How would you rate Rosecrans?

[5fish]

Indeed he was. Anyone who does just a bit of reading of the letters and diaries written by the men who fought under him will find what you have written to be true. Unfortunately their opinions are in places where the average CW student can't easily consult them and thus his reputation is shaped by what twentieth century (and later) historians have written.

I want to point they were winning under Rosencrans... Everyone love's a winner and Rosencrans was a winner up until Chickamauga... It was upper management that got rid of him. I bet his troops would have given him another shot or two.

 

[1SGDan]

I want to point they were winning under Rosencrans... Everyone love's a winner and Rosencrans was a winner up until Chickamauga... It was upper management that got rid of him. I bet his troops would have given him another shot or two.

Everyone loved McClellan too. It didn't win anything. A leader does not have to be liked to be effective.

 

[leftyhunter]

Again has I showed from the quotes from Stoker Halleck did try to have Burnside shield the AoC. US forces would be surprised and overwhelmed in future wars as well. Not every defeat is due to political conspiracy's
Leftyhunter

 

[David Moore]

Again has I showed from the quotes from Stoker Halleck did try to have Burnside shield the AoC. US forces would be surprised and overwhelmed in future wars as well. Not every defeat is due to political conspiracy's
Leftyhunter

Everyone loved McClellan too. It didn't win anything. A leader does not have to be liked to be effective.

Did McClellan accomplish what Rosecrans did? To repeat Rosecrans was highly regarded during and after the war.
It is in the 20th century that his reputation faded and came under unwarranted, to me, criticism. I have tried to show this by posting things from the 19th century. Some on this site have found fault with that.

McClellan, a democrat, also had political problems. Gideon Welles' diary has information on that:

Sept 3, 1862
The introduction of Pope here, followed by Halleck, is an intrigue of Stanton's and Chase's to get rid of McClellan. A part of this intrigue has been the withdrawal of McClellan and the Army of the Potomac from before Richmond and turning it into the Army of Washington under .

The defeat of Pope and placing McC. in command of the retreating and disorganized forces after the second disaster at Bull Run interrupted the intrigue which had been planned for the dismissal of McClellan, and was not only a triumph for him but a severe mortification and disappointment for both Stanton and Chase.


One can question the accuracy of Welles' analysis but not that he wrote and presumably believed it.

 

[David Moore]

I want to point they were winning under Rosencrans... Everyone love's a winner and Rosencrans was a winner up until Chickamauga... It was upper management that got rid of him. I bet his troops would have given him another shot or two.

Definitely. Some thought he was going to head the AotP.

 

[David Moore]

Again has I showed from the quotes from Stoker Halleck did try to have Burnside shield the AoC. US forces would be surprised and overwhelmed in future wars as well. Not every defeat is due to political conspiracy's
Leftyhunter

Well there are those quotes that suggest collusion. Don't be surprised that politics played a big, perhaps a controlling, role in the war. It was fought for political reasons. It wasn't an Olympiad.

 

[1SGDan]

Intrigue or no both these men were highly regarded and both were relieved for battlefield failures. Personally I think Rosecrans was much underrated but suffered from one ignominious defeat. He was not the first to suffer such a fate nor was he the last. Defeat is the unforgivable failure for military leaders.

 

[David Moore]

Intrigue or no both these men were highly regarded and both were relieved for battlefield failures. Personally I think Rosecrans was much underrated but suffered from one ignominious defeat. He was not the first to suffer such a fate nor was he the last. Defeat is the unforgivable failure for military leaders.

Unless one has political backing. Again all this was discussed in the 19th century.
Who would have been unhappy had McClellan taken Richmond in 1862?

 

[1SGDan]

Unless one has political backing. Again all this was discussed in the 19th century.
Who would have been unhappy had McClellan taken Richmond in 1862?

But he didn't He failed and paid the price, just as Rosecrans did. I'm sure that the failures were the paramount issues in their relief. What people had to say about them even in the 19th century is just talk.

 

[David Moore]

But he didn't He failed and paid the price, just as Rosecrans did. I'm sure that the failures were the paramount issues in their relief. What people had to say about them even in the 19th century is just talk.

But Welles indicates that Chase and Stanton were working against McClellan.
Doesn't it seem reasonable that republicans would not want a democrat to emerge as the hero of the war and be elected president in 1864. What would have been the future of the republican party? On a less venal note what type of emancipation would have taken place had McC taken Richmond? Probably not a universal emancipation. Do you doubt that these things weren't taken into consideration during the war?
Shouldn't 19th century voices be paid more attention than 20/21 century ones.
The good thing is that dissenting views can be put out for examination and public discussion.

 

[1SGDan]

But Welles indicates that Chase and Stanton were working against McClellan.
Doesn't it seem reasonable that republicans would not want a democrat to emerge as the hero of the war and be elected president in 1864.
Failure will create enemies regardless of political affiliation.
What would have been the future of the republican party?
It doesn't matter it didn't happen. Mac was soundly trounced by Lincoln. Would that have changed without Mac's failure? We will never know.
On a less venal note what type of emancipation would have taken place had McC taken Richmond?
It didn't happen so it matters not.
Probably not a universal emancipation. Do you doubt that these things weren't taken into consideration during the war?
It doesn't matter if they were talked about or not. The basis for these men's relief was failure not possible events.
Shouldn't 19th century voices be paid more attention than 20/21 century ones.
Why? We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and 150 years of research.
The good thing is that dissenting views can be put out for examination and public discussion.

 

[5fish]

Definitely. Some thought he was going to head the AotP.

I agree. He was the only one who's battle of success rivaled Grant's, unit misfortune hit... Plus, he had a record of success against Lee...

 

[dlofting]

Shouldn't 19th century voices be paid more attention than 20/21 century ones.

Not necessarily......19th century voices may not have had the breadth and depth of information that 20th/21st century historians did and do. Each source, each eyewitness report and each opinion must be evaluated on its own merits.

 

[David Moore]

But Welles indicates that Chase and Stanton were working against McClellan.
Doesn't it seem reasonable that republicans would not want a democrat to emerge as the hero of the war and be elected president in 1864.
Failure will create enemies regardless of political affiliation.
What would have been the future of the republican party?
It doesn't matter it didn't happen. Mac was soundly trounced by Lincoln. Would that have changed without Mac's failure? We will never know.
On a less venal note what type of emancipation would have taken place had McC taken Richmond?
It didn't happen so it matters not.
Probably not a universal emancipation. Do you doubt that these things weren't taken into consideration during the war?
It doesn't matter if they were talked about or not. The basis for these men's relief was failure not possible events.
Shouldn't 19th century voices be paid more attention than 20/21 century ones.
Why? We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and 150 years of research.
The good thing is that dissenting views can be put out for examination and public discussion.

A lot of "it doesn't matters" in your comments.
I think 19th century voices have been lost in part because most people have no access to them.
I don't really believe that you believe they shouldn't be brought to light.

 

[David Moore]

Not necessarily......19th century voices may not have had the breadth and depth of information that 20th/21st century historians did and do. Each source, each eyewitness report and each opinion must be evaluated on its own merits.

But surely you agree they should be presented and their merits weighed?

 

[1SGDan]

A lot of "it doesn't matters" in your comments.
I think 19th century voices have been lost in part because most people have no access to them.
I don't really believe that you believe they shouldn't be brought to light.

Bring them to light I just disagree with your analysis of what they meant. A bunch of disgruntled old men squawking about past events can not change them.

 

[David Moore]

I agree. He was the only one who's battle of success rivaled Grant's, unit misfortune hit... Plus, he had a record of success against Lee...

Few people know that or much of anything, aside from Chickamauga, about him. I didn't until I stumbled upon his wife's grave in an old cemetery in Washington DC.
If I hadn't had access to primary sources- and the time to read them- I very well might be one of those on this site disputing that Rosecrans was a very well regarded general.

 

[David Moore]

Bring them to light I just disagree with your analysis of what they meant.

My desire is to bring the information to light. I only ask that people look at them with an open mind.

 

[dlofting]

But surely you agree they should be presented and their merits weighed?

Definitely

 

[David Moore]

Bring them to light I just disagree with your analysis of what they meant. A bunch of disgruntled old men squawking about past events can not change them.

Veterans who risked their lives to preserve their country are " a bunch of disgruntled old men squawking about past events?"
I really don't understand this need to fiercely attack anyone who questions Grant's generalship and reputation.- even those who are dead.
Grant WAS greatly criticized during his lifetime. It is people today who are unaware of that fact.
Here is what Emory Upton wrote to his sister after Cold Harbor:
"I am disgusted with the generalship displayed. Our men have in many instances been foolishly and wantonly sacrificed. Thousands of lives might have been spared by the exercise of a little skill: but as it is, the courage of the men is expected to obviate all difficulties.
"On that day we had a murderous engagement. I say murderous, because we were recklessly ordered to assault the enemy's entrenchments knowing neither their strength nor position."

But none of this is ever Grant's fault.

On another note with all my defending of primary sources I am well aware of 20/21st century scholarship that has come to conclusions in line with my opinions on Grant, Rosecrans and other aspects of the war.
Among those historians are Albert Castel, Evan Jones, Michael Bradley, Tim Smith, Edward Hagerman, Stephen Starr Frank Varney, Joseph Rose and of course William Lamers.