How would you rate Rosecrans?

[cash]

Do you agree that Banks, Fremont and Butler at least entertained the idea of being nominated in 1864?

I would certainly agree about Fremont.

Banks and Butler being politicians, I would not disagree that the thought crossed their minds.

 

[David Moore]

I am aware that others have claimed he did, though these claims are not backed by evidence other than the second hand newspaper gossip.

Do you know that for sure? One would have to go through his papers if they even exist. I certainly haven't. Have you?

 

[David Moore]

I would certainly agree about Fremont.

Banks and Butler being politicians, I would not disagree that the thought crossed their minds.

Fremont of course was a candidate. I think Butler wanted it. His wife told him he was the only man who could save the country. I don't know much about Banks.
You know my feelings about Grant but actually I think it was Washburne who wanted that and Grant was a reluctant partner.
I have some interesting citations from letters sent to Washburne that discuss Grant and 1864.

 

[DanSBHawk]

He wasn't asked to leave. He left because of financial considerations. He was asked to reconsider his decision.
Washburne's role in promoting and protecting Grant should be well know to you by now. I won't repost the documentation.

You are completely dodging as usual. Grant was not in the military at the beginning of the war. A politician interceded on his behalf, so you label him a "political general." Rosecrans was not in the military at the beginning of the war. A politician interceded on his behalf... is he also a "political general" by your standards or not?

 

[Sid J.]

What does the title have to do with Pollard saying lee was outgeneraled?

Nothing. Have we proceeded to the point where you are no longer feigning confusion between the book title and the term for a popular mythology?

 

[David Moore]

You are completely dodging as usual. Grant was not in the military at the beginning of the war. A politician interceded on his behalf, so you label him a "political general." Rosecrans was not in the military at the beginning of the war. A politician interceded on his behalf... is he also a "political general" by your standards or not?

More important than getting Grant a commission was Washburne's role in promoting and sustaining him. I believe in many ways Grant was a reluctant partner in Washburne's presidential politics machinations. He of course wanted to keep his command and was grateful for Washburne's help in that regard.

 

[David Moore]

Nothing. Have we proceeded to the point where you are no longer feigning confusion between the book title and the term for a popular mythology?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Do you know that for sure? One would have to go through his papers if they even exist. I certainly haven't. Have you?

I dont know for sure since there are a lot of papers and I have not gone through them.
An early biographer (Harrington) was convinced of it, but IIRC never cited any direct evidence.
Others who have looked at his papers didnt find anything but did find contrarian statements such as a letter to his wife in which he stated "I am astonished to find that people—pretty active and intelligent from other states than my own, think I have something to do in the future...I wish I was more ambitious and thought better of myself."
There were definitely a lot of second-hand rumors and accusations, sort of like the accusations that Rosecrans was an opium eater.

 

[Sid J.]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Yes you do.

 

[Horace Porter]

Albert Castel devoted his adult life to civil war scholarship. His opinion of Sherman changed as he did research for Decision in the West. His opinion of Rosecrans changed as he did more research about him. His last book which contains the courageous historian request was in a book that he was unable to complete. It was finished with help from Brooks Simpson and published in 2011 three years before Dr Castel died at the age of 86. Time caught up with him as it does with all of us.
Mr. Porter let's agree not to make comments using words like "indictment" about Albert Castel who of course is unable to respond to them.
If you have a need to make negative personal comments about someone I'm here for you.

You appear unable to deal with the consequences of your own words.

 

[Horace Porter]

Where did I make that statement?

It's implied in several dozen of your posts.

 

[Horace Porter]

Mr. Porter let's agree not to make comments using words like "indictment" about Albert Castel who of course is unable to respond to them.

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.

 

[Horace Porter]

You are completely dodging as usual. Grant was not in the military at the beginning of the war. A politician interceded on his behalf, so you label him a "political general." Rosecrans was not in the military at the beginning of the war. A politician interceded on his behalf... is he also a "political general" by your standards or not?

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.

 

[leftyhunter]

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.

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

 

[leftyhunter]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Heres another way for us to look at Rosecrans. Once upon a time Gen. MacArthur was though of has one of the greatest US generals ever. Then stuff happened at the Yalu River and UN forces get chased all the way past Seoul. Thinks kind of went South for old Mac after that. Being a general is kind of like being a Hollywood actor your only has good as your last movie. At least Rosecrans was transferred to Mo instead of being given the axe. We can all relate to Rosecrans you do good you try your best stuff happens and your a bum. Such is life.
Leftyhunter

 

[Horace Porter]

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

I think there's a lot to that.

Rosecrans often got in his own way. He was largely a failure when he undertook offensive operations on the battlefield. Like Sherman, he's best known for a campaign that featured marching, not fighting.

 

[ole]

This thread is becoming overly complicated, 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.

 

[nitrofd]

I am not sure if this is the right thread as we have had so many over the past two weeks but Mr.Moore keeps bringing up Rosecrans first encounter wit R.L.Lee in W.V..well I just dug out VOL.I of Freeman's R.E.Lee and reread chapter XXXIII,Lee' First Campaign.when one reads this chapter it is just like everything in 1861 ,no real big deal.Freeman put most of his feelings that it was a union victory more on the captured union pickets tongues then any thing else because they so over inflated the strength of the union defenses.Rosecrans was lucky then as everybody was just starting their learning curve.

 

[David Moore]

I dont know for sure since there are a lot of papers and I have not gone through them.
An early biographer (Harrington) was convinced of it, but IIRC never cited any direct evidence.
Others who have looked at his papers didnt find anything but did find contrarian statements such as a letter to his wife in which he stated "I am astonished to find that people—pretty active and intelligent from other states than my own, think I have something to do in the future...I wish I was more ambitious and thought better of myself."
There were definitely a lot of second-hand rumors and accusations, sort of like the accusations that Rosecrans was an opium eater.

List the lot of accusation that Rosecrans was an opium eater. dana denied saying it and that it was true.
I realize I am getting back on the merry go round of responding to opinions and hypotheticals.

 

[David Moore]

Heres another way for us to look at Rosecrans. Once upon a time Gen. MacArthur was though of has one of the greatest US generals ever. Then stuff happened at the Yalu River and UN forces get chased all the way past Seoul. Thinks kind of went South for old Mac after that. Being a general is kind of like being a Hollywood actor your only has good as your last movie. At least Rosecrans was transferred to Mo instead of being given the axe. We can all relate to Rosecrans you do good you try your best stuff happens and your a bum. Such is life.
Leftyhunter

That is your opinion but it is not based on anything anyone said or wrote at the time.