How would you rate Rosecrans?

[cash]

Dana was called by Gordon Granger - who could be considered the real savior of Chickamauga- a "loathsome pimp."

Except, of course, for when he's saying wonderful things about Rosecrans. Then honesty is the most important thing to him.

David, from all appearances you're a wonderful person and very likeable. I think if you and I met we would be fast friends--in fact, I'm sure of it. I admire your pluck and your tenacity. I admire the time and effort you devoted to research and to writing your book. Please, though, don't mistake what you're doing for history. It's not history, it's advocacy. Now, it doesn't make you a bad person to be engaged in advocacy. I think that there are times when you've mishandled evidence, and I don't believe it's from any malicious intent to deceive, but rather it's from making honest mistakes due to being caught up in your admiration for General Rosecrans. I think you don't have the understanding of the military aspects of the war to be able to properly evaluate Rosecrans. That's not meant to disparage you, but is meant as an honest evaluation from what I've seen of your posts and also from the video I saw of your talk. Again, it doesn't make you a bad person. That understanding can be gained. A wise and talented historian once told me that it's always a bad practice for a historian or biographer to fall in love with dead people. In many cases, it's all too easy to do so, and I think you've done so here.

I think you need to step back and look at what you're doing. I say this not out of animus but in a spirit of comity.

Some time ago I asked you what faults Rosecrans had. My recollection is that your answer, in essence, was that he was too nice a guy. I mean, seriously--what real person's only fault is that he's too nice a guy?

Automatically looking for ways to reject negative information about Rosecrans and automatically looking for ways to accept positive information about him is not objective history. Until you can seriously criticize Rosecrans for his faults, you're not doing him or yourself any favors.

I hope you take this as constructive advice instead of an attack, because it's meant to be constructive and not an attack.

 

[Sbc]

Except, of course, for when he's saying wonderful things about Rosecrans. Then honesty is the most important thing to him.

David, from all appearances you're a wonderful person and very likeable. I think if you and I met we would be fast friends--in fact, I'm sure of it. I admire your pluck and your tenacity. I admire the time and effort you devoted to research and to writing your book. Please, though, don't mistake what you're doing for history. It's not history, it's advocacy. Now, it doesn't make you a bad person to be engaged in advocacy. I think that there are times when you've mishandled evidence, and I don't believe it's from any malicious intent to deceive, but rather it's from making honest mistakes due to being caught up in your admiration for General Rosecrans. I think you don't have the understanding of the military aspects of the war to be able to properly evaluate Rosecrans. That's not meant to disparage you, but is meant as an honest evaluation from what I've seen of your posts and also from the video I saw of your talk. Again, it doesn't make you a bad person. That understanding can be gained. A wise and talented historian once told me that it's always a bad practice for a historian or biographer to fall in love with dead people. In many cases, it's all too easy to do so, and I think you've done so here.

I think you need to step back and look at what you're doing. I say this not out of animus but in a spirit of comity.

Some time ago I asked you what faults Rosecrans had. My recollection is that your answer, in essence, was that he was too nice a guy. I mean, seriously--what real person's only fault is that he's too nice a guy?

Automatically looking for ways to reject negative information about Rosecrans and automatically looking for ways to accept positive information about him is not objective history. Until you can seriously criticize Rosecrans for his faults, you're not doing him or yourself any favors.

I hope you take this as constructive advice instead of an attack, because it's meant to be constructive and not an attack.

Nailed it sir

 

[cash]

Nevertheless Rosecrans outgeneraled him. Rosecrans was not an advocate of charges against entrenched positions. Lee and Rosecrans had a good relationship after the war. That probably hurts Rosecrans with some historians today.

No, it most probably doesn't.

Did Rosecrans really outgeneral Lee? Lee was in a bad situation in West Virginia. His nominal "subordinates," former governors Floyd and Wise, fought with each other more than they fought with the Yankees, and they don't seem to have listened to Lee very much. In which battles did Rosecrans command troops against troops Lee commanded on the field?

 

[cash]

Seriously? Grant's whole career shows massive periods of inactivity and lethargy.

The question of force ratios was brought up, and Grant went on the offensive in '64 with > 2:1 numerical advantage. The ratios in the east were:

McClellan (Seven Days): 1:1.2 (Confederates stronger)
McClellan (Maryland): 1.2:1 (campaign strength, ignoring straggling on both sides)
Burnside (Fredericksburg): 1.6:1
Hooker (Chancellorsville): 2.3:1
Meade (Gettysburg): 1.4:1
Meade (Mine Run): 1.4:1
Overland Campaign: 2.2:1 (campaign strength)

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

Rosecrans, like McClellan, was typically fighting equal sized opponents. Grant only really fought with massive numerical advantages, and when he didn't have one he didn't fight.

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.

Let's take a look at Grant's inactivity:

Second Deep Bottom August 14-19, 1864
Globe Tavern August 18-21, 1864
First Gravelly Run August 23, 1864
Second Reams' Station August 25, 1864
Fourth Bermuda Hundred August 25, 1864
Gregory's Chimneys September 10, 1864
Poplar Spring Road September 15, 1864
Chaffin's Bluff Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 1864
Poplar Spring Church Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 1864
Dr. Boisseau's House October 4, 1864
First Darbytown Road October 7, 1864
Second Squirrel Level Road October 8, 1864
Second Darbytown Road October 13, 1864
First Fort Brady October 22, 1864
Second Fair Oaks October 27-29, 1864
First Hatcher's Run October 27-28, 1864
Fourth Jerusalem Plank Road October 30, 1864
Forts Haskell and Morton November 5, 1864
First Stony Creek Depot December 1, 1864
Expedition to Hicksford and Bellefield December 7-12, 1864
Fourth New Market Heights December 10, 1864
Second Fort Brady January 23-24, 1865
Second Hatcher's Run February 5-7, 1865
Fort Stedman March 25, 1865
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

And that doesn't get into deploying Sheridan to the Valley or the North Carolina foray.

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.

 

[cash]

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

No.

 

[cash]

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

Lee could have surrendered in April 1864 instead of April 1865. That would have saved a whole lot of casualties.

Do you think politics played a role in who commanded the AotP?
Could Thomas, as an example, have done better than Grant?

Politics always has and always will play a role in who commands what.
Grant didn't command the Army of the Potomac, and Thomas could not have done a better job than Grant.

What were the odds a republican administration would appoint a Virginia democrat to lead that army?

Again, Grant wasn't in command of the Army of the Potomac.

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.

Again, David, this shows holes in your knowledge of the war. Grant didn't command the Army of the Potomac. George G. Meade did.

 

[cash]

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.....

Yes, if we ignore everything Grant did we can say he didn't do anything.

First Weldon Railroad June 22, 1864
Wilson-Kautz Raid June 22-July 1, 1864
St. Mary's Church June 24, 1864
Hare's Hill June 24, 1864
Staunton Bridge June 25, 1864
Sappony Church June 28-29, 1864
First Reams' Station June 29, 1864
First Deep Bottom July 27-29, 1864
Crater July 30, 1864

 

[cash]

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.

They took territory and stretched Lee's lines. They took resources from Lee. They took manpower from Lee. All of which Lee could not afford to lose.

 

[David Moore]

They took territory and stretched Lee's lines. They took resources from Lee. They took manpower from Lee. All of which Lee could not afford to lose.

Couldn't almost any competent general with an army the size of Grant's have done that and more quickly?

 

[David Moore]

Lee could have surrendered in April 1864 instead of April 1865. That would have saved a whole lot of casualties.



Politics always has and always will play a role in who commands what.
Grant didn't command the Army of the Potomac, and Thomas could not have done a better job than Grant.



Again, Grant wasn't in command of the Army of the Potomac. Including Meade.



Again, David, this shows holes in your knowledge of the war. Grant didn't command the Army of the Potomac. George G. Meade did.

Please everyone knows Grant was traveling with the AotP and running the show.

 

[cash]

Couldn't almost any competent general with an army the size of Grant's have done that and more quickly?

It wasn't Grant's army, and you can't assume anyone could do it quicker because of the strength of the confederate defenses.

 

[cash]

Please everyone knows Grant was traveling with the AotP and running the show.

You said he was commanding the Army of the Potomac. He wasn't.

Grant set the overall strategy. Execution of the tactics to implement that strategy was Meade's job.

 

[David Moore]

No, it most probably doesn't.

Did Rosecrans really outgeneral Lee? Lee was in a bad situation in West Virginia. His nominal "subordinates," former governors Floyd and Wise, fought with each other more than they fought with the Yankees, and they don't seem to have listened to Lee very much. In which battles did Rosecrans command troops against troops Lee commanded on the field?

Southern historian EA Pollard writing right after the war used the word "outgeneraled"

 

[cash]

Southern historian EA Pollard writing right after the war used the word "outgeneraled"

Pollard was a newspaper editor, not a historian. And we know what Lee said about newspaper editors.

 

[David Moore]

You said he was commanding the Army of the Potomac. He wasn't.

Grant set the overall strategy. Execution of the tactics to implement that strategy was Meade's job.

So Meade was running the Overland campaign?

 

[David Moore]

Pollard was a newspaper editor, not a historian. And we know what Lee said about newspaper editors.

Well he wrote a history of the war. Is there a regulation for what makes someone a historian?

 

[cash]

So Meade was running the Overland campaign?

Meade was responsible for the tactics to execute Grant's strategy.

 

[cash]

Well he wrote a history of the war. Is there a regulation for what makes someone a historian?

He wrote his view of what happened. I hesitate to call it a history. Some of what he wrote in his book served to justify what he had printed in his newspaper.

"Why sir in the beginning we appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit our newspapers. I have done the best I could in the field, and have not succeeded as I would wish. I am willing to yield my place to these best generals, and I will do my best for the cause editing a newspaper. Even as a poor soldier as I am can generally discover mistakes after it is all over, but if I could only induce these wise gentlemen who see them so clearly beforehand to communicate with me in advance, instead of waiting until the evil has come upon us, to let me know they knew all the time, it would be far better for the country" -- Robert E. Lee to Benjamin Hill

 

[David Moore]

Except, of course, for when he's saying wonderful things about Rosecrans. Then honesty is the most important thing to him.

David, from all appearances you're a wonderful person and very likeable. I think if you and I met we would be fast friends--in fact, I'm sure of it. I admire your pluck and your tenacity. I admire the time and effort you devoted to research and to writing your book. Please, though, don't mistake what you're doing for history. It's not history, it's advocacy. Now, it doesn't make you a bad person to be engaged in advocacy. I think that there are times when you've mishandled evidence, and I don't believe it's from any malicious intent to deceive, but rather it's from making honest mistakes due to being caught up in your admiration for General Rosecrans. I think you don't have the understanding of the military aspects of the war to be able to properly evaluate Rosecrans. That's not meant to disparage you, but is meant as an honest evaluation from what I've seen of your posts and also from the video I saw of your talk. Again, it doesn't make you a bad person. That understanding can be gained. A wise and talented historian once told me that it's always a bad practice for a historian or biographer to fall in love with dead people. In many cases, it's all too easy to do so, and I think you've done so here.

I think you need to step back and look at what you're doing. I say this not out of animus but in a spirit of comity.

Some time ago I asked you what faults Rosecrans had. My recollection is that your answer, in essence, was that he was too nice a guy. I mean, seriously--what real person's only fault is that he's too nice a guy?

Automatically looking for ways to reject negative information about Rosecrans and automatically looking for ways to accept positive information about him is not objective history. Until you can seriously criticize Rosecrans for his faults, you're not doing him or yourself any favors.

I hope you take this as constructive advice instead of an attack, because it's meant to be constructive and not an attack.

So after having done, and continuing to do, twenty five plus years of research I am to listen to your friendly advice and just stop posting and giving my conclusions? I'm sorry I can't when I come upon letters like the ones I have attached to this post. Have you read my book? Joseph Rose's? Albert Castel's, Frank Varney's?
Dare I ask if you've done much primary source research?
Is this what supporting Grant eventually leads to: asking people to stop researching and posting?

 

[David Moore]

Meade was responsible for the tactics to execute Grant's strategy.

So Meade gets the blame Grant the credit?