How would you rate Rosecrans?

[David Moore]

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.

But does it mean it shouldn't be discussed?
Should the words of Ord be something we as a nation should be proud of?
Should other heroes be forgotten?
Again this is nothing that wasn't discussed and debated in the nineteenth century.
I think we owe it to those whose deeds - and glory- are forgotten today to discuss them.

 

[David Moore]

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

So why was Rosecrans urged to go on the offensive when he had nothing like that numerical advantage?
Perhaps this explains why he didn't want to go on the offensive until he felt comfortable that he had a chance of success.

 

[67th Tigers]

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.

The Crater (30th July '64) was the last time Grant made a serious go at Richmond/Petersburg before April '65. What's more this isn't even Grant's idea, and his support is grudging at best. The last initiative Grant took before April '65 was in mid-June '64. True, the day after the Crater Grant got a bollocking from Lincoln, and told he was not irreplacable and McClellan was being considered for reinstatement (which McClellan rebuffed). Lincoln told Grant he'd failed even to pin Lee's forces in place (Early had already raided up the valley and came close to Washington) by becoming inactive. Lincoln applied the necessary corrective and did to Grant what he'd done to McClellan over two years previously - stripped him of his offensive concentration and send to the Valley.

Grant of course is thereafter limited to a vague plan of cutting the railroads to the west of Richmond, which he finally achieves at Five Forks a mere nine months later (once his offensive concentration is back up), combined with the odd feint. He has no real conception of how to truly conduct positional warfare, and compensates by falling back on this raiding strategy that takes nine months to bear fruit. This lack of engineering understanding was a real issue.

Ack for McClellan! Moving forward his siege guns with an unstoppable momentum as long as his supply line was intact.....

 

[Horace Porter]

True, the day after the Crater Grant got a bollocking from Lincoln, and told he was not irreplacable and McClellan was being considered for reinstatement (which McClellan rebuffed). ...

Documentation, please.

 

[Horace Porter]

And yet another thread about Rosecrans becomes a thread about Grant. Apparently the defenders of Rosecrans are too busy attacking Grant to defend Rosecrans on his own merits. That's a rather damning indictment of Rosecrans ... by his own fans.

 

[BelleBlackburn]

I hope I didn't miss this somewhere in the thread but just as a tidbit about Rosecrans, this is the George Cunningham house in Nashville. Rosecrans took it over, as well as Buell and Grant. Rosecrans' chief of staff was James Garfield, so two presidents worked out of it during the war. I'm sure it was visited by Andrew Johnson, which would make three. Don't know much about George Cunningham but the house was sadly torn down in 1930.

 

[kevikens]

I was going to reply with a flippant answer, the Western McClellan but McClellan never lost his head on a battlefield.

 

[leftyhunter]

So why was Rosecrans urged to go on the offensive when he had nothing like that numerical advantage?
Perhaps this explains why he didn't want to go on the offensive until he felt comfortable that he had a chance of success.

That's an interesting point. The question would be at the time did higher ups know that the AoC was outnumbered. Has I quoted earlier from Stoker Gen. Halleck did take care to protect Rosecrans flanks by using Gen.Burnside's troops. True the AoC was outnumbered but in all fairness it would not be that last major defeat the US Army would suffer due to poor intelligence even with much more sophisticated intelligence technology.

Leftyhunter

So why was Rosecrans urged to go on the offensive when he had nothing like that numerical advantage?
Perhaps this explains why he didn't want to go on the offensive until he felt comfortable that he had a chance of success.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

The Crater (30th July '64) was the last time Grant made a serious go at Richmond/Petersburg before April '65.

Never mind the 5 major offensives in between The Carter and Five Forks, plus detaching an entire infantry corps plus all his cavalry to the Shenandoah for Sheridan's campaign there, plus the expected period of inactivity during the Virginia winter, plus detaching much of Butler's AotJ for the capture of Wilmington, NC.

True, the day after the Crater Grant got a bollocking from Lincoln, and told he was not irreplaceable and McClellan was being considered for reinstatement (which McClellan rebuffed).

Source?

Lincoln told Grant he'd failed even to pin Lee's forces in place (Early had already raided up the valley and came close to Washington) by becoming inactive. Lincoln applied the necessary corrective and did to Grant what he'd done to McClellan over two years previously - stripped him of his offensive concentration and send to the Valley.

Source on sending Sheridan + reinforcements to the Valley being some kind of punishment? Also, Wright's VI Corps were arriving in Washington as Early was closing on the capital (IIRC, advance elements even fought at Monocacy) which was weeks before the Crater.

Early had left for the Shenandoah after Cold Harbor to counter the threat of Hunter's army - before Grant had become "inactive". The Crater was July 30th, by which Early had already threatened Washington DC and was back in Virginia.

Also, keeping Lee pinned in Petersburg locked in siege (which Lee is quoted as saying he knew he could not win) while the rest of the CSA is dismantled by other armies, including dispatching troops to thrash Early in the Shenandoah, seems rather good strategy to me. See Lincoln's quote that "if a man can't skin, he must hold a leg while somebody else does."

Grant of course is thereafter limited to a vague plan of cutting the railroads to the west of Richmond

Sort of like Sherman's vague plan to take Atlanta by cutting the railroads into that city?

 

[Horace Porter]

Never mind the 5 major offensives in between The Carter and Five Forks, plus detaching an entire infantry corps plus all his cavalry to the Shenandoah for Sheridan's campaign there, plus the expected period of inactivity during the Virginia winter, plus detaching much of Butler's AotJ for the capture of Wilmington, NC.

Waging war looks even easier to armchair generals and keyboard commanders when they aren't all that familiar with the war in question.

 

[NedBaldwin]

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.

So to you, the following battles are inactivity:
Deep Bottom - http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va071.htm
Globe Tavern -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va072.htm
Reams Station -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va073.htm
Peebles Farm -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va074.htm
Chaffin Farm -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va075.htm
Darbytown -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va077.htm
Bodyton Plank road -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va079.htm
Fair Oaks -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va080.htm

 

[NedBaldwin]

But could it have occurred earlier with fewer soldiers on both sides killed and maimed?

Yes, if Rosecrans hadnt been defeated at Chickamuaga or had captured Chattanooga in July instead of September the war might have ended earlier.

Do you think politics played a role in who commanded the AotP?

It also played a role in who commaded the AotC

Could Thomas, as an example, have done better than Grant?

I doubt it.

 

[Jamieva]

67th tigers you need to read Bearss 2 volume work on Petersburg if you truly believe that about Grant.


And we need to get back to Rosecrans...

 

[David Moore]

The NY Times a republican paper said Rosecrans, a democrat, at the time of his removal was second only to Grant in what any general had accomplished in the war. It seems to me many who post on this site know very little about what people in the 19th century, especially during the war, thought about Rosecrans. It seems many people's opinions are based on relatively recent books that have tended to support the idea of Grant as not just the general who led the Union to victory but as a military genius as well. That idea would have surprised many people in the 19th century. If one doesn't at least acknowledge the NY Times assessment of Rosecrans mush less agree with it then discussion about Rosecrans is pointless. The 20th century view of him as been almost universally negative. I have presented many 19th century perspectives on Rosecrans which sometimes are dismissed with the attitude that the people back then didn't know what they were talking about. I have also presented information about the role politics played in the war. Sometimes that is dismissed which would have been laughable to the people who lived through the times.
I also think all parts of the CW have to be included in discussing the war. While Grant was laying siege to Petersburg Rosecrans was in Missouri. It is important to know what Grant was doing what in VA while Rosecrans was repulsing Sterling Price in the fall of 1864. Remember Grant relieved Rosecrans for the final time in 1864.

 

[David Moore]

So to you, the following battles are inactivity:
Deep Bottom - http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va071.htm
Globe Tavern -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va072.htm
Reams Station -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va073.htm
Peebles Farm -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va074.htm
Chaffin Farm -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va075.htm
Darbytown -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va077.htm
Bodyton Plank road -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va079.htm
Fair Oaks -- http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va080.htm

What did these actions accomplish as far as shortening the war?
Were they examples of what Ord called wasting men's lives to no purpose?
There were military actions in middle Tennessee during the period between
Stones River and Tullahoma.

 

[David Moore]

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.

You take my quote out of context which is stating on the first page what the general perception of Rosecrans is today and contrasts it with what I open the book with: the views of veterans at a reunion in 1905.
Why didn't you quote my own quote on page 2 that Rosecrans "wasn't a very good general?" Perhaps you didn't read that far.
However to get to your "gotcha" citation you had to read the following. I would be interested in reading what you think about what the veterans said:

In 1905 a group of Civil War veterans gathered in Chattanooga, Tennessee a city they had captured and occupied 42 years earlier in one of the key moments of the American Civil War.

They were in Chattanooga for the Thirty-third Annual Meeting of the Society of the Army of the Cumberland. That army had fought and marched across Middle Tennessee in 1863 climbing mountains and traversing rivers before fighting the Confederate Army of Tennessee at West Chickamauga Creek in the greatest battle of the western theater of the war. In the minds of these veterans Chickamauga was not a Union defeat but rather the battle for the capture and permanent possession of the city where they were meeting which eventually led to the capture of Atlanta and Union victory in the war.

At the third session of the Meeting an unexpected topic came up: a statue for the man who had led the Army of the Cumberland during the period of its most important battles and campaigns, Major General William S. Rosecrans.

The men began to express themselves "I worship the memory of General William S. Rosecrans. I hold for him a reverence in my heart never to be effaced," said one veteran.

"He was certainly second to nobody in the army of the United States. There was no one superior to Rosecrans," said another.

A third voice added, "…I want to say that I think in strategy Rosecrans was not surpassed by anyone in [the Civil] war or any previous one. He secured this city in the face of a strong and powerful enemy, overcoming almost insurmountable difficulties, but he had the nerve to undertake it, and I think the success of General Grant was due to Rosecrans' matchless strategy"

A fourth veteran opined, "Anyone who studies the campaigns from Murfreesboro to this city, gained by his splendid strategy, cannot fail to accord to him the place of one of the greatest leaders of his age. And this statue should have a place in Washington where it will stand as long as this republic endures."

 

[nitrofd]

You take my quote out of context which is stating on the first page what the general perception of Rosecrans is and contrasts it with what I open the book with the views of veterans at a reunion in 1905.
Why didn't you quote my own quote on page 2 that Rosecrans "wasn't a very good general?" Perhaps you didn't read that far.
However to get to your "gotcha" citation you had to read the following. I would be interested in reading what you think about what the veterans said:

In 1905 a group of Civil War veterans gathered in Chattanooga, Tennessee a city they had captured and occupied 42 years earlier in one of the key moments of the American Civil War.

They were in Chattanooga for the Thirty-third Annual Meeting of the Society of the Army of the Cumberland. That army had fought and marched across Middle Tennessee in 1863 climbing mountains and traversing rivers before fighting the Confederate Army of Tennessee at West Chickamauga Creek in the greatest battle of the western theater of the war. In the minds of these veterans Chickamauga was not a Union defeat but rather the battle for the capture and permanent possession of the city where they were meeting which eventually led to the capture of Atlanta and Union victory in the war.

At the third session of the Meeting an unexpected topic came up: a statue for the man who had led the Army of the Cumberland during the period of its most important battles and campaigns, Major General William S. Rosecrans.

The men began to express themselves "I worship the memory of General William S. Rosecrans. I hold for him a reverence in my heart never to be effaced," said one veteran.

"He was certainly second to nobody in the army of the United States. There was no one superior to Rosecrans," said another.

A third voice added, "…I want to say that I think in strategy Rosecrans was not surpassed by anyone in [the Civil] war or any previous one. He secured this city in the face of a strong and powerful enemy, overcoming almost insurmountable difficulties, but he had the nerve to undertake it, and I think the success of General Grant was due to Rosecrans' matchless strategy"

A fourth veteran opined, "Anyone who studies the campaigns from Murfreesboro to this city, gained by his splendid strategy, cannot fail to accord to him the place of one of the greatest leaders of his age. And this statue should have a place in Washington where it will stand as long as this republic endures."

You supply answers from only four veterns, I quess they were the only new who attended.maybe several hundred said the opposite.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Being a good general doesn't require gaining the long-lasting love of your men. McClellan is Exhibit A.

 

[David Moore]

You supply answers from only four veterns, I quess they were the only new who attended.maybe several hundred said the opposite.

I

You supply answers from only four veterns, I quess they were the only new who attended.maybe several hundred said the opposite.

I quoted from the following https://books.google.com/books?id=r...ence in my heart never to be effaced,&f=false
I have done 25 plus years of research and looked at well over a hundred letters written by soldiers who fought with Rosecrans. Almost all of them are positive even after Chickamauga. I have even posted a couple of letters here.
I think a reason some on this site, and in the general CW fan world, have difficulty in accepting my conclusions is that their opinions are based on twentieth century sources and mine on nineteenth century one

 

[David Moore]

Did you look at volumes 3 and 4?

Here are a couple of interesting letters.
This one touches on politics. Note who Mrs Butler thinks is the one man who can save the country p 342
https://books.google.com/books?id=z...r+vol+4&q=politics#v=snippet&q=seward&f=false

Here is a letter in which Mrs Butler gives her reasons for why her husband was stripped of troops. p 285 https://books.google.com/books?id=z...vol+4&q=politics#v=snippet&q=stripped&f=false

The bigger point is that the five volumes of Butler's correspondence are filled with information that give insights into the politics of the war. To cite two of them is less than a drop in the bucket. To really have a (more) complete understanding of the War one has to have some knowledge of what is in the 5 volumes.