Random Thoughts on Iuka

[Nathan Towne]

That's great. Let people have a constructive discussion.

Would love to with anyone able and willing to.

 

[SSVilla]

I posted this way back on the third page of this thread: "I think people run into problems here when they fail to realize that every single post, including their own, is an opinion. Opinions based on books that are read, on sources that are investigated, and perhaps on personal biases as well. No one here is an arbiter of truth."

This was immediately followed by a poster criticizing Ned Baldwins knowledge of the battle, and then repetitively declaring over the next many pages that their own opinion was the "wholly established" truth. Threads like this would not get so tiring if the poster simply realized that other posters can look through the evidence and come to completely different opinions. If a person wants to dominate over other posters, and dictate what is to be considered truth, then they are going to get some pushback and they certainly deserve to get pushback to that kind of conceited behavior.

Express your own opinion. Respect the opinions of other posters. Agree or disagree with other posters. Leave it at that, and it would not seem so tiring.

Scholarly historians have arguments among themselves for exactly this reason. Sometimes they settle on some version of "I'll just agree to disagree," and move on. They have each considered the same documents and same situations but weigh them differently and there's also areas that are open to interpretation like here. They are also very polite because they sort of know what "school of thought" each other belongs to, etc.

 

[Nathan Towne]

Scholarly historians have arguments among themselves for exactly this reason. Sometimes they settle on some version of "I'll just agree to disagree," and move on. They have each considered the same documents and same situations but weigh them differently and there's also areas that are open to interpretation like here. They are also very polite because they sort of know what "school of thought" each other belongs to, etc.

It is alright.

 

[SSVilla]

To try to get this circus back on track...

I think your speculation is good, and it shows how the more a person looks into this battle, the more it leaves a person with more questions.

One question that came to mind when reading your theory of a panicking Rosecrans is: If he was nervous and panicky about the plan falling apart, why was he nowhere near the head of the column when it stumbled into the confederates? In Hamilton's B&L article, he mentions repeatedly sending for Rosecrans to come up after the fighting had started. Cozzens just sort of skims over Rosecrans' absence at the beginning of the battle, but he does imply that it was 30 minutes after the firing started before Rosecrans showed up.

Compounding this absence of Rosecrans, Hamilton wrote that he had been given no "further instructions" after being ordered to march up the Jacinto Road. So, no instructions to cross over to the Fulton Road at the crossroads? No instructions to stop and close up before simply blundering into Iuka? It's like no one was in charge. Where was Rosecrans? What could be more important than being nearby when his force encountered the enemy?

Yup, and I've a changed my opinion when new documents came into my view. Rosecrans letter to his wife was super revealing to me and not for the same reasons that maybe it would be for other people, and frankly maybe others don't see the same things I see.

But I read it and saw a man who was understandably disappointed as he couldn't bag his prize (pun intended ). Yet he wasn't upset for the reasons I was told by others he was upset. I suppose that's also another reason to read original documents. It is indeed subject to interpretation.

In Rosy's letter to Annie, I saw no mention whatsoever of being upset because Grant didn't inform him of a change in orders. Frankly that would have been such a big malfeasance that had it happened, I can't imagine him not mentioning it on the letter. He also didn't say he was upset that no attack was going on as prescribed, at the appointed hour, etc. He doesn't use words like Ord not attacking first, etc. What he was upset about was the attack from the west nit coming in on time. Others may disagree I suppose. There's a brouhaha about it from Rosy and partisans years afterwards, after he for different reasons hated Grant.

————
As to where Rosecrans was during parts of the battle, I don't know but my impression is that he must have been scouting routes to try to flank Price. It's not so much that I know where he was, (I don't) but there's reference to his efforts to find some way to flank Price and him asking Stanley to take an inside road that was covered with fallen trees. I don't know if there's more to go on.

It's funny because Cozzens was heavy handed again about Grant having Ord conduct a reconnaissance personally during the morning of September 19, (when Rosecrans couldn't possibly be in position to attack), because there were reports (proven false) of confederates coming. After the surprise Grant suffered at Shiloh I don't know how Cozzens dares think that was bad practice. The worst possible outcome was to have Van Dorn hem them in and trap the wannabe trap setters. What else could they be doing until then but ensure they don't get surprised by that other confederate army. The irony.

 

[Nathan Towne]

Yup, and I've a changed my opinion when new documents came into my view. Rosecrans letter to his wife was super revealing to me and not for the same reasons that maybe it would be for other people, and frankly maybe others don't see the same things I see.

But I read it and saw a man who was understandably disappointed as he couldn't bag his prize (pun intended ). Yet he wasn't upset for the reasons I was told by others he was upset. I suppose that's also another reason to read original documents. It is indeed subject to interpretation.

In Rosy's letter to Annie, I saw no mention whatsoever of being upset because Grant didn't inform him of a change in orders. Frankly that would have been such a big malfeasance that had it happened, I can't imagine him not mentioning it on the letter. He also didn't say he was upset that no attack was going on as prescribed, at the appointed hour, etc. He doesn't use words like Ord not attacking first, etc. What he was upset about was the attack from the west nit coming in on time. Others may disagree I suppose. There's a brouhaha about it from Rosy and partisans years afterwards, after he for different reasons hated Grant.

————
As to where Rosecrans was during parts of the battle, I don't know but my impression is that he must have been scouting routes to try to flank Price. It's not so much that I know where he was, (I don't) but there's reference to his efforts to find some way to flank Price and him asking Sanborn to take an inside road that was covered with fallen trees. I don't know if there's more to go on.

It's funny because Cozzens was heavy handed again about Grant having Ord conduct a reconnaissance personally during the morning of September 19, (when Rosecrans couldn't possibly be in position to attack), because there were reports (proven false) of confederates coming. After the surprise Grant suffered at Shiloh I don't know how Cozzens dares think that was bad practice. The worst possible outcome was to have Van Dorn hem them in and trap the wannabe trap setters. What else could they be doing until then but ensure they don't get surprised by that other confederate army. The irony.

View attachment 522326

Well, that isn't what I said, if you were implying me there. I merely noted his correspondence as being important and part of the larger mosaic and would potentially lend credence to him never having received any such change in plan (such is mentioned nowhere in any of his writings), but I noted that it wasn't dispositive on the point.

Regarding Rosecrans actions during the battle, there is a lot to talk about regarding the Mill road situation and subsequent efforts to connect with the Fulton road which are very interesting, which I am not sure how much you have studied, but is a very interesting discussion that way.

The Confederate activity towards Corinth was very real, by the way.

 

[SSVilla]

Well, that isn't what I said, if you were implying me there. I merely noted his correspondence as being important and part of the larger mosaic and would potentially lend credence to him never having received any such change in plan (such is mentioned nowhere in any of his writings), but I noted that it wasn't dispositive on the point.

Regarding Rosecrans actions during the battle, there is a lot to talk about regarding the Mill road situation and subsequent efforts to connect with the Fulton road which are very interesting, which I am not sure how much you have studied, but is a very interesting discussion that way.

The Confederate activity towards Corinth was very real, by the way.

No I wasn't referencing you personally. Nobody replied to that post I made about the letter. I think I just recognize that some people may not interpret it in the same way…

 

[Nathan Towne]

To try to get this circus back on track...

I think your speculation is good, and it shows how the more a person looks into this battle, the more it leaves a person with more questions.

One question that came to mind when reading your theory of a panicking Rosecrans is: If he was nervous and panicky about the plan falling apart, why was he nowhere near the head of the column when it stumbled into the confederates? In Hamilton's B&L article, he mentions repeatedly sending for Rosecrans to come up after the fighting had started. Cozzens just sort of skims over Rosecrans' absence at the beginning of the battle, but he does imply that it was 30 minutes after the firing started before Rosecrans showed up.

Compounding this absence of Rosecrans, Hamilton wrote that he had been given no "further instructions" after being ordered to march up the Jacinto Road. So, no instructions to cross over to the Fulton Road at the crossroads? No instructions to stop and close up before simply blundering into Iuka? It's like no one was in charge. Where was Rosecrans? What could be more important than being nearby when his force encountered the enemy?

We have extensive documentary evidence on this point, so this was, unfortunately, another fact which was taken from a selective, rather than from a comprehensive, use of sources. Extensive documentary evidence to the effect that Rosecrans was involved in the initial allocations prior to the Confederate attack coming in. It is important that we don't presuppose erroneous things.

Regarding Confederate activity towards Corinth, or in the vicinity of Corinth, it was very real.

 

[SSVilla]

@DanSBHawk Cozzens doesn't present any explanation for Rosecrans absence. My reaction last night was what came to mind without looking, because it was late

However, there's no explanation that can really be provided. Additionally, that problem had negative consequences and — that we know of — no justification. Cozzens comments about it are mild considering the magnitude of the problem.

————
P.S. I have been very critical of Cozzens but his book has been useful. I have learned a lot, and yet the book is not an enjoyable read. His opinions and commentary are overly harsh and while he dishes those widely, they fall heavier where his bias shows. In controversial areas, his narrative is confusing because he let his footnotes sort out the more important parts. One has to really get in the weeds to form their own opinions.

Our chat here helped me to understand the controversial areas in this battle, and where there's contradictory information I have been able to form my own opinions and reach my own conclusions. In those areas where there's nothing, they can be left to our imagination I suppose.

I'll probably move on to the battle's aftermath and other issues in the other threads because I want to get to see the prior comments already in the site about all that.

 

[Nathan Towne]

@DanSBHawk Cozzens doesn't present any explanation for Rosecrans absence. My reaction last night was what came to mind without looking, because it was late

However, there's no explanation that can really be provided. Additionally, that problem had negative consequences and — that we know of — no justification. Cozzens comments about it are mild considering the magnitude of the problem.

————
P.S. I have been very critical of Cozzens but his book has been useful. I have learned a lot, and yet the book is not an enjoyable read. His opinions and commentary are overly harsh and while he dishes those widely, they fall heavier where his bias shows. In controversial areas, his narrative is confusing because he let his footnotes sort out the more important parts. One has to really get in the weeds to form their own opinions.

Our chat here helped me to understand the controversial areas in this battle, and where there's contradictory information I have been able to form my own opinions and reach my own conclusions. In those areas where there's nothing, they can be left to our imagination I suppose.

I'll probably move on to the battle's aftermath and other issues in the other threads because I want to get to see the prior comments already in the site about all that.

I am not really sure why you downvoted my comment. We know that the Confederate operations amongst Van Dorn's force were very real. There is much in the OR on it. I was just looking at it again the other day. That is a bit of a separate issue, but can be easily corroborated.

We have extensive documentary evidence showing that Rosecrans was with the force at the time in which Sanborn's dispositions were made prior to the attack. That is well documented. I would have been willing to provide sources on this had you inquired. There is then subsequently a gap in which it is not entirely clear where he was for some period of time as the attack rolled in.

By the way, I agree with you that Cozzens judgements, in many of his books, are sometimes too facile. This cuts in many directions. His books, nonetheless, do have much value though, as you noted.

I have referenced you to go back to Posts #184, #185, #212, #258, e.t.c. and work through them and then we could carry on a conversation from there.

 

[SSVilla]

I am not really sure why you downvoted my comment. We know that the Confederate operations amongst Van Dorn's force were very real. There is much in the OR on it. I was just looking at it again the other day. That is a bit of a separate issue, but can be easily corroborated.

We have extensive documentary evidence showing that Rosecrans was with the force at the time in which Sanborn's dispositions were made prior to the attack. That is well documented. I would have been willing to provide sources on this had you inquired. There is then subsequently a gap in which it is not entirely clear where he was for some period of time as the attack rolled in.

By the way, I agree with you that Cozzens judgements, in many of his books, are sometimes too facile. This cuts in many directions. His books, nonetheless, do have much value though, as you noted.

I have referenced you to go back to Posts #184, #185, #212, #258, e.t.c. and work through them and then we could carry on a conversation from there.

It's very rude, that's why I downvoted.

You could have said what you thought, given your opinion without offending the other person. You can't direct the discussion trust me on that. You can only gently steer it by bringing up something you think is interesting, important, or overlooked. I know your posts are time consuming and you aren't always in the mood to elaborate unless there's interest, but just say briefly what you think without offending and I won't downvote. I have hardly ever downvoted even when I disagree with people on matters of opinions. I try not to do that. I have downvoted rudeness though.

I am still working through the posts. I was interested in some things you brought up (but not the manner that you did so.)

I was going to post about the Van Dorn threat it in a separate post. It turns out that you and me agree on how serious that threat was, and in my case how callous about the entire thing was Cozzens stating that Grant was indifferent to Rosecrans because he took that threat seriously. There's also a separate part in his book where he says those were trivialities!

The more I know Cozzens the more I wonder if he's a Rosy admirer or a closeted Grant hater.

 

[SSVilla]

I assume Cozzens is just generally a very critical author who has a scathing writing style? I have never read any other book from him. I am watching a video from him on a presentation he made for this book:

Shenandoah 1862

In the spring of 1862, Federal troops under the command of General George B. McClellan launched what was to be a coordinated, two-pronged attack on Richmond in the hope of taking the Confederate capital and bringing a quick end to the Civil War. The Confe

books.google.com

I have never had any interest in Stonewall Jackson before in my life, but I might be interested in reading that book to see Cozzens pull him apart. lol Not really, I am being sarcastic, but I am looking at the book with interest because I feel like testing whether it's his writing style I don't like or something else.

Edit: this is my own opinion, not meant to offend Cozzens or his followers. His Shenandoah book looks interesting but I am wondering whether I'd have the stamina to finish it. I think one has to like a writing style to read an entire book and not just browse it or look quickly at a particular topic of interest within. This is out of topic so I felt like deleting it but I'll leave it … you may pm me if you have some feedback for me.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I assume Cozzens is just generally a very critical author who has a scathing writing style? I have never read any other book from him. I am watching a video from him on a presentation he made for this book:

Shenandoah 1862

In the spring of 1862, Federal troops under the command of General George B. McClellan launched what was to be a coordinated, two-pronged attack on Richmond in the hope of taking the Confederate capital and bringing a quick end to the Civil War. The Confe

books.google.com

I have never had any interest in Stonewall Jackson before in my life, but I might be interested in reading that book to see Cozzens pull him apart. lol Not really, I am being sarcastic, but I am looking at the book with interest because I feel like testing whether it's his writing style I don't like or something else.

Cozzens wrote a book on the Indian Wars that is apparently pretty scathing towards Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc. I haven't read it though.

I don't know if you've read the Corinth part of the Cozzen's book yet, but if you get a chance, read Tim Smith's book on Corinth and see how it compares. I think Smith's book is much better.

 

[SSVilla]

Cozzens wrote a book on the Indian Wars that is apparently pretty scathing towards Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc. I haven't read it though.

I don't know if you've read the Corinth part of the Cozzen's book yet, but if you get a chance, read Tim Smith's book on Corinth and see how it compares. I think Smith's book is much better.

Thanks for replying with your opinion.

No, I am not at the Corinth part yet. I have struggled to finish this book. I am about to start the Conith section and a little excited because I have tired myself out for now with Iuka.

Here's probably my critique:

1. There's too much minute detail about troop movements and descriptions of minor characters, etc. This level of detail, I believe is a general characteristic of his style, but it kills his narrative at times.
2. In addition to so much detail, he then switches perspective. Difficult to keep track of.
3. His criticism would be more effective if it had been dispensed sparingly, when someone really deserved it. An author can turn a reader off with heavy, relentless, and continuous criticism. When he criticized Grant for sending Ord on a reconnaissance towards Corinth, I was rolling my eyes. Me: "What Cozzens, what? What should Grant have been doing that morning? Because surely to ignore the reports of confederate activity near Corinth, after the surprise at Shiloh, cannot be what you are asking?" Cozzens answers: "trivialities." This is jut one example but he's relentless.
4. The worst aspect though, this is probably what I like the least, is that he didn't really answer my questions. That's the entire reason I am reading the book and that was disappointing. His narrative was ambiguous and unsatisfactory in places. It required a lot of extra work from me to figure out, getting into the weeds of footnotes, chatting with you all here, etc. I don't mean to be rude, but Castel helped me more, to grasp overall what was going on. He convinced me more of his view of things than Cozzens. He presented a more plausible and believable explanation about what was going on. Sometimes Cozzens offers no explanations, a lot of criticism and then bam! Some conclusions seemingly out of nowhere. I didn't buy his narrative in the difficult places because it didn't make sense.
5. What did he do well? He had a complete list of notes and resources. One has to get into the weeds whenever there's a questionable statement, or conclusion.
6. Despite the drastic changes in POV, I thought he did a good job presenting both sides well. I previously didn't have any interest whatsoever on Van Dorn or Price and he got me interested in them. I thought he did a good job presenting the Union and Confederate sides despite the transition issues I mentioned before.

/phew!
Now that I've got that off my chest I can keep reading on.

 

[TallTallMan]

Cozzens wrote a book on the Indian Wars that is apparently pretty scathing towards Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc. I haven't read it though.

Not really. He is not happy about Grant's presidency but he is kinder toward the US than most Indian Wars books.

 

[Nathan Towne]

Thanks for replying with your opinion.

No, I am not at the Corinth part yet. I have struggled to finish this book. I am about to start the Conith section and a little excited because I have tired myself out for now with Iuka.

Here's probably my critique:

1. There's too much minute detail about troop movements and descriptions of minor characters, etc. This level of detail, I believe is a general characteristic of his style, but it kills his narrative at times.
2. In addition to so much detail, he then switches perspective. Difficult to keep track of.
3. His criticism would be more effective if it had been dispensed sparingly, when someone really deserved it. An author can turn a reader off with heavy, relentless, and continuous criticism. When he criticized Grant for sending Ord on a reconnaissance towards Corinth, I was rolling my eyes. Me: "What Cozzens, what? What should Grant have been doing that morning? Because surely to ignore the reports of confederate activity near Corinth, after the surprise at Shiloh, cannot be what you are asking?" Cozzens answers: "trivialities." This is jut one example but he's relentless.
4. The worst aspect though, this is probably what I like the least, is that he didn't really answer my questions. That's the entire reason I am reading the book and that was disappointing. His narrative was ambiguous and unsatisfactory in places. It required a lot of extra work from me to figure out, getting into the weeds of footnotes, chatting with you all here, etc. I don't mean to be rude, but Castel helped me more, to grasp overall what was going on. He convinced me more of his view of things than Cozzens. He presented a more plausible and believable explanation about what was going on. Sometimes Cozzens offers no explanations, a lot of criticism and then bam! Some conclusions seemingly out of nowhere. I didn't buy his narrative in the difficult places because it didn't make sense.
5. What did he do well? He had a complete list of notes and resources. One has to get into the weeds whenever there's a questionable statement, or conclusion.
6. Despite the drastic changes in POV, I thought he did a good job presenting both sides well. I previously didn't have any interest whatsoever on Van Dorn or Price and he got me interested in them. I thought he did a good job presenting the Union and Confederate sides despite the transition issues I mentioned before.

/phew!
Now that I've got that off my chest I can keep reading on.

You should both pick up Kitchen's book on the Iuka operation, as well.

I have spent much time on the Iuka operation and have an enormous amount in my head about it and have a lot of previously unused, or underused, sources. I may write a really comprehensive book on it at some point. We really need a more fully comprehensive study that way.

 

[TallTallMan]

Thanks for replying with your opinion.

No, I am not at the Corinth part yet. I have struggled to finish this book. I am about to start the Conith section and a little excited because I have tired myself out for now with Iuka.

Here's probably my critique:

1. There's too much minute detail about troop movements and descriptions of minor characters, etc. This level of detail, I believe is a general characteristic of his style, but it kills his narrative at times.
2. In addition to so much detail, he then switches perspective. Difficult to keep track of.
3. His criticism would be more effective if it had been dispensed sparingly, when someone really deserved it. An author can turn a reader off with heavy, relentless, and continuous criticism. When he criticized Grant for sending Ord on a reconnaissance towards Corinth, I was rolling my eyes. Me: "What Cozzens, what? What should Grant have been doing that morning? Because surely to ignore the reports of confederate activity near Corinth, after the surprise at Shiloh, cannot be what you are asking?" Cozzens answers: "trivialities." This is jut one example but he's relentless.
4. The worst aspect though, this is probably what I like the least, is that he didn't really answer my questions. That's the entire reason I am reading the book and that was disappointing. His narrative was ambiguous and unsatisfactory in places. It required a lot of extra work from me to figure out, getting into the weeds of footnotes, chatting with you all here, etc. I don't mean to be rude, but Castel helped me more, to grasp overall what was going on. He convinced me more of his view of things than Cozzens. He presented a more plausible and believable explanation about what was going on. Sometimes Cozzens offers no explanations, a lot of criticism and then bam! Some conclusions seemingly out of nowhere. I didn't buy his narrative in the difficult places because it didn't make sense.
5. What did he do well? He had a complete list of notes and resources. One has to get into the weeds whenever there's a questionable statement, or conclusion.
6. Despite the drastic changes in POV, I thought he did a good job presenting both sides well. I previously didn't have any interest whatsoever on Van Dorn or Price and he got me interested in them. I thought he did a good job presenting the Union and Confederate sides despite the transition issues I mentioned before.

/phew!
Now that I've got that off my chest I can keep reading on.

The road goes on forever and the party never ends.

 

[Nathan Towne]

The road goes on forever and the party never ends.

What happened to Gouverneur Warren?

 

[TallTallMan]

What happened to Gouverneur Warren?

Nobody had Link.

 

[Nathan Towne]

You could have said what you thought, given your opinion without offending the other person. You can't direct the discussion trust me on that. You can only gently steer it by bringing up something you think is interesting, important, or overlooked. I know your posts are time consuming and you aren't always in the mood to elaborate unless there's interest, but just say briefly what you think without offending and I won't downvote. I have hardly ever downvoted even when I disagree with people on matters of opinions. I try not to do that. I have downvoted rudeness though.

I am still working through the posts. I was interested in some things you brought up (but not the manner that you did so.)

I was going to post about the Van Dorn threat it in a separate post. It turns out that you and me agree on how serious that threat was, and in my case how callous about the entire thing was Cozzens stating that Grant was indifferent to Rosecrans because he took that threat seriously. There's also a separate part in his book where he says those were trivialities!

The more I know Cozzens the more I wonder if he's a Rosy admirer or a closeted Grant hater.

Well, people should know their stuff before making erroneous claims and denigrating people. I stand by that.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Not really. He is not happy about Grant's presidency but he is kinder toward the US than most Indian Wars books.

As I said, I haven't read the book. But Cozzens had an article in Smithsonian when the book came out, and I thought the article was overly negative and conspiratorial about Grant and the others. It certainly didn't make me want to go out and buy the book.