★ ★ Rosecrans, William S.

David Moore · Sep 10, 2021

With all due respect any discussion of Grant that doesn't involve Elihu Washburne is at best incomplete and at worst uninformed.
As far as the timeline of the Tullahoma Campaign reading any of the most recent studies of the campaign will reveal why Rosecrans moved when he did.
Grant after Vicksburg gets a chance to rest and relax in New Orleans - and according to Rawlins do some harmful things to himself- while Rosecrans is expected to immediately start the even more difficult Chickamauga Campaign.
I discuss and document these things in my book.
It is difficult to discuss these topics if people aren't aware of certain basic facts regarding the events of 1863.
I for one would be much more reserved in my opinions if I hadn't done the research that I have done.

trice · Sep 10, 2021

David Moore said:
Rosecrans was a reluctant politician. In fact he was known as the great decliner as he turned down nominations for governor of Ohio and other offices. He did serve two terms in Congress later in life and was Register of the Treasury in the Cleveland Administration ( the first Dem since the War)
The presidency was dangled in front of him in 1863 and he quickly stopped the idea. He did accept Garfield's offer of the VP in 1864 but his answer telegram never arrived at the Baltimore Convention.
It's also possible Lincoln would have objected to him but if he agreed to Johnson there's no reason to think he would have objected to Rosecrans.
A really interesting question is whether he could have ever been elected President. I used to think not but I now think he could have if he carried the South and northern states with large Catholic populations. Plus he remained very popular among CW veterans. He did write some political pamphlets and in general was sympathetic to the interests of the white working classes.
Although he was early on board for emancipation he was like most whites- including Lincoln - a racial political equality gradualist. As a Catholic his presidency would have been groundbreaking. Since he was a convert and not descended from immigrants - especially Irish immigrants- he probably would not have been seen as a tool of machine politics. However he would have had a tough time IMO Grant had a tough time. Presidential elections after Grant were razor thin and no one was elected to two consecutive terms until McKinley.
As far as Villard I think his statement fails in so many ways as a true primary source. At any rate his opinion is a minority one of those who knew Rosecrans in the summer of 1863.

Sometimes the minority opinion is the more accurate one. Rosecrans had warts that I do not see you mentioning, but maybe I am just missing them. Everyone has a downside. What do you see as Rosecrans' downside?

NedBaldwin · Sep 10, 2021

David Moore said:
... Grant after Vicksburg gets a chance to rest and relax in New Orleans - and according to Rawlins do some harmful things to himself- while Rosecrans is expected to immediately start the even more difficult Chickamauga Campaign. ...

While factually these statements are correct, setting them up as a a simple comparison is silly

NedBaldwin · Sep 10, 2021

uaskme said:
...Rosecrans saved Grant at Iuka and Corinth.

Huh? this statement makes no sense what so ever

uaskme said:
If Stanton and Halleck had of shared the intelligence about troop movements to Rosecrans before Chickamauga, Rosecrans would of had other options.

On September 15 Halleck sent a telegram to Rosecrans that said "From information received here to-day, it is very probable that three divisions of Lee's army have been sent to re-enforce Bragg." So he did share what he knew.

David Moore · Sep 11, 2021

trice said:
Sometimes the minority opinion is the more accurate one. Rosecrans had warts that I do not see you mentioning, but maybe I am just missing them. Everyone has a downside. What do you see as Rosecrans' downside?

You really need to read my book to know what I think and more importantly why I believe it and how I support those beliefs through documentation.
Rosecrans' biggest fault was his temper. He snapped more than once at individuals during the war. He was usually quick to apologize. However that's not the same as saying he didn't get along with his superiors in Washington. which was more a case of not being told what to do by people who had no idea what the actual situation was in middle Tennessee.
Rosecrans never had a chance to end up the leading general in the west. Garfield wrote that the leaders in Washington "were not unwilling to see evil befall" Rosecrans. This was in response to an unsolicited letter in 1867 from J R Young of the NY Tribune asking Garfield to help explain why Rosecrans had been removed four times each time after a victory.
This is very key because it shows that opinion was that Rosecrans was a very successful general.
I don't expect anyone on this site to accept this without proof but fairness would also require that it not be dismissed without looking at the evidence.
As far as opinion I'd say the ratio of favorable to unfavorable is many times greater. I've looked at several hundred letters, diaries, and memoirs. If there is an unexpected dominant theme it is love for Rosecrans that never ended.
Most unfortunate is when people on this site dismiss these comments. In doing this they dismiss people who were not only there but suffered and sacrificed and some who later died for their cause.
I will try and repost a passage from an Army of Cumberland reunion that sums this up.

A word about Grant. I am not a "Granthater."
I think he got caught up in another man's - Washburne's- ambition. Grant wasn't politically ambitious before 1864-5 but Washburne certainly was.
Today I think for many Grant is the anti-Lee; the slayer of the Confederacy and the Lost Cause. He is the military side of the Lincoln emancipation coin. But this is of course a simplification. Many of us grew up in the age of St Abraham now we seem to be living in the age of St Ulysses. This may be amusing, self satisfying, politically and culturally useful but it's not serious history.

jackt62 · Sep 11, 2021

David Moore said:
This is very key because it shows that opinion was that Rosecrans was a very successful general.
I don't expect anyone on this site to accept this without proof but fairness would also require that it not be dismissed without looking at the evidence

The common impression of Rosecrans as a "failed" general seems to be based on that one unfortunate day at Chickamauga when he withdrew to Chattanooga and left Thomas to command whatever was left of the AotC. But the more I read about Rosecrans' entire record, my personal conclusion must be much more objective. His efforts at Rich Mountain in western Virginia, the defeat of Van Dorn at Corinth, staving off defeat at Stones River, and the brilliant turning movements that pushed Bragg's AoT out of middle Tennessee, are a solid record of achievement that have not apparently overcome his tarnished historical reputation. Agreed that his temper, and his discord with Grant and Stanton, have colored his record, probably unfairly.

DanSBHawk · Sep 11, 2021

David Moore said:
This was in response to an unsolicited letter in 1867 from J R Young of the NY Tribune asking Garfield to help explain why Rosecrans had been removed four times each time after a victory.

Hopefully, Garfield explained to him how that characterization was mistaken.

DanSBHawk · Sep 11, 2021

David Moore said:
Many of us grew up in the age of St Abraham now we seem to be living in the age of St Ulysses. This may be amusing, self satisfying, politically and culturally useful but it's not serious history.

There have been some good scholarly books written in recent decades about Grant. Both his military career and his political career have been covered by actual, credible, qualified, historians. It's definitely "serious history."

The hatchet jobs of Rose, Leigh, etc are not serious history in regards to Grant, in the same way that DiLorenzo's books are not serious history in regards to Lincoln.

DanSBHawk · Sep 11, 2021

uaskme said:
Grant and Sherman's first day at Shiloh was worse than Chickamauga. They were surprised and forced into the TN River. Don't guess you have studied those either.

Apparently more than yourself. Grant wasn't forced into the river. He was pushed and then he stopped and held. And he didn't flee the battle like Rosecrans.

David Moore · Sep 11, 2021

Also important to look at the consequences of those actions : creation of a the new state of West Virginia; setting the stage for campaigns against Vicksburg; viictory at the low point of the Union war effort and the prevention of potential British intervention for the Confederacy; movements and fighting for the permanent possession of Chattanooga in the fall of 1863 which means the Atlanta Campaign begins in spring 1864 not later in that year jeopardizing Lincoln's re-election perhaps even renomjnarion.
One may add the repulse of Price in Missouri in 1864 which in the words of one historian effectively ended the civil war west of the Mississippi.
Four theaters of war; four victories; four times removed in the words of J Russell Young ( who later became a traveling partner of USG.)

DanSBHawk · Sep 11, 2021

David Moore said:
Also important to look at the consequences of those actions : creation of a the new state of West Virginia; setting the stage for campaigns against Vicksburg; viictory at the low point of the Union war effort and the prevention of potential British intervention for the Confederacy; movements and fighting for the permanent possession of Chattanooga in the fall of 1863 which means the Atlanta Campaign begins in spring 1864 not later in that year jeopardizing Lincoln's re-election perhaps even renomjnarion.
One may add the repulse of Price in Missouri in 1864 which in the words of one historian effectively ended the civil war west of the Mississippi.
Four theaters of war; four victories; four times removed in the words of J Russell Young ( who later became a traveling partner of USG.)

Rosecrans wasn't "removed" after Corinth. He was promoted to independent command.

And his last battle with the AotC was not a victory.

And his behavior in Missouri was questionable.

David Moore · Sep 11, 2021

Mr Hawk I quoted J Russell Young. You seem to have quoted yourself.

David Moore · Sep 11, 2021

Mr Hawk Garfield in reply to JR Young said that political leaders in Washington became alarmed at his increasing fame and "were not unwilling to see evil befall" Rosecrans. This letter is reproduced in my book. I don't know that the entire letter is reproduced in print anywhere else.
Which says something about CW scholarship. The original is in the Garfield Papers in the LOC.
At some point you should broaden your reading to books on your "do not read "list.
The tone of this recent discussion has been remarkably civil. To dispage people's books and motives without specific and documented references is not helpful. As far as Joseph Rose's book almost every paragraph has a footnote.that in turn leads to documentation. You might try writing a book one day. You will discover it's very different than posting on a blog.

DanSBHawk · Sep 11, 2021

David Moore said:
Mr Hawk I quoted J Russell Young. You seem to have quoted yourself.

I didn't quote anyone. I was stating simple facts.

DanSBHawk · Sep 11, 2021

David Moore said:
At some point you should broaden your reading to books on your "do not read "list.
The tone of this recent discussion has been remarkably civil. To dispage people's books and motives without specific and documented references is not helpful. As far as Joseph Rose's book almost every paragraph has a footnote.that in turn leads to documentation. You might try writing a book one day. You will discover it's very different than posting on a blog.

I never said to not read something. I've read Rose and Varney's books. They're not what I'd consider "serious history," as you put it. Same with DiLorenzo. I'll probably read yours when it's available on an online library to be borrowed. But I'm not going to spend any more money on books that are obvious hagiographies or hit jobs.

Virtually every book claiming to be history has notes. So what? It doesn't mean all history books are created equal.

I personally won't write a book because a man should know his limitations. I have neither the interest nor any significant talent for writing. I respect good history, where the writer is genuinely seeking the truth. I don't respect shoddy biased history, where the writer is pushing an agenda or thinks the readers of history need a "corrective." The word Corrective, when used by biased writers, is usually just a euphemism for skewing the historical record in an opposite direction. Not about finding the truth. But just skewing in a different direction. It's a sign that the writer should not be taken seriously.

trice · Sep 11, 2021

David Moore said:
You really need to read my book to know what I think and more importantly why I believe it and how I support those beliefs through documentation.

I actually have read a little bit of your book -- not much, only what was easily available online. Interesting -- I remember how hard writing a book is.
I think you should stop saying this so often. I don't think it is your intention, but it may be read by some as an attempt to drive sales of your book.

David Moore said:
Rosecrans' biggest fault was his temper. He snapped more than once at individuals during the war. He was usually quick to apologize. However that's not the same as saying he didn't get along with his superiors in Washington. which was more a case of not being told what to do by people who had no idea what the actual situation was in middle Tennessee.

Rosecrans did have a temper, and when mad he had a tongue that could strip skin off a man. Lots of commanders can have something similar said about them. Some of them succeed anyway. Some fail miserably. Some rise to a level and cannot get themselves past it. Meade, for example, probably never would have advanced beyond command of the AoP (and Grant almost relieved him of that in the Summer of 1864). I don't think temper was Rosecrans' biggest flaw, even though it may have played a part in the Woods mess at Chickamauga.

Rosecrans had a major problem with his superiors. He did a bad job of co-operating with those above him (and also with neighboring commanders). He seems to have seen himself as more important than they were, which is a pretty sure-fire way to make enemies with your superiors and fellow commanders. Very often, he refused to do what they wanted done; he argued vehemently with them. He doesn't seem like the type of commander who would exert himself to go to the aid of a neighboring commander in trouble; he certainly wasn't going to change his plans to help Grant at Vicksburg, despite pressure from Washington. Generally, he looks selfish if you look at him from the outside.

Rosecrans also had a built-in limiting factor, IMHO: he got too worked up, he had too much nervous energy. By habit or nature, he slept little. He stayed up late and he woke late. He surrounded himself with staff officers who did the same. Rosecrans' HQ was routinely awake well past Midnight -- and staff generally slept late in the morning. Trying to get something done at Rosecrans HQ in the early light of day involved waiting. When on active campaign, Rosecrans seemed to be filled with even more nervous energy, sleeping less. I think he would be a bad choice for an active campaign of long duration.

David Moore said:
Rosecrans never had a chance to end up the leading general in the west. Garfield wrote that the leaders in Washington "were not unwilling to see evil befall" Rosecrans. This was in response to an unsolicited letter in 1867 from J R Young of the NY Tribune asking Garfield to help explain why Rosecrans had been removed four times each time after a victory. This is very key because it shows that opinion was that Rosecrans was a very successful general.

There were leaders in Washington who "were not unwilling to see evil befall" any Union commander you care to name. Halleck, for example, was perfectly willing to get rid of Grant in 1862. Sherman actually was sacked (only rescued by Halleck). Sheridan was up for a court-martial (Halleck rescued him). There were a lot of people calling for McClellan's head. Fremont, Buell, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade, Banks, Butler, Hunter, Sigel, and a host of others all had leaders in Washington who "were not unwilling to see evil befall" them. Rosecrans is just one of the pack.

If you want to hop over to the Confederate side, there may be even more commanders who Richmond leaders "were not unwilling to see evil befall".

I do not see where that connects to Rosecrans problem being his "success".

David Moore said:
I don't expect anyone on this site to accept this without proof but fairness would also require that it not be dismissed without looking at the evidence.

Fairness might require stepping back, looking at the evidence, and acknowledging that Rosecrans actually did do many things that caused the problems you are complaining about.

Mind you, I have had a bit of a soft spot for Rosecrans since I first read The Edge of Glory about 50 years back. He had strong points and weak ones, as every other commander does. I think you need to balance your analysis a bit.

David Moore said:
As far as opinion I'd say the ratio of favorable to unfavorable is many times greater. I've looked at several hundred letters, diaries, and memoirs. If there is an unexpected dominant theme it is love for Rosecrans that never ended.
Most unfortunate is when people on this site dismiss these comments. In doing this they dismiss people who were not only there but suffered and sacrificed and some who later died for their cause.
I will try and repost a passage from an Army of Cumberland reunion that sums this up.

No need. Rosecrans put a lot of time and effort into building his relationship below him in the AoC, particularly to the common soldier. You can certainly find opinions from soldiers who admired him. You can also find AoP soldiers who liked McClellan -- but they do not seem to have voted for him in 1864. You can find soldiers who liked Braxton Bragg if you look hard enough; Joe Wheeler apparently did.

David Moore said:
A word about Grant. I am not a "Granthater."
I think he got caught up in another man's - Washburne's- ambition. Grant wasn't politically ambitious before 1864-5 but Washburne certainly was.
Today I think for many Grant is the anti-Lee; the slayer of the Confederacy and the Lost Cause. He is the military side of the Lincoln emancipation coin. But this is of course a simplification. Many of us grew up in the age of St Abraham now we seem to be living in the age of St Ulysses. This may be amusing, self satisfying, politically and culturally useful but it's not serious history.

I think you place too much emphasis on Washburne. He had his place and importance, but you have made him a giant. As a result, your narrative of history has become topsy-turvy.
Grant and Lee is real history. Neither one is a saint.

David Moore · Sep 11, 2021

trice said:
I actually have read a little bit of your book -- not much, only what was easily available online. Interesting -- I remember how hard writing a book is.

I think you should stop saying this so often. I don't think it is your intention, but it may be read by some as an attempt to drive sales of your book.

Rosecrans did have a temper, and when mad he had a tongue that could strip skin off a man. Lots of commanders can have something similar said about them. Some of them succeed anyway. Some fail miserably. Some rise to a level and cannot get themselves past it. Meade, for example, probably never would have advanced beyond command of the AoP (and Grant almost relieved him of that in the Summer of 1864). I don't think temper was Rosecrans' biggest flaw, even though it may have played a part in the Woods mess at Chickamauga.

Rosecrans had a major problem with his superiors. He did a bad job of co-operating with those above him (and also with neighboring commanders). He seems to have seen himself as more important than they were, which is a pretty sure-fire way to make enemies with your superiors and fellow commanders. Very often, he refused to do what they wanted done; he argued vehemently with them. He doesn't seem like the type of commander who would exert himself to go to the aid of a neighboring commander in trouble; he certainly wasn't going to change his plans to help Grant at Vicksburg, despite pressure from Washington. Generally, he looks selfish if you look at him from the outside.

Rosecrans also had a built-in limiting factor, IMHO: he got too worked up, he had too much nervous energy. By habit or nature, he slept little. He stayed up late and he woke late. He surrounded himself with staff officers who did the same. Rosecrans' HQ was routinely awake well past Midnight -- and staff generally slept late in the morning. Trying to get something done at Rosecrans HQ in the early light of day involved waiting. When on active campaign, Rosecrans seemed to be filled with even more nervous energy, sleeping less. I think he would be a bad choice for an active campaign of long duration.

There were leaders in Washington who "were not unwilling to see evil befall" any Union commander you care to name. Halleck, for example, was perfectly willing to get rid of Grant in 1862. Sherman actually was sacked (only rescued by Halleck). Sheridan was up for a court-martial (Halleck rescued him). There were a lot of people calling for McClellan's head. Fremont, Buell, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade, Banks, Butler, Hunter, Sigel, and a host of others all had leaders in Washington who "were not unwilling to see evil befall" them. Rosecrans is just one of the pack.

If you want to hop over to the Confederate side, there may be even more commanders who Richmond leaders "were not unwilling to see evil befall".

I do not see where that connects to Rosecrans problem being his "success".

Fairness might require stepping back, looking at the evidence, and acknowledging that Rosecrans actually did do many things that caused the problems you are complaining about.

Mind you, I have had a bit of a soft spot for Rosecrans since I first read The Edge of Glory about 50 years back. He had strong points and weak ones, as every other commander does. I think you need to balance your analysis a bit.

No need. Rosecrans put a lot of time and effort into building his relationship below him in the AoC, particularly to the common soldier. You can certainly find opinions from soldiers who admired him. You can also find AoP soldiers who liked McClellan -- but they do not seem to have voted for him in 1864. You can find soldiers who liked Braxton Bragg if you look hard enough; Joe Wheeler apparently did.

I think you place too much emphasis on Washburne. He had his place and importance, but you have made him a giant. As a result, your narrative of history has become topsy-turvy.

Grant and Lee is real history. Neither one is a saint.

I suppose you haven't read my Washburne chapter so you really don't know what I say - and document- about him.
Most of what you write is opinion. There is not a single piece of supporting evidence for your opinions. Just your feelings.
I will post tomorrow the correspondence between JR Young and Garfield. Your analysis of it seems to be based on a single phrase. taken out of context.
A question or two for you. Do you think Grant got drunk in New Orleans and later in Chattanooga.
John Rawlins wrote that he did.
if you believe he did get drunk - and to a degree that it alarmed Rawlins- do you think it a pretty serious fault in a commanding general?
You do know the famous Lincoln quote about Grant's drinking can't be documented.

trice · Sep 12, 2021

David Moore said:
I suppose you haven't read my Washburne chapter so you really don't know what I say - and document- about him.

Actually, that chapter is available online and I have read it. Instead of constantly trying to say I don't know what you mean, please try to actually post what you mean.

David Moore said:
Most of what you write is opinion. There is not a single piece of supporting evidence for your opinions. Just your feelings.

Well, no. If you look at posts I have made on this topic, you will realize that I very often post sources and if you look at the many thousands of posts I have made on this forum, I always have sources to back what I say up when questioned.

Many of the things I just posted to you are long-established fact, so commonly acknowledged that I find it exceedingly strange that you would say this. Do you really want me to detail with sources this paragraph, for example:

There were leaders in Washington who "were not unwilling to see evil befall" any Union commander you care to name. Halleck, for example, was perfectly willing to get rid of Grant in 1862. Sherman actually was sacked (only rescued by Halleck). Sheridan was up for a court-martial (Halleck rescued him). There were a lot of people calling for McClellan's head. Fremont, Buell, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade, Banks, Butler, Hunter, Sigel, and a host of others all had leaders in Washington who "were not unwilling to see evil befall" them. Rosecrans is just one of the pack.

Are you somehow unaware that all of that is completely true and can be documented in excruciating detail, by me, by you, or by dozens of other knowledgeable people on this forum?

David Moore said:
I will post tomorrow the correspondence between JR Young and Garfield. Your analysis of it seems to be based on a single phrase. taken out of context.

Why? I was using that phrase only because you used it and attached great significance to it. My point was only that it is mundane and almost universally true of any high commander you can name. It does nothing at all for your case about Rosecrans.

Garfield, BTW, was a politician before, during, and after the war. He was not at all a "reluctant" politician, and he was generally not liked or trusted by the generals who served under Rosecrans. Some blame him for the weight that fell on Rosecrans after Chickamauga (the decision on who was to go to Chattanooga and who would go to Thomas, leading to "Garfield's Ride" -- see the poem Garfield's Ride At Chickamauga (September 20, 1863) by Hezekiah Butterworth). If you want to use Garfield as a reliable and worthy source, you will need to provide a mammoth amount of documentation to support your opinion.

David Moore said:
A question or two for you. Do you think Grant got drunk in New Orleans and later in Chattanooga.

What in the world does that have to do with William S. Rosecrans?

David Moore said:
John Rawlins wrote that he did.

So? What in the world does that have to do with William S. Rosecrans?

David Moore said:
if you believe he did get drunk - and to a degree that it alarmed Rawlins- do you think it a pretty serious fault in a commanding general?

So? I have said that Grant had faults. I have said that all commanders have faults. What in the world does that have to do with William S. Rosecrans?

Added Later: Just FYI, here is a quote from Jim Ogden, historian at Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park: "During the Civil War there is not a documented case where any use of alcohol by Grant negatively impacted his performance in the field."

David Moore said:
You do know the famous Lincoln quote about Grant's drinking can't be documented.

So? What in the world does that have to do with William S. Rosecrans?

David Moore · Sep 12, 2021

trice said:
Actually, that chapter is available online and I have read it. Instead of constantly trying to say I don't know what you mean, please try to actually post what you mean.

Well, no. If you look at posts I have made on this topic, you will realize that I very often post sources and if you look at the many thousands of posts I have made on this forum, I always have sources to back what I say up when questioned.

Many of the things I just posted to you are long-established fact, so commonly acknowledged that I find it exceedingly strange that you would say this. Do you really want me to detail with sources this paragraph, for example:

There were leaders in Washington who "were not unwilling to see evil befall" any Union commander you care to name. Halleck, for example, was perfectly willing to get rid of Grant in 1862. Sherman actually was sacked (only rescued by Halleck). Sheridan was up for a court-martial (Halleck rescued him). There were a lot of people calling for McClellan's head. Fremont, Buell, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade, Banks, Butler, Hunter, Sigel, and a host of others all had leaders in Washington who "were not unwilling to see evil befall" them. Rosecrans is just one of the pack.

Are you somehow unaware that all of that is completely true and can be documented in excruciating detail, by me, by you, or by dozens of other knowledgeable people on this forum?

Why? I was using that phrase only because you used it and attached great significance to it. My point was only that it is mundane and almost universally true of any high commander you can name. It does nothing at all for your case about Rosecrans.

Garfield, BTW, was a politician before, during, and after the war. He was not at all a "reluctant" politician, and he was generally not liked or trusted by the generals who served under Rosecrans. Some blame him for the weight that fell on Rosecrans after Chickamauga (the decision on who was to go to Chattanooga and who would go to Thomas, leading to "Garfield's Ride" -- see the poem Garfield's Ride At Chickamauga (September 20, 1863) by Hezekiah Butterworth). If you want to use Garfield as a reliable and worthy source, you will need to provide a mammoth amount of documentation to support your opinion.

What in the world does that have to do with William S. Rosecrans?

So? What in the world does that have to do with William S. Rosecrans?

So? I have said that Grant had faults. I have said that all commanders have faults. What in the world does that have to do with William S. Rosecrans?

Added Later: Just FYI, here is a quote from Jim Ogden, historian at Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park: "During the Civil War there is not a documented case where any use of alcohol by Grant negatively impacted his performance in the field."

So? What in the world does that have to do with William S. Rosecrans?

Because if one accepts that Grant got drunk in New Orleans post Vicksburg and more importantly in Chattanooga once he is in command a defense could be Lincoln's unverified - and probably untrue - quote about giving Grant's whiskey to other generals etc.
Rawlins rather despairing letter is in the Grant Papers which are available on
line.

What this has to do with Rosecrans is that his temperament has been questioned but is that as bad as getting " drunk on the job?"
I also believe Grant was drunk at Iuka. He certainly was "distracted."
I'd prefer not to get into a discussion of Iuka because that is my current are of study and I'd rather wait for my documented conclusions to be publicly available before discussing them.

David Moore · Sep 12, 2021

I'd like to see Jim Ogden's reason for saying that. Can you send me where you read this?

★ ★ Rosecrans, William S.

2nd Lieutenant

Colonel

Major

Major

2nd Lieutenant

Major

Lt. Colonel

Lt. Colonel

Lt. Colonel

2nd Lieutenant

Lt. Colonel

2nd Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Lt. Colonel

Lt. Colonel

Colonel

2nd Lieutenant

Colonel

2nd Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Similar threads

Similar threads