A statue for Rosecrans was A formal debate propostion for Grant.

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
1,789
Location
Washington, DC
William S. Rosecrans: The Unhappy Warrior.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe Rosecrans should be commemorated in Washington?
Consider that Logan, Rawlins, McClellan, Garfield, McPherson, Meade, Farragut and Samuel duPont all have statues there as do Thomas, Sherman and Grant.
If you don't think he deserves to be commemorated would you please list your reasons.
Before you answer you might want to read the following (pg 70ff) https://books.google.com/books?id=row-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=rosecrans+statue+reunion+society+of+the+army+of+cumberland&source=bl&ots=QZAEGnL98x&sig=NULIynyqYPvG8J97ITU3PAmSXGI&hl=en&ei=dSrxTKP9M8SblgfwjpmhDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thanks
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
7,631
Location
California
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe Rosecrans should be commemorated in Washington?
I dont see any compelling reason for it.

Consider that Logan, Rawlins, McClellan, Garfield, McPherson, Meade, Farragut and Samuel duPont all have statues there as do Thomas, Sherman and Grant.
You forgot Hancock. I also think there is a Kearny statue in the Capitol (as well as at Arlington).

If you don't think he deserves to be commemorated would you please list your reasons.
Just because 100+ years ago statues were installed for some generals is not sufficient reason to create one now for a different general.
Just because one group of veterans was pro-Rosecrans 100+ years ago is not sufficient reason to create a monument now.


Addendum: This could be a debate topic -- did Rosecrans war service merit a monument on par with the others in Washington?
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,130
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe Rosecrans should be commemorated in Washington?
Consider that Logan, Rawlins, McClellan, Garfield, McPherson, Meade, Farragut and Samuel duPont all have statues there as do Thomas, Sherman and Grant.
If you don't think he deserves to be commemorated would you please list your reasons.
Before you answer you might want to read the following (pg 70ff) https://books.google.com/books?id=row-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=rosecrans+statue+reunion+society+of+the+army+of+cumberland&source=bl&ots=QZAEGnL98x&sig=NULIynyqYPvG8J97ITU3PAmSXGI&hl=en&ei=dSrxTKP9M8SblgfwjpmhDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thanks
I like old "Rosie". He got a raw deal and he deserves recognition as much as any other Union General.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Horace Porter

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
1,723
Location
Absoltely Nowhere Now, MA
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe Rosecrans should be commemorated in Washington?
Consider that Logan, Rawlins, McClellan, Garfield, McPherson, Meade, Farragut and Samuel duPont all have statues there as do Thomas, Sherman and Grant.
If you don't think he deserves to be commemorated would you please list your reasons.
Those people who wanted to commemorate him should have undertaken that effort.

You also forgot Sheridan and John Ericsson. I'm sure there are others. Garfield (and McKinley) are not remembered primarily for their Civil War service. Logan's postwar career was also critical in his being remembered as a general. Although I personally don't see Rawlins as deserving a statue, those of you who think that Rawlins was key to Grant's success (and thus to saving the Union) might feel differently. But others at the time saw Rawlins as more deserving than Rosecrans ... or Hooker ... or Burnside ... or Buell.

I've seen a painting of Rosecrans at the National Portrait Gallery, so he's commemorated. He failed to get a statue. I think the portrait's a worthy commemoration. More people see that in context than know about Thomas or Logan as they whiz around a traffic circle.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Mark F. Jenkins

Colonel
Member of the Year
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
13,071
Location
Central Ohio
Hm. I should pop up and see that. Sunbury's just up the road from me. (I've visited the small monument at his birthsite on Rosecrans Road... it's not far from where we go to get our Christmas tree each year.)
 

Sbc

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
1,190
Location
Georgia
No. Surprised and beaten tactically by an inferior leader(Bragg) at Mufreesboro. Over extended his army in the mountains of North Georgia and was again trounced by Bragg.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
1,789
Location
Washington, DC
I dont see any compelling reason for it.


You forgot Hancock. I also think there is a Kearny statue in the Capitol (as well as at Arlington).



Just because 100+ years ago statues were installed for some generals is not sufficient reason to create one now for a different general.
Just because one group of veterans was pro-Rosecrans 100+ years ago is not sufficient reason to create a monument now.


Addendum: This could be a debate topic -- did Rosecrans war service merit a monument on par with the others in Washington?
You're right about Kearny and Hancock. Plenty of Generals -north and south - are in the Capitol. Albert Pike is on the streets of DC but as a masonic figure.
I think our disagreement about Rosecrans is about how important he was to the Union victory. You know my view. The NY Times said after he was relieved in 1863 that no man had accomplished more except Grant. (Lamers Edge of Glory p 402). I think there is little reason to doubt that had he been given what Sherman was given in 1864 Rosecrans would have done as well as Sherman. Rosecrans' achievements are all but unknown even to the CW buff much less the general public. I can only reemphasize what Albert Castel wrote in his last book: the need for some courageous historian to write about Rosecrans. He did accomplish a lot: West Virginia, NE Mississippi, Central Tennessee and taking Chattanooga. Most Americans -almost all really- have no idea what he did in the war. A modest statue on Pennsylvania Ave would help. Nothing on par with what's been built the day of big equestrian monuments is over. His relationship with Grant was terrible to say the least. Grant is the great hero of the war and Rosecrans has suffered because of that. But many people then and an increasing number today are questioning the accepted view. I would think in this era of talk of removing Confederate statues the idea of erecting a statue to a northern general- a staue that the men who served under him wanted- would be especially popular with Union supporters. I suppose it's not. Perhaps supporters of the "Lost Cause" really do care more about the people who fought for that cause. Btw our most recent discussion on Iuka -which I entered reluctantly- has actually been a good thing for my point of view. I did deeper research about the battle including checking out the Ord Papers in California. I learned important things that I hope to write about soon. Suffice it to say that Ord was not pleased with Grant's actions at Iuka.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
1,789
Location
Washington, DC
Hm. I should pop up and see that. Sunbury's just up the road from me. (I've visited the small monument at his birthsite on Rosecrans Road... it's not far from where we go to get our Christmas tree each year.)
I'm speaking in Indianapolis on Monday and might pass through Sunbury on Sunday. If there's any chance you might be there let me know perhaps we can time our visit and meet.
No. Surprised and beaten tactically by an inferior leader(Bragg) at Mufreesboro. Over extended his army in the mountains of North Georgia and was again trounced by Bragg.
For an alternative and fuller treatment of those battles I recommend you read Victors in Blue by Albert Castel - among other recent books.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
1,789
Location
Washington, DC
I would have zero problems if a private party pays to commission and erect a statue of Rosecrans (or anyone else for that matter) in private property. I think that my tax money have bigger fish to fry (and more mouths to feed and arms to vaccinate) than statues for anyone...

Btw, someone has already done that:

Rosecrans-1703a-600.jpg
I meant in Washington -which is what his troops wanted. I'm absolutely for using private money only.
Those people who wanted to commemorate him should have undertaken that effort.

You also forgot Sheridan and John Ericsson. I'm sure there are others. Garfield (and McKinley) are not remembered primarily for their Civil War service. Logan's postwar career was also critical in his being remembered as a general. Although I personally don't see Rawlins as deserving a statue, those of you who think that Rawlins was key to Grant's success (and thus to saving the Union) might feel differently. But others at the time saw Rawlins as more deserving than Rosecrans ... or Hooker ... or Burnside ... or Buell.

I've seen a painting of Rosecrans at the National Portrait Gallery, so he's commemorated. He failed to get a statue. I think the portrait's a worthy commemoration. More people see that in context than know about Thomas or Logan as they whiz around a traffic circle.
Those people who wanted to commemorate him should have undertaken that effort.

You also forgot Sheridan and John Ericsson. I'm sure there are others. Garfield (and McKinley) are not remembered primarily for their Civil War service. Logan's postwar career was also critical in his being remembered as a general. Although I personally don't see Rawlins as deserving a statue, those of you who think that Rawlins was key to Grant's success (and thus to saving the Union) might feel differently. But others at the time saw Rawlins as more deserving than Rosecrans ... or Hooker ... or Burnside ... or Buell.

I've seen a painting of Rosecrans at the National Portrait Gallery, so he's commemorated. He failed to get a statue. I think the portrait's a worthy commemoration. More people see that in context than know about Thomas or Logan as they whiz around a traffic circle.
Those people who wanted to commemorate him should have undertaken that effort.

You also forgot Sheridan and John Ericsson. I'm sure there are others. Garfield (and McKinley) are not remembered primarily for their Civil War service. Logan's postwar career was also critical in his being remembered as a general. Although I personally don't see Rawlins as deserving a statue, those of you who think that Rawlins was key to Grant's success (and thus to saving the Union) might feel differently. But others at the time saw Rawlins as more deserving than Rosecrans ... or Hooker ... or Burnside ... or Buell.

I've seen a painting of Rosecrans at the National Portrait Gallery, so he's commemorated. He failed to get a statue. I think the portrait's a worthy commemoration. More people see that in context than know about Thomas or Logan as they whiz around a traffic circle.
The story of the statue is an interesting one which I only know parts of. It seems that the bill never got out of a committee in the House of Representatives despite the efforts of a number of prominent members. (SW McCall and Washington Gardner are two I have in my notes. Gates Thurston was also an advocate) There are some papers in the Chattanooga Public Library that deal with the statue issue. I agree with you that people don't look at the statues in the traffic circles which is why I'd be for a modest one on Penn Ave. I have to say I'm disappointed but not surprised at your opposition to a Rosecrans statue. (You can read my reasons why I think he should have a statue in my response to Ned Baldwin.) It seems you are against any possibility of people knowing more about Rosecrans. I think -actually know as I live on the border of the north and south- that the current southern partisans have more respect for their generals and the opinions of the soldiers that fought under them than their northern counterparts. Sad that loyalty to Grant trumps honoring a man- and his soldiers- the NY Times in 1863 was second only to him.
 

E_just_E

Captain
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
6,180
Location
Center Valley, PA
I meant in Washington -which is what his troops wanted. I'm absolutely for using private money only..
If his troops wanted it badly enough, they'd pay for it back then. They did not want it that bad. They had higher priorities to do with their $ than erect a statue to him in Washington. The proof is in the inactivity. Talk is cheap.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Mark F. Jenkins

Colonel
Member of the Year
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
13,071
Location
Central Ohio
I'm speaking in Indianapolis on Monday and might pass through Sunbury on Sunday. If there's any chance you might be there let me know perhaps we can time our visit and meet.
Depends on the time of day... I have a function I'm attending from 12:30 to about 2:30, and I'm on the road after 6; but if you happen to coincide with one of my free-zones, I'd be happy to meet you (and show you the Rosecrans birthsite if you haven't been there already).
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,453
Location
Long Island, NY
I like Rosecrans too, but what is the modern constituency for erecting a statue to him? Most Civil War statues seem to have been erected with a combination of public and private funding and I just don't see any legislature appropriating money for this. I live next to the most statued city in America and most are just passed by without thought anyway. Okay, the Statue of Liberty gets noticed, but that is about it.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,130
I like Rosecrans too, but what is the modern constituency for erecting a statue to him? Most Civil War statues seem to have been erected with a combination of public and private funding and I just don't see any legislature appropriating money for this. I live next to the most statued city in America and most are just passed by without thought anyway. Okay, the Statue of Liberty gets noticed, but that is about it.
It would make me happy to see a "Rosie" statue anywhere.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

dlofting

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
1,273
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
I have no problem with commemorating Rosecrans but I just don't think there'd be much support for a statue in DC. Maybe something on a battlefield, but I honestly think that the era of building statues to Civil War soldiers off battlefields is over.
 

Sbc

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
1,190
Location
Georgia
[QUOTE="David Moore, post: 1224779,

For an alternative and fuller treatment of those battles I recommend you read Victors in Blue by Albert Castel - among other recent books.[/QUOTE]
Will look it up but doubtful he can sway my opinion. Read Lamar and Cozzens as well as visiting the battlefields. Tullahoma campaign is his crowning achievement but I see it more as a failure by Bragg to prepare for the stroke he had to know was inevitable.
 

Harris

Private
Joined
Feb 20, 2015
Messages
120
Location
Michigan
Tullahoma is very underappreciated as far as campaigns in the civil war. Hard to get the deserved recognition when it ended the same week as Gettysburg and Vicksburg, plus there was no signature battle of the campaign. It took awhile for Rosie to implement those actions, much to HQ's chagrin, but once rolling Bragg was continuously forced back until Middle TN, was firmly in the Union fold
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Harvey Johnson

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
1,117
You're right about Kearny and Hancock. Plenty of Generals -north and south - are in the Capitol. Albert Pike is on the streets of DC but as a masonic figure.
I think our disagreement about Rosecrans is about how important he was to the Union victory. You know my view. The NY Times said after he was relieved in 1863 that no man had accomplished more except Grant. (Lamers Edge of Glory p 402). I think there is little reason to doubt that had he been given what Sherman was given in 1864 Rosecrans would have done as well as Sherman. Rosecrans' achievements are all but unknown even to the CW buff much less the general public. I can only reemphasize what Albert Castel wrote in his last book: the need for some courageous historian to write about Rosecrans. He did accomplish a lot: West Virginia, NE Mississippi, Central Tennessee and taking Chattanooga. Most Americans -almost all really- have no idea what he did in the war. A modest statue on Pennsylvania Ave would help. Nothing on par with what's been built the day of big equestrian monuments is over. His relationship with Grant was terrible to say the least. Grant is the great hero of the war and Rosecrans has suffered because of that. But many people then and an increasing number today are questioning the accepted view. I would think in this era of talk of removing Confederate statues the idea of erecting a statue to a northern general- a staue that the men who served under him wanted- would be especially popular with Union supporters. I suppose it's not. Perhaps supporters of the "Lost Cause" really do care more about the people who fought for that cause. Btw our most recent discussion on Iuka -which I entered reluctantly- has actually been a good thing for my point of view. I did deeper research about the battle including checking out the Ord Papers in California. I learned important things that I hope to write about soon. Suffice it to say that Ord was not pleased with Grant's actions at Iuka.
Another seldom-recognized Rosecrans contribution was his vigorous advocacy for repeating rifles. In one nine month period he wrote 19 letters to the secretary of war and other officials encouraging their adoption. Colonel Wilder would likely never have received the Spencers that made him famous at Hoover's Gap and Chickamauga w/o Rosecrans*

*Philip Leigh Lee's Lost Dispatch and Other Civil War Controversies p. 21
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
1,789
Location
Washington, DC
If his troops wanted it badly enough, they'd pay for it back then. They did not want it that bad. They had higher priorities to do with their $ than erect a statue to him in Washington. The proof is in the inactivity. Talk is cheap.
With all due respect I suspect you are making statements about a topic you've done little research on. If you go to the Chattanooga Public Library and consult the Army of the Cumberland papers you can read about the process and how it was bottled up in a congressional committee. I suspect among the reasons Rosecrans didn't get a statue is that he lived a long time and political opposition in a congressional committee.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top