How would you rate Rosecrans?

[David Moore]

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!

Was he marked for failure for political reasons as many believed at the time?

 

[David Moore]

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...

Nothing really to dispute here but obviously something written down within a few hours or days of its occurrence should be more accurate than something written years or decades later.

 

[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...

Lot's of negative comments about the loss of men in Grant's army in battles before and after Cold Harbor.
Joseph Rose's book has a lot of citations. I refer also to the comments by Ord made in 1864 that I have posted elsewhere on this site.
Why has Grant's reputation risen particularly in academia in recent years? I think current political sensibilities have something to do with it. Grant is seen as the man who beat Lee and the Confederacy and then was a strong reconstruction president for a while. Historian Gordon Wood said people use history to bolster their current political views. I think he's right.

 

[5fish]

Lot's of negative comments about the loss of men in Grant's army in battles before and after Cold Harbor.
Joseph Rose's book has a lot of citations. I refer also to the comments by Ord made in 1864 that I have posted elsewhere on this site.
Why has Grant's reputation risen particularly in academia in recent years? I think current political sensibilities have something to do with it. Grant is seen as the man who beat Lee and the Confederacy and then was a strong reconstruction president for a while. Historian Gordon Wood said people use history to bolster their current political views. I think he's right.

Those were opinions after the fact without hints what a general to do when confronted with a entrenched oppoent?

Before anyone criticizes Cold Harbor, one needs to offer a solution Grant should have chose. I can argue Grant figured out a solution at Petersburg to defeating an entrenched opponrnt.

 

[Rebforever]

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...

Any idea who come up with the breakthrough plan at Petersburg and please furnish a source.
As far as a frontal attack he certainly should have remembered what happened at Spotsylvania.

 

[Horace Porter]

Lot's of negative comments about the loss of men in Grant's army in battles before and after Cold Harbor.
Joseph Rose's book has a lot of citations. I refer also to the comments by Ord made in 1864 that I have posted elsewhere on this site.
Why has Grant's reputation risen particularly in academia in recent years? I think current political sensibilities have something to do with it. Grant is seen as the man who beat Lee and the Confederacy and then was a strong reconstruction president for a while. Historian Gordon Wood said people use history to bolster their current political views. I think he's right.

I love how you speculate about other motives even as you resist speculation about your own. I think you idolize Rosecrans because you identify with him. This becomes obvious when you write about a conspiracy against him at the same time you assert that people here want to silence you. The reason you wrote an apologia for Rosecrans might just be found not in that biography, but your autobiography.

 

[David Moore]

I love how you speculate about other motives even as you resist speculation about your own. I think you idolize Rosecrans because you identify with him. This becomes obvious when you write about a conspiracy against him at the same time you assert that people here want to silence you. The reason you wrote an apologia for Rosecrans might just be found not in that biography, but your autobiography.

Any primary sources for that opinions?
First you wanted to silence me "Enough" was your staement.
Then you wanted to save me from embarrassing myself.
Now you're psychoanalyzing me.
At least I don't hide behind someone else's name.
It is you Horace who has assumed someone else's identity.
What does any of this have to do with the truth of the quotes I have posted?

 

[David Moore]

Those were opinions after the fact without hints what a general to do when confronted with a entrenched oppoent?

Before anyone criticizes Cold Harbor, one needs to offer a solution Grant should have chose. I can argue Grant figured out a solution at Petersburg to defeating an entrenched opponrnt.

Many if not most were written right after the events. Have you read Joe Rose's book?

 

[5fish]

A read of the trench warfare around Peterburg it was Grant extended the lines to cut Lee's supply lines avoid great loss life. At Five Folks he finally flank Lee's lines so Grant and Meade choose frontal assault of the Petersburg line tbe next day.

 

[5fish]

Moore you should be proud to have cause such a ruckus over Grant and Rosencrans... 200 replies.. or more.... but Rosencrans failed one time and that is his story and all you can do is let us know he was a good man. He failed and that will be his civil war story.. You can not fix it or take down Grant.

 

[Horace Porter]

Any primary sources for that opinions?
First you wanted to silence me "Enough" was your staement.
Then you wanted to save me from embarrassing myself.
Now you're psychoanalyzing me.
At least I don't hide behind someone else's name.
It is you Horace who has assumed someone else's identity.
What does any of this have to do with the truth of the quotes I have posted?

Apparently you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Sounds like Rosecrans.

 

[Horace Porter]

Moore you should be proud to have cause such a ruckus over Grant and Rosencrans... 200 replies.. or more.... but Rosencrans failed one time and that is his story and all you can do is let us know he was a good man. He failed and that will be his civil war story.. You can not fix it or take down Grant.

My take is that he is trying to atone for the fact that his book hasn't made much of an impact and has been overshadowed by other books arguing along the same broad lines about Grant.

 

[5fish]

Any primary sources for that opinions?
First you wanted to silence me "Enough" was your staement.
Then you wanted to save me from embarrassing myself.
Now you're psychoanalyzing me.
At least I don't hide behind someone else's name.
It is you Horace who has assumed someone else's identity.
What does any of this have to do with the truth of the quotes I have posted?

Do not let him goat you... another rule never take anything on here as personal... I like to goat people from time to time... the secret do not fall for it...

 

[67th Tigers]

I recall having a conversation with someone on this site about Rich Mountain and McClellan. Was it with you?

Yes. I dislike immensely that Rosecrans' testimony to the JCCW in 1865 is taken uncritically at face value. It's clear for example that Rosecrans failed to execute his part in McClellan's plan, and worse still failed to communicate with his chief what he was doing. His fight with the outpost is creditable, but his failure to push onto his objective is not.

The WV campaign was more than Rich Mountain. There was Carnifex Ferry and Sewell Mountain.
There were no major battles but the consequences were great: the loss of western Virginia and the eventual creation of a new state.

Yes, and the second phase of the campaign under Rosecrans does get short shrift. However, I like to compare Rich Mountain and Carnifex Ferry as the circumstances are very similar, and Rosecrans' head on approach at the latter was a complete failure and vindicates McClellan's decision to turn the enemy (twice) at the former.

 

[5fish]

My take is that he is trying to atone for the fact that his book hasn't made much of an impact and has been overshadowed by other books arguing along the same broad lines about Grant.

You are doing your best to goat him.... be nice... Like I told him he has done what most of the people on this board wish to do, publish a book... If I ever get to publish my fantasy novels( they are written) or my poems, I would not give a sh-- if they sold or acclaimed. It just be nice to know I did it, would count. Plus, I would be in the Library of Congress, immortality! I would have achieved...

 

[Horace Porter]

Do not let him goat you... another rule never take anything on here as personal... I like to goat people from time to time... the secret do not fall for it...

I'll keep that in mind. Thanks.

 

[Horace Porter]

You are doing your best to goat him.... be nice... Like I told him he has done what most of the people on this board wish to do, publish a book... If I ever get to publish my fantasy novels( they are written) or my poems, I would not give a sh-- if they sold or acclaimed. It just be nice to know I did it, would count. Plus, I would be in the Library of Congress, immortality! I would have achieved...

I treat Mr. Moore as he treats me. My comments are an honest appraisal.

 

[David Moore]

Moore you should be proud to have cause such a ruckus over Grant and Rosencrans... 200 replies.. or more.... but Rosencrans failed one time and that is his story and all you can do is let us know he was a good man. He failed and that will be his civil war story.. You can not fix it or take down Grant.

Do you think he should be commemorated in Washington DC?

 

[David Moore]

Yes. I dislike immensely that Rosecrans' testimony to the JCCW in 1865 is taken uncritically at face value. It's clear for example that Rosecrans failed to execute his part in McClellan's plan, and worse still failed to communicate with his chief what he was doing. His fight with the outpost is creditable, but his failure to push onto his objective is not.



Yes, and the second phase of the campaign under Rosecrans does get short shrift. However, I like to compare Rich Mountain and Carnifex Ferry as the circumstances are very similar, and Rosecrans' head on approach at the latter was a complete failure and vindicates McClellan's decision to turn the enemy (twice) at the former.

Didn't Benham kind of stumble into a battle at Carnifex? I think we should give the 1861 armies a break as they were really learning the art of war. Rosecrans had never been in combat before Rich Mt. He learned enough not to charge an entrenched position at Sewell mountain
WV was a campaign of small encounters but its consequences were pretty large.
I'm not going to make a big deal about this because McC was in WV for a short time.
McClellan also had political support problems so in a way he and Rosecrans (among others) were in the same boat.
Gideon Welles' diary is very interesting in what it says about McC.

 

[5fish]

Do you think he should be commemorated in Washington DC?

NO! They should allow a standing statue of him at his grave site in Arlington like AoC society members wanted... Plus no one going to paid for it unless you get his hometown and home state and Catholic church to paid for it... His home town did him right after 150 years and gave him a statue...