How would you rate Rosecrans?

[nitrofd]

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.

Grant freely admitted after Cold Harbor it was his biggest mistake.

 

[1SGDan]

Veterans who risked their lives to preserve their country are " a bunch of disgruntled old men squawking about past events?"
Many were. Grant got credit for victory. Some felt, in light of this, their efforts had been overshadowed, overlooked, or undermined. They spoke out with emotion that only immediacy can bring. Their letters. reports, and diaries are full of self serving baloney. Some just flat out lied about their experiences (see J B Hood). I think we should take their words with a grain of salt and a dose of caution.

Grant WAS greatly criticized during his lifetime. It is people today who are unaware of that fact.
Yes and so were many others. We have seen enough Grant Bashing here to indicate plenty are aware.

But none of this is ever Grant's fault.
Says who? Grant has taken his fair share of abuse.

 

[Horace Porter]

I am not alone in this. Others who dare challenge the Grant/Sherman interpretation of the CW are also mocked. That they have written multipaged ,well documented books is unimportant. However I welcome the opportunity to present my views and submit documentation for them. I only fear that I may be silenced one day for promoting heresy.

I am glad that the books are multipaged. I'd hate to read a one page book.

You may be silenced? Are you afraid that there's a hit squad out to get you? You're still here, right?

 

[Horace Porter]

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."

Just so you know: Upton was writing about the June 1 assault. See here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=b...en foolishly and wantonly sacrificed.&f=false

One could say that he was unhappy with the work of Horatio Wright.

 

[David Moore]

Just so you know: Upton was writing about the June 1 assault. See here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=bK9VfkrbmH4C&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=I+am+disgusted+with+the+generalship+displayed.+Our+men+have+in+many+instances+been+foolishly+and+wantonly+sacrificed.&source=bl&ots=G1WkWJMjEG&sig=NPKNcnEZYdr705wa2GSjkFyJDmc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5oMGA2s3JAhVO4mMKHbyDAOwQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=I am disgusted with the generalship displayed. Our men have in many instances been foolishly and wantonly sacrificed.&f=false

One could say that he was unhappy with the work of Horatio Wright.

He could have written that about a number of battles. Funny how bad things aren't Grant's fault. Good things always are. Here's one author's take on Upton's comments: pg 183-184 https://books.google.com/books?id=b...layed. our men have in many instances&f=false

 

[David Moore]

I am glad that the books are multipaged. I'd hate to read a one page book.

You may be silenced? Are you afraid that there's a hit squad out to get you? You're still here, right?

I've sensed at times you wish I'd go away.
Lot of one sentence answers on this thread

 

[David Moore]

Veterans who risked their lives to preserve their country are " a bunch of disgruntled old men squawking about past events?"
Many were. Grant got credit for victory. Some felt, in light of this, their efforts had been overshadowed, overlooked, or undermined. They spoke out with emotion that only immediacy can bring. Their letters. reports, and diaries are full of self serving baloney. Some just flat out lied about their experiences (see J B Hood). I think we should take their words with a grain of salt and a dose of caution.

Grant WAS greatly criticized during his lifetime. It is people today who are unaware of that fact.
Yes and so were many others. We have seen enough Grant Bashing here to indicate plenty are aware.

But none of this is ever Grant's fault.
Says who? Grant has taken his fair share of abuse.

Do you have any evidence that the men in the citation lied?
Their names are given in the transcript of the citaion pg 71f https://books.google.com/books?id=r...rence in my heart never to be effaced&f=false

Grant bashing or truth telling?
Grant's reputation among academic historians has never been higher. I wonder how much college students taking CW courses are told about 19th century criticism of Grant.
One risks being called a racist if one criticizes him. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...547e4b0a9b948535f6e?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

[ole]

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.

As it was and always will be. Cross the boss and get tossed. There is no justice implied in there. Just do what is expected and you get to keep your job.

Lincoln wasn't perfect either.

 

[Horace Porter]

I've sensed at times you wish I'd go away.
Lot of one sentence answers on this thread

No and yes.

 

[Horace Porter]

He could have written that about a number of battles.

But he wrote it about June 1. To attribute it to June 3 is sloppy scholarship.

 

[1SGDan]

Do you have any evidence that the men in the citation lied?
Their names are given in the transcript of the citaion pg 71f https://books.google.com/books?id=row-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=i+hold+a+reverence+in+my+heart+never+to+be+effaced&source=bl&ots=Q-vNEjO83y&sig=-8PNLTkXPGS1FJzlGOViGqK2FQk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPs_yL_M3JAhXF7yYKHTEKAcAQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=i hold a reverence in my heart never to be effaced&f=false

I did not suggest that all did. I suggested that some created a narrative that supported their view at expense of the truth. Some, like Hood, took it to extremes. It is the danger of relying on first person sources.

Grant bashing or truth telling?
Grant's reputation among academic historians has never been higher. I wonder how much college students taking CW courses are told about 19th century criticism of Grant.

I'd prefer to think that a decent student would research and formulate their own opinion.

One risks being called a racist if one criticizes him. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...547e4b0a9b948535f6e?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

To this I would say being called anything over a man that has been dead 130 years is being a victim of politically correct over sensibilities.

 

[5fish]

I want to note: Frontal Assaults.... or Flanking.... or withdraw...

mory 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."

Everyone wants to criticize Generals for frontal assaults in war against entrenched positions. I want to point out in Grant's time he had basically three choices when he met an entrenched enemy on the battlefield. The choices were frontal assault or flanking them or withdrawing from the field. These are the choices any general had through the ages, up until the last years of WW one. I think we all and historians need to understand this dilemma faced by Grant and the other generals came before and after him, until WW one. How do you remove an entrenched opponent before you?

Grant did not have creeping artillery barrages, or bombers, or tanks at his use. He only had primitive artillery and bodies. It took WW one to show us you need hydraulic artillery, bombers, tanks and bodies working together to take an enemy's entrenched position. Grant had nothing but bodies...

I think Cold Harbor true sadness and surprise to everyone was not the loss of life but how fast it took to thousands of men. It took like or less than 20 mins to kill all those men and I think that had never been seen before. I think that is what is lost in the conversation. Industrial warfare arrived on the fields of Cold Harbor for the first time instead of a day of fighting it took minutes to kill thousands. It shock everyone... It is one of those moments in history that you can mark where the world was changed forever that we man lived in a new world after those less then 20 mins.

Back to Grant his goal was to crush Lee's army so withdrawing was not available or flanking. He had Lee in front of him so like Lee at Gettysburg, he attacked but learned that warfare had changed overnight... Have you ever ask why Grant keep extended his lines at Petersburg? History says he was always trying to flank Lee may so but Grant know he was thinning
Lee's ranks so Lee could not concentrate his forces in any one spot. It is one of reasons why there was no blood bath when Grant forces smashed through Lee's lines at Petersburg. I can argue Grant figured out how to fight trench warfare after Cold Harbor. Think, he thinned out Lee's lines and kept pressure on the flanks. so Lee could not concentrate his forces against Grant... Remember, it was the shortness of time it took to kill so many was the shock at Cold Harbor not the number deaths...

Grant's reputation among academic historians has never been higher. I wonder how much college students taking CW courses are told about 19th century criticism of Grant.

Yes, his reputation has been on the mend...

 

[David Moore]

Most students in college are kids. They believe what they are told and obviously want a good grade and want to avoid being labeled a racist.
Aren't Grant's Memoirs a good example of someone creating a narrative that supported their view at expense of the truth?
Arthur Conger had this to say about the Memoirs p377 https://books.google.com/books?id=K...epage&q=conger campfire grant memoirs&f=false

I would draw a distinction between first person accounts especially those written years after the facts and letters and diary entries describing specific events written shortly after those events occured.

 

[David Moore]

As it was and always will be. Cross the boss and get tossed. There is no justice implied in there. Just do what is expected and you get to keep your job.

Lincoln wasn't perfect either.

How about if people under the boss (Lincoln) are trying to get rid of someone?
Ever heard of office politics?

 

[5fish]

Most students in college are kids. They believe what they are told and obviously want a good grade and want to avoid being labeled a racist.
Aren't Grant's Memoirs a good example of someone creating a narrative that supported their view at expense of the truth?
Arthur Conger had this to say about the Memoirs p377 https://books.google.com/books?id=KRJnaipb1boC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=conger+campfire+grant+memoirs&source=bl&ots=PpKdqsRWic&sig=Vm9bngtS5TgPqiYeRNt2tM8o7Us&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX1qDY6s7JAhVISSYKHbPsA8MQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=conger campfire grant memoirs&f=false

I would draw a distinction between first person accounts especially those written years after the facts and letters and diary entries describing specific events written shortly after those events occured.

All memoirs are someone creating a narrative that supports their own views..... All memoirs must be taken with a grain of salt or more.... Yes, first person accounts usually written close to an event should carry more weight but these two must be taken with a grain of salt as well. Studies had proven our memories even within moments of an event happen could and can record the event incorrectly so all eyewitness reports must be taken with a grain of salt too... The answer is compare everything to each other and see if a narrative can be found within it...

 

[David Moore]

But he wrote it about June 1. To attribute it to June 3 is sloppy scholarship.

My whole Rosecrans/Grant thesis falls!
(Do I redeem myself with the Ord quotes I discovered and posted here?)

 

[David Moore]

I want to note: Frontal Assaults.... or Flanking.... or withdraw...



Everyone wants to criticize Generals for frontal assaults in war against entrenched positions. I want to point out in Grant's time he had basically three choices when he met an entrenched enemy on the battlefield. The choices were frontal assault or flanking them or withdrawing from the field. These are the choices any general had through the ages, up until the last years of WW one. I think we all and historians need to understand this dilemma faced by Grant and the other generals came before and after him, until WW one. How do you remove an entrenched opponent before you?

Grant did not have creeping artillery barrages, or bombers, or tanks at his use. He only had primitive artillery and bodies. It took WW one to show us you need hydraulic artillery, bombers, tanks and bodies working together to take an enemy's entrenched position. Grant had nothing but bodies...

I think Cold Harbor true sadness and surprise to everyone was not the loss of life but how fast it took to thousands of men. It took like or less than 20 mins to kill all those men and I think that had never been seen before. I think that is what is lost in the conversation. Industrial warfare arrived on the fields of Cold Harbor for the first time instead of a day of fighting it took minutes to kill thousands. It shock everyone... It is one of those moments in history that you can mark where the world was changed forever that we man lived in a new world after those less then 20 mins.

Back to Grant his goal was to crush Lee's army so withdrawing was not available or flanking. He had Lee in front of him so like Lee at Gettysburg, he attacked but learned that warfare had changed overnight... Have you ever ask why Grant keep extended his lines at Petersburg? History says he was always trying to flank Lee may so but Grant know he was thinning
Lee's ranks so Lee could not concentrate his forces in any one spot. It is one of reasons why there was no blood bath when Grant forces smashed through Lee's lines at Petersburg. I can argue Grant figured out how to fight trench warfare after Cold Harbor. Think, he thinned out Lee's lines and kept pressure on the flanks. so Lee could not concentrate his forces against Grant... Remember, it was the shortness of time it took to kill so many was the shock at Cold Harbor not the number deaths...




Yes, his reputation has been on the mend...

But look

As it was and always will be. Cross the boss and get tossed. There is no justice implied in there. Just do what is expected and you get to keep your job.

Lincoln wasn't perfect either.

Surprising to me how little regarded Lincoln was in his own party during the war. I had a notion of it but to actually read the comments made about him is jarring to our 21st century idea of him.

 

[5fish]

But look

At what? You Should be trying to discount my points....

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Was Rosecrans a good general? Was Grant a good general? Was Grant biased against Rosecrans? It's possible that all three of those answers is yes.

He is certainly better than Buell!

 

[David Moore]

At what? You Should be trying to discount my points....

That was a post made in error.