied saying it and said he would deny it to anyone who said it (it's in the Dana letter attachment I posted.) Opydke does call him a drunkard but doesn't give any personal evidence of Rosecrans drinking. He didn't like Rosecrans after Chickamauga - he did before- but he didn't like Grant after Shiloh. But I will partially count Opdyke. Anyone eyewitness accounts? Shall we employ the Iuka standard of proof? i.e. second hand accounts don't count.

I am sure you will employ whatever standards of evidence you desire when they favor your argument, and abandon them when they do not. You can use the discussion board's search engine to backtrack to the evidence discussed.

 

[David Moore]

You may choose to believe whatever you so desire. I simply pointed out the inconsistency in your arguments. So have other posters.



I am sure you will employ whatever standards of evidence you desire when they favor your argument, and abandon them when they do not. You can use the discussion board's search engine to backtrack to the evidence discussed.

So you don't know of anyone who accused Rosecrans of being an opium eater and/or drunkard (other than Opdycke.)
Reposting is IMO a courtesy of sorts.

 

[nitrofd]

So you don't know of anyone who accused Rosecrans of being an opium eater and/or drunkard (other than Opdycke.)
Reposting is IMO a courtesy of sorts.

Everything that I have read has discredited Rosecrans being an opium eater so there is no need to go there.one statement does not make history true.

 

[Horace Porter]

Everything that I have read has discredited Rosecrans being an opium eater so there is no need to go there.one statement does not make history true.

Tell Mr. Moore that.

 

[David Moore]

Everything that I have read has discredited Rosecrans being an opium eater so there is no need to go there.one statement does not make history true.

I didn't initiate that issue on this site.

 

[David Moore]

Tell Mr. Moore that.

Wasn't it you who was recently curious about opium eating by Rosecrans?

 

[Horace Porter]

Wasn't it you who was recently curious about opium eating by Rosecrans?

I simply said that the accusation was raised. I was interested in what you would say, given what you said about Grant and rumors of drinking at Iuka.

Your response suggests that you are inconsistent. Since then we've had your admission that your overlooking Rosecrans's persistent efforts to have his commission backdated was an example of shoddy research.

Perhaps that is why you want me to block you. You find the criticism of your work painful. What would a courageous historian do?

 

[cash]

What would a courageous historian do?