How would you rate Rosecrans?

[nitrofd]

I have a question for Mr.Moore.we have discussed the telegram from Rosecrans sent to Halleck in which he said it was a disaster.we have all agreed that this was so as it is in the Official Records.we have stated that a disaster is a defeat and you say there is a difference between the two,insisting a disaster is not a defeat.this brings me to my question,as I read a sample of your book for free on kindle and I would like to QUOTE what you wrote in the introduction as follows "To the extent William Rosecrans is known at all,it is as defeated General of Chickamauga".
So we have been arguing for naught as your book says defeated but you refuse to admit it here thus one can only assume no one can believe what you have been saying here.

 

[67th Tigers]

According to NPS estimates Grant never achieved a 2:1 advantage in any battle of the Overland Campaign.

Campaign strength. Grant was losing men at 2.3 per 1 Lee was losing. Hence in the six week campaign Grant had 2.2 to 1, but at any one time was usually ca. 1.7-1.8, as Grant's greater reinforcements were offset by casualties.

 

[67th Tigers]

I have to ask what is"PFD"? I take it the table represents troops under Grant vs troops under a CSA general? Interesting table and statistics.
Leftyhunter

Present for Duty.

The definitions I used were the Present for Duty Equipped for combat arms vs PFD for combat arms.

 

[67th Tigers]

Can it be said that Grant didn't defeat Lee militarily but outlasted him?

Actually I think that Lee's army was properly defeated by Sheridan's attack at Five Forks and forced into the open where he was surrounded. When force ratios came back upto 2:1 Grant became active again.

 

[1SGDan]

Can it be said that Grant didn't defeat Lee militarily but outlasted him?

No Lee surrendered to Grant. There is no greater evidence of military defeat.

 

[David Moore]

No Lee surrendered to Grant. There is no greater evidence of military defeat.

But could it have occurred earlier with fewer soldiers on both sides killed and maimed?
Do you think politics played a role in who commanded the AotP?
Could Thomas, as an example, have done better than Grant?
What were the odds a republican administration would appoint a Virginia democrat to lead that army?
Lest you think I ask these questions to be a smart a__, they are asked in part because of what I have read recently in the Ord papers which I have posted elsewhere on this site and would be happy to post again.
It seems to me many questions were asked in the 19th century about the war that aren't asked or more shockingly are discouraged from being asked today.

 

[18thVirginia]

The link was to volume 1. There are 5 volumes. Try volumes 3 and 4 to start. https://books.google.com/books?id=znh2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA292&lpg=PA292&dq=correspondence+butler+jk+herbert&source=bl&ots=PMa8pElOI6&sig=thC3XQo4_jF-3XOtyLG_RRVhmYw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_6q-M8MXJAhWD4SYKHY4IB0MQ6AEIKjAD#v=onepage&q= jk herbert&f=false

Okay, I read a number of the letters between the Butlers. They don't reveal much about presidential politics as far as I can see. Mrs. Butler is supportive of her husband and expresses what a wonderful person she thinks he is--that seems pretty standard for political wives, even modern ones that I've known.

But, I did notice that she indicates a need for being careful of what they say in letters and requesting that Butler send her letters back to her in the envelope in which he sends his, as she is more careless. Seems like some things haven't changed much in the last 150 years. Also note that Butler didn't say much of controversial note about politics, at least in the ones I read. Mostly, just "Send tobacco and coffee" and "the weather here is...."

They only seem to emphasize the distinction I mentioned above between the elected official and the unelected politician wannabe.

 

[dlofting]

But could it have occurred earlier with fewer soldiers on both sides killed and maimed?
Do you think politics played a role in who commanded the AotP?
Could Thomas, as an example, have done better than Grant?
What were the odds a republican administration would appoint a Virginia democrat to lead that army?
Lest you think I ask these questions to be a smart a__, they are asked in part because of what I have read recently in the Ord papers which I have posted elsewhere on this site and would be happy to post again.
It seems to me many questions were asked in the 19th century about the war that aren't asked or more shockingly are discouraged from being asked today.

The answer to your second question is "yes".......politics played a role in senior appointments on both sides. The other three are "what ifs" that we could talk about until the cows come home and never come to an agreement.

 

[leftyhunter]

The war was fought for political reasons. It wasn't the Superbowl which is ultimately entertainment. People shouldn't be surprised that politics played an important and even dominant role in the War.
People today expect politics to be involved in almost everything including the military (and the Superbowl.)
Who would control the postwar government was an important question. Recall what happened to Andrew Johnson.

But could it have occurred earlier with fewer soldiers on both sides killed and maimed?
Do you think politics played a role in who commanded the AotP?
Could Thomas, as an example, have done better than Grant?
What were the odds a republican administration would appoint a Virginia democrat to lead that army?
Lest you think I ask these questions to be a smart a__, they are asked in part because of what I have read recently in the Ord papers which I have posted elsewhere on this site and would be happy to post again.
It seems to me many questions were asked in the 19th century about the war that aren't asked or more shockingly are discouraged from being asked today.

To be fair to Lincoln Thomas refused several major promotions in the AoC. Lincoln did appoint a New Jersey Democrat to head the AoP. The AoC was indeed a very important command headed by a Unionist who led many Unionist Southern troops in the AoC.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Actually I think that Lee's army was properly defeated by Sheridan's attack at Five Forks and forced into the open where he was surrounded. When force ratios came back upto 2:1 Grant became active again.

Perhaps Grant should be praised for only fighting on the offense when the odds where at least 2 to 1 in his favor. A good general is not concerned with fair fighting but winning.
Leftyhunter

 

[nitrofd]

I have a question for Mr.Moore.we have discussed the telegram from Rosecrans sent to Halleck in which he said it was a disaster.we have all agreed that this was so as it is in the Official Records.we have stated that a disaster is a defeat and you say there is a difference between the two,insisting a disaster is not a defeat.this brings me to my question,as I read a sample of your book for free on kindle and I would like to QUOTE what you wrote in the introduction as follows "To the extent William Rosecrans is known at all,it is as defeated General of Chickamauga".
So we have been arguing for naught as your book says defeated but you refuse to admit it here thus one can only assume no one can believe what you have been saying here.

I should have posted this on the other thread.my mistake, but mr.moore has read it and has not answered so that just shows he lacks credibility.

 

[1SGDan]

But could it have occurred earlier with fewer soldiers on both sides killed and maimed?
Do you think politics played a role in who commanded the AotP?
Could Thomas, as an example, have done better than Grant?
What were the odds a republican administration would appoint a Virginia democrat to lead that army?
Lest you think I ask these questions to be a smart a__, they are asked in part because of what I have read recently in the Ord papers which I have posted elsewhere on this site and would be happy to post again.
It seems to me many questions were asked in the 19th century about the war that aren't asked or more shockingly are discouraged from being asked today.

Could have? Would have ? Should Have? Mean nothing in light of actual history. Personal grudges, political intrigue, and second guessing after the fact don't change that.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Grant went inactive for about 8 months until force ratios cam back up to 2:1

What 8 months are you referring to? From the fall of Corinth until his expedition against Vicksburg that was undone by Van Dorn's raid of Grant's supply base? As I recall, possibly from Cozzens' book on Iuka & Second Corinth, Grant's army was scattered to guard central and western TN and he was not able to go on the offensive during that period?

Or do you mean between Chattanooga and the beginning of Sherman's campaign toward Atlanta, a period of time in which practically no major operations were occurring in any theater of the war except Banks' Red River Campaign in early 1864?

I have to ask what is"PFD"?

I would presume it means Present For Duty.

I wonder if that table is adjusted for the differences in how Union and Confederates usually counted their available strength?

Can it be said that Grant didn't defeat Lee militarily but outlasted him?

Are you defining militarily as only "on the battlefield"? That's rather narrow. If Rosecrans had surrendered to Bragg after being besieged for awhile at Chattanooga would Bragg not have defeated Rosencrans militarily? Tactics, strategy, sieges, and logistics are all aspects of military operations.

 

[67th Tigers]

What 8 months are you referring to? From the fall of Corinth until his expedition against Vicksburg that was undone by Van Dorn's raid of Grant's supply base? As I recall, possibly from Cozzens' book on Iuka & Second Corinth, Grant's army was scattered to guard central and western TN and he was not able to go on the offensive during that period?

Or do you mean between Chattanooga and the beginning of Sherman's campaign toward Atlanta, a period of time in which practically no major operations were occurring in any theater of the war except Banks' Red River Campaign in early 1864?

Interestingly Grant had many periods of inactivity (or no useful activity), and I was referring to the last one chronologically: from the explosion of the Mine to Five Forks.

 

[67th Tigers]

Perhaps Grant should be praised for only fighting on the offense when the odds where at least 2 to 1 in his favor. A good general is not concerned with fair fighting but winning.
Leftyhunter

Perhaps, but I certainly know another general where if you made that argument you'd get pilloried

Arguably to achieve decisive results a very large advantage in combat power is needed, and only three times did the ratio in N Va get upto the 2:1 range - Hooker at Chancellorsville (because Longstreet was detached), Grant in the Overland Campaign and Grant in the Appomattox Campaign.

It could easy have been up in that range at other periods; in summer of 1862 the combined armies of McClellan, Burnside and Pope could have been up there with better management from Washington, but they were always holding back. In Burnside's time it could have been up there but Washington held back.

Throughout 1863 there was no critical mass in the east - troops were being sent west.

 

[Horace Porter]

Actually I think that Lee's army was properly defeated by Sheridan's attack at Five Forks and forced into the open where he was surrounded. When force ratios came back upto 2:1 Grant became active again.

Sigh. Grant directs Sheridan to undertake the offensive, supplies him with troops, but wasn't "active" until he was assured that the force ratio was acceptable ... my, my, my.

 

[Horace Porter]

Interestingly Grant had many periods of inactivity (or no useful activity), and I was referring to the last one chronologically: from the explosion of the Mine to Five Forks.

I'm sure the soldiers on both sides who were engaged in a number of operations during that period would take issue with your assessment. But it is absolutely true that many students of the Civil War simply overlook those operations. Some may not even know about them. Those folks might agree with you.

 

[Horace Porter]

And yet again a thread about Rosecrans becomes one about Grant. Apparently Rosecrans does not deserve attention solely on his own merits.

 

[David Moore]

Okay, I read a number of the letters between the Butlers. They don't reveal much about presidential politics as far as I can see. Mrs. Butler is supportive of her husband and expresses what a wonderful person she thinks he is--that seems pretty standard for political wives, even modern ones that I've known.

But, I did notice that she indicates a need for being careful of what they say in letters and requesting that Butler send her letters back to her in the envelope in which he sends his, as she is more careless. Seems like some things haven't changed much in the last 150 years. Also note that Butler didn't say much of controversial note about politics, at least in the ones I read. Mostly, just "Send tobacco and coffee" and "the weather here is...."

They only seem to emphasize the distinction I mentioned above between the elected official and the unelected politician wannabe.

Did you look at volumes 3 and 4?

 

[David Moore]

What 8 months are you referring to? From the fall of Corinth until his expedition against Vicksburg that was undone by Van Dorn's raid of Grant's supply base? As I recall, possibly from Cozzens' book on Iuka & Second Corinth, Grant's army was scattered to guard central and western TN and he was not able to go on the offensive during that period?

Or do you mean between Chattanooga and the beginning of Sherman's campaign toward Atlanta, a period of time in which practically no major operations were occurring in any theater of the war except Banks' Red River Campaign in early 1864?



I would presume it means Present For Duty.

I wonder if that table is adjusted for the differences in how Union and Confederates usually counted their available strength?



Are you defining militarily as only "on the battlefield"? That's rather narrow. If Rosecrans had surrendered to Bragg after being besieged for awhile at Chattanooga would Bragg not have defeated Rosencrans militarily? Tactics, strategy, sieges, and logistics are all aspects of military operations.

Because Bragg didn't destroy Rosecrans' army or reoccupy Chattanooga after Sept 21 there was zero chance Rosecrans would surrender. There was a supply line over Walden's ridge and reinforcements were on their way. Rosecrans was setting in motion -building boats and bridges- the plan that would open the cracker line.
As far as Grant it seems to me after the horrific months of May and June 1864 things slowed down considerably. Was the slaughter of those months part off a grand plan or was Grant learning on the job? I'm ready to be educated.