How would you rate Rosecrans?

[Jamieva]

Well played

 

[Horace Porter]

It seems that some people thought Rosecrans was a coward who was a little too eager to advance himself politically.

https://books.google.com/books?id=L...EILjAE#v=onepage&q=Rosecrans a coward&f=false

 

[leftyhunter]

Well never have cared too much for the NYT.

On the other hand the NYT at least back in the CW was a partisan Republican paper and Rosecrans was a Democrat. Perhaps one could argue circa 1863 Rosecrans was the second most successful Union general although one might make a case for Gen. Curtis as well. If not Rosecrans or Curtis who else?
Leftyhunter

 

[David Moore]

Do you believe everything you read in the papers? How many times have you pointed this out? Does it get any better in the repetition?

In short, so what?

And we are still waiting.

We are indeed. In the meantime I will keep researching.

Well never have cared too much for the NYT.[/QUOT

The NYT wasn't the

Is that the same EA Pollard who said of Chickamauga "The enemy had fought every man that he had, and every one had in turn been beaten" and "The enemy was totally routed from left, right and centre, and was in full retreat to Chattanooga, night alone preventing further pursuit." Do you also accept as unassailable "historian" Pollard in this case?

Let's say for the sake of discussion I agree with that statement do you then say Pollard was right about Lee?
Pollard must be 100% correct or 100% wrong?
Pollard ended his chapter on Chickamauga with the following: Chickamauga was equally as desperate as the battle of Areola; but it was productive of no decisive results, and we shall see that it was followed, as many another brilliant victory of the Confederates, by almost immediate consequences of disaster.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Pollard must be 100% correct or 100% wrong?

By your criteria, sources are 100% correct when they flatter Rosecrans, and 100% wrong when they criticize Rosecrans.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Fremont was probably the only real republican general at the beginning of the war.

Republican generals in 1861 included Banks, Fremont, Hunter, Hurlburt, Pope, Curtis, Cox, Prentiss, King

 

[David Moore]

I don't know whether this assertion is more amusing or amazing. Because a single historian wants someone else to write a book (a book the oft-published Castel declined to write himself, so I guess he wasn't courageous by his own definition), and no one in the academy rushes out to do it (recall that Castel's comment appeared in 2011 ... so it would have to be a hastily-researched and prepared book to satisfy you), it's an indictment of some sort. Yet you claim to have been engaged in doing research for decades, and you continue to do so.

So what you want is a hastily-prepared and poorly-researched book to have appeared to satisfy the whims of a man who did not heed his own call for such a book. The historian who met your demands in such a short time would not be courageous, but foolish.

Tell you what: ask Dr. Varney or Mr. Rose to write such a book. Tell us what they say. Thankyouverymuch.

Albert Castel devoted his adult life to civil war scholarship. His opinion of Sherman changed as he did research for Decision in the West. His opinion of Rosecrans changed as he did more research about him. His last book which contains the courageous historian request was in a book that he was unable to complete. It was finished with help from Brooks Simpson and published in 2011 three years before Dr Castel died at the age of 86. Time caught up with him as it does with all of us.
Mr. Porter let's agree not to make comments using words like "indictment" about Albert Castel who of course is unable to respond to them.
If you have a need to make negative personal comments about someone I'm here for you.

 

[David Moore]

Republican generals in 1861 included Banks, Fremont, Hunter, Hurlburt, Pope, Curtis, Cox, Prentiss, King

I should probably have said with real presidential potential in 1861.

 

[David Moore]

By your criteria, sources are 100% correct when they flatter Rosecrans, and 100% wrong when they criticize Rosecrans.

Where did I make that statement?

 

[cash]

Republican generals in 1861 included Banks, Fremont, Hunter, Hurlburt, Pope, Curtis, Cox, Prentiss, King

Indeed. Banks had been the Republican Speaker of the House of the US House of Representatives and the Republican Governor of Massachusetts prior to the war.

 

[David Moore]

Indeed. Banks had been the Republican Speaker of the House of the US House of Representatives and the Republican Governor of Massachusetts prior to the war.

Do you agree that Banks, Fremont and Butler at least entertained the idea of being nominated in 1864?

 

[NedBaldwin]

Indeed. Banks had been the Republican Speaker of the House of the US House of Representatives and the Republican Governor of Massachusetts prior to the war.

At the start of the war Curtis was a Republican congressman from Iowa.
In 1860 Prentiss had run for Congress as a Republican in the 5th district of Illinois ; though he lost.
Cox and Hurlbut had been Republican state legislators.
Rufus King was a leader of the Wisconsin Republicans.

 

[Sid J.]

Let's say for the sake of discussion I agree with that statement do you then say Pollard was right about Lee?
Pollard must be 100% correct or 100% wrong?
Pollard ended his chapter on Chickamauga with the following: Chickamauga was equally as desperate as the battle of Areola; but it was productive of no decisive results, and we shall see that it was followed, as many another brilliant victory of the Confederates, by almost immediate consequences of disaster.

So suddenly you agree Pollard is less than infallible? Amazing how that happens. To better understand Pollards viewpoint you might look into his 1859 work Black Diamonds in the Darkey Homes of the South. Goes a long way toward explaining some of the BS he tries to peddle in The Lost Cause.

 

[David Moore]

So suddenly you agree Pollard is less than infallible? Amazing how that happens. To better understand Pollards viewpoint you might look into his 1859 work Black Diamonds in the Darkey Homes of the South. Goes a long way toward explaining some of the BS he tries to peddle in The Lost Cause.

How does saying Lee was outgeneraled help the Lost Cause?

 

[NedBaldwin]

Do you agree that Banks, Fremont and Butler at least entertained the idea of being nominated in 1864?

Newspapers, etc, gossiped about Banks as a candidate, but I am not aware that he ever entertained it.

 

[David Moore]

How does saying Lee was outgeneraled help the Lost Cause?

When did I say Pollard was infallible?

 

[David Moore]

Newspapers, etc, gossiped about Banks as a candidate, but I am not aware that he ever entertained it.

I think others say he did. No time to get into that tonight.

 

[Sid J.]

How does saying Lee was outgeneraled help the Lost Cause?

My reference was to The Lost Cause, which is the title of Pollard's Book, as you know.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I think others say he did. No time to get into that tonight.

I am aware that others have claimed he did, though these claims are not backed by evidence other than the second hand newspaper gossip.

 

[David Moore]

My reference was to The Lost Cause, which is the title of Pollard's Book.

What does the title have to do with Pollard saying lee was outgeneraled?