David Moore on William S. Rosecrans

[David Moore]

I run counter to public desire on this board but never really felt they band me. They stopped me from posting on threads.
I would not worry just do what you think is right and do not be rude. You should be fine... just have fun. You have done what most on this forum members desire to do, publish a book.

My question I have is these false reports Grant filed. Do we have the original OR's and then the OR's Grant supposing to have doctor. Or did Grant jest updated the OR's with backed dated OR's.

The ORs aren't the infallible texts some think they are. They are frequently inaccurate and written weeks after the facts. Some things are missing. Rosecrans wanted to look at Grant's report on Iuka but they couldn't be located. I think Frank Varney in his next book will accuse Grant of removing telegrams and documents but I'm not sure. Of course the ORs were published years after the war. The original telegrams and reports were in the War Dept archives before that. My favorite thing is to read letters written shortly after the events described. It's like being there or being a fly on the wall.

 

[5fish]

I think Frank Varney in his next book will accuse Grant

So Varney is blowing smoke... because the word false is a strong word to use against Grant. In light OR's maybe embellished later or after the event has happened and make people look better or worse than they really were at the time. I think Varney just a Grant hater. When I was younger Grant was this great general with good character that was a drunk. As President, he was politically naive so that is why his presidency was troubled with scandal but the truth is Grant was a great general that at times drank to excess. He was not politically naive but understood and master army politics with Gen Halleck aid and was willing to stump on people who got in the way or threats to him. I think we forget in his early army career Grant a young officer was squashed by army politics. Do you really think he wanted to leave the army (NO)? He was forced out because of army politics. I think in his second chance with the army. He was not going to loss the political game within the army but win. When you read about him trashing people he takes no prisoners just like he fights his battles.

Mr. Moore, I think you should start a thread about Rosencrans veruses Lee in Western Virginia because from what I have read he out maneuvered Lee in their duel early in the war... and let's get off this moderated thread for one this thread should be put back with the others and two there is no rudeness in this thread...

I am asking you to enlighten us about Rosencrans and Lee's duel in a new thread... put it under Lee's bio.. thanks

 

[jgoodguy]

As moderator.
Looks like we can release this from confinement.

 

[jgoodguy]

So Varney is blowing smoke... because the word false is a strong word to use against Grant. In light OR's maybe embellished later or after the event has happened and make people look better or worse than they really were at the time. I think Varney just a Grant hater. When I was younger Grant was this great general with good character that was a drunk. As President, he was politically naive so that is why his presidency was troubled with scandal but the truth is Grant was a great general that at times drank to excess. He was not politically naive but understood and master army politics with Gen Halleck aid and was willing to stump on people who got in the way or threats to him. I think we forget in his early army career Grant a young officer was squashed by army politics. Do you really think he wanted to leave the army (NO)? He was forced out because of army politics. I think in his second chance with the army. He was not going to loss the political game within the army but win. When you read about him trashing people he takes no prisoners just like he fights his battles.

Mr. Moore, I think you should start a thread about Rosencrans veruses Lee in Western Virginia because from what I have read he out maneuvered Lee in their duel early in the war... and let's get off this moderated thread for one this thread should be put back with the others and two there is no rudeness in this thread...

I am asking you to enlighten us about Rosencrans and Lee's duel in a new thread... put it under Lee's bio.. thanks

Always PM a mod, especially me, to ask for a get out of jail free card to free a thread from moderated threads if the problem has passed.

 

[5fish]

I figure once a thread makes it to moderated threads forum. It's doomed to ever see the light of day. All my threads that have met such end have never been seen again only on rare glance.. thanks for the parole...
.

 

[leftyhunter]

I have no idea why this thread is being moderated. It seems like a harmless thread for I never thought of Rosencrans as a controversial character in the war. I know little of him but he did seems to **** off is superiors so when he fails he seems to fall hard. He had a great run and was challenging Grant in the West as hero of the republic. He failed horribly at Chickamauga. He left the field of battle way ahead of his men and that doom him, not the bads orders, he panicked. No army can have its leader panic and run faster then his men. In Chattanooga, he seem not to have recovered his confidence and kept his weaken mental state. His bad behavior was a gift to his political rivals and doomed his career.

I compare Rosencrans mental breakdown at Chickamauga to the mental breakdown Hooker had at Chancellorsville, except after the battle Hooker recovered his wits. No Rosencrans did not seem to recover his wits until he was relieved of command. I think he could have recovered his career if he had worked to break the siege... Lets be honest Rosencrans men were worst for wear but Bragg's men were even in worst shape. Rosencrans could have broken the siege or at least open a safe supply line if he had the will.

In all fairness to Hooker he also suffered a severe concussion. If Grant choose not to dismiss him (Lincoln left the decision to Grant) the siege would of been broken upon the arrival of Gen.Hookers Corps. I do agree that Rosecrans was a good general but he did himself no favors running from the field at Chickumagua.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

So Varney is blowing smoke... because the word false is a strong word to use against Grant. In light OR's maybe embellished later or after the event has happened and make people look better or worse than they really were at the time. I think Varney just a Grant hater. When I was younger Grant was this great general with good character that was a drunk. As President, he was politically naive so that is why his presidency was troubled with scandal but the truth is Grant was a great general that at times drank to excess. He was not politically naive but understood and master army politics with Gen Halleck aid and was willing to stump on people who got in the way or threats to him. I think we forget in his early army career Grant a young officer was squashed by army politics. Do you really think he wanted to leave the army (NO)? He was forced out because of army politics. I think in his second chance with the army. He was not going to loss the political game within the army but win. When you read about him trashing people he takes no prisoners just like he fights his battles.

Mr. Moore, I think you should start a thread about Rosencrans veruses Lee in Western Virginia because from what I have read he out maneuvered Lee in their duel early in the war... and let's get off this moderated thread for one this thread should be put back with the others and two there is no rudeness in this thread...

I am asking you to enlighten us about Rosencrans and Lee's duel in a new thread... put it under Lee's bio.. thanks

Check out my post #110 on the thread "How would you rate Rosecrans?" I have a quote from McPhearson "Battle Cry of Freedom on Rosecrans vs Lee in Wv.
Leftyhunter

 

[5fish]

Check out my post #110 on the thread "How would you rate Rosecrans?" I have a quote from McPhearson "Battle Cry of Freedom on Rosecrans vs Lee in Wv.
Leftyhunter

Send a link could not find it....

 

[leftyhunter]

Send a link could not find it....

Check the thread it should be on top of the page. It will be the last comment on the page.
Leftyhunter

 

[rickvox79]

I think General Thomas Wood gets more blame than he deserves for what happened at Chickamauga and its one of those things that has almost become an accepted fact over the years. He was actually a very competent and brave general. I think, with the amount of men that Longstreet had, it probably wouldn't have mattered although it almost assuredly sped up the disastrous outcome for the AotC.

 

[David Moore]

I think General Thomas Wood gets more blame than he deserves for what happened at Chickamauga and its one of those things that has almost become an accepted fact over the years. He was actually a very competent and brave general. I think, with the amount of men that Longstreet had, it probably wouldn't have mattered although it almost assuredly sped up the disastrous outcome for the AotC.

That is the new and growing consensus among historians who have studied Chickamauga deeply.
(David Powell, Glenn Robertson)

Because Chickamauga had an all but fatal effect on his career (he did serve in Missouri in 1864)
Rosecrans did tend to blame Wood.
I'd say the blame was in the War Dept but there are those who say it rests mainly on Rosecrans.
It's complicated topic that has been discussed a lot on many threads on this site.

 

[johan_steele]

Rosecrans tended to blame everyone but himself. He was not as popular as some would have us believe. Some of that can stem from his Catholic faith but more stemed from him. At Iuka officers like Sanborn noted he wasn't quite the genius some today are trying to pitch him as. In Missouri he made enemies in a hurry; he certainly didn't try to win friends. His post war career... was spotty. I'll give credence to the opinions of men like Sanborn, AJ Smith & others who served under both men over the selectivly researched modern day revisionists.

I've heard it said Rosecrans was the "Yankee Bragg;" that isn't fair to Rosecrans. While he was fought to a stand still at Stone's River & bested by Bragg at Chickamauga he roundly out manuevered Bragg through the Tulahoma Campaign... then very nearly lost Chattanooga. What saved Chattanooga wasn't Rosecrans but Thomas & Granger's superb rear guard action along with the blatant incompetance of Bragg.

Rosecrans was competant but he was a far cry from perfect. I liked the man until I started reading & learning more about him. Such was the effect at the time as well.

 

[5fish]

I bring up thing article because the writer is right. David (fellow name ) you have gone past being an historian to being an advocate. I think you need to step back and find another research project to cause ruckus on this forum because being a Rosencrans apologist is not what historians do.


https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/william-s-rosecrans-and-the-civil-war/

 

[David Moore]

Rosecrans tended to blame everyone but himself. He was not as popular as some would have us believe. Some of that can stem from his Catholic faith but more stemed from him. At Iuka officers like Sanborn noted he wasn't quite the genius some today are trying to pitch him as. In Missouri he made enemies in a hurry; he certainly didn't try to win friends. His post war career... was spotty. I'll give credence to the opinions of men like Sanborn, AJ Smith & others who served under both men over the selectivly researched modern day revisionists.

I've heard it said Rosecrans was the "Yankee Bragg;" that isn't fair to Rosecrans. While he was fought to a stand still at Stone's River & bested by Bragg at Chickamauga he roundly out manuevered Bragg through the Tulahoma Campaign... then very nearly lost Chattanooga. What saved Chattanooga wasn't Rosecrans but Thomas & Granger's superb rear guard action along with the blatant incompetance of Bragg.

Rosecrans was competant but he was a far cry from perfect. I liked the man until I started reading & learning more about him. Such was the effect at the time as well.

Not a single citation. There is a difference between scholarship and editorializing. I'll post something from Sanborn a bit later.

 

[David Moore]

I bring up thing article because the writer is right. David (fellow name ) you have gone past being an historian to being an advocate. I think you need to step back and find another research project to cause ruckus on this forum because being a Rosencrans apologist is not what historians do.


https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/william-s-rosecrans-and-the-civil-war/

I've chatted with the fellow whose blog you blog you cite on this site.
Interesting that you think there is a definition of what a historian does.
I have written a book that was called "well researched" by a Grant historian.
Have you read my book?

 

[5fish]

Interesting that you think there is a definition of what a historian does.

My name sake, read the article it describes you to a tee. You wrote a book and historians states his case but you are an advocate and apologist for Rosencrans that not being an historian... He wrong was his failure and you can not fix it...

I have written a book that was called "well researched" by a Grant historian.

That is my point you did a good job but now it times to find a new project... not to be a advocate for a rightfully disgraced general, he ran!

 

[David Moore]

My name sake, read the article it describes you to a tee. You wrote a book and historians states his case but you are an advocate and apologist for Rosencrans that not being an historian... He wrong was his failure and you can not fix it...



That is my point you did a good job but now it times to find a new project... not to be a advocate for a rightfully disgraced general, he ran!

I have a project: researching the battle of Iuka. More bad news for Grant fans. What's in the Memoirs "ain't necessarily so."

 

[David Moore]

Not a single citation. There is a difference between scholarship and editorializing. I'll post something from Sanborn a bit later.

John Sanborn wrote in 1900:
General Rosecrans had commanded on the field in four of the most important battles of the West—Iuka. Corinth, Stone River and Chickamauga. General Grant had commanded at Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg and Missionary Ridge. The most destructive battle, so far as the killed andwounded of the Confederate army are concerned fought west of the Alleghenys, was that of Chickamauga, with the Army of the Cumberland, under General Rosecrans, which was 16,986 killed and wounded, and exceeded the Confederate loss at Gettysburg, in killed and wounded, by fully 2,000. The army that fought the battle had been organized, drilled and equipped under the direction of General Rosecrans. It must ever stand as one of the great battles of history. It was not a victory, resulting no doubt from some slight circumstance occurring towards the close of the day. While we all know that the fame of General Grant is secure and beyond accident, we must, at the same time, all feel that General Rosecrans is not held in the esteem to which he is entitled by the American people, and that an officer capable of organizing an army and with it fighting a battle that results in a loss to his enemy of 17,000 men killed and wounded in a single day is entitled to the high esteem and everlasting remembrance of his countrymen.

 

[johan_steele]

John Sanborn wrote in 1900:
General Rosecrans had commanded on the field in four of the most important battles of the West—Iuka. Corinth, Stone River and Chickamauga. General Grant had commanded at Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg and Missionary Ridge. The most destructive battle, so far as the killed andwounded of the Confederate army are concerned fought west of the Alleghenys, was that of Chickamauga, with the Army of the Cumberland, under General Rosecrans, which was 16,986 killed and wounded, and exceeded the Confederate loss at Gettysburg, in killed and wounded, by fully 2,000. The army that fought the battle had been organized, drilled and equipped under the direction of General Rosecrans. It must ever stand as one of the great battles of history. It was not a victory, resulting no doubt from some slight circumstance occurring towards the close of the day. While we all know that the fame of General Grant is secure and beyond accident, we must, at the same time, all feel that General Rosecrans is not held in the esteem to which he is entitled by the American people, and that an officer capable of organizing an army and with it fighting a battle that results in a loss to his enemy of 17,000 men killed and wounded in a single day is entitled to the high esteem and everlasting remembrance of his countrymen.

As expected you are again picking and choosing quotes. If you are unfamiliar with Sanborn's attitude towards Rosecrans, I'm not surprised. He wasn't all negative, from what I know of the man he was fair and honest. But he was no worshiper of the man and he certainly wouldn't stoop to tearing down one man to build another up. Sanborn was at both Iuka & Corinth. He served under Old Rosy and neither he or his men were as impressed with the man as you would have us believe.

AJ Smith was under Old Rosy in Missouri in 64... and once again neither he or his men were as impressed with the man as you would have us believe.

As I said: Rosecrans was competent but he was a far cry from perfect. I liked the man until I started reading & learning more about him. Such was the effect at the time as well. Thankfully, those trying to tear others down to elevate him won't change my views of the man to the worse. Especially when they show their hand so completely.

Like Wheeler the more I read of the man the less impressed I am. Unlike Wheeler I think old Rosy was an inherently decent, though deeply flawed man. Unfortunately, I think he would have applauded your smearing of Grant. Grant didn't forgive Rosecrans for failing to block that second road at Iuka & Rosecrans never forgave that failure to forgive that failure. The Iuka & Corinth campaign was victory for the US despite the bumbling; the CS would never again attempt a serious offensive in the Mississippi River Valley. The difference was that Grant learned from his mistakes, Rosecrans fixed the blame on someone else.

Less than a year later Grant would take Vicksburg and the surrender of a CS Army. A few months after that Rosecrans would lose Chickamauga and Grant would come to his rescue with the AoT. It was Thomas in command of the AoC that redeemed their fortunes, not Rosecrans.

It seems clear to me you were unaware of who Sanborn or AJ Smith were without looking them up. If you have researched Iuka & Corinth as much as you claimed you should have been quite familiar with Sanborn. If you were as familiar with Rosecrans in Missouri you darned sure should be familiar with AJ Smith. Here's a freebe. AJ Smith and his men firmly believed they had pulled the US fat out of the fire in three places: Red River Campaign, Missouri & Nashville. Over specialization breeds weakness and that over specialization appears to be more of a hatred for Grant than an interest in giving a fair & honest treatment of Rosecrans. If a man cannot recognize another mans faults and failures how can he recognize his triumph?

As your track record shows I doubt I will not invest in your treatise of Iuka & Corinth as it will be nothing more than another blame Grant work. What I have seen of your selective scholarship is not heartening. I'll stay with Woodworth, and others, treatment of the battle. The difference between Grant and Old Rosy is that Grant was always quick to praise the men who did the fighting and dieing repeatedly claiming they were the heroes the men who got things done. Old Rosy resented the lack of praise for himself and blamed Grant for having the temerity to succeed where he had failed. In the end he fixated upon Grant as the reason for his failures instead of looking in a mirror.

 

[David Moore]

As expected you are again picking and choosing quotes. If you are unfamiliar with Sanborn's attitude towards Rosecrans, I'm not surprised. He wasn't all negative, from what I know of the man he was fair and honest. But he was no worshiper of the man and he certainly wouldn't stoop to tearing down one man to build another up. Sanborn was at both Iuka & Corinth. He served under Old Rosy and neither he or his men were as impressed with the man as you would have us believe.

AJ Smith was under Old Rosy in Missouri in 64... and once again neither he or his men were as impressed with the man as you would have us believe.

As I said: Rosecrans was competent but he was a far cry from perfect. I liked the man until I started reading & learning more about him. Such was the effect at the time as well. Thankfully, those trying to tear others down to elevate him won't change my views of the man to the worse. Especially when they show their hand so completely.

Like Wheeler the more I read of the man the less impressed I am. Unlike Wheeler I think old Rosy was an inherently decent, though deeply flawed man. Unfortunately, I think he would have applauded your smearing of Grant. Grant didn't forgive Rosecrans for failing to block that second road at Iuka & Rosecrans never forgave that failure to forgive that failure. The Iuka & Corinth campaign was victory for the US despite the bumbling; the CS would never again attempt a serious offensive in the Mississippi River Valley. The difference was that Grant learned from his mistakes, Rosecrans fixed the blame on someone else.

Less than a year later Grant would take Vicksburg and the surrender of a CS Army. A few months after that Rosecrans would lose Chickamauga and Grant would come to his rescue with the AoT. It was Thomas in command of the AoC that redeemed their fortunes, not Rosecrans.

It seems clear to me you were unaware of who Sanborn or AJ Smith were without looking them up. If you have researched Iuka & Corinth as much as you claimed you should have been quite familiar with Sanborn. If you were as familiar with Rosecrans in Missouri you darned sure should be familiar with AJ Smith. Here's a freebe. AJ Smith and his men firmly believed they had pulled the US fat out of the fire in three places: Red River Campaign, Missouri & Nashville. Over specialization breeds weakness and that over specialization appears to be more of a hatred for Grant than an interest in giving a fair & honest treatment of Rosecrans. If a man cannot recognize another mans faults and failures how can he recognize his triumph?

As your track record shows I doubt I will not invest in your treatise of Iuka & Corinth as it will be nothing more than another blame Grant work. What I have seen of your selective scholarship is not heartening. I'll stay with Woodworth, and others, treatment of the battle. The difference between Grant and Old Rosy is that Grant was always quick to praise the men who did the fighting and dieing repeatedly claiming they were the heroes the men who got things done. Old Rosy resented the lack of praise for himself and blamed Grant for having the temerity to succeed where he had failed. In the end he fixated upon Grant as the reason for his failures instead of looking in a mirror.

Not a single citation or single word of documentation and no desire to actually read what I've written and documented.
I am currently researching Iuka. Real research looking at letters and diaries of men who were at the battle. I hope to publish my documented conclusions. Perhaps your attitude about reading what I have found will have changed by then.