How would you rate Rosecrans?

[67th Tigers]

I suppose if one simply ignores the offensives launched between the Crater and Five Forks, one might claim Grant was inactive. It doesn't make it true, but it might make one feel good to just ignore inconvenient facts.

Indeed, so inconvenient that Confederate offensive moves are being used as evidence of Grant's activity?

Anyway, taking your copy and paste from http://www.beyondthecrater.com/about-the-siege-of-petersburg/offensives/ and dividing into US and CS offensives:

US Movements in normal, CS movements bolded

Second Deep Bottom August 14-19, 1864 - Union diversion on rebel left, few battle casualties, no gains
Globe Tavern August 18-21, 1864 - what 2nd DB was a diversion for, partial success
First Gravelly Run August 23, 1864 - CS probe of ground US gained at GT
Second Reams' Station August 25, 1864 - CS counterattack at GT regaining much ground
Fourth Bermuda Hundred August 25, 1864 - CS recce with less than 100 cas total
Gregory's Chimneys September 10, 1864 - CS recce etc.
Poplar Spring Road September 15, 1864 - US recce by 1,200 inf and 800 cav of 5th Corps
Chaffin's Bluff Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 1864 - Grant orders diversion, Butler commits to a major successful attack that angers Grant who suspends the operation
Poplar Spring Church Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 1864 - aka Prebble's Farm, the US regain some ground lost at 2nd Reams Station
Dr. Boisseau's House October 4, 1864 - minor skirmish as 6th Corps sends out a skirmish party to burn a house in no-mans land
First Darbytown Road October 7, 1864 - CS attack
Second Squirrel Level Road October 8, 1864 - US recce
Second Darbytown Road October 13, 1864 - US recce
First Fort Brady October 22, 1864 - Butler lobs some shells at the rebel squadron upriver.
Second Fair Oaks October 27-29, 1864 - Grant orders another diversion from Butler, but this time is soundly thrashed
First Hatcher's Run October 27-28, 1864 - US offensive in the same area as GT, failed and 2nd Corps almost cut off and destroyed
Fourth Jerusalem Plank Road October 30, 1864 - successful CS raid
Forts Haskell and Morton November 5, 1864 - successful CS raid
First Stony Creek Depot December 1, 1864 - US cavalry raid
Expedition to Hicksford and Bellefield December 7-12, 1864 - US raid to the south
Fourth New Market Heights December 10, 1864 - CS infantry raid which Longstreet withdrew
Second Fort Brady January 23-24, 1865 - naval action between CSN and USN
Second Hatcher's Run February 5-7, 1865 - US cavalry raid supported by infantry
Fort Stedman March 25, 1865 - CS attack
Fourth Petersburg (Lewis' Farm, Third Boydton Plank Road, White Oak Road, Dinwiddie Court House, Five Forks, Third Jones' Farm, Sutherland's Station, Breakthrough, and Ninth Corps Attacks) March 28-April 2, 1865 - indeed

So, you've used rebel movements as evidence of Grant's activity, along with minor recces and a naval action. This suggests you're trying to support a conclusion rather than see where the evidence goes.

In fact it's safer to say Grant had one idea - cut the supply lines west of Petersburg by extending his lines by 3 miles NW. Setting the Crater as T0, he made stabs at this on weeks 4, 9, 13, some raids in weeks 18-19, another raid on week 25 and finally is successful on week 35. He made some diversions on the other flank to coincide with these movements. Frankly this is lethargic, with no attempt made at the main effort Grant has selected for himself for 22 weeks at one point!

Take any other commander who takes 35 weeks to move 3 miles, and tell me they were "active".

Yeah, Grant was just sittin' on his butt smokin' an' jokin' with the boys for 8 months. As long as we ignore what actually happened.

Grant personally probably was going exactly that. He was not a very involved commander, for good or ill.

 

[David Moore]

Once more you demonstrate your unerring ability to twist what people say. Or perhaps you simply lack reading comprehension.

You're the person who first used the word "indictment." Perhaps you don't read your own posts.

As you said, "If that isn't an indictment of the professional academic community I don't know what is."

I replied, in part: "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." That's not an indictment of Castel. That's an indictment of your ranting. It documents just how foolish all this business about "courageous" and your self-serving "indictment" is.

I don't respect either the integrity or the research ability of someone who deliberately mangles what others say (as in your repeated whining about "Enough") in such a self-serving manner.

Castel was incapable of starting another book in 2011. So you agree we don't attack Castel as a person: work habits. courage etc. His opinions about the CW are fair game.
Sock it to me instead Horace.

 

[nitrofd]

David I believe everyone believes you did years of research.I think the problem is in the way you present it.it way have been better if you did a bio of Rosecrans and added your thoughts to it with documentation.your outright attack I feel turn everyone off to your book.you could have had a big market here but you went the wrong way and hurt your customer base.I had bought Varney's book and after reading it became obvious I wouldn't purchase yours.

 

[David Moore]

You should know by now that Mr. Moore does not hold Rosecrans to the same standards that he holds other people. For all this complaining about Washburne's actions on behalf of Grant, we've heard nothing about Chase's attempts on behalf of Rosecrans. Nor have we heard about how counterproductive Rosecrans's own obnoxious behavior in his dispatches to Washington were or how they undermined him. Garfield spoke of how Rosecrans' "imperious and curt" remarks undercut him with his superiors.

Washburne's actions had a large political office aspect. Rosecrans used Chase to bolster his military situation. Rosecrans in 1863 removed himself as a possible presidential candidate. Rosecrans was an outspoken man who was not afraid of the political leaders in Washington. Garfield said much about Rosecrans and he supported him until their break over politics in 1880. Rosecrans didn't play the political game well. If you wish I can link the speech Garfield gave in the House of Reps in 1864. It is a bit longer and more developed than three words.

 

[David Moore]

In your opinion do you think the historian Bruce Catton (per my post #280) is acurate about Rosecrans?
Leftyhunter

Bruce Catton was a generalist about Rosecrans. That is he doesn't focus his work on Rosecrans. I think the reputation of Catton's work on the AotP has fallen in recent years but I'm not sure. CW research and publicatio is much better than it was 50 years ago. More focused. More documentation. More of it.

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=LVgwAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT444&lpg=PT444&dq=Rosecrans+a+coward&source=bl&ots=NcMHVm7keO&sig=4lCvn4hjXEP10aeJnmZkTcBJqr0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHu7XoidrJAhUFLmMKHdIgDnUQ6AEILjAE#v=onepage&q=Rosecrans a coward&f=false

What is interesting about that page is how it cuts up Garfield's quote. The author also leaves out the most important part of the quote.
Garfield says the president hunters were after Rosecrans not that Rosecrans was after the presidency (White House) The author says that. The author also omits this from the letter " I think also that the political leaders became alarmed at his increasing fame and were not unwilling to see evil befall him."
Why did the author omit that part of the letter?

 

[David Moore]

This thread is becoming overly compliated, meanwhile I had a thought (oh no! Ole has a thought.).

Washburne initially got Grant his commission as colonel of the 21st Illinois because he was acquainted with Grant in Galena. Didn't hurt to have a friend bumped to colonel.

Then, when Grant proved to be a bit special, Grant began to reflect well on Washburne. I submit that Washburne benefitted more from Grant's performance than Grant benefitted from Washburne's patronage. Just a thought.

And let's not forget that Grant gained Lincoln's attention. Now that's some political clout.

Are you familiar with the General Washburn and Joseph Medill letters that discuss Congressman Washburne's influence in promoting, protecting and saving Grant in 1862-3? They have been posted on this site. If you can't find them I'll be happy to repost them.

 

[David Moore]

Be

David I believe everyone believes you did years of research.I think the problem is in the way you present it.it way have been better if you did a bio of Rosecrans and added your thoughts to it with documentation.your outright attack I feel turn everyone off to your book.you could have had a big market here but you went the wrong way and hurt your customer base.I had bought Varney's book and after reading it became obvious I wouldn't purchase yours.

Why did reading Frank Varney's book make you decide not to buy mine?

 

[Sbc]

David one action by Rosecrans changed positive opinion to negative. I have posted three different times on several threads. You are not obliged to answer but silence speaks volumes. He did not stay and fight at Chickamauga. A trained professional soldier lost his nerve in a crisis. It is an unpardonable act by a warrior. For all his brilliance he will forever be remembered as "that General who failed his men and avoided personal danger."

 

[nitrofd]

Be

Why did reading Frank Varney's book make you decide not to buy mine?

I read Varney's book over a year ago and was not that impressed so seeing how you have on a rant I feel yours is nothing but a witch hunt.in my library I have over 1200 books on the Civil War since I started buying in 1960.

 

[David Moore]

David one action by Rosecrans changed positive opinion to negative. I have posted three different times on several threads. You are not obliged to answer but silence speaks volumes. He did not stay and fight at Chickamauga. A trained professional soldier lost his nerve in a crisis. It is an unpardonable act by a warrior. For all his brilliance he will forever be remembered as "that General who failed his men and avoided personal danger."

I get so many responses on the various threads that some of them I don't notice. I endeavor to answer all things sent to me. However responding to posts that are mostly opinion is ultimately nonproductive. I also don't respond to silly posts like the eating preferences of generals. I am disappointed that no one has responded to the documents that I have attached to some of my posts. Also let's address the elephant in the room: almost no one who discusses my opinions with me has actually read my book. They are basing their opinions on what they think is in the book.
What is the source for the one quotation in your otherwise all opinion post?

 

[David Moore]

I read Varney's book over a year ago and was not that impressed so seeing how you have on a rant I feel yours is nothing but a witch hunt.in my library I have over 1200 books on the Civil War since I started buying in 1960.

You haven't said what didn't impress you about Varney's book. No point in us discussing a book that you have no intention of reading.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Washburne's actions had a large political office aspect. Rosecrans used Chase to bolster his military situation. Rosecrans in 1863 removed himself as a possible presidential candidate. Rosecrans was an outspoken man who was not afraid of the political leaders in Washington. Garfield said much about Rosecrans and he supported him until their break over politics in 1880. Rosecrans didn't play the political game well. If you wish I can link the speech Garfield gave in the House of Reps in 1864. It is a bit longer and more developed than three words.

Rosecrans certainly did play the political game, and not only to bolster his "military situation." He wrote Lincoln directly, jumping over the heads of his superiors, asking that Lincoln back-date his promotion as a "personal favor," so he that he would outrank Grant, Thomas, and Burnside.

 

[Sbc]

I get so many responses on the various threads that some of them I don't notice. I endeavor to answer all things sent to me. However responding to posts that are mostly opinion is ultimately nonproductive. I also don't respond to silly posts like the eating preferences of generals. I am disappointed that no one has responded to the documents that I have attached to some of my posts. Also let's address the elephant in the room: almost no one who discusses my opinions with me has actually read my book. They are basing their opinions on what they think is in the book.
What is the source for the one quotation in your otherwise all opinion post?

Well I have never posted any comments on eating preferences. The quote is mine as it sums up my thoughts on Rosecrans. And yes it is opinion. What is not opinion is that he was not with Thomas and Granger on Snodgrass Hill nor was he returning there with troops he rallied. I think you will find that this is were most find fault with him. Lack of personal courage.

 

[Horace Porter]

Castel was incapable of starting another book in 2011. So you agree we don't attack Castel as a person: work habits. courage etc. His opinions about the CW are fair game.
Sock it to me instead Horace.

Your persistent and mean-spirited twisting of what people say casts serious doubt upon your skills as a historian.

 

[Horace Porter]

You haven't said what didn't impress you about Varney's book. No point in us discussing a book that you have no intention of reading.

And there you go attempting to silence another person. You post all the time about things you know nothing about, including your speculations about the motives of people past and present. You can always take your own advice and decline to discuss a book no one is reading ... yours.

 

[67th Tigers]

He did not stay and fight at Chickamauga. A trained professional soldier lost his nerve in a crisis. It is an unpardonable act by a warrior. For all his brilliance he will forever be remembered as "that General who failed his men and avoided personal danger."

A "warrior" is a simple soldier usually fighting in disorder. It is the antithesis of a professional soldier.

Avoiding personal danger is a virtue in a commander. Difficult to exercise command with a bullet through the head. At lower levels there are times where it is sometimes necessary, but as an army commander it's typically dereliction of duty.

Rosecrans reported (correctly) that he had two duties to perform once the line broke; to ensure the security of Chattanooga and to inform Thomas as to the situation. All those present bar Garfield agree that he initially tasked Garfield with the former and was about to start over to Thomas, but Garfield baulked at assuming so much responsibility and so instead Rosecrans sent him as a messenger boy to Thomas, sent his available reserves to Thomas, and rallied his other wing himself.

In all situations where there are two exclusive necessities you can always say the choice was wrong. In this case Rosecrans made the correct choice as an army commander, but not the macho choice. However commanding an army is not a matter for a macho "warrior" but for a truly "professional" soldier.

 

[Horace Porter]

I get so many responses on the various threads that some of them I don't notice. I endeavor to answer all things sent to me. However responding to posts that are mostly opinion is ultimately nonproductive. I also don't respond to silly posts like the eating preferences of generals. I am disappointed that no one has responded to the documents that I have attached to some of my posts. Also let's address the elephant in the room: almost no one who discusses my opinions with me has actually read my book. They are basing their opinions on what they think is in the book.
What is the source for the one quotation in your otherwise all opinion post?

People discuss what you post here. It is you who says they are talking about a book they have not read. Gentle hint: your behavior here does not increase the chances that most people here will read it.

 

[Horace Porter]

Bruce Catton was a generalist about Rosecrans. That is he doesn't focus his work on Rosecrans. I think the reputation of Catton's work on the AotP has fallen in recent years but I'm not sure. CW research and publicatio is much better than it was 50 years ago. More focused. More documentation. More of it.

What is interesting about that page is how it cuts up Garfield's quote. The author also leaves out the most important part of the quote.
Garfield says the president hunters were after Rosecrans not that Rosecrans was after the presidency (White House) The author says that. The author also omits this from the letter " I think also that the political leaders became alarmed at his increasing fame and were not unwilling to see evil befall him."
Why did the author omit that part of the letter?

Ask him.

 

[cash]

Indeed, so inconvenient that Confederate offensive moves are being used as evidence of Grant's activity?

Anyway, taking your copy and paste from http://www.beyondthecrater.com/about-the-siege-of-petersburg/offensives/ and dividing into US and CS offensives:

US Movements in normal, CS movements bolded

Second Deep Bottom August 14-19, 1864 - Union diversion on rebel left, few battle casualties, no gains
Globe Tavern August 18-21, 1864 - what 2nd DB was a diversion for, partial success
First Gravelly Run August 23, 1864 - CS probe of ground US gained at GT
Second Reams' Station August 25, 1864 - CS counterattack at GT regaining much ground
Fourth Bermuda Hundred August 25, 1864 - CS recce with less than 100 cas total
Gregory's Chimneys September 10, 1864 - CS recce etc.
Poplar Spring Road September 15, 1864 - US recce by 1,200 inf and 800 cav of 5th Corps
Chaffin's Bluff Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 1864 - Grant orders diversion, Butler commits to a major successful attack that angers Grant who suspends the operation
Poplar Spring Church Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 1864 - aka Prebble's Farm, the US regain some ground lost at 2nd Reams Station
Dr. Boisseau's House October 4, 1864 - minor skirmish as 6th Corps sends out a skirmish party to burn a house in no-mans land
First Darbytown Road October 7, 1864 - CS attack
Second Squirrel Level Road October 8, 1864 - US recce
Second Darbytown Road October 13, 1864 - US recce
First Fort Brady October 22, 1864 - Butler lobs some shells at the rebel squadron upriver.
Second Fair Oaks October 27-29, 1864 - Grant orders another diversion from Butler, but this time is soundly thrashed
First Hatcher's Run October 27-28, 1864 - US offensive in the same area as GT, failed and 2nd Corps almost cut off and destroyed
Fourth Jerusalem Plank Road October 30, 1864 - successful CS raid
Forts Haskell and Morton November 5, 1864 - successful CS raid
First Stony Creek Depot December 1, 1864 - US cavalry raid
Expedition to Hicksford and Bellefield December 7-12, 1864 - US raid to the south
Fourth New Market Heights December 10, 1864 - CS infantry raid which Longstreet withdrew
Second Fort Brady January 23-24, 1865 - naval action between CSN and USN
Second Hatcher's Run February 5-7, 1865 - US cavalry raid supported by infantry
Fort Stedman March 25, 1865 - CS attack
Fourth Petersburg (Lewis' Farm, Third Boydton Plank Road, White Oak Road, Dinwiddie Court House, Five Forks, Third Jones' Farm, Sutherland's Station, Breakthrough, and Ninth Corps Attacks) March 28-April 2, 1865 - indeed

So, you've used rebel movements as evidence of Grant's activity, along with minor recces and a naval action. This suggests you're trying to support a conclusion rather than see where the evidence goes.

In fact it's safer to say Grant had one idea - cut the supply lines west of Petersburg by extending his lines by 3 miles NW. Setting the Crater as T0, he made stabs at this on weeks 4, 9, 13, some raids in weeks 18-19, another raid on week 25 and finally is successful on week 35. He made some diversions on the other flank to coincide with these movements. Frankly this is lethargic, with no attempt made at the main effort Grant has selected for himself for 22 weeks at one point!

Take any other commander who takes 35 weeks to move 3 miles, and tell me they were "active".



Grant personally probably was going exactly that. He was not a very involved commander, for good or ill.

Was Grant busy or was he busy? Whether he initiated the attacks as in 18 of the incidents or whether the confederates did the probing/attacking as in only 9 of the incidents, he was not inactive.

Apparently some thing elevating their own personal heroes only means attacking Grant, and it doesn't have to be a truthful attack. The fact remains you claimed he was inactive and he wasn't inactive.

 

[Sbc]

A "warrior" is a simple soldier usually fighting in disorder. It is the antithesis of a professional soldier.

Avoiding personal danger is a virtue in a commander. Difficult to exercise command with a bullet through the head. At lower levels there are times where it is sometimes necessary, but as an army commander it's typically dereliction of duty.

Rosecrans reported (correctly) that he had two duties to perform once the line broke; to ensure the security of Chattanooga and to inform Thomas as to the situation. All those present bar Garfield agree that he initially tasked Garfield with the former and was about to start over to Thomas, but Garfield baulked at assuming so much responsibility and so instead Rosecrans sent him as a messenger boy to Thomas, sent his available reserves to Thomas, and rallied his other wing himself.

In all situations where there are two exclusive necessities you can always say the choice was wrong. In this case Rosecrans made the correct choice as an army commander, but not the macho choice. However commanding an army is not a matter for a macho "warrior" but for a truly "professional" soldier.

Sorry cannot disagree more. Since as commander he botched the battle desperate measures were called for to salvage the army. It is a cop out to blame Garfield's reluctance--his not to reason why. Rosecrans acts courageous in a rear guard action and he keeps his job. If these generals are so politically in tune (and I don't think they are) would this not occur to him? We would see a statue of him in DC if he took a minie ball in the brain fighting it out.
It is not false bravado to attempt to change flagging morale. Heck Sheridan became famous for his "ride". Albert Sidney derelict for urging on his men? Not in my opinion. Lee reckless for wanting to lead a charge? That takes guts. This was still the era of close up fighting and the fallen leaders are still viewed as martyrs and heroes. Rosecrans was expendable and replaceable. He thought otherwise so history is not kind.