McClellan Rosecrans and McClellan really

[TallTallMan]

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.

Castel had a talent for speaking his mind. Even if one disagrees with him (maybe TOO harsh on Sherman), you gotta admire his sand.

 

[TallTallMan]

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 missed what's going on. Grant voiced upset-ness with an article about him? I've never heard of him directly responding to anything, even though he commented in his memoirs without naming names, specifically toward Early.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I missed what's going on. Grant voiced upset-ness with an article about him? I've never heard of him directly responding to anything, even though he commented in his memoirs without naming names, specifically toward Early.

After the Battle of Corinth, Grant sent a letter to Washburne complaining about the coverage in the papers. But he didn't complain about any coverage specifically about himself. He complained how his former troops were treated. He said he didn't mind if Rosecrans was made out to be the hero, but not at the expense of badmouthing the troops. He mentions this as his "Battle of Iuka" report for some reason, but it's written in November .

I'm not aware of Grant ever addressing the rumors about himself that showed up in the newspapers.

 

[SSVilla]

It's been what? 10 months since this thread… how time flies. OMG

I started this thread when I literally first came upon Rosecrans as a figure in Albert Castel's book. I didn't know much about him then. Castel did a good job advocating for Rosecrans, but since then I have come across Rosecrans in other settings, battles, and circumstances.

Castel wrote that had he been younger he would have attempted to write a new biography to supplant Lamers for two reasons: 1. Lamers' endnotes are nearly useless because they appear in bulk at the end of chapters and are therefore too difficult to tie down to particular statements; 2. It's too detailed and too long.

Allow me to say that those are not sufficient reasons for a new biography. If one were to write a new biography of Rosecrans I'd also want a fresh take. A simple regurgitation or a more succinct Lamers with new endnotes would be unacceptable and I submit probably insufficient to justify all the work of writing a new biography. For a new biography I'd want something fresh, a more analytical and critical piece, a revisionist analysis if you want to call it that, one that gets in the weeds of Rosecrans personality and why it got him in trouble. I feel like Rosecrans hasn't been totally explained because his biographers have been too busy trying to justify his actions, rehabbing him, and presenting his side of things, while others have spent time attacking Rosecrans old enemies instead, as if they weren't long beyond reach, and in general being too sympathetic looking everywhere around Rosecrans for his troubles instead of looking at reason number one. For a new biography of Rosecrans I'd start with reason number one and go from there.