★ ★ Rosecrans, William S.

William Starke "Old Rosy" Rosecrans​

Born: September 6, 1819

Birthplace: Delaware County, Ohio

Father: Crandall Rosecrans 1794 – 1848

Mother: Jemima Hopkins 1794 – 1861

Wife: Ann Eliza Hegeman 1823 – 1883

(Buried: Mount Olivet Cemetery, Washington, D.C.)​

​

Married: August 24, 1843 at St. Paul's Church in New York City, New York

Children:

Rev. Adrian Louis Rosecrans 1849 – 1876​

(Buried: Saint Paul the Apostle Church Vault, Manhattan, New York)​

​

Sister Mary Louise "Sister St. Charles" Rosecrans 1852 – 1878​

(Buried: Ursuline Cemetery, Saint Martin, Ohio)​

​

Lily Elizabeth Rosecrans Toole 1854 – 1939​

(Buried: Resurrection Cemetery, Helena, Montana)​

​

Anna Delores "Anita" Rosecrans 1857 – 1903​

(Buried: Old Saint Mary's Catholic Cemetery, Helena, Montana)​

​

Carl Frederic Rosecrans 1860 – 1926​

(Buried: Calvary Cemetery, Los Angeles, California)​

​

Charlotte Rosecrans 1862 - 1862​

Education:

1842: Graduated from West Point Military Academy – (5th​ in class)​

Occupation before War:

1842 – 1843: Brevet 2nd​ Lt. United States Army, Corps of Engineers​

​

1842 – 1843: Assistant Engineer for Hampton Roads Fortifications​

​

1843 – 1853: 2nd​ Lt. United States Army, Corps of Engineers​

​

1843 – 1844: Assistant Engineering Professor at West Point​

​

1844 – 1845: Assistant Philosophy Professor at West Point​

​

1845 – 1846: Assistant Engineering Professor at West Point​

​

1846 – 1847: Principal Assistant Engineering Professor at West Point​

​

1847 – 1853: Superintendent Engineer of Repairs at Fort Adams​

​

1852 – 1853: Superintendent Engineer of Surveys of Taunton River​

​

1852 – 1853: Superintendent Engineer Repairs on Goat Island​

​

1853 – 1854: 1st​ Lt. United States Army, Corps of Engineers​

​

1853 – 1854: Superintendent Engineer, Washington Navy Yard​

​

1854: Resigned from United States Army on April 1st​​

​

1854 – 1855: Civil Engineer, and Architect, in Cincinnati, Ohio​

​

1855 – 1857: Superintendent of Coal Company, in Coal River, Virginia​

​

1856 – 1857: President of Coal River Navigation Company​

​

1857 – 1861: Manufacturer of Kerosene Oil in Cincinnati, Ohio​

Civil War Career:

1861: Volunteer Aide to McClellan for Department of the Ohio​

​

1861: Colonel, and Chief Engineer in the Union Army​

​

1861: Colonel of 23rd​ Ohio Infantry Regiment​

​

1861: Commander of Camp Chase, Ohio​

​

1861 – 1867: Brigadier General in United States Army​

​

1861: Brigade Commander at Battle of Rich Mountain​

​

1861: Commander of the Union Army, Department of the Ohio​

​

1861 – 1862: Commander of the Army Department of Western Virginia​

​

1861: Successful Commander at Battle of Carnifex Ferry​

​

1862 – 1866: Major General of Union Army, Volunteers​

​

1862: Division Commander at the Siege of Corinth, Mississippi​

​

1862: Commander of the Union Army of the Mississippi​

​

1862: Successful Commander at Battle of Iuka, Mississippi​

​

1862: Union Army Commander of District of Corinth, Mississippi​

​

1862: Successful Commander at 2nd​ Battle of Corinth, Mississippi​

​

1862 – 1863: Union Army Commander of Army of the Cumberland​

​

1862 – 1863: Successful Commander at Battle of Stones River, Tennessee​

​

1863: Union Army Commander Occupation of Bridgeport – Stevenson​

​

1863: Union Army Commander crossing of Cumberland Mountains​

​

1863: Unsuccessful Commander at Battle of Chickamuga, Georgia​

​

1863: Commenced fortifying Chattanooga, Tennessee​

​

1863 – 1864: Awaiting Orders in Cincinnati, Ohio​

​

1864: Union Army Commander of Department of the Missouri​

​

1864 – 1865: Awaiting Orders in Cincinnati, Ohio​

​

1865: Brevetted Major General, U.S. Army, for Service at Stones River​

​

1865 – 1867: On Leave of Absence from the United States Army​

​

1866: Mustered out of the Union Army on January 15th​​

Occupation after War:

1861 – 1867: Brigadier General in United States Army​

​

1865 – 1867: On Leave of Absence from the United States Army​

​

1867: Resigned from United States Army on March 28th​​

​

1868 – 1869: U.S. Minister to the Republic of Mexico​

​

1869: Declined Democratic Nomination for Governor of Ohio​

​

1869 – 1881: Civil and Mining Engineer, Railroad Enterprises in Mexico​

​

1871 – 1881: President of San Jose Mining Company​

​

1878 – 1881: President of Safety Powder Company in San Francisco​

​

1881 – 1885: United States Congressman from California​

​

1883 – 1885: House Chairman of Military Affairs Committee​

​

1885 – 1893: Register for U.S. Treasury Department​

​

1889: Brigadier General, U.S. Army on the retired list of officers​

Died: March 10, 1898

Place of Death: Bernardo Beach, California

Cause of Death: Pneumonia

Age at time of Death: 78 years old

Original Burial Place: Rosedale Cemetery, Los Angeles, California

Final Burial Place: Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia

 

[wausaubob]

Which rounds out a more subtle picture of Grant. Lincoln may not have necessarily had the greatest and fullest trust or faith in Grant during the first 2 years of the war, but he was willing to let Grant pursue his own methods because 1) in comparison to other Union commanders, Grant showed a gritty aggressiveness, and 2) Lincoln had few alternatives after going through a succession of commanders from McDowell and Pope to Buell and Hooker, not to mention hesitancy on the part of a Thomas or Burnside in gaining higher command.

Grant's early work in Missouri was more important than history records. Grant, Burnside, McClellan, Butler, Rosecrans all got multiple chances because their early contributions were so significant.

 

[David Moore]

Villard got around. He was not a good guy to have saying negative things about a person.

Especially in 1904.

 

[DanSBHawk]

It's a mistake to dismiss Villard's observations. He was there in '63 during the major events, and he called it like he saw it. His assessment of Thomas seems to ring very true:

"Though a native of Virginia , [Thomas] had never faltered for a moment in his fealty to the flag. He had a commanding presence, being nearly six feet high, and a soldier-like, erect bearing, with an open countenance, but rather a stern expression, full light-brown hair and beard tinged with gray.​

​

On first acquaintance, he seemed of a stolid nature and stiff and distant in manner, but on closer intercourse would reveal himself as a sturdy, resolute character, with the strongest sense of duty, and, altogether, a thorough soldier. He was not a genius, but was very intelligent, and although he seemed at times not quick in perception and too deliberate in execution, he could always be relied on to do what was required of him to the best of his ability. His even temperament gave him that coolness in action and equipoise in success as in failure which he possessed in a higher degree than any of his fellow-generals.​

​

He differed creditably from most of them in another regard: he was entirely unselfish and unambitious. He never made the least effort for personal preferment, and rather shunned than sought higher commands, from modest doubts of his competency and consequent shrinking from great responsibilities. It will be remembered that he declined the command of the army when Buell was superseded. In the same spirit, he felt it his duty, when a report reached him that Secretary Stanton had inquired how his appointment, instead of Rosecrans's, would be taken in the army, to intimate to Dana his reluctance to be the successor.​

​

While he was not communicative or fluent and polished in speech, he was by no means discourteous, and, as his reports show, thought and expressed himself very clearly."​

​

Memoirs of Henry Villard, pg. 214​

 

[David Moore]

The issue with citing Villard isn't that he's lying or totally wrong but that there are other opinions closer in time to the events but not accesible because they aren't on line or in non research libraries.
In writing in 1904 Villard knew how the story turned out and he had - like everyone- an interpretation he wanted to boost.
His opinion, no matter how accessible or often cited, is but one opinion. The more the better.

 

[DanSBHawk]

His opinion, no matter how accessible or often cited, is but one opinion. The more the better.

Absolutely agree that the more sources the better.

And the primary sources that actually interacted and conversed with these historical figures are the most valuable, and should be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, primary sources are often dismissed simply because they don't fit in with an authors preconceptions.

 

[DanSBHawk]

In writing in 1904 Villard knew how the story turned out and he had - like everyone- an interpretation he wanted to boost.

You keep mentioning the year his memoirs were published as if that makes him less credible. But Villard includes a letter to his editor written in June '63, during the time of these events, where he predicted that Rosecrans would be a failure based on his assessment of Rosecrans:

"Permit me to advise you, in connection with this, not to commit the Tribune too strongly to the advancement of [Rosecrans] military fortunes. There are flaws in his moral as well as intellectual composition and professional capacity, which the future will surely develop into prominent shortcomings, and may make too much previous commendation a source of contradiction, inconsistency and humiliation."​

 

[David Moore]

The issue with citing Villard isn't that he's lying or totally wrong but that there are other opinions closer in time to the events but not accesible because they aren't on line or in non research libraries.
In writing in 1904 Villard knew how the story turned out and he had - like everyone- an interpretation he wanted to boost.
His opinion, no matter how accessible or often cited, is but one opinion. The more the better.

It would be interesting to see if the original or a copy of Villard's letter exists somewhere. In 1904 all the principals motioned in the letter were dead and unable to respond.
Also interesting is the date of the letter (according to Villard) June 14
which is right before the Tullahoma Campaign. That Campaign is increasingly regarded to be as important as Vicksburg and/or Gettysburg. Villard hints at some of Rosecrans' faults but isn't specific. Interestingly Greeley -presumably the managing editor Villard refers to - had sent an emissary - James Gilmore aka Edmund Kirk- to Rosecrans to sound him out about challenging Lincoln in 1863. Rosecrans squashed such talk. Villard was a Republican and may have wanted to disuade Greeley from backing the Democrat Rosecrans. ( The Rosecrans story really is a fascinating story.)
Villard didn't like Rosecrans. Neither did Gen Milo Hascall ( I have a fairly long negative comment from him my book) but my research indicates that the vast majority of people who knew him did like him.
Thomas and Garfield are two prominent examples.

 

[tony_gunter]

Also interesting is the date of the letter (according to Villard) June 14
which is right before the Tullahoma Campaign. That Campaign is increasingly regarded to be as important as Vicksburg and/or Gettysburg. Villard hints at some of Rosecrans' faults but isn't specific. Interestingly Greeley -presumably the managing editor Villard refers to - had sent an emissary - James Gilmore aka Edmund Kirk- to Rosecrans to sound him out about challenging Lincoln in 1863. Rosecrans squashed such talk. Villard was a Republican and may have wanted to disuade Greeley from backing the Democrat Rosecrans. ( The Rosecrans story really is a fascinating story.)
Villard didn't like Rosecrans. Neither did Gen Milo Hascall ( I have a fairly long negative comment from him my book) but my research indicates that the vast majority of people who knew him did like him.
Thomas and Garfield are two prominent examples.

I would put Tullahoma over Gettysburg. But there's not a single campaign as important as Vicksburg / Port Hudson, it captured a Confederate army and added a federal army's equivalent in new USCT recruits.

Not saying that to promote Grant or denigrate Rosecrans, it was just luck of the draw that Grant stumbled into command of the department where the war was won.

 

[DanSBHawk]

It would be interesting to see if the original or a copy of Villard's letter exists somewhere. In 1904 all the principals motioned in the letter were dead and unable to respond.
Also interesting is the date of the letter (according to Villard) June 14
which is right before the Tullahoma Campaign. That Campaign is increasingly regarded to be as important as Vicksburg and/or Gettysburg. Villard hints at some of Rosecrans' faults but isn't specific. Interestingly Greeley -presumably the managing editor Villard refers to - had sent an emissary - James Gilmore aka Edmund Kirk- to Rosecrans to sound him out about challenging Lincoln in 1863. Rosecrans squashed such talk. Villard was a Republican and may have wanted to disuade Greeley from backing the Democrat Rosecrans. ( The Rosecrans story really is a fascinating story.)
Villard didn't like Rosecrans. Neither did Gen Milo Hascall ( I have a fairly long negative comment from him my book) but my research indicates that the vast majority of people who knew him did like him.
Thomas and Garfield are two prominent examples.

Villard wrote briefly of the Tullahoma campaign, and was not critical of that. It's too simplistic to say that Villard didn't like Rosecrans. He gave his honest impressions. In fact, he was at Chattanooga during the siege and thought Dana's dire messages to Stanton were exaggerated.

Also, regarding the year 1904 - Villard assembled his memoirs between 1895 and his death in 1900. But he had started them twenty years before, in approximately 1875. So these were not all 40-year-old memories. He had been documenting his life for decades.

It's not about who liked Rosecrans and who didn't like him. It's about compiling all the information, and coming to an understanding of Rosecrans. That's impossible to do if you filter out the less flattering information.

 

[trice]

The issue with citing Villard isn't that he's lying or totally wrong but that there are other opinions closer in time to the events but not accesible because they aren't on line or in non research libraries.
In writing in 1904 Villard knew how the story turned out and he had - like everyone- an interpretation he wanted to boost.
His opinion, no matter how accessible or often cited, is but one opinion. The more the better.

Henry Villard died November 12, 1900. If you are reading something with a publication date of 1904, he must have written it earlier.

 

[David Moore]

Henry Villard died November 12, 1900. If you are reading something with a publication date of 1904, he must have written it earlier.

Which is why original documents are so important. However the bigger point is Villard didnt like aspects of what he saw in Rosecrans. Apparently this wasn't made public in print until after almost everyone involved was dead.
The why of the dislike is another question that we can only speculate about. I always look for a political angle in those - like Villard - who were involved in politics.

 

[David Moore]

I would put Tullahoma over Gettysburg. But there's not a single campaign as important as Vicksburg / Port Hudson, it captured a Confederate army and added a federal army's equivalent in new USCT recruits.

Not saying that to promote Grant or denigrate Rosecrans, it was just luck of the draw that Grant stumbled into command of the department where the war was won.

That Tullahoma is even mentioned with the other two is a drastic change from only a few years ago. Michael Bradley's Tullahoma book compares the three. You can probably guess which he thinks was most important.

 

[trice]

Which is why original documents are so important. However the bigger point is Villard didnt like aspects of what he saw in Rosecrans. Apparently this wasn't made public in print until after almost everyone involved was dead.
The why of the dislike is another question that we can only speculate about. I always look for a political angle in those - like Villard - who were involved in politics.

My first degree was in Political Science and I have met a politician or two in my life, so I also look for political angles in historical events. When doing so, I remember that General William S. Rosecrans was also a politician.

Some people in politics are extremely good at observing people and seeing their faults (also their good points, but generally better at their faults). Being good at that helps them succeed. I think you should put a little more emphasis on Villard's opinion.

 

[uaskme]

Villard wrote briefly of the Tullahoma campaign, and was not critical of that. It's too simplistic to say that Villard didn't like Rosecrans. He gave his honest impressions. In fact, he was at Chattanooga during the siege and thought Dana's dire messages to Stanton were exaggerated.

Also, regarding the year 1904 - Villard assembled his memoirs between 1895 and his death in 1900. But he had started them twenty years before, in approximately 1875. So these were not all 40-year-old memories. He had been documenting his life for decades.

It's not about who liked Rosecrans and who didn't like him. It's about compiling all the information, and coming to an understanding of Rosecrans. That's impossible to do if you filter out the less flattering information.

Villard was at Chattanooga and thought Dana's telegrams to Stanton were exaggerated. Should tell you something. Chickamauga should of been much worse. Dana's ramblings are what Stanton used to get Rosecrans cashiered. You gave us a primary source that discounts the substance that got Rosecrans cashiered.

Most people would have a different attitude about Rosecrans if they study these battles, which they don't, or study Rosecrans.

David has written a great, sourced book. Be a good start for people that want to study and learn this part of the War.

 

[David Moore]

My first degree was in Political Science and I have met a politician or two in my life, so I also look for political angles in historical events. When doing so, I remember that General William S. Rosecrans was also a politician.

Some people in politics are extremely good at observing people and seeing their faults (also their good points, but generally better at their faults). Being good at that helps them succeed. I think you should put a little more emphasis on Villard's opinion.

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.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Villard was at Chattanooga and thought Dana's telegrams to Stanton were exaggerated. Should tell you something. Chickamauga should of been much worse. Dana's ramblings are what Stanton used to get Rosecrans cashiered. You gave us a primary source that discounts the substance that got Rosecrans cashiered.

Should tell me what? Chickamauga could have been a lot better too.

The "substance" that got Rosecrans cashiered was roughly a year of Rosecrans alienating every superior that he ever had, and then suffering the worst Union defeat in the west.

 

[DanSBHawk]

As far as Villard I think his statement fails in so many ways as a true primary source.

Of course you do.

 

[wausaubob]

Should tell me what? Chickamauga could have been a lot better too.

The "substance" that got Rosecrans cashiered was roughly a year of Rosecrans alienating every superior that he ever had, and then suffering the worst Union defeat in the west.

If he had been moving his army by mid April, like Grant, he would have faced much less criticism. Even May would have been better. But when he waited until mid June it severely reduced what he could do while General Lee's army was in Pennsylvania.
General Rosecrans somehow thought Chase could protect Rosecrans, despite the inaction. Though Chase was temporarily a cabinet member, the Senators from Ohio were Ben Wade and John Sherman, and they were more important than
Chase. The cabinet began to realize that Jay Cooke was selling the bonds, and Chase was disposable.

 

[wausaubob]

With respect to Rosecrans, there doesn't seem to be any John Rawlins figure. Sherman was backing Grant, not Rosecrans. Grant became an expert at the old army game of compiling demerits for someone and then dismissing him. In that regard he was Halleck's best pupil. To that extent Grant defeated not only the Confederate generals, but he bested all the US generals too.

 

[uaskme]

Should tell me what? Chickamauga could have been a lot better too.

The "substance" that got Rosecrans cashiered was roughly a year of Rosecrans alienating every superior that he ever had, and then suffering the worst Union defeat in the west.

How did Rosecrans rank beside Polk, McClellan, Burnside or Hooker during this period? Did Villiard critique them? That was before June of 63. Buell was replaced by Rosecrans. Buell replaced Sherman when he saw the Elephant. Had a mental breakdown. 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. Rosecrans saved Grant at Iuka and Corinth. Rosecrans won at Stones River then the Tullahoma Campaign.

If Stanton and Halleck had of shared the intelligence about troop movements to Rosecrans before Chickamauga, Rosecrans would of had other options. Why would Rosecrans believe Grenville Dodge when Washington was telling him the exact opposite?

More to what got Rosecrans cashiered than alienating Washington. That didn't help him.