How would you rate Rosecrans?

[leftyhunter]

Especially keeping in mind that at first Lee was not the commander of CSA forces in Wv. Per President Davis he was a senior advisor the three other CSA generals who each commanded their own forces.
McPhearson p.300 "But Lee, functioning in Richmond as a sort of commander in chief of Virginia's armed forces had few men and less steel to spare in faraway western Virginia..Lee was only able to supply Gen.Garnett with 4,500 men"in the most miserable condition as to arms clothing and discipline ".
Eventually Lee was sent to Wv"Lee went to Huntersville where 10,00 wet, sick, hungry Confederate soldiers confronted 3,000 Union troops dug in the high ground of Cheat Mountain., a few miles south of the Rich Mountain pass from which Rosecrans had driven the rebels in July" By the way McPhearson notes that Rosecrans served very effectively in Wv. Not to say its not Rosecrans fault if he takes advantage of enemy forces after all war is not a boxing match its a street fight. On the other hand we can't compare the AnV vs the state of CSA troops in Wv . The Union troops on the whole where better led, more numerous and better supplied then the CSA troops and most of the locals where friendly and many fought on the Union side.
Leftyhunter

Here you go 5 Fish.
Leftyhunter

 

[David Moore]

Here are some relevant citations about Lee and Rosecrans in the WV Campaign of 1861.
From a letter written by Lee to his wife:
The force of the enemy, by a few prisoners captured yesterday and civilians on the road, is put down from 17,000 to 20,000. Some went as high as 22,000. General Floyd thinks 18,000. I do not think it exceeds 9,000 or 10,000, though it exceeds ours. I wish he had attacked us, as I believe he would have been repulsed with great loss.

Southern historian E.A. Pollard wrote the following in 1866:
In the South, he was esteemed as one of the best generals the North had in the field ; he was declared by military critics, who could not be suspected of partiality, to have clearly out-generalled Lee in western Virginia, who made it the entire object of his camp to " surround " the Dutch general; and his popular manners and amiable deportment towards our prisoners, on more than one occasion, procured him the respect of his enemy.

Dr. Thomas J. Riddle writing in 1883 recalled:
Upon meeting one of my officers I asked who was that noble looking officer just passed our camp; he replied that it was General Robert E. Lee, who at that time was little known to the Confederacy, but was destined to become one of the greatest captains the world ever saw, and whose name will ever live upon the brightest page of the historian. After remaining at Little Sewell mountain upwards of two weeks, General Lee made preparations to attack General Rosecrans; contrary, doubtless, to General Lee's expectations, on the morning the attack was to be made, General Rosecrans had very quietly evacuated Big Sewell, and only left a few broken down horses and wagons, and a few tents pitched to make it appear that he still occupied his position. This was considered a very ingenious piece of strategy, as General Lee was much disappointed when he found that General Rosecrans had so quietly and adroitly eluded him on the previous night.
(Riddle says Lee was planning to attack Rosecrans whereas Lee's letter to his wife says he was hoping Rosecrans would be the attacker. A common point to both Lee's letter and Riddle's recollection is Lee's disappointment.)

Historian Granville D. Hall writing in 1911 said:
The facts narrated in the foregoing pages show that Rosecrans, not McClellan, was the hero of Rich Mountain, which battle was decisive of the campaign in West Virginia in 1861; which defeated and discredited Lee, and cleared the field for the restoration of civil government in Virginia

 

[JCM6395]

IMO....Rosecrans was on the verge of greatness when Chickamauga happened. Researching my relatives regiments over the past few years that served in the AoC it is obvious they thought a lot of the man...even after Chickamauga. Rosecrans was greeted often with loud shouts of joy at the AoC reunions in the post war.

 

[David Moore]

IMO....Rosecrans was on the verge of greatness when Chickamauga happened. Researching my relatives regiments over the past few years that served in the AoC it is obvious they thought a lot of the man...even after Chickamauga. Rosecrans was greeted often with loud shouts of joy at the AoC reunions in the post war.

Indeed he was. Anyone who does just a bit of reading of the letters and diaries written by the men who fought under him will find what you have written to be true. Unfortunately their opinions are in places where the average CW student can't easily consult them and thus his reputation is shaped by what twentieth century (and later) historians have written.

 

[dlofting]

Indeed he was. Anyone who does just a bit of reading of the letters and diaries written by the men who fought under him will find what you have written to be true. Unfortunately their opinions are in places where the average CW student can't easily consult them and thus his reputation is shaped by what twentieth century (and later) historians have written.

However, the letters and diaries written by the men contain mostly opinions of Rosecrans.....not facts. On the other hand, Rosecrans leaving part of his army on the field at Chickamauga, for whatever reason, is a fact. How we each judge Rosecrans, in light of that fact is again, opinion.....one where most members of this board disagree with you.

This has been interesting and fun but maybe its time to leave it at that.

 

[leftyhunter]

IMO....Rosecrans was on the verge of greatness when Chickamauga happened. Researching my relatives regiments over the past few years that served in the AoC it is obvious they thought a lot of the man...even after Chickamauga. Rosecrans was greeted often with loud shouts of joy at the AoC reunions in the post war.

That is what IMO makes Rosecrans such a tragic figure of the CW. To come so close to achieving greatness and to see it all evaporate in one day. Not that Rosecrans did not go on to live a full life after the CW and to accomplish other endeavors but still that's a huge blow to be thought of as a coward.
Leftyhunter

 

[18thVirginia]

Did you look at volumes 3 and 4?

Looked at Volume 4 which goes into the summer of 1864. Volume 5 is not available online.

I didn't see anything that approximates what you were saying earlier about the discussion of politics. There's almost none of that. As I stated earlier, Mrs. Butler writes a lot about how well she thinks about her husband and his accomplishments. That's just typical of any political wife, and she'd been one for awhile.

Butler says very little about politics. There is mention of a letter which she writes and hands to him. That rings true, perhaps she discusses politics in that private document, but the rest of your assertion about their discussion of presidential politics--there's no there there.

 

[David Moore]

However, the letters and diaries written by the men contain mostly opinions of Rosecrans.....not facts. On the other hand, Rosecrans leaving part of his army on the field at Chickamauga, for whatever reason, is a fact. How we each judge Rosecrans, in light of that fact is again, opinion.....one where most members of this board disagree with you.

This has been interesting and fun but maybe its time to leave it at that.

But they were there. They saw him during and after the battle. Don't dismiss them because they aren't cited in widely read histories.

 

[David Moore]

Looked at Volume 4 which goes into the summer of 1864. Volume 5 is not available online.

I didn't see anything that approximates what you were saying earlier about the discussion of politics. There's almost none of that. As I stated earlier, Mrs. Butler writes a lot about how well she thinks about her husband and his accomplishments. That's just typical of any political wife, and she'd been one for awhile.

Butler says very little about politics. There is mention of a letter which she writes and hands to him. That rings true, perhaps she discusses politics in that private document, but the rest of your assertion about their discussion of presidential politics--there's no there there.

I sent you a couple of links. Do a little research. Search names like Seward, Stanton and words like presidency and nomination (among others; be creative.) There are nearly 600 pages of letters (in just one volume.)

 

[NedBaldwin]

...A common point to both Lee's letter and Riddle's recollection is Lee's disappointment...

Another common point is that, when faced with Lee, Rosecrans retreated.

 

[18thVirginia]

I sent you a couple of links. Do a little research. Search names like Seward, Stanton and words like presidency and nomination (among others; be creative.) There are nearly 600 pages of letters (in just one volume.)

Uhmm, no. I looked through the letters which you suggested and found nothing. It's not my responsibility to try and ferret out examples that validate your contentions. So far, the letters which you seem to take so seriously appear to be just political gossip by a wannabe and some more political chitchat from a wife trying to help bolster her husband's spirits.

In both instances, the writers make it obvious that any real discussion will be had in person and in private with the politician, in this case, Butler.

 

[David Moore]

Another common point is that, when faced with Lee, Rosecrans retreated.

Rosecrans retreats. Lee's disappointed. Western Virginia is lost by the Confederates and permanently occupied by the Union.
Rosecrans is replaced in WV by John C. Fremont - a republican with political ambitions and support.

 

[David Moore]

Uhmm, no. I looked through the letters which you suggested and found nothing. It's not my responsibility to try and ferret out examples that validate your contentions. So far, the letters which you seem to take so seriously appear to be just political gossip by a wannabe and some more political chitchat from a wife trying to help bolster her husband's spirits.

In both instances, the writers make it obvious that any real discussion will be had in person and in private with the politician, in this case, Butler.

I think we got on this subject because you doubted the reliability of JK Herbert.
I mentioned that Butler and his wife were politically ambitious.
I sent you a couple of links in which you find "nothing." You cite no examples of "nothing" just give your opinions.
It is hard for me to respond to a comment that has nothing in the way of citatio
Btw Vol V is available on line https://archive.org/stream/privateofficialc05butl#page/n5/mode/2up
Here is another interesting letter page 512. The letters before it are interesting and put this one in context.
I would ask that if you comment on this letter that you be a bit more specific than just saying it has "nothing."
from page 512 Vol 4

From Colonel Shaffer to General Butler

Headquarters, Department Va. and N. C, Fort Monroe, July 9.3rd, 1864

[Not in chronological order]

Dear General: I have been thinking the matter over contained in Conkling's letter. I have always supposed that Fremont held himself in readiness to withdraw whenever he could thereby aid any good man that was a candidate, and don't now think there will be trouble on that score.

I can think of no plan as feasible as the one Conkling mentions to bring you out. This has been a troublesome point to settle in my own mind. I now believe if the War Democracy will go to Chicago on the 9th of August (which I believe is [[the date] of convention), and split off from balance of their party and nominate you on your own platform, that the way is clear. All other suggestions will settle themselves.

This appears to me the only safe way to get at the thing. And if you are sure that this can be done, it is better that Davis should not publish his protest against Lincoln until after the 9th of August, after you get the endorsement of War Democracy. Then have Davis come out with his paper, and have other leading Republicans come out and call a mass meeting at New York, or elsewhere, to endorse the action of War Democracy, and I think it will settle the matter. Of course everything depends on you holding your own with the public until you get out of the army. If you have no objections, I will go to Baltimore and have a chat with Davis. Seward has gone up, — let me know what he is after. v

Yours truly, J. W. Shaffer

 

[1SGDan]

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.

If we were insulted or embarrassed by every stupid thing said by historical figures we would spend a lot of time insulted and embarrassed.

 

[David Moore]

If we were insulted or embarrassed by every stupid thing said by historical figures we would spend a lot of time insulted and embarrassed.

Not quite sure what point you are making. I was trying to make the case for primary sources.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Primary sources can tell us why a battle was won or lost, and what people thought about the battle during and right after it.

None of that tells us whether a battle was won or lost, only if people at the time thought it was won or lost. What people thought at the time is important because it influenced their decisions. As historians we should not only determine what people thought, but whether their opinions were accurate. That is the benefit of hindsight (possibly our greatest tool, when used responsibly).

Was Rosecrans hurt by political intrigue? Was Grant unfair to Rosecrans, and did that color historians view of Rosecrans? Did Garfield give Rosecrans bad advice? Should Rosecrans have been relieved after Chickamauga? All good and valid questions.

Where this goes awry is not failure of CWT members to read primary sources, but in the arguments made from them. We're still tangentially beating the dead horse of "Was Chickamauga a Union victory?" with the only real proponent of one side of the argument being one of the most shameless apologists who seems to view Rosecrans as a great victim who could do no wrong. Lee wasn't a marble man and neither is Rosecrans.

 

[67th Tigers]

Historian Granville D. Hall writing in 1911 said:
The facts narrated in the foregoing pages show that Rosecrans, not McClellan, was the hero of Rich Mountain, which battle was decisive of the campaign in West Virginia in 1861; which defeated and discredited Lee, and cleared the field for the restoration of civil government in Virginia

True, he said that, but of course there really wasn't a battle at Rich Mountain at all. Sure McClellan launched Rosecrans on a turning movement which Rosecrans failed to execute properly, and Rosecrans with a strong brigade eventually overcame a 2 company outpost, but that's the extent of the fighting.

The decisive factor at Rich Mountain was McClellan launching a second movement after Rosecrans failed with McCook's brigade. This compelled the rebels to withdraw (past Rosecrans who didn't block the retreat) and the entire rebel force was captured in the following days by McClellan leading a pursuing column.

Then again, Lee wasn't in command in W Va at the time of Rich Mountain.

 

[David Moore]

True, he said that, but of course there really wasn't a battle at Rich Mountain at all. Sure McClellan launched Rosecrans on a turning movement which Rosecrans failed to execute properly, and Rosecrans with a strong brigade eventually overcame a 2 company outpost, but that's the extent of the fighting.

The decisive factor at Rich Mountain was McClellan launching a second movement after Rosecrans failed with McCook's brigade. This compelled the rebels to withdraw (past Rosecrans who didn't block the retreat) and the entire rebel force was captured in the following days by McClellan leading a pursuing column.

Then again, Lee wasn't in command in W Va at the time of Rich Mountain.

I recall having a conversation with someone on this site about Rich Mountain and McClellan. Was it with you?
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.
Rosecrans had a plan to unify the Union armies in Virginia west of Washington and use that large force to threaten Richmond (and other points) from the west. The plan was ignored by the War Dept.
Another interesting aspect is that Rosecrans was replaced in WV by Fremont who was the original Republican presidential candidate in 1856 and would be a candidate for a short period in 1864. Politics. Politics. Politics.

 

[David Moore]

Primary sources can tell us why a battle was won or lost, and what people thought about the battle during and right after it.

None of that tells us whether a battle was won or lost, only if people at the time thought it was won or lost. What people thought at the time is important because it influenced their decisions. As historians we should not only determine what people thought, but whether their opinions were accurate. That is the benefit of hindsight (possibly our greatest tool, when used responsibly).

Was Rosecrans hurt by political intrigue? Was Grant unfair to Rosecrans, and did that color historians view of Rosecrans? Did Garfield give Rosecrans bad advice? Should Rosecrans have been relieved after Chickamauga? All good and valid questions.

Where this goes awry is not failure of CWT members to read primary sources, but in the arguments made from them. We're still tangentially beating the dead horse of "Was Chickamauga a Union victory?" with the only real proponent of one side of the argument being one of the most shameless apologists who seems to view Rosecrans as a great victim who could do no wrong. Lee wasn't a marble man and neither is Rosecrans.

How many of the people who have responded to my posts on CWT have done primary source research or even read the ones I've posted. I have used primary sources to address the standard charges that Rosecrans fled the battlefield; that he was a broken man after Chickamauga; to show that soldiers did hear sounds of battle at Iuka; that Rosecrans devised the plan to open the cracker line; and also to show evidence of political intrique against him.
I have also used primary and 19th century sources to show that Rosecrans was highly rated as a general during the war. The NY Times ranked him second only to Grant.
What I usually get are responses based on twentieth century histories and being called names like shameless.
I am not alone in this. Others who dare challenge the Grant/Sherman interpretation of the CW are also mocked. That they have written multipaged ,well documented books is unimportant. However I welcome the opportunity to present my views and submit documentation for them. I only fear that I may be silenced one day for promoting heresy.

 

[David Moore]

That is what IMO makes Rosecrans such a tragic figure of the CW. To come so close to achieving greatness and to see it all evaporate in one day. Not that Rosecrans did not go on to live a full life after the CW and to accomplish other endeavors but still that's a huge blow to be thought of as a coward.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE

Perhaps the tragedy is explained by Garfield's belief that the political leaders were "not unwilling to see evil befall him (Rosecrans)"