Shiloh compared to other battles

[NedBaldwin]

We seem to devote a lot of megabytes to how the battle of shiloh started, whether it was surprise and who was to blame

Why isnt there the same level of discussion about…

Stones River — read this description of the start of that battle:

National Park Civil War Series: The Battle of Stones River

Sounds worse than Shiloh

Chickamauga — "Believing he could capture an isolated Confederate infantry brigade near Jay's Mill, Thomas sent Brannan's division eastward from the Kelly Farm. Instead, Brannan surprised Forrest's cavalry. Forrest was soon reinforced by Walker's infantry division. Baird's division relieved Brannan's, only to be driven off by Liddell..". https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/civil_war_series/10/sec4.htm
So basically Thomas had no more sense (maybe less) about the enemy near him on Sept 19 than Sherman did about the enemy April 6…

 

[DanSBHawk]

That's a good question. Why has Shiloh, a battle won by the Union, been represented so negatively, and yet other battle's mistakes and surprises get just papered over?

Perhaps people are more critical of Grant and Sherman because of their success, and want to knock them down a few pegs.

Thomas has been deified in recent decades, and his fans tend to exaggerate his qualities.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

We seem to devote a lot of megabytes to how the battle of shiloh started, whether it was surprise and who was to blame

Why isnt there the same level of discussion about…

Stones River — read this description of the start of that battle:
National Park Civil War Series: The Battle of Stones River Sounds worse than Shiloh

An intriguing question.

Yes, it seems that Shiloh does attract a lot more attention than Stones River.

Interestingly, Stones River was the bloodiest battle of the Civil War, in terms of total casualties as a proportion (almost 32%) of the total numbers involved.

One can ask what could be the possible reasons for more interest being directed towards Shiloh, than to Stones River.

It might be due to the timing of, and the circumstances surrounding, Shiloh. Shiloh was the bloodiest battle fought in the Civil War up until that time, so that the engagement stood out (and gained attention) for this reason alone. Think too that there was a lot of hype and hopes created around the gathering of a Confederate force at this time, in Johnston's opportunistic attempt to destroy the Union army at Pittsburgh Landing. This led to imaginative notions in writings about the gallant and desperate Southern attempt to repel the Northern invader who now threatened the heartland. In contrast, Stones River occurred almost nine months later, following Bragg's unsuccessful Kentucky campaign. It appears that any significance of this particular engagement may have been obscured in the chain of events both during and after Bragg's lackluster, uninspiring and somewhat under-reported campaign and its immediate aftermath.

And/or perhaps it was the presence and performance of Grant, and to a lesser extent Sherman, at Shiloh, that has attracted more attention to this battle from later writers and commentators. Additionally, Johnston's mortal wounding at Shiloh, meant the death of the highest ranking officer (on either side) to be killed in Civil War combat. This distinguishing fact could also have elevated this battle into further prominence in latter day discussions.

Apart from the above, can't think of any other plausible reason(s) at this stage, for the differing coverages of both these engagements .

 

[jackt62]

Bragg's AoT or parts thereof did manage to pull off preliminary assaults or actions at Stones River and Chickamauga that can be characterized as "surprising" the enemy. Perhaps the reason that there is more attention paid to the "surprise" Confederate assault at Shiloh may have to do with the fact that the national press needed to jump on someone (Grant) or something (being surprised) to blame after the public became aware of the awful casualty figures post-battle. By the time of Stones River or Chickamauga, the press and public were unfortunately more accustomed to the realities of battle and did not raise the same outcry as they did occur after Shiloh.

 

[redbob]

Much of the interest in Shiloh may stem from the fact that it was the first "big" battle in the West and while Stones River may be much more accessible to the modern Civil War enthusiast than Shiloh, Stones River is just a mere shadow of what was and Shiloh is in a much more pristine state.

 

[Nathan Towne]

We seem to devote a lot of megabytes to how the battle of shiloh started, whether it was surprise and who was to blame

Why isnt there the same level of discussion about…

Stones River — read this description of the start of that battle:

National Park Civil War Series: The Battle of Stones River

Sounds worse than Shiloh

Chickamauga — "Believing he could capture an isolated Confederate infantry brigade near Jay's Mill, Thomas sent Brannan's division eastward from the Kelly Farm. Instead, Brannan surprised Forrest's cavalry. Forrest was soon reinforced by Walker's infantry division. Baird's division relieved Brannan's, only to be driven off by Liddell..". https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/civil_war_series/10/sec4.htm
So basically Thomas had no more sense (maybe less) about the enemy near him on Sept 19 than Sherman did about the enemy April 6…

I don't think that there is really any way in which anyone can conclude other than that the U.S. Army was caught pretty badly off guard by the attack at Murfreesboro on December 31st. We have a bunch of accounts which state that Rosecrans was anticipating that the right flank may be attacked and would be the flank attack med in the event of a Confederate attack, but, per Bragg's orders, McCown's and Cleburne's divisions had been slipped across the river and moved into position essentially right under the nose of the Federal Army as they came up and came to a rest in the positions which they took. While there would be post-battle controversy as to exactly where McCown's division came to rest and whether they could have gotten closer to the Federal position on the night of the 30th-31st, the move was very skillfully executed, overall, being able to successfully get two Confederate infantry positions into position to launch the attack at daybreak. There does appear to have been some evidence of the movement which the U.S. Army was aware of, but the dots were not sufficiently connected. Van Cleve's division, of course, was under orders to cross the river and would open the attack which was planned on the Confederate right. This obviously didn't happen, as the Confederate attack opened shortly after 6:00 A.M., being taken up down the line as it went forward and crushed the Federal right flank. The accounts are very clear that when it first hit Johnson's division, it was virtually a complete surprise and as Cleburne's division hit Davis' division, they had only been able to partially prepare for it in the mere few minutes between the attack erupting on their right and slamming into them.

 

[Lampasas Bill]

I think the reason was that the Union army at Shiloh was encamped and not expecting a battle, unlike Chickamauga and Stones River.

 

[Jamieva]

The answer is one word

Grant

 

[David Moore]

Lincoln put it best later that year when he wrote to General Rosecrans, "I can never forget, whilst I remember anything, that about the end of last year and the beginning of this, you gave us a hard-earned victory, which, had there been a defeat instead, the nation could scarcely have ever lived over."

 

[Nathan Towne]

Lincoln put it best later that year when he wrote to General Rosecrans, "I can never forget, whilst I remember anything, that about the end of last year and the beginning of this, you gave us a hard-earned victory, which, had there been a defeat instead, the nation could scarcely have ever lived over."

That was said in a communication with Rosecrans in August, if I remember correctly (don't quote me on that though.

 

[wausaubob]

I think Ulysses Grant was already a well known national figure by the time of the battle of Shiloh. The were journalists there, and/or journalists who collected stories from soldiers making excuses for their neglect of their duties. I don't think Rosecrans had yet risen to the public's attention by the time of Murfreesboro. Later in 1863, Rosecrans had become a well known general. Chickamauga became Rosecrans' battle equivalent to Shiloh.
By the time the Chickamauga blood letting was concluded, the contrast between the second day at Shiloh and the second day at Chickamauga was hard to miss.
At Shiloh, Grant had stayed on the field, aligned his divisions and artillery, waited for his reinforcements, and recovered the battlefield.
For some reason, attacking Grant was already good copy in early 1862, which seems strange, because he seems to have been obscure.
Rosecrans seems to have had friends in the press. By the time of Murfreesboro, McClellan and Buell were out of the news. Rosecrans took their place as the Democratic leaning general that might arise to be Lincoln's competitor and replacement.

 

[David Moore]

That was said in a communication with Rosecrans in August, if I remember correctly (don't quote me on that

That was said in a communication with Rosecrans in August, if I remember correctly (don't quote me on that though.

It was. It was part of the conversation of movement in the campaign for Chattanooga.

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 6 [Dec. 13, 1862-Nov. 3, 1863]. | Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln | University of Michigan Library Digital Collections

 

[Nathan Towne]

It was. It was part of the conversation of movement in the campaign for Chattanooga.

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 6 [Dec. 13, 1862-Nov. 3, 1863]. | Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln | University of Michigan Library Digital Collections

@David Moore,

I have a question for you. How much evidence have you seen regarding Rosecrans political leanings in the 1850's and during the war? I have heard it said an innumerable number of times that he was a Democrat, which he very well may have been as far as the Whig-Democratic divide was concerned (I would need to study this more intimately in terms of where he had stood) regarding the role of government/of the Central government, but as far as politics in the late 1850's and during the war are concerned, how much evidence do we have that way as far as his political leanings are concerned? By that, to make it clear, I mean as to his personal partisan political preferences via personal correspondence, for instance. I am well aware of his strong working relationships with a number of sitting Governors and that as far as the war effort was concerned.

The statements which he was recorded to have made during the war, for whatever it is worth, could sometimes be quite anti-slavery.

Now, of course, I know that Garfield, his former Chief of Staff, of course, during the 1864 convention wired Rosecrans inquiring whether he would be willing to accept a nomination as Vice President, to serve with Lincoln and I am well aware that we also know that a strong war democrat, Andrew Johnson, was ultimately chosen and that there had been considerable talk about doing this, but do we know that Rosecrans was considered by Garfield because he was also a war Democrat?

 

[Nathan Towne]

I think Ulysses Grant was already a well known national figure by the time of the battle of Shiloh. The were journalists there, and/or journalists who collected stories from soldiers making excuses for their neglect of their duties. I don't think Rosecrans had yet risen to the public's attention by the time of Murfreesboro. Later in 1863, Rosecrans had become a well known general. Chickamauga became Rosecrans' battle equivalent to Shiloh.
By the time the Chickamauga blood letting was concluded, the contrast between the second day at Shiloh and the second day at Chickamauga was hard to miss.
At Shiloh, Grant had stayed on the field, aligned his divisions and artillery, waited for his reinforcements, and recovered the battlefield.
For some reason, attacking Grant was already good copy in early 1862, which seems strange, because he seems to have been obscure.
Rosecrans seems to have had friends in the press. By the time of Murfreesboro, McClellan and Buell were out of the news. Rosecrans took their place as the Democratic leaning general that might arise to be Linoln's competitor and replacement.

@wausaubob,

This is a complicated type discussion as to political proclivities. Take Grant, for instance. Grant had voted for Buchanan in 1856. He doesn't appear to have voted in 1860, probably due to the citizenship issue in Illinois. Based on what is known, it isn't clear to me who he would have voted for had he voted.

By 1864, Grant's personal correspondence indicates that he clearly supported Lincoln's reelection.

As far as being Lincoln's competitor is concerned, we know that Garfield, from the convention hall in 1864, messaged Rosecrans inquiring whether he would be open to running as Lincoln's running mate. He responded in a seemingly positive manner.

 

[jackt62]

Lincoln put it best later that year when he wrote to General Rosecrans, "I can never forget, whilst I remember anything, that about the end of last year and the beginning of this, you gave us a hard-earned victory, which, had there been a defeat instead, the nation could scarcely have ever lived over."

One can equate Shiloh and Stones River to the extent that during the first day of each engagement the Confederacy achieved tactical success, which started to fizzle out by the end of each day's fighting. But the second day at Shiloh and subsequent days at Stones River had the Union seize the advantage and eventually stabilize the field and oust the Confederates from whatever gains they may have originally made. As far as Lincoln is concerned, it is important to see his comment to Rosecrans in the context of what was happening to federal forces in Virginia. Burnside had just suffered a devastating blow at Fredericksburg, which simply topped the string of victories by the ANV that began in the summer of 1862. So Lincoln took whatever he could get and breathed a sigh of relief that Rosecrans had not fallen to a similar ill fate at Stones River.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

One can ask what could be the possible reasons for more interest being directed towards Shiloh, than to Stones River.

It fits the narrative better.

Shiloh is the great Confederate victory that martyr Albert Sidney Johnson almost won. It was also an example of Grant's dogged determination.

Shiloh is also full of controversy and debate. Surprise, Lew Wallace, Buell, gunboats, ASJ, Beauregard, Hornet's Nest.

Stones River is short on points of historical debate and mythology.

I have heard it said an innumerable number of times that he was a Democrat

Rosecrans was Catholic, albeit an adult convert. If you were Catholic in the 1850s, whether Irish or not, you should have been a Democrat. Republicans weren't anti-Catholic as a party policy but they had a lot of anti-Catholics in their ranks.

This isn't any particular indictment of the time period. While papalphobia peaked with the Know Nothings it was still dogging presidential candidates well into the 20th century (Al Smith especially, not just JFK).

 

[David Moore]

@David Moore,

I have a question for you. How much evidence have you seen regarding Rosecrans political leanings in the 1850's and during the war? I have heard it said an innumerable number of times that he was a Democrat, which he very well may have been as far as the Whig-Democratic divide was concerned (I would need to study this more intimately in terms of where he had stood) regarding the role of government/of the Central government, but as far as politics in the late 1850's and during the war are concerned, how much evidence do we have that way as far as his political leanings are concerned? By that, to make it clear, I mean as to his personal partisan political preferences via personal correspondence, for instance. I am well aware of his strong working relationships with a number of sitting Governors and that as far as the war effort was concerned.

The statements which he was recorded to have made during the war, for whatever it is worth, could sometimes be quite anti-slavery.

Now, of course, I know that Garfield, his former Chief of Staff, of course, during the 1864 convention wired Rosecrans inquiring whether he would be willing to accept a nomination as Vice President, to serve with Lincoln and I am well aware that we also know that a strong war democrat, Andrew Johnson, was ultimately chosen and that there had been considerable talk about doing this, but do we know that Rosecrans was considered by Garfield because he was also a war Democrat?

As far as I know he was a born Democrat. I don't know whom he voted for in that period. He identified with working class whites of the north
The answers to these questions are most likely in the pre war Rosecrans Papers at UCLA. Hardly anyone - including me— has pored over those specific papers. ( I've made two cross country, multi day trips to look at his papers.) Also telling would be his correspondence with Garfield.
He did write several political tracts after the war. I think he would have been for restrictions on "big business' and for legislation that he thought benefitted working men.
He would I think have been a formidable presidential candidate; he did decline nominations for several state offices before serving two term in the House if Representatives.

 

[David Moore]

One can equate Shiloh and Stones River to the extent that during the first day of each engagement the Confederacy achieved tactical success, which started to fizzle out by the end of each day's fighting. But the second day at Shiloh and subsequent days at Stones River had the Union seize the advantage and eventually stabilize the field and oust the Confederates from whatever gains they may have originally made. As far as Lincoln is concerned, it is important to see his comment to Rosecrans in the context of what was happening to federal forces in Virginia. Burnside had just suffered a devastating blow at Fredericksburg, which simply topped the string of victories by the ANV that began in the summer of 1862. So Lincoln took whatever he could get and breathed a sigh of relief that Rosecrans had not fallen to a similar ill fate at Stones River.

Grant didn't do too well at Holly Springs nor Sherman at Chickasaw Bayou.

 

[Chris H]

One can equate Shiloh and Stones River to the extent that during the first day of each engagement the Confederacy achieved tactical success, which started to fizzle out by the end of each day's fighting. But the second day at Shiloh and subsequent days at Stones River had the Union seize the advantage and eventually stabilize the field and oust the Confederates from whatever gains they may have originally made. As far as Lincoln is concerned, it is important to see his comment to Rosecrans in the context of what was happening to federal forces in Virginia. Burnside had just suffered a devastating blow at Fredericksburg, which simply topped the string of victories by the ANV that began in the summer of 1862. So Lincoln took whatever he could get and breathed a sigh of relief that Rosecrans had not fallen to a similar ill fate at Stones River.

Yes, the role Stones River played in retrieving some of the political capital lost at Fredericksburg gives the battle a touch of redemption, for all its controversies.

 

[Nathan Towne]

It fits the narrative better.

Shiloh is the great Confederate victory that martyr Albert Sidney Johnson almost won. It was also an example of Grant's dogged determination.

Shiloh is also full of controversy. Surprise, Lew Wallace, Buell, gunboats, ASJ, Beauregard, Hornet's Nest.

Stones River is short on points ohistorical debate and mythology.



Rosecrans was Catholic, albeit an adult convert. If you were Catholic in the 1850s, whether Irish or not, you should have been a Democrat. Republicans weren't anti-Catholic as a party policy but they had a lot of anti-Catholics in their ranks.

This isn't any particular indictment of the time period. While papalphobia peaked with the Know Nothings it was still dogging presidential candidates well into the 20th century (Al Smith especially, not just JFK).

There are lots of controversies and that surrounding Murfreesboro for those who are familiar with them, though. And the dogged determination of the U.S. Army at Murfreesboro was truly heroic, just as at Shiloh.

I can't say anything regarding the popular memory though, as I just don't know honestly how well known each engagement is, at least in general terms, with the public at large, or anything like that.

As for the latter point, yes, I am well aware that many people with anti-catholic sentiment has become Republicans, but there were Catholic Republicans, as well and as you say, these things did not become party policy. I am honestly just not entirely sure where Rosecrans had personally stood politically.

Obviously, in his later life, he served as a Democrat for two terms in the U.S. House.