Grant US Grant: a really nasty, petty, jealous back stabber

The only thing I didn't like about Galena is the emphasis on the house the town bought and presented to the Grants, versus the one they lived in before the war which is unmarked and might as well not even be there! Be sure to note Washburne's obelisk in the distance behind that of Grant's brother Samuel in the town cemetery. Washburne's house is also a State Historic Site along with Grant's.
Washburne can be a controversial figure because of his power in the war but anyone can be controversial. I guess he is a "hero" in Galena? No Washburne , no Gen Grant so he is the person who put Galena on the CW history map.
 
That's not the question I asked. To repeat:

I'm almost afraid to ask ... why would a biography of Rosecrans have "a chapter, and more" on Elihu B. Washburne?
I'll be happy to elaborate.
I think Washburne wanted Grant to be nominated for president in 1864 (he certainly wanted him to be nominated in 1868) In order for that to have a good chance of happening Grant would have to be the great hero of the war. The JK Herbert letter to Butler (who certainly wanted to be nominated ) lays out the scheme. My chapter on Washburne develops the presidential politics aspect of the war. It has citations from letters I've never seen in print before. I realize you have no interest in reading my book but I can't reproduce the chapter here. I would say any CW book that doesn't discuss Washburne is incomplete.
 
Last edited:
I'll be happt to elaborate.
I think Washburne wanted Grant to be nominated for president in 1864 (he certainly wanted him to be nominated in 1868) In order for that to have a good chance of happening Grant would have to be the great hero of the war. The JK Herbert letter to Butler (who certainly wanted to be nominated ) lays out the scheme. My chapter on Washburne develops the presidential politics aspect of the war. It has citations from letters I've never seen in print before. I realize you have no interest in reading my book but I can't reproduce the chapter here. I would say any CW book that doesn't discuss Washburne is incomplete.
In other words, for you to write about Rosecrans, you really have to write about Grant. As for your last sentence, am I to suppose that a biography of, say, Lee or McClellan that does not devote a chapter to Washburne is "incomplete"?
 
In other words, for you to write about Rosecrans, you really have to write about Grant. As for your last sentence, am I to suppose that a biography of, say, Lee or McClellan that does not devote a chapter to Washburne is "incomplete"?
McClellan certainly had political problems, Gideon Welles' diary reveals that.
From the beginning of the war Washburne was boosting Grant. McClellan was a general that had to be toppled in order for Grant to end up at the top. One can't completely understand the McClellan story without understanding the role of politics in the war. One can't understand the role of politics without knowing the role of Washburne.
Washburne did indeed achieve his goal of getting "Grant in command of Rosecrans' army"
That affects Lee in that he faced Grant rather than Rosecrans or Thomas.
So in a way to have a complete understanding of Lee's military history one needs to know about Washburne.
Lest you think all of this is some crazy fantasy I remind you of the relevant Ord quote about politics and generals I posted.
(Much more on this in the book)
btw I didn't say a chapter on Washburne just a discussion.
 
Last edited:
McClellan certainly had political problems, Gideon Welles diary reveals that.
From the beginning of the war Washburne was boosting Grant. McClellan was a general that had to be toppled in order for Grant to end up at the top. One can't completely understand the McClellan story without understanding the role of politics in the war. One can't understand the role of politics without knowing the role of Washburne.
Washburne did indeed achieve his goal of getting "Grant in command of Rosecrans' army"
That affects Lee in that he faced Grant rather than Rosecrans or Thomas.
So in a way to have a complete understanding of Lee's military history one needs to know about Washburne.
Lest you think all of this is some crazy fantasy I remind you of the relevant Ord quote about politics and generals I posted.
(Much more on this in the book)
btw I didn't say a chapter on Washburne just a discussion.
Given that Rosecrans couldn't beat Bragg in battle (a tie and a loss), what makes you think he could have beaten Lee?
Washburne may have saved the Union. :smile:
 
Given that Rosecrans couldn't beat Bragg in battle (a tie and a loss), what makes you think he could have beaten Lee?
Washburne may have saved the Union. :smile:

Combat effectiveness is a number that can be calculated. Rosecrans was an effective commander.

(Note, bolded numbers are defending works, italics are assaulting works, hasty or deliberate- numbers should be high and low respectively)

Iuka: 0.96 vs Price (US victory)
2nd Corinth: 1.54 vs Van Dorn (US)
Stones River: 0.65 vs Bragg (US)
Chickamauga: 1.34 vs Bragg (CS)

Compare to other major US commanders:

McClellan
Mechanicsville: 4.50 (McClellan achieved a combat effectiveness 4.5 times greater than Lee)
Gaines Mill: 3.55
Peach Orchard, Glendale and Malvern Hill: 1.28
South Mountain: 0.64
Antietam: 0.52

Pope
2nd Manassas and Chantilly: 0.24

Burnside
Fredericksburg: 0.20

Hooker
Chancellorsville: 0.26

Meade
Gettysburg: 0.88
Mine Run: 0.22

Grant
Shiloh: 0.37
Champion Hill: 0.74
Missionary Ridge: 0.70
Wilderness: 0.22
10th May at Spotsylvania: 0.39
12th May ditto: 0.35
Cold Harbor: 0.09
Petersburg: 0.15
Crater: 0.12

Schofield
Franklin: 2.69

Thomas
Peachtree Creek: 1.15
Nashville: 0.59

Sherman
Resaca: 0.17
Kennesaw Mountain: 0.40

The conclusion is Rosecrans was one of the more effective combat commanders. In fact the most effective Union generals in combat are McClellan, Rosecrans and Thomas. These figures account for the effect of numbers (i.e. strength)
 
Combat effectiveness is a number that can be calculated. Rosecrans was an effective commander.

[snip of numbers]

The conclusion is Rosecrans was one of the more effective combat commanders. In fact the most effective Union generals in combat are McClellan, Rosecrans and Thomas. These figures account for the effect of numbers (i.e. strength)

That still doesn't answer my question. What makes you think that a general who couldn't beat Braxton Bragg could beat Robert E. Lee?

Either you have far more respect for Bragg or far less respect for Lee than do most people.
 
That still doesn't answer my question. What makes you think that a general who couldn't beat Braxton Bragg could beat Robert E. Lee?

Either you have far more respect for Bragg or far less respect for Lee than do most people.

at what force ratio and in what situation?

War isn't simply a matter have having the best general/ most pious saint/ greatest footballer in the world. Just ask the humiliated Brazilians how 7-1 felt.
 
That still doesn't answer my question. What makes you think that a general who couldn't beat Braxton Bragg could beat Robert E. Lee?

Either you have far more respect for Bragg or far less respect for Lee than do most people.
I don't accept that he didn't beat Bragg. I will cite John Russell Young, who later became part of the Grant inner circle, who wrote in 1867 that Rosecrans was removed four times each time after a victory. I posted the letter I found recently in Indianapolis by JW Ellis that describes his feelings before and after Chickamuaga. No sense of being defeated. Don't you think we should give at least a little credence to those who were there?
 
Last edited:
I don't accept that he didn't beat Bragg. I will cite John Russell Young, who later became part of the Grant inner circle, who wrotein 1867 that Rosecrans was removed four times each time after a victory. I posted the letter I found recently in Indianapolis by JW Ellis that describes his feelings before and after Chickamuaga. No sense of being defeated. Don't you think we should give at least a little credence to those who were there?
This deserves its own thread at last.
 
Okay ... would Rosecrans have beaten Lee at Chickamauga? Would Rosecrans have beaten Lee at Stones River?
We don't know and never will but he handled Lee well in WV in 1861. I doubt he would have thrown men against entrenched positions. Success might have depended on how many men Rosecrans had and what the political situation was. Never underestimate the role of Washburne.
 
Okay ... would Rosecrans have beaten Lee at Chickamauga? Would Rosecrans have beaten Lee at Stones River?

Since analysis shows that Bragg, Johnston and Lee are not much different in terms of ability, no and yes. See Hattaway and Jones, and so frustrated was I with a lesser light that I got scans of the entire appendix and put it online: http://historum.com/american-history/81934-most-decisive-battle-civil-war-23.html

Rosecrans does a pretty **** good job at Chickamauga, and one of his subordinates screwing up and opening a hole just as Longstreet attacked there is essentially a chance event. Would have happened to Grant as well.

Stones River? I don't see a reason why that would be different either.
 
Well, no. When I used inputs I found for Iuka or Corinth, the trend seemed different.

What input? You can make Rosecrans look bad at Iuka if you count Ord's command under Grant as present for example.

Arguably you can analyse Iuka twice - once for Rosecrans as a wing commander (quite good) and again for Grant as overall commander (really bad, because Ord's forces add to the potential of the Federals but do nothing). You can repeat it for 2nd Corinth with near identical results.
 
Since analysis shows that Bragg, Johnston and Lee are not much different in terms of ability, no and yes. See Hattaway and Jones, and so frustrated was I with a lesser light that I got scans of the entire appendix and put it online: http://historum.com/american-history/81934-most-decisive-battle-civil-war-23.html

Rosecrans does a pretty **** good job at Chickamauga, and one of his subordinates screwing up and opening a hole just as Longstreet attacked there is essentially a chance event. Would have happened to Grant as well.

Stones River? I don't see a reason why that would be different either.

Rosecrans ordered the subordinate to move, opening up the hole in the line. That is on him, not the subordinate.

R
 
Back
Top