Random Thoughts on Iuka

As far as the thread is concerned, my content was valuable and instructive. Hopefully, people will be able to read it and learn and think about the subject seriously. Tony put up a couple of useful things. I would agree that it ends there, unfortunately, as far as valuable content is concerned, up to this point.
Several people posted good content, and links were provided to other threads with good content. If credit is to go out, I'd mention SSvilla, Tony, Ned, Eric Calistri, and 1SGDan.

Your posts have not been all that valuable, because you're pushing a revisionist theory that is not supported by the most important historical sources, and it's not supported by the consensus of historians. It lacks historical support and it lacks common sense. Anyone reading this thread is far better off to read the sources themselves, and come to their own conclusions, rather than to believe amateur-hour theories.
 
Several people posted good content, and links were provided to other threads with good content. If credit is to go out, I'd mention SSvilla, Tony, Ned, Eric Calistri, and 1SGDan.

Your posts have not been all that valuable, because you're pushing a revisionist theory that is not supported by the most important historical sources, and it's not supported by the consensus of historians. It lacks historical support and it lacks common sense. Anyone reading this thread is far better off to read the sources themselves, and come to their own conclusions, rather than to believe amateur-hour theories.
Well, I posted the correspondence, so I would agree that it is advisable for people to read it.

Regarding the rest of your comment, Ned and Eric were essentially not involved here, which is understandable. You have to know your stuff first before you come to table on a subject. Regarding Ned, I would say that in a bunch of areas he has put out good content.
 
Well, I posted the correspondence, so I would agree that it is advisable for people to read it.

Regarding the rest of your comment, Ned and Eric were essentially not involved here, which is understandable. You have to know your stuff first before you come to table on a subject. Regarding Ned, I would say that in a bunch of areas he has put out good content.
There are far more sources than just the limited correspondence pertaining to Bear Creek. People are encouraged to read all of it. Not just the narrow selection you're trying to steer people towards.

I specifically included the threads that were linked here, in which Ned and Eric and 1SGDan all provided very valuable information. More valuable than your theories.
 
There are far more sources than just the limited correspondence pertaining to Bear Creek. People are encouraged to read all of it. Not just the narrow selection you're trying to steer people towards.

I specifically included the threads that were linked here, in which Ned and Eric and 1SGDan all provided very valuable information. More valuable than your theories.
They sure are encouraged to read all of it. They can start around 17 OR 2: 213, on September 10th. I would highly encourage that everyone read it all.

The Reports begin at 17 OR 1: 60.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile the rest of CWT:

guaton-computadora.gif
 
They sure are encouraged to read all of it. They can start around 17 OR 2: 213, on September 10th. I would highly encourage that everyone read it all.
Lol. They can read part one as well, and every other source on the battle that they can find. It's laughable how you're trying to steer people to only the correspondence.
 
Lol. They can read part one as well, and every other source on the battle that they can find. It's laughable how you're trying to steer people to only the correspondence.
The reports begin at 17 OR 1: 60. Everyone should read them, as well.

Along with everything else, for sure. The correspondence and other contemporary records are always the lifeblood of the historian, of course. Then reports. Then other later accounts.
 
I'm a little confused about what all the talk about Bear Creek has to do with the original plan. If Rosecrans covers the Fulton Road, the crossing of Bear Creek is interdicted isn't it?
 
@Lubliner

It isn't really an argument. I approach this subject, as I do all subjects, from the perspective of utilizing the historical record to enlighten and inform. There is just what is known and what isn't and what is to be made of it. There are no "sides" here. Lots of statements have been made which don't comport with the historical record and I have merely pointed that out.

Rosecrans had been at Iuka himself prior to the pulling out on September 12th. He moved back with Fuller's brigade of Stanley's Division on the basis of the September 11th orders to consolidate around Corinth. He had seen the area himself and had had a variety of there units at different times. Stanley's Division was there on the 12th. He left Murphy's brigade (Col. Robert Murphy of the 8th Wisconsin, provisionally commanding the brigade) to cover the stores as they were to be removed and brought back from Iuka. After Murphy pulled the brigade back and abandoned most of the stores, without being able to ascertain the size of the Confederate movement and was consequently arrested, Rosecrans ordered Joe Mower, of the 11th Missouri to push the brigade back towards Iuka and determine the Confederate strength and what they were doing, which they did. The brigade moved up near Iuka and Mower conducted reconnaissance with his old regiment and in doing so they were able to ascertain that the Army of the West was there in force, which was reported back. This was late on the 16th.

They knew the ground and Rosecrans formulated the plan which was ultimately adopted. He made it all very clear in his correspondence. At least some others may have understood this, as well. Here is Arthur Ducat, who was serving on Ord's staff at the time and would later join Rosecrans staff. This was sent many years later, in correspondence between he and Rosecrans in 1885, but it is nonetheless worth seeing, at least in that he claims to have understood this at the time, even serving on Ord's staff, for whatever it is worth (and I don't put too much stock into it). He wrote to Rosecrans:

"I was Senior officer to Gen. Ord,-a good, brave and competent soldier,- who was in command of Grant's principal column. I know of something of the internal workings of matters from Corinth down to Iuka, and the foolish halt at Burnsville, which was none of Ord's fault. Ord told me of Grant's proposition to send in the despatch to Price, informing him of the battle of Antietam and the defeat of the Confederate forces, asking for his surrender. Ord said, 'Ducat, what do you think of it?' I remarked, 'Why should Price surrender when he can run; and if this despatch goes in, he will get out if he can, because it gives him time. The thing to do is to attack him now.'"

-A.C. Ducat to Rosecrans, April 24, 1885.

We could walk through all of the correspondence, but it seems pretty unnecessary that way. It is voluminous and the contemporary correspondence repudiates the point being made as to the conception and formulation of the plan. We know that the conception and formulation of the plan recognized the prospect of the Army of the West pulling back to the east via Bear Creek. We just know that. It isn't something which can be in dispute that way based on the record. One can certainly argue against the plan, but they can't argue as to how it was conceived that way. I will post via snapshots again here below. Such was certainly relayed to Grant. See Post #45 in this thread.

Also, the other user noted previously that Price was at Iuka "looking for a fight" as a reason in which he would not have pulled back, but the whole object of the Confederate movement was to get at and harass the Army of the Mississippi, or elements of the Army, while isolated. Price had no intention of fighting the Army of the Tennessee and the Army of the Mississippi together alone (nor did the government want for him to do so) and he had been in extensive communication regarding this with both Van Dorn and the government. The government had ultimately ordered the consolidation and Van Dorn ordered Price to move via Rienzi to Pocahontas on September 16th in preparation for a move, optimally against Corinth. Those orders, per the accounts which we have, reached Price early on the 19th. Furthermore, even before Price received those orders there is evidence that he was considering pulling back out of Iuka in that the U.S. forces were consolidating and he had moved to Iuka in order to harass the Army of the Mississippi alone and out of a concern that the combined Federal forces could strike at him.

I will note that other things have been stated categorically as fact which are not know and/or in dispute, as well. For example, it has been stated that Grant altered the plan during the day on the 19th and informed Rosecrans to this effect, which we know Grant stated subsequently (and certainly may be true), but there is good evidence to indicate that if such was the case, that Rosecrans was not aware of it, for whatever reason. Rosecrans correspondence with his wife Annie implies that he may not have ever been aware of such an alteration of the plan at the time. In his words:

"The failure of proper cooperation unfortunately lost us the capture of Price and his entire army, which would have been inevitable had the attack from the west side been duly made. We accomplished our task, but the failure of the attack from the west to come up on time brought all the forces in our direction and prevented us from attaining the point we most desired on the evening of the 19th.

-W.S. Rosecrans to A.E. Rosecrans, September 24, 1862.

Rosecrans would later state that Grant's communications to him on the morning of the 19th were the last communications from him which he received that day. Is it possible that his memory failed him on that? Yes. However, as noted above, there is some contemporary evidence to the effect that he was not aware of this supposed change of plan. We then have unclear and somewhat conflicting testimony regarding both Lagow and Dickey that way.

View attachment 519801

View attachment 519802

I appreciate you sharing Rosecrans letter to his wife. I'll repost it here because I want to analyze it:

"The failure of proper cooperation unfortunately lost us the capture of Price and his entire army, which would have been inevitable had the attack from the west side been duly made. We accomplished our task, but the failure of the attack from the west to come up on time brought all the forces in our direction and prevented us from attaining the point we most desired on the evening of the 19th.​

-W.S. Rosecrans to A.E. Rosecrans, September 24, 1862.

Notice what he's saying there, "the failure of the attack from the west to come up on time brought all the forces in our direction…"

He's not stating the failure of the attack from the west to come in first was a problem.

What he's actually stating is that because Ord didn't show up on time that phrase is key and crucial — he faced a large force. In fact, he thought he drew all forces in his direction, which prevented him "from attaining the point we most desired on the evening of the 19th." I believe that point was the road between the Jacinto and Fulton road, eventually the Fulton road.

What I learned from that letter is that Rosecrans indeed knew of the change in orders exactly as I thought he did. He still thought a modified version of his plan could accomplish his goal, which also confirms my interpretation. Also, the letter confirms my belief that what Rosecrans was really upset about in the morning of the 20th was the fact Ord hadn't shown up at all.

I don't understand the relevance of Bear Creek discussions because Price escaped via Fulton, so it seems irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Was this statement off the record and not of the official reports?
What I am asking in truth is when reading ulterior correspondence or memoirs compared to prompt official reports, I for one would bias my judgement toward the reports. How prevalent are off the record after action discussions among the principle figures taken as more significant than the actual report supposedly made under oath?
Lubliner.

For me personally, the value of the letter is in learning what he thought. That perhaps explains some questionable decisions he made… Whether what he thought was the truth is a different matter.
 
Last edited:
I'm a little confused about what all the talk about Bear Creek has to do with the original plan. If Rosecrans covers the Fulton Road, the crossing of Bear Creek is interdicted isn't it?
No, that is incorrect. I covered this in earlier posts in this thread.

I think that It has been long established that most others here are not seriously interested in pursuing this subject and no one else seems interested in having a serious, insightful, discussion so I think that this has played itself out.
 
Last edited:
One unanswered question about Iuka that keeps coming up is whether or not Rosecrans actually knew that due to his running late, the plan had been changed. Rosecrans denied he'd been told, and he claimed Dickey and Lagow merely made "suggestions." But after Lagow joined up with Rosecrans, he sent a message back to Grant informing him that "your dispatch to Genl. Rosecrans rec'd." This implies that Dickey and Lagow didn't just go to Rosecrans with a verbal message from Grant. They also carried a written dispatch from Grant. That makes it even more unlikely that Rosecrans didn't know that the plan had changed.

View attachment 520037
I really think he knew. I stated that in a lengthy post I made on page 19, but since I am going through posts I hadn't read, I am just now seeing this.
I didn't even know about that message Lagow sent back.

I find that I have objections to Cozzens opinions and find him biased in Rosecrans favor. Perhaps others here knew this, but I didn't. It's not evident immediately because he's so corrosive and heavy handed with criticism generally, but things like that shouldn't have been footnotes, while we are fed Rosecrans highly dubious, incredible and mendacious accounts to Congress verbatim.

My opinion is that Rosecrans made up the lie that he didn't know long after when he testified in Congress because he hated Grant and was in a similar irrational state as when he wrote the highly disputatious and full of lies "The Mistakes of Grant." When it came to his hate for Grant his emotions would override his better judgment. He couldn't contain himself.

I've thought long about this, and you know I privately shared with you a theory weeks ago, that still didn't paint Rosecrans as a liar because I thought that was a tall accusation. I thought sometime ago that he was just stubborn, having a blind spot to what was being conveyed to him. But then I was reminded of "the Mistakes of Grant" in one post, and I thought wait a minute, Rosecrans was capable of telling a pack of lies from beginning to end. I realized that this man was perfectly capable of straight faced lying, in print, forever to be left as an evidence of his character.

I quoted before a description of Cozzens of Rosecrans' character as a man of high integrity who hated lying from people in positions of authority and I wonder if he considered that Rosecrans himself had lied plenty. He probably had high integrity in other aspects, but not this. The man was very capable of lying. I realize now that I have a lot of issues with Cozzens opinions.

Furthermore, in Rosy's letter to his wife, written a few days after the incident, which I also quoted in a prior post, posted by @Nathan Towne Rosecrans was upset that the attack from the west didn't come up in time. Nowhere is he complaining that the attack from the west wasn't made first. Nothing in that letter actually conveys that he didn't know the change in orders. To pretend he didn't know is simply a distortion of reality made up by Rosecrans after the fact, and I would highly discredit all those statements from Ducat and Fuller and Rosecrans himself 20 years later, when Rosy was so embittered in his hate he couldn't even refer to Grant by name.

I find it puzzling that for his narrative and in forming his opinions Cozzens relied more on such statements than on the ones made contemporaneous with the battle, that is that Lagow message, Dickey's letter, Rosy's letter to his wife, etc. and straight up common sense? Why would Grant send D&L to Ord with a written order and not to Rosy? I simply don't buy it, I don't buy that Rosecrans didn't know.

You know who also made me rethink Cozzens narrative that he didn't know? Albert Castel. He didn't even waste much ink debating this. Ironically, I found Castel much more even handed with Grant than Cozzens. Castel I knew beforehand as a historian who admired Rosecrans, yet I found him unwilling to swallow the Rosecrans lie.

Then we see that Rosecrans complied with the order so that I don't even understand why he chose to make a big deal of this except to focus the failure of Iuka's plan to work on Grant. Because just admitting that Ord didn't show up on time places the onus more on Ord than Grant.
 
I really think he knew. I stated that in a lengthy post I made on page 19, but since I am going through posts I hadn't read, I am just now seeing this.
I didn't even know about that message Lagow sent back.

I find that I have objections to Cozzens opinions and find him biased in Rosecrans favor. Perhaps others here knew this, but I didn't. It's not evident immediately because he's so corrosive and heavy handed with criticism generally, but things like that shouldn't have been footnotes, while we are fed Rosecrans highly dubious, incredible and mendacious accounts to Congress verbatim.

My opinion is that Rosecrans made up the lie that he didn't know long after when he testified in Congress because he hated Grant and was in a similar irrational state as when he wrote the highly disputatious and full of lies "The Mistakes of Grant." When it came to his hate for Grant his emotions would override his better judgment. He couldn't contain himself.

I've thought long about this, and you know I privately shared with you a theory weeks ago, that still didn't paint Rosecrans as a liar because I thought that was a tall accusation. I thought sometime ago that he was just stubborn, having a blind spot to what was being conveyed to him. But then I was reminded of "the Mistakes of Grant" in one post, and I thought wait a minute, Rosecrans was capable of telling a pack of lies from beginning to end. I realized that this man was perfectly capable of straight faced lying, in print, forever to be left as an evidence of his character.

I quoted before a description of Cozzens of Rosecrans' character as a man of high integrity who hated lying from people in positions of authority and I wonder if he considered that Rosecrans himself had lied plenty. He probably had high integrity in other aspects, but not this. The man was very capable of lying. I realize now that I have a lot of issues with Cozzens opinions.

Furthermore, in Rosy's letter to his wife, written a few days after the incident, which I also quoted in a prior post, posted by @Nathan Towne Rosecrans was upset that the attack from the west didn't come up in time. Nowhere is he complaining that the attack from the west wasn't made first. Nothing in that letter actually conveys that he didn't know the change in orders. To pretend he didn't know is simply a distortion of reality made up by Rosecrans after the fact, and I would highly discredit all those statements from Ducat and Fuller and Rosecrans himself 20 years later, when Rosy was so embittered in his hate he couldn't even refer to Grant by name.

I find it puzzling that for his narrative and in forming his opinions Cozzens relied more on such statements than on the ones made contemporaneous with the battle, that is that Lagow message, Dickey's letter, Rosy's letter to his wife, etc. and straight up common sense? Why would Grant send D&L to Ord with a written order and not to Rosy? I simply don't buy it, I don't buy that Rosecrans didn't know.

You know who also made me rethink Cozzens narrative that he didn't know? Albert Castel. He didn't even waste much ink debating this. Ironically, I found Castel much more even handed with Grant than Cozzens. Castel I knew beforehand as a historian who admired Rosecrans, yet I found him unwilling to swallow the Rosecrans lie.

Then we see that Rosecrans complied with the order so that I don't even understand why he chose to make a big deal of this except to focus the failure of Iuka's plan to work on Grant. Because just admitting that Ord didn't show up on time places the onus more on Ord than Grant.
I am glad that you are trying to learn and pursue the evidence. There is a lot which I can say regarding your above comment, but I have worn down with this thread, due to the inability of certain people to honestly confront evidence and continuously spew blatant falsehoods and obviously erroneous conclusions. I find it to be a waste of time and energy.

I agree with you regarding Rosecrans letter to his wife not being dispositive on that issue pertaining to the change of plans.
 
Last edited:
No, that is incorrect. I covered this in earlier posts in this thread.

I think that It has been long established that most others here are not seriously interested in pursuing this subject and no one else seems interested in having a serious, insightful, discussion so I think that this has played itself out.
The main road over Bear Creek intersects with the road from Fulton to Eastport a mile or so east of town, behind that ridge labeled (incorrectly?) Fulton Road on the maps.
 
I am glad that you are trying to learn and pursue the evidence. There is a lot which I can say regarding your above comment, but I have worn down with this thread, due to the inability of certain people to honestly confront evidence and continuously spew blatant falsehoods and obviously erroneous conclusions. I find it to be a waste of time and energy.
I have perceived that there's an argument going on between you and others concerning some prior time and discussion.

I don't understand it as it preceded me. I think you have made some useful contributions here, but there's something else going on and since you feel so bitter about it, it complicates matters.

I respect all posters and have no quarrel with you. I understand if you need a break from the thread and don't hold it against you…
 

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