Random Thoughts on Iuka

I posted this way back on the third page of this thread: "I think people run into problems here when they fail to realize that every single post, including their own, is an opinion. Opinions based on books that are read, on sources that are investigated, and perhaps on personal biases as well. No one here is an arbiter of truth."

This was immediately followed by a poster criticizing Ned Baldwins knowledge of the battle, and then repetitively declaring over the next many pages that their own opinion was the "wholly established" truth. Threads like this would not get so tiring if the poster simply realized that other posters can look through the evidence and come to completely different opinions. If a person wants to dominate over other posters, and dictate what is to be considered truth, then they are going to get some pushback and they certainly deserve to get pushback to that kind of conceited behavior.

Express your own opinion. Respect the opinions of other posters. Agree or disagree with other posters. Leave it at that, and it would not seem so tiring.
 
I posted this way back on the third page of this thread: "I think people run into problems here when they fail to realize that every single post, including their own, is an opinion. Opinions based on books that are read, on sources that are investigated, and perhaps on personal biases as well. No one here is an arbiter of truth."

This was immediately followed by a poster criticizing Ned Baldwins knowledge of the battle, and then repetitively declaring over the next many pages that their own opinion was the "wholly established" truth. Threads like this would not get so tiring if the poster simply realized that other posters can look through the evidence and come to completely different opinions. If a person wants to dominate over other posters, and dictate what is to be considered truth, then they are going to get some pushback and they certainly deserve to get pushback to that kind of conceited behavior.

Express your own opinion. Respect the opinions of other posters. Agree or disagree with other posters. Leave it at that, and it would not seem so tiring.
Well, I stand entirely by what I said, which was wholly accurate. Mr. Baldwin made a statement which objectively was shown to be not representative of the situation as it existed. You did many times, as well.

Once that was established via the record, we then can operate from there, but if one can't operate on that honest basis and continues to flagrantly misrepresent and misinform by authoritatively stating something which is in direct conflict with the contemporary record and lying by omission in not indulging the relevant facts to the larger readership, then it is not a worthwhile exercise.
 
Well, I stand entirely by what I said, which was wholly accurate. Mr. Baldwin made a statement which objectively was shown to be not representative of the situation as it existed. You did many times, as well.

Once that was established via the record, we then can operate from there, but if one can't operate on that honest basis and continues to flagrantly misrepresent and misinform by authoritatively stating something which is in direct conflict with the contemporary record and lying by omission in not indulging the relevant facts to the larger readership, then it is not a worthwhile exercise.
You mistakenly think that your opinion is something more than opinion.

You haven't "established" anything. You have interpreted the evidence and come to your own conclusion. Others, including Ned Baldwin, have interpreted the evidence and come to a different conclusion. Until you can recognize that your opinion is not established truth, then you're going to have problems.
 
You mistakenly think that your opinion is something more than opinion.

You haven't "established" anything. You have interpreted the evidence and come to your own conclusion. Others, including Ned Baldwin, have interpreted the evidence and come to a different conclusion. Until you can recognize that your opinion is not established truth, then you're going to have problems.
My opinion regarding the wisdom of some of Rosecrans decisions is certainly opinion.

What was actually said in terms of the conception of the plan, isn't.

He didn't know the relevant correspondence and made a statement which didn't make much sense and hence we haven't heard from him since.
 
My opinion regarding the wisdom of some of Rosecrans decisions is certainly opinion.

What was actually said in terms of the conception of the plan, isn't.

He didn't know the relevant correspondence and made a statement which didn't make much sense and hence we haven't heard from him since.
You just don't get it. Your interpretation of the evidence is your own understanding of it. It's your opinion. It's not established fact. You simply gathered together every Bear Creek reference and decided that it means what you want it to mean. You discard evidence that conflicts with your opinion, such as the writing and testimony from Grant and Rosecrans.

And your obsessive vendetta against Ned (and others) is really pathological. I think it's a shame if the forum loses the contributions from good knowledgeable posters that may post less to avoid the attacks and insults from you.
 
A job for an academic historian. I've consulted the Rosecrans Papers in two visits to UCLA.
Very time consuming. Limit of a few boxes at a time and they are stored away from the main UCLA research library.
They are somewhat indexed. The letters that will probably never be read are the pre War letters that discuss a variety of topics including theology and religion. Rosecrans was also interested in technology and mining.
For what it's worth Frank Varney and Joe Rose have also consulted Rosecrans' papers.
 
You just don't get it. Your interpretation of the evidence is your own understanding of it. It's your opinion. It's not established fact. You simply gathered together every Bear Creek reference and decided that it means what you want it to mean. You discard evidence that conflicts with your opinion, such as the writing and testimony from Grant and Rosecrans.

And your obsessive vendetta against Ned (and others) is really pathological. I think it's a shame if the forum loses the contributions from good knowledgeable posters that may post less to avoid the attacks and insults from you.
I would certainly be fine with you posting less. I have nothing against Ned.

The contemporary correspondence just is. People can read it for themselves. They will see and be able to start from there.
 
Happily "everyone" seems to be only 3-4 people.
The facts are the facts. The contemporary record is the contemporary record. Even if some can only bury their head in the sand. It is decisive on the issue as to the basic conception of the plan. It just is. That is that.

I know quite a bit about this subject and would happily have a serious discussion with people willing and capable of having a serious discussion.
 
Last edited:
This is my version of the inexplicable.

I think it was indeed too risky to attack with two columns. Rosecrans panicked big time before noon when Sanborn had a squirmish with rebel cavalry. Before deciding to abandon Cartersville he had ordered it held at all hazards with instructions to find a strong defensive position. At the time he still thought to proceed with divided forces but he was crapping himself.

Castel is of the theory that the most important element Rosecrans needed to be successful was surprise. In fact he thought without surprise Rosecrans' plan would fail to trap Price. Ord's role was to attack first in order to facilitate that surprise. Getting as close as possible by night was also to enable the surprise. When Rosy was discovered before noon, that put the biggest wedge on his plans than anything else. He's not going to admit that however. He must blame someone else if all goes to **** and we'll cue the scapegoats.

Why all the ballyhoo and brouhaha about everything else? Denying the Dickey and Lagow change in orders is classic "The Mistakes of Grant" distortion of reality that Rosecrans is capable of. In order to defend himself for his mistakes he would distort the truth, reframe things, outright lie, and pin the malfeasance on Grant. What point is there for Grant to send Rosy not one, but two staff officers to give him pointless advice to hurry up? Rosecrans already knew he was running late and didn't need to be reminded. That's not the reason D&L we're there. They were there to make sure orders were obeyed. Also, what point was there to send D&L to Ord at 10:00 am with a change in orders and not send that same change to Rosecrans immediately after? The whole thing strains credibility and doesn't make sense. Then there's the Dickey letter to his wife.

Rosecrans lied about all that because he had to pin that failure on someone else, and when he testified in Congress he hated Grant. Castel is disregarding that entire absurdity that Grant didn't send Rosecrans a change in orders and so am I. Could that have been the reason Rosecrans decided to consolidate his columns like @tony_gunter theorized and not the fact he was found out so early in the day? Sure, because Rosecrans was already crapping himself, D&L telling him that he now had to open the festivities would just add on to the doubts he was already having. He would comply with orders because he had to, but not in the way Grant thought with columns divided.

What about the map inaccuracies and Col. Milzner? This is the classic case of when it rains, it pours. As if Rosecrans wasn't already in a jam, his route calculations were wrong. Maybe they wouldn't have mattered at all had he been on time and moved in by night with Ord drawing the tough assignment of being bait, allowing him to spring the trap, but if he had to attack Price straight up? Specially when the latter was expecting it? Then the distance was insurmountable, too risky to separate the columns, etc

These things happened almost concurrently, and sequentially they were like a cascade of failures. Cozzens is of the opinion that Rosecrans had already decided to consolidate his columns before D&L even got into the picture. That could very well be because he eas already in panic mode after being discovered, and the roads and distances were longer and farther apart than thought. It's pretty much irrelevant in terms of final effect as all these things just add on to each other, o complicate an already panicky situation.

I am writing this in disorganized fashion but it could very carefully be reconstructed to show the record sequence of events. One thing just adds on to another like a cascade failure.

Why didn't Rosecrans notify Grant?

This is really the speculation, but I'll give you my opinion. That was common sense old school variety, CYA. By not leaving a paper trail, in this case he could still salvage his reputation, his narrative, and be able to fashion afterwards a positive report for himself depending on how things developed. This is a tactic of the old army game. If he left a written trail, it would be a written admission of his mistakes, they would show up on reports, and get magnified even. Everything that went wrong thereafter would get blamed on his delay and his leaving one road uncovered (rightfully, but notice how by not leaving a written account of that he was indeed able to spin things around to suit his purpose,) Besides, he was still hoping against hope that he could salvage the situation, by using the road connecting Jacinto to Fulton to still capture Price. He'd write to his wife within two days that if he got cooperation from Ord he would have been able to capture Price. He might have been mistaken but that's what he thought, so he would indeed have thought against reason the plan was still salvageable. Then why leave such an admission of errors at 12:40 pm that his maps were wrong that he couldn't cover both roads, etc?

I don't have anything to comment about delays, the roads, etc. that part I have to catch up on.

I'll revise this if shown incorrect as this is my working impression.
To try to get this circus back on track...

I think your speculation is good, and it shows how the more a person looks into this battle, the more it leaves a person with more questions.

One question that came to mind when reading your theory of a panicking Rosecrans is: If he was nervous and panicky about the plan falling apart, why was he nowhere near the head of the column when it stumbled into the confederates? In Hamilton's B&L article, he mentions repeatedly sending for Rosecrans to come up after the fighting had started. Cozzens just sort of skims over Rosecrans' absence at the beginning of the battle, but he does imply that it was 30 minutes after the firing started before Rosecrans showed up.

Compounding this absence of Rosecrans, Hamilton wrote that he had been given no "further instructions" after being ordered to march up the Jacinto Road. So, no instructions to cross over to the Fulton Road at the crossroads? No instructions to stop and close up before simply blundering into Iuka? It's like no one was in charge. Where was Rosecrans? What could be more important than being nearby when his force encountered the enemy?
 
To try to get this circus back on track...

I think your speculation is good, and it shows how the more a person looks into this battle, the more it leaves a person with more questions.

One question that came to mind when reading your theory of a panicking Rosecrans is: If he was nervous and panicky about the plan falling apart, why was he nowhere near the head of the column when it stumbled into the confederates? In Hamilton's B&L article, he mentions repeatedly sending for Rosecrans to come up after the fighting had started. Cozzens just sort of skims over Rosecrans' absence at the beginning of the battle, but he does imply that it was 30 minutes after the firing started before Rosecrans showed up.

Compounding this absence of Rosecrans, Hamilton wrote that he had been given no "further instructions" after being ordered to march up the Jacinto Road. So, no instructions to cross over to the Fulton Road at the crossroads? No instructions to stop and close up before simply blundering into Iuka? It's like no one was in charge. Where was Rosecrans? What could be more important than being nearby when his force encountered the enemy?
Rosecrans was involved in the dispositions of Sanborn's brigade prior to the fighting opening. Although not mentioned by Hamilton in his B&L article, that is well established. You are not familiar with the sources. There is then a gap of time in which it is not wholly clear where he was.
 
Rosecrans was involved in the dispositions of Sanborn's brigade prior to the fighting opening. Although not mentioned by Hamilton in his B&L article, that is well established. You are not familiar with the sources. There is then a gap of time in which it is not wholly clear where he was.
Both Cozzens and Hamilton say that Rosecrans was not there at the beginning of the fighting. Get over your petty preening and posturing, or just stay out of the conversation.
 
Both Cozzens and Hamilton say that Rosecrans was not there at the beginning of the fighting. Get over your petty preening and posturing, or just stay out of the conversation.
Ahh, when the Confederate attack opened, yes, where Rosecrans was exactly is not wholly clear. He had just been there involved in the dispositions of Sanborn's brigade though. We have about five sources corroborating this, although it is true that Hamilton didn't mention it in his B&L article, from my recollection, at least.

Know the sources before spewing things, as you usually do.
 
Both Cozzens and Hamilton say that Rosecrans was not there at the beginning of the fighting. Get over your petty preening and posturing, or just stay out of the conversation.
Of course it was actually Grant who was absent during the battle. It was the most discussed aspect in the aftermath of the battle. I have done lots of research including at UCLA on this but this site is not the place to present it. I have no desire to be the fifth member of this conversation so I will take Mr Hawk's advice and stay out of the conversation.
 
Ahh, when the Confederate attack opened, yes, where Rosecrans was exactly is not wholly clear. He had just been there involved in the dispositions of Sanborn's brigade though. We have about five sources corroborating this, although it is true that Hamilton didn't mention it in his B&L article, from my recollection, at least.

Know the sources before spewing things, as you usually do.
Whatever. Let the thread get back to a constructive discussion.
 
Of course it was actually Grant who was absent during the battle. It was the most discussed aspect in the aftermath of the battle. I have done lots of research including at UCLA on this but this site is not the place to present it. I have no desire to be the fifth member of this conversation so I will take Mr Hawk's advice and stay out of the conversation.
You will enjoy this. Nothing to do with the Iuka operation, but you will enjoy it. I don't want to spoil it. Just watch.

 

Learn About Us
â–ºAbout CivilWarTalk
â–ºContact the Webmaster
â–ºMeet the Staff
â–ºLink to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
â–ºRegister
â–ºBrowse Forums
â–ºView Today's Discussions
â–ºSearch the Forum
Get Help
â–ºFAQ
â–ºStudent Guide
â–ºForum Rules & Etiquette
â–ºCopyright / 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