McClellan Rosecrans and McClellan really

[SSVilla]

Maybe old Rosie needs his own tagline- hint, hint!

Anyways, I know he has some fans somewhere and maybe I'll dig up some old threads about him. I am reading this book:

Victors in Blue

Make no mistake, the Confederacy had the will and valor to fight. But the Union had the manpower, the money, the matriel, and, most important, the generals. Although the South had arguably the best commander in the Civil War in Robert E. Lee, the North's full house beat their one-of-a-kind...

books.google.com

The first chapter is called Rosecrans in West Virginia: A tale of a goose, a dog, and a fox. Rosecrans comes up really well in that article and he's actually the victim of maneuvering by McClellan, who steals any credit from him for liberating West Virginia (seceding from the secession). It strengthened some anti McClellan sentiments, but misrepresentations as he did were common unfortunately specially at the beginning and frankly I think through 1864 until after the election at least… so McClellan is just as much as schemer as many others (luckily not all, but amazingly some of the most inept were the biggest schemers.

Ok but my point was that I felt bad for Rosecrans here. He definitely should have gotten a promotion and a bigger role earlier. I am not saying he should have gotten McClellan's promotion because that job early on was going to be perilous for whoever took it I think but surely McClellan didn't deserve it. Not only he didn't really do much to earn it except falsify a report but the fact he started such an important role with dishonesty is damning.

 

[SSVilla]

Ok in these same forums I found an article where it's pointed out that Rosecrans changed his own version of his original report upon investigation by Congress in 1865, this time throwing the militarily disgraced McClellan under the bus. Rosecrans also has a kind of disputatious reputation so Ian not sure what to think here. I am going to have to look more into this, but if anyone knows what I a, talking about chime in.

 

[67th Tigers]

Yes, it is confusing, because there absolutely is an attempt to throw McClellan under the bus. I tracked all the evidence and wrote this blog post.

In short, Rosecrans went the wrong way, and failed to reach his objective. He got caught up on an outpost 1.5 miles from his objective, failed in his first attack, succeeded in his second, and then laagered up into a defensive perimeter for the night. Meanwhile, McClellan adopted another plan, and forced the rebels out of position. They walked straight past Rosecrans' perimeter without interference...

That said, of McClellan's brigadiers in West Virginia, Rosecrans was *by far* the best.

 

[SSVilla]

Yes, it is confusing, because there absolutely is an attempt to throw McClellan under the bus. I tracked all the evidence and wrote this blog post.

In short, Rosecrans went the wrong way, and failed to reach his objective. He got caught up on an outpost 1.5 miles from his objective, failed in his first attack, succeeded in his second, and then laagered up into a defensive perimeter for the night. Meanwhile, McClellan adopted another plan, and forced the rebels out of position. They walked straight past Rosecrans' perimeter without interference...

That said, of McClellan's brigadiers in West Virginia, Rosecrans was *by far* the best.

Thanks for replying. It was actually your notes which I found in some thread!! I haven't read them completely, because a lot of military detail is included in them that I wasn't interested in (like how many brigades were present, which ones, etc), and yet at a quick glance I found that you cover some of the challenges early on which are not really explained elsewhere (like logistics, delays, not having food carts, not having enough horses, etc.) I now think I have to give it a more careful read.

I also have since found out (through some book reviews) that Castel is a big Rosecrans fan, which admittedly, I am not. Mostly because I don't know much about him, but also because what I do know of him is not really appealing to me. He comes off as this disputatious character who is trying to rewrite things after the fact. Still even with that, I am really interested in learning about the dynamics between the generals and the competition they had among themselves... In a way it's very Game of Thrones-ish. The subtitle of the book was really attractive, "How Union Generals Fought the Confederates, Battled Each Other, and Won the Civil War," but for me, the part where "they battled each other" is the one that I am really intrigued by.

I started out being swayed in favor of Rosecrans in that first chapter, which I didn't expect. McClellan is low hanging fruit, easy to dislike anyways, but the chapter stimulated my mind and motivated me to start asking questions.

I have since done a quick search and have found out that there are some threads that have discussed this.

The bittersweet part of studying history and getting attached to some characters is that you can't rewrite history. lol A part of me is thinking, I don't want to like this Rosecrans guy anyway, he's going to get dismissed by Grant (and really the administration set him up for this) at Chattanooga.

Cheers.

 

[rbasin]

Maybe old Rosie needs his own tagline- hint, hint!

Anyways, I know he has some fans somewhere and maybe I'll dig up some old threads about him. I am reading this book:

Victors in Blue

Make no mistake, the Confederacy had the will and valor to fight. But the Union had the manpower, the money, the matriel, and, most important, the generals. Although the South had arguably the best commander in the Civil War in Robert E. Lee, the North's full house beat their one-of-a-kind...

books.google.com

The first chapter is called Rosecrans in West Virginia: A tale of a goose, a dog, and a fox. Rosecrans comes up really well in that article and he's actually the victim of maneuvering by McClellan, who steals any credit from him for liberating West Virginia (seceding from the secession). It strengthened some anti McClellan sentiments, but misrepresentations as he did were common unfortunately specially at the beginning and frankly I think through 1864 until after the election at least… so McClellan is just as much as schemer as many others (luckily not all, but amazingly some of the most inept were the biggest schemers.

Ok but my point was that I felt bad for Rosecrans here. He definitely should have gotten a promotion and a bigger role earlier. I am not saying he should have gotten McClellan's promotion because that job early on was going to be perilous for whoever took it I think but surely McClellan didn't deserve it. Not only he didn't really do much to earn it except falsify a report but the fact he started such an important role with dishonesty is damning.

When he was promoted, he insisted on having it date to his w. Virginia days.

 

[David Moore]

Thanks for replying. It was actually your notes which I found in some thread!! I haven't read them completely, because a lot of military detail is included in them that I wasn't interested in (like how many brigades were present, which ones, etc), and yet at a quick glance I found that you cover some of the challenges early on which are not really explained elsewhere (like logistics, delays, not having food carts, not having enough horses, etc.) I now think I have to give it a more careful read.

I also have since found out (through some book reviews) that Castel is a big Rosecrans fan, which admittedly, I am not. Mostly because I don't know much about him, but also because what I do know of him is not really appealing to me. He comes off as this disputatious character who is trying to rewrite things after the fact. Still even with that, I am really interested in learning about the dynamics between the generals and the competition they had among themselves... In a way it's very Game of Thrones-ish. The subtitle of the book was really attractive, "How Union Generals Fought the Confederates, Battled Each Other, and Won the Civil War," but for me, the part where "they battled each other" is the one that I am really intrigued by.

I started out being swayed in favor of Rosecrans in that first chapter, which I didn't expect. McClellan is low hanging fruit, easy to dislike anyways, but the chapter stimulated my mind and motivated me to start asking questions.

I have since done a quick search and have found out that there are some threads that have discussed this.

The bittersweet part of studying history and getting attached to some characters is that you can't rewrite history. lol A part of me is thinking, I don't want to like this Rosecrans guy anyway, he's going to get dismissed by Grant (and really the administration set him up for this) at Chattanooga.

Cheers.

It would be good for you to finish Albert Castel's book. He is the man who would have written the complete Rosecrans biography had he started earlier in his career.
He was a life long academic scholar of the Civil War I don't know of anyone on this site who can make that claim. Not all opinions are equally valid.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I also have since found out (through some book reviews) that Castel is a big Rosecrans fan, which admittedly, I am not. Mostly because I don't know much about him, but also because what I do know of him is not really appealing to me. He comes off as this disputatious character who is trying to rewrite things after the fact. Still even with that, I am really interested in learning about the dynamics between the generals and the competition they had among themselves... In a way it's very Game of Thrones-ish. The subtitle of the book was really attractive, "How Union Generals Fought the Confederates, Battled Each Other, and Won the Civil War," but for me, the part where "they battled each other" is the one that I am really intrigued by.

One of the problems I have with the Castel book is how he seems to accept Rosecrans' post-war claim that he could have taken Vicksburg in 6 days after the Battle of Corinth. Even at the furthest extent of the post-Corinth pursuit, Rosecrans was no closer to Vicksburg than Sherman was to Savannah at the start of the March to the Sea.

6 days is absurd for that scale of a march.

Also, I don't think Castel dug very deep into the Rosecrans/Grant feud. It's more of an overview than a real examination, imo. A real examination into the issue would include how Rosecrans and his pet reporter Bickham badly treated Grant's old second division after Corinth.

 

[SSVilla]

It would be good for you to finish Albert Castel's book. He is the man who would have written the complete Rosecrans biography had he started earlier in his career.
He was a life long academic scholar of the Civil War I don't know of anyone on this site who can make that claim. Not all opinions are equally valid.

Sure thing, and I will do. I am most interested in the focus of the book, a big part of which is the rivalries between the generals. I know he will cover Rosecrans again (there are other chapters about his campaigns in the west), but there is just the one chapter about the short campaign in West Virginia and considering that one already has different reports and recantations... I think its fair to question.

Moreover, Castel in his preface admits that the book is his interpretation of events, and invites agreement and disagreement with him. "Passionate dissent is preferable to passive indifference." Exact preface quote, also a good way to market his book I'll grant you that.

He also says that none of his interpretations are truly original and they may appear in some form elsewhere, and that some may even be found "outrageous." So even before I am starting to read his book, he's letting me know, disagreements may be found.

I am still intrigued to find out what happened in West Virginia, and will do some more reading about that.

 

[David Moore]

The West Virginia Campaign was more than Rich Mountain.
McClellan was gone from that theater shortly after Rich Mountain. Rosecrans became commander until replaced by John C. Fremont after the campaigning season was over. Carnifex Ferry and Sewell Mountain are other important parts of the Campaign. McClellan was long gone by then.

 

[TallTallMan]

It would be good for you to finish Albert Castel's book. He is the man who would have written the complete Rosecrans biography had he started earlier in his career.
He was a life long academic scholar of the Civil War I don't know of anyone on this site who can make that claim. Not all opinions are equally valid.

Castel is one of the ones I'd trust my soul with, along with William Marvel and Gary Gallagher.

 

[Nathan Towne]

One of the problems I have with the Castel book is how he seems to accept Rosecrans' post-war claim that he could have taken Vicksburg in 6 days after the Battle of Corinth. Even at the furthest extent of the post-Corinth pursuit, Rosecrans was no closer to Vicksburg than Sherman was to Savannah at the start of the March to the Sea.

6 days is absurd for that scale of a march.

Also, I don't think Castel dug very deep into the Rosecrans/Grant feud. It's more of an overview than a real examination, imo. A real examination into the issue would include how Rosecrans and his pet reporter Bickham badly treated Grant's old second division after Corinth.

As far as the prospect of the move on Vicksburg, I concur that Rosecrans later statement on this was overstated and was not particularly convincing.

Regarding the second part of your comment, as has clearly been shown to you numerous times, there is no real substantive evidence on that aside from rumors and speculation and your referring to Bickham as anyone's "pet" reporter is silly and juvenile.

Beyond this, as has been demonstrated to you, as I actually took the time to do some independent research on it, the September 29th article which contained the slanderous accusations against Grant was not written by Bickham at all.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Regarding the second part of your comment, as has clearly been shown to you numerous times, there is no real substantive evidence on that aside from rumors and speculation and your referring to Bickham as anyone's "pet" reporter is silly and juvenile.

False. If you knew anything about the incident with 2nd Division, you'd know the soldiers specifically named him as the writer, the article was written by "WDB" of the Cincinnati Commercial, and that the men of 2nd Division referred in letters to Bickham as Rosecrans' pet reporter and as Rosecrans "parasite." It's better to actually learn the facts before posing as being knowledgeable.

 

[Nathan Towne]

False. If you knew anything about the incident with 2nd Division, you'd know the soldiers specifically named him as the writer, the article was written by "WDB" of the Cincinnati Commercial, and that the men of 2nd Division referred in letters to Bickham as Rosecrans' pet reporter and as Rosecrans "parasite." It's better to actually learn the facts before posing as being knowledgeable.

That is not right, unfortunately. You have already been shown this here. You should attempt to verify everything and come at everything with a judicious and level mindset.

I acknowledge the insult.

Grant - The Mistakes of Grant by W.S. Rosecrans | Famous People of the Late Unpleasantness

Well, again, Bickham didn’t author the September 29th article. As of yet, no one has brought forward the October 9th article. Also, per Leggett’s letter, we can deduce that Bickham was embedded with the Army of the Mississippi, but I am not sure that we can deduce that Bickham was embedded with...

civilwartalk.com

Grant - The Mistakes of Grant by W.S. Rosecrans | Famous People of the Late Unpleasantness

If I'm following correctly, the letter seems to be a fairly strong bit of evidence that Rosecrans had been told the plan had changed, which contradicts Rosecrans' version of events. Hey @breckod, Here is Rosecrans’ testimony, found on page 18, in front of the JCCW regarding his interaction...

civilwartalk.com

 

[DanSBHawk]

You are simply wrong, unfortunately. You have already been shown this here. You should attempt to verify everything and come at everything with a judicious and level mindset.

I acknowledge the insult.

Grant - The Mistakes of Grant by W.S. Rosecrans | Famous People of the Late Unpleasantness

Well, again, Bickham didn’t author the September 29th article. As of yet, no one has brought forward the October 9th article. Also, per Leggett’s letter, we can deduce that Bickham was embedded with the Army of the Mississippi, but I am not sure that we can deduce that Bickham was embedded with...

civilwartalk.com

Grant - The Mistakes of Grant by W.S. Rosecrans | Famous People of the Late Unpleasantness

If I'm following correctly, the letter seems to be a fairly strong bit of evidence that Rosecrans had been told the plan had changed, which contradicts Rosecrans' version of events. Hey @breckod, Here is Rosecrans’ testimony, found on page 18, in front of the JCCW regarding his interaction...

civilwartalk.com

No, you are simply wrong, and now you're making yourself look foolish. The incident with 2nd Division came after the Battle of Corinth. Try reading the rest of that thread. Here's one source that I provided:

 

[Nathan Towne]

No, you are simply wrong, and now you're making yourself look foolish. The incident with 2nd Division came after the Battle of Corinth. Try reading the rest of that thread. Here's one source that I provided:

View attachment 516547
View attachment 516548
View attachment 516549
View attachment 516550

I am very well aware.

That article had nothing to do with the earlier article which was published on September 29th, which contained the slanderous allegations against Grant having been drunk during the Iuka operation. You were categorically disproven on this in earlier discussions.

That was the issue on which endless discussion was based previously. You are just completely changing the entire situation. Grant was informed that Rosecrans Headquarters may have been involved in the dissemination of this false information, which Rosecrans patently denied. The correspondent with the Army who would later serve on Rosecrans staff with the Army of the Cumberland, William Bickham, did not author that article. It was signed by a "W.S.S.," who we have likely identified. We have also covered this issue pertaining to the "There is no doubt that the public will give the credit to Rosecrans where it belongs" article on Corinth.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I am very well aware.

That article had nothing to do with the earlier article which was published on September 29th, which contained the slanderous allegations against Grant having been drunk during the Iuka operation. You were categorically disproven on this in earlier discussions.

That was the issue. You are just completely changing the entire situation. Grant was informed that Rosecrans Headquarters may have been involved in the dissemination of this false information, which Rosecrans patently denied. The correspondent with the Army who would later serve on Rosecrans staff with the Army of the Cumberland, William Bickham, did not author that article. It was signed by a "W.S.S.," who we have likely identified.

That's funny. I haven't changed anything. Go back and look at the post of mine that you called silly and juvenile. I specifically said "how Rosecrans and his pet reporter Bickham badly treated Grant's old second division after Corinth."

Now you are trying to backtrack and tell me the real issue is a completely different article?!!! I have not changed anything. I was referring to, and am referring to the article about 2nd division. Maybe you need to comprehend what you are reading about before making snarky comments.

 

[Nathan Towne]

That's funny. I haven't changed anything. Go back and look at the post of mine that you called silly and juvenile. I specifically said "how Rosecrans and his pet reporter Bickham badly treated Grant's old second division after Corinth."

Now you are trying to backtrack and tell me the real issue is a completely different article?!!! I have not changed anything. I was referring to, and am referring to the article about 2nd division. Maybe you need to comprehend what you are reading about before making snarky comments.

That article was not what induced the issue pertaining to Grant and Rosecrans.

But, you have moved to it now that previous accusations which you made in earlier threads have been debunked.

 

[DanSBHawk]

That article was not what induced the issue pertaining to Grant and Rosecrans.

But, you have moved to it now that previous accusations which you made in earlier threads have been debunked.

Moved what? I haven't gone back and changed any of my previous posts. You're the one that does that.

And you're wrong. The article about 2nd division obviously bothered Grant more than any of the other articles, because it was the only one that Grant specifically wrote to Washburne about getting the other side of the story published.

 

[Nathan Towne]

Moved what? I haven't gone back and changed any of my previous posts. You're the one that does that.

And you're wrong. The article about 2nd division obviously bothered Grant more than any of the other articles, because it was the only one that Grant specifically wrote to Washburne about getting the other side of the story published.

I meant from what you stated in the previous thread as to the Rosecrans-Grant issues.

Not borne out by the communications between Grant and Rosecrans at all.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I meant from what you stated in the previous thread.

Not borne out by the communications between Grant and Rosecrans at all.

False. I brought up the issue of the slandering of 2nd Division repeatedly in that thread.