Replacing Rosecrans with Thomas: October 1863

[ole]

Ever watched a puppy chase its tail?

 

[67th Tigers]

Your response suggests that you are inconsistent. Since then we've had your admission that your overlooking Rosecrans's persistent efforts to have his commission backdated was an example of shoddy research.

Perhaps that is why you want me to block you. You find the criticism of your work painful. What would a courageous historian do?

Well, Rosecrans' request to have his Commission backdated is a very minor point, and doesn't particularly alter things. There's an unfortunate trend amongst some to try and pick a minor fault and then declare the entire work wrong. This is a formal logical fallacy: the Fallacy of Composition.

So, DM didn't mention a letter to Lincoln in his book, but this doesn't materially alter his arguments as far as I can see.

 

[nitrofd]

I think you are wrong about the dare of commission as it was a problem on both sides.just ask Joe Johnston for one and then every other officer wanted his date before everyone else.can you name an officer who specially didn't care about it.

 

[Horace Porter]

Well, Rosecrans' request to have his Commission backdated is a very minor point, and doesn't particularly alter things. There's an unfortunate trend amongst some to try and pick a minor fault and then declare the entire work wrong. This is a formal logical fallacy: the Fallacy of Composition.

So, DM didn't mention a letter to Lincoln in his book, but this doesn't materially alter his arguments as far as I can see.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

 

[wausaubob]

Thomas was a superb tactician. He was cautious about logistics while on the move.
He made a great subordinate.
At both Mill Springs and Nashville he performed well.
Thomas was cautious about pushing his men and his horses.
At Chattanooga, he was the perfect choice.
And the result was the Cumberlanders repaying Grant for keeping Thomas with a great performance. Unexpected, but great.

 

[5fish]

Wasn't it you who was recently curious about opium eating by Rosecrans?

This question of opium use by Rosecrans should be reopened because he was severely burned in his 20's in a lab accident. He was bed ridden for 2 an a half years.

How did they treat his pain? Opiates?

Many burned victims have a lifetime of pain issues that's with modern medicine.

Rosecrans chances of being an opium eater is great.

 

[OpnCoronet]

As you know, when Grant was offered command of the brand-new Military Division of the Mississippi, he was given the choice to retain William S. Rosecrans in command of the Army of the Cumberland or to replace him with George H. Thomas. What would you have done, and why? Was it fair to replace Rosecrans after all he had done?

Rosecrans went too quickly from euphoric bombast of victory to defeatist pessimism, after irritating Lincoln and the War Dept. in his conduct, in reply to their urgent instructions to assist Grant's operations against Vicksburg, by active operations on his front, which Rosecrans steadfastly refused, until it was too late.

Lincoln kept, advancement and placement of general officers firmly in his hands, and the fact, that Grant was given a choice, with no comment from the Commander In Chief,. I think, to Grant, the silence would have been thunderous.

 

[5fish]

There a questioner to burn victims...
It points that burn victims have long term pain issues...



Twenty-three questions on the prevalence of pain and its characteristics, including the short form of the McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire.

RESULTS:
Of 1,500 members who received the survey, 358 (24%) responded. Respondents had burns covering an average of 59% of their bodies. Time between the injury and the survey averaged 12 years. On the survey, 52% of respondents reported ongoing burn-related pain, and 46% were able to characterize their pain with one or more of 15 characteristics. Two-thirds (66%) reported that pain interfered with their rehabilitation, and 55% reported that pain interfered with their daily lives. Asked "what makes the pain worse now?," the most frequent reply (15%) was "the weather" (including "hot" or "cold"). Various physical activities (e.g., walking, bicycling) were also mentioned, along with nerve regrowth, contractures, remembering the accident, and depression. "Things that make your pain better now" included "nothing," a variety of over-the-counter analgesics, "rest,""exercise,""yoga,""acupuncture,""family and friends," and "God." In coping with their pain, most respondents found family the most helpful, although nurse(s) received almost as high a rating.

CONCLUSIONS:
Pain associated with burn trauma continues to be of considerable significance in the lives of burn victims long after the initial injury and hospitalization. Little research has been done on this population.

 

[5fish]

"Politcal leaders

Here a photo that shows Rosecrans facial scars...

 

[Nathan Towne]

While in his memoirs Grant claimed that he made the final decision, I think there is strong evidence that Rosecrans's fate was already determined by Stanton.

Indiana Governor Oliver P. Morton met with Stanton at the depot in Indianapolis, before Grant's train arrived. Morton would later claim that Stanton told him that Rosecrans was being replaced because Rosecrans had lost the will to fight. Stanton based this conclusion (very erroneously, or perhaps maliciously, on a telegram Rosecrans sent to Lincoln on about October 3rd, proposing a truce and amnesty offer to CSA soldiers.)

Stanton told Morton that Rosecrans had suggested a general amnesty and truce, further suggesting that Rosecrans thought the war was unwinnable. That is of course not at all the content of the original telegram, but rather Stanton's "spin" on the matter.

In short, I suspect that Grant received those two orders as a way for the government to have political cover, but in reality, Grant only had one real choice. Stanton was unlikely to be satisfied with Rosecrans's retention.

Morton's story appeared in an Indianapolis newspaper in the 1870s. Lamers cites it as well.

Love seeing you on here Dave. For those interested, in Volume III of Dave's Trilogy, he wrote a great appendix on this. It is well worth reading for everyone.

 

[Nathan Towne]

Grant releived Rosecrans before he arrived. He met Stanton on the train while travelling across the midwest. Stanton offered him two orders -- one kept Rosecrans; one replaced him with Thomas. Grant picked the second one before he had communicated with either general. This is how Grant described it in his memoirs:
"Soon after we started the Secretary handed me two orders, saying that I might take my choice of them. The two were identical in all but one particular. Both created the "Military Division of Mississippi," (giving me the command) composed of the Departments of the Ohio, the Cumberland, and the Tennessee, and all the territory from the Alleghanies to the Mississippi River north of Banks's command in the south-west. One order left the department commanders as they were, while the other relieved Rosecrans and assigned Thomas to his place. I accepted the latter."

Dave Powell has put forth the argument that the decision may have already been all but made by the time that Grant met with Stanton, but that is a more complex discussion.

As far as whether it was the right decision, or not, I mean that depends in part on how one assesses how effectively Grant (and ultimately Sherman) would have been able to work with Rosecrans that way. I personally don't think that I would have relieved him of command.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

What ever you may say about Grant,he was a fighter and Rosecrans running from the field to not fit Grants mold.easy Rosecrans ran,Thomnas fought.no brainer here.

Thomas was an excellent defensive minded general, but was hesitant on occasion to attack. Thomas was easily a better choice than Rosecrans for the command.

 

[wausaubob]

Thomas was an excellent defensive minded general, but was hesitant on occasion to attack. Thomas was easily a better choice than Rosecrans for the command.

I disagree. Armies led by George Thomas broke through Confederate lines at Chattanooga and Nashville. He was careful. And George Thomas seems to have been right.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

I disagree. Armies led by George Thomas broke through Confederate lines at Chattanooga and Nashville. He was careful. And George Thomas seems to have been right.

1864 - Nashville, proves my point. Grant had literally begged Thomas to attack Hood's weaker army. Grant was actually in the process of relieving Thomas when Thomas finally attacked Hood. Grant certainly believed that Thomas was hesitant to attack.

 

[wausaubob]

1864 - Nashville, proves my point. Grant had literally begged Thomas to attack Hood's weaker army. Grant was actually in the process of relieving Thomas when Thomas finally attacked Hood. Grant certainly believed that Thomas was hesitant to attack.

But Grant was wrong about Nashville. The commander on the scene has to be given the benefit of the doubt. Grant did not do that with Thomas at Nashville because Grant was obsessively worried about Sherman. General Thomas won the two battle. Sherman's force contacted the US navy. And Grant forgot about his worries. In the end I think Thomas was tired of all the troubles and took the post in San Francisco which was probably considered a desk job in that era.

 

[DanSBHawk]

But Grant was wrong about Nashville. The commander on the scene has to be given the benefit of the doubt. Grant did not do that with Thomas at Nashville because Grant was obsessively worried about Sherman. General Thomas won the two battle. Sherman's force contacted the US navy. And Grant forgot about his worries. In the end I think Thomas was tired of all the troubles and took the post in San Francisco which was probably considered a desk job in that era.

Thomas won two battles? Or do you mean a two day battle?

I think that although Thomas obviously handled Nashville just fine, that still Grant's concerns were legitimate about whether Thomas was being aggressive enough. Grant didn't feel the need to prod every general.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

But Grant was wrong about Nashville. The commander on the scene has to be given the benefit of the doubt. Grant did not do that with Thomas at Nashville because Grant was obsessively worried about Sherman. General Thomas won the two battle. Sherman's force contacted the US navy. And Grant forgot about his worries. In the end I think Thomas was tired of all the troubles and took the post in San Francisco which was probably considered a desk job in that era.

Here again, wausaubob, YOU may be right. Grant, however, thought he had given the commander on the scene ample resources and opportunities and time to act, and had Thomas' replacement enroute when Thomas finally attacked. I'll agree with Grant and disagree with you this time (although I truly respect your opinions on this and other issues).

 

[tony_gunter]

I'm late to this thread, but regarding the idea that Stanton had already predetermined replacing Rosecrans ... is there any doubt that Grant would have replaced Rosecrans if Stanton wasn't pushing that outcome?

Grant already had a sneaking suspicion that Rosecrans was talking smack behind his back. While it's not true that Rosecrans' criticisms made their way into the press, he certainly did nothing to squelch any ill will towards Grant festering in the Army of the Mississippi and his later testimony to congress evinced his toxic attitude towards Grant's decision at Iuka without admitting an iota of fault of his own.

Grant was building a circle of trust, and "doesn't play well with others" was a speedy way to get excluded from that circle of trust (see: Charles Hamilton in early 1863).

 

[wausaubob]

I'm late to this thread, but regarding the idea that Stanton had already predetermined replacing Rosecrans ... is there any doubt that Grant would have replaced Rosecrans if Stanton wasn't pushing that outcome?

Grant already had a sneaking suspicion that Rosecrans was talking smack behind his back. While it's not true that Rosecrans' criticisms made their way into the press, he certainly did nothing to squelch any ill will towards Grant festering in the Army of the Mississippi and his later testimony to congress evinced his toxic attitude towards Grant's decision at Iuka without admitting an iota of fault of his own.

Grant was building a circle of trust, and "doesn't play well with others" was a speedy way to get excluded from that circle of trust (see: Charles Hamilton in early 1863).

Grant was able to relieve John McClernand and then Grant finished the Vicksburg operation successfully. By October 1863 Grant knew the old army game as Halleck had taught him. And Grant had his Major General of Regulars rank. Even Rosecrans had to know what was going to happen.

 

[wausaubob]

Thomas won two battles? Or do you mean a two day battle?

I think that although Thomas obviously handled Nashville just fine, that still Grant's concerns were legitimate about whether Thomas was being aggressive enough. Grant didn't feel the need to prod every general.

Two day battle. Elder moment. Sorry.