Grant Who Was a Better General: Grant or Rosecrans?

Who was a better general: Grant or Rosecrans?

  • Ulysses S. Grant

    Votes: 59 95.2%
  • William S. Rosecrans

    Votes: 3 4.8%

  • Total voters
    62
David, you are missing the point. It does not matter it Grant was drunk or Ord did not attack. Luka was a victory and he got the lion share of the praise. He should have stayed a friend to Grant and kept doing his duties... He lost a friend for no good reason and gained nonething but an enemy. Rosencrans sod his own seeds of doom needlessly...you are all wrong about this Grant vs Rosencrans fued..
Almost everyone is posting based on secondary sources. My current project is in fact Iuka and I plan to write on it and present information that to the best of my knowledge has rarely if ever been published before. I would prefer to not comment about Iuka on this site until then. Thanks.
 
Henry Villard, referenced above, is a primary source. He wrote of his own personal interaction with Rosecrans. Another primary source mentioning the Cincinnati Commercial newspaper and W.D.B (this is Bickham) is the regimental history of the 7th Illinois. Rosecrans and Bickham insulted the 2nd Division at Corinth even though they bore the brunt of two days of fighting.

Here is an excerpt from the regimental history:

Tuesday, 14th. — This morning our camp is staked off, and we take our position and stake our tents. Our brigade now consists of the Seventh, Fiftieth and Fifty-seventh Illinois, and the Twenty-second and Eighty-first Ohio, commanded by Colonel A. J. Babcock, of the Seventh. There is a commotion in the Second Division. The Cincinnati Commercial, with W. D. B.'s lying communication, vilifying and basely misrepresenting the heroic Second Division, who so bravely stemmed the current of battle on Corinth's sanguinary field, has been circulated. The heroes of Belmont, Fort Donelson and Shiloh rage to-night, and adding still more to this correspondent's vilification, comes the congratulatory address of General Rosecrans, with the following remarkable passage .. " I desire especially to offer my thanks to General Davies and his Division, whose magnificent fighting on the third more than atones for all that was lacking on the fourth." As a defense, we will simply transcribe the circular of "Justice," written by a soldier of the Second Division, which gives a clear exposition of facts relative to the history of the Second Division in the two day's battle at Corinth ..

" They did fail to do what they should have done, namely ..

there were captured by the whole army of Rosecrans, two thousand two hundred and sixty-eight prisoners, and the Second Division (Davies'), captured only one thousand four hundred and sixty of that number, mostly on the fourth; they should have captured the whole.

Then again the whole army captured fourteen stand of colors; Davies' Division captured ten of these on the fourth ; they should have taken all!


They fought Van Dorn and Price's army on the third, alone, and whipped them. This was right. On the fourth they fought with others and whipped the enemy ; they should have done it alone and would have done so but for the giving may of troops on the right flank — names I will not mention.

Now, the Second Division well know they should have done all these things alone, and they must throw themselves upon the clemency of a for giving country. The throbbing patriot's heart will have some sympathy, and the facts will atone for the short-comings of the Second Division when they are told that they went into action on the third with two thousand nine hundred and twenty-five officers and men, the balance of the Division being detailed in and about Corinth. Loss, seventy-five officers; total loss, one thousand and four. Forgive these " lacking and erring boys of the Northwest, for next time they will try and do better."
 
Does this include criticizing other people's posts, or does the abstention only apply when asked about sources?
Point is I’ve seen -and therefore know- things about Iuka that others on this site haven’t seen. I’m perfectly willing to discuss them when the info becomes available. I dont mean to sound superior but fact is I have and continue to do a lot of research on Iuka.
 
Point is I’ve seen -and therefore know- things about Iuka that others on this site haven’t seen. I’m perfectly willing to discuss them when the info becomes available. I dont mean to sound superior but fact is I have and continue to do a lot of research on Iuka.

Fair enough, however, keep in mind that you cannot critique others' posts, and then when pressed further, pull the old I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you defense.
 
Papers of U.S. Grant, Volume 6, pp. 166-167 has a letter from Col. Mortimer D. Leggett to John Rawlins, dated 19 October 1862. In that letter Leggett wrote, in part, "I have been exceedingly vexed and pained of late, to witness the apparently determined effort, in a single direction, to revive and strengthen an unjust popular prejudice against Major Genl. U.S. Grant. The infamous falsehoods and hellish malignity originated against the General just after the battle of Shiloh,--originated partly to excuse the disgraceful cowardice of poltroon officers, and partly to satisfy the popular demand for a victim, have left the public mind, both in the army, and among our friends at home, in fit condition to be readily excited against Major Genl. Grant. Gen. Grant's army were winning laurels, even before the late battles, merely because they had not been driven back,--and when our arms at Bolivar, Meadon, Iuka, Corinth and the Hatche, had uniformly proved so successful, it was a gross outrage for the minions of a newly fledged Major Genl., not only to attempt an exclusive appropriation (or rather, absorption) of all the honors, but by irresponsible assertions and mysterious insinuations, to attempt to awaken & deepen, former prejudices against the General to whom naturally and rightfully the first honors belonged. Major General Rosecrans is undoubtedly an excellent officer--and I hope, for his honor, and the honor of his state, that he is not a party in this hellish attempt to ruin Genl. Grant--but the evidence is such, that I cannot rid my mind of the conviction that he must be, at least, privy to the whole devilish scheme."
 
The insulting of 2nd Division by Rosecrans and Bickham really bothered Grant. Not only did Grant mention it in a letter to congressman Elihu Washburne, Grant also made a point of bringing it up to Grenville Dodge when he assumed command of the division at Corinth.

This, a primary source, is from Dodge's memoirs:

"In a few words General Grant informed me that he had assigned me to the command of the Second Division of the Army of the Tennessee at Corinth, and quietly but with a determination that struck me so forcibly that I could make no answer, said: ''And I want you to understand you are not going to command a Division of cowards."

I stammered out something, I know not what, and tried to thank him, but had no comprehension of what he meant, as I had heard nothing against the Division; but when I arrived at Corinth and assumed command, relieving General Davies, I found that in the Battle of Corinth, on the second day, the Division had been formed on the north side of the town, and that a Brigade and a Battery to the east of them had been seized with panic, breaking through their ranks and carrying a portion of one Brigade into the town. The Division, however, held its organization intact, and regained all lost ground, really saving the day.

General Rosecrans, in his official report of the Battle of Corinth, had branded the men as cowards, and General Grant had disapproved his actions and comments. The Division won imperishable renown. Upon their banner was inscribed, "First at Donelson," and from that time until after the Atlanta Campaign they served directly under me. From Corinth to the end of the war they took no step backward. Their great battle of Atlanta, where they helped to hold a whole Corps of Hood's army, and afterwards Altoona, when, under General Corse they held that strategic point against the terrific onslaughts of four times their numbers, gave me cause to always remember the words of General Grant — that I was not assigned to command a Division of cowards. The correspondence which follows shows how unjust Rosecran's charges were."
 
Papers of U.S. Grant, Volume 6, pp. 166-167 has a letter from Col. Mortimer D. Leggett to John Rawlins, dated 19 October 1862. In that letter Leggett wrote, in part,

The insulting of 2nd Division by Rosecrans and Bickham really bothered Grant. Not only did Grant mention it in a letter to congressman Elihu Washburne, Grant also made a point of bringing it up to Grenville Dodge when he assumed command of the division at Corinth.

This, a primary source, is from Dodge's memoirs:

Really stellar posting, folks -- it renews my faith in this site to see Source rather than Opinion making the points.
 
I dont mean to sound superior but fact is I have and continue to do a lot of research on Iuka.

Your new facts will not refute the fact for some reason Rosecrans turned on Grant... From what been posted... I think Grant thought of Rosencrans as a friend and allied so what happen to Rosencrans.
 
Last edited:
Wait and see. :smile:. Remember there was another battle, Corinth, to be fought.

If someone happens, by accident, to say the secret word to trigger the mystery sources, then we'll see. Of course the chances of someone accidentally saying the secret word are mighty low.
 
Bruce Catton, in Grant Moves South, pages 315-316, wrote, "Ohio soldiers who defended Battery Robinette said that immediately after the final Confederate repulse Rosecrans rode up to them, took off his hat, and announced that he was baring his head in tribute to brave men. His reputation as a general who liked to get up into the fighting zone had been abundantly justified, and his care for his men was illustrated by the order he issued as soon as the Confederates began their retreat: his troops were to return to their camps, get some sleep, stock up with five days' rations, and prepare to take up the pursuit the next morning, October 5. It was this last act which displeased General Grant, and which led to a permanent coolness between himself and Rosecrans. Grant was never interested in simply making an enemy army retreat; he always wanted it destroyed, and he had done what he could to make sure that Van Dorn could never use his army again."
 
Ask and you shall receive (sources) eh, @DanSBHawk? Shame on all of those biased authors! :wink:

Thanks for posting these, I had not seen Davis's version.
The Villard citation about Beckham was written around 1896 and wasn’t published until 1904. Villard was not at Iuka or Corinth so he would have had no first hand knowledge of those battles. At any rate the Beckham reference isn’t about Iuka or Corinth.
 
Bruce Catton, in Grant Moves South, pages 315-316, wrote, "Ohio soldiers who defended Battery Robinette said that immediately after the final Confederate repulse Rosecrans rode up to them, took off his hat, and announced that he was baring his head in tribute to brave men. His reputation as a general who liked to get up into the fighting zone had been abundantly justified, and his care for his men was illustrated by the order he issued as soon as the Confederates began their retreat: his troops were to return to their camps, get some sleep, stock up with five days' rations, and prepare to take up the pursuit the next morning, October 5. It was this last act which displeased General Grant, and which led to a permanent coolness between himself and Rosecrans. Grant was never interested in simply making an enemy army retreat; he always wanted it destroyed, and he had done what he could to make sure that Van Dorn could never use his army again."
In addition to wanting to destroy Van Dorn, Grant wanted Rosecrans to pursue immediately in order to support Hurlbut, who was moving towards Rosecrans. Grant wrote on Oct 4:

"To Maj. Gen. William S. Rosecrans
Headquarters Dept. of West Tenn.
Jackson Tenn. Oct. 4th 1862
Maj Genl. Rosecrans
If the enemy fall back, push them with all force possible and save Hurlbut who is now on the way to your relief. The Corinth and Bolivar forces must act in concert.
Hurlbut is not strong enough alone to handle the rebels without very good luck. Don't neglect this warning. I can reinforce no more from this on — hence you will see the vital importance of yours and Hurlbuts forces acting in conjunction and send forces messag in.
U. S. Grant. Maj. Genl."

So Grant wanted Rosecrans to pursue immediately because he was worried about Hurlbut. And in fact, he was right to be worried. Hurlbut was beat up enough that he had to pull back from the subsequent belated pursuit that Rosecrans felt so indignant about being called back.
 
The Villard citation about Beckham was written around 1896 and wasn’t published until 1904. Villard was not at Iuka or Corinth so he would have had no first hand knowledge of those battles. At any rate the Beckham reference isn’t about Iuka or Corinth.
The Villard source confirms that Rosecrans had a newspaperman named Bickham on his staff for the purpose of writing puff pieces. And it is a first-hand primary source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bee
The Leggett citation is a general defense of USG in which he says “ the infamous falsehoods .... originated just after the battle of Shiloh...” This was before Rosecrans arrived in northern Mississippi. Evidently the bad press about USG predates his interaction with Rosecrans. Leggett implicates Rosecrans “ in the party “to ruin Genl Grant” but doesn’t offer specific evidence. He later says Rosecrans “must be at least privy”” to the whole devilish scheme.” So he appears unsure of actual Rosecrans’ role -if any - in defamation of USG.
Leggett presents no specifics. He doesn’t mention Bickham. The letter is written to Rawlins so it can be interpreted as a venting inter familia during a cloudy period for USG.
 
The Leggett citation is a general defense of USG in which he says “ the infamous falsehoods .... originated just after the battle of Shiloh...” This was before Rosecrans arrived in northern Mississippi. Evidently the bad press about USG predates his interaction with Rosecrans. Leggett implicates Rosecrans “ in the party “to ruin Genl Grant” but doesn’t offer specific evidence. He later says Rosecrans “must be at least privy”” to the whole devilish scheme.” So he appears unsure of actual Rosecrans’ role -if any - in defamation of USG.
Leggett presents no specifics. He doesn’t mention Bickham. The letter is written to Rawlins so it can be interpreted as a venting inter familia during a cloudy period for USG.
The bad press from Shiloh appears to have started with Whitlaw Reid another Ohio chap.what he wrote was a bunch of nonsense. Edited.
 
Once again two key points:

The first appearance of reports of Grant being drunk appeared in the Cincinnati Commercial on September 29 in an article written by soldier William Stewart. This was six days after Stewart had written a letter to his parents in which he said Grant was “dead drunk.”
The drunkenness story began in print with a soldier.

The second point is that generals did have reporters who presented them in a favorable light. Conversely other reporters would paint those generals in a harsh light. Joseph Medill of the Chicago Tribune admitted that he held off “properly criticizing his [Grant’s] military blunders.” Otherwise Grant would have stunk “in the nostrils of the public like an old fish...”
 
The Leggett citation is a general defense of USG in which he says “ the infamous falsehoods .... originated just after the battle of Shiloh...” This was before Rosecrans arrived in northern Mississippi. Evidently the bad press about USG predates his interaction with Rosecrans. Leggett implicates Rosecrans “ in the party “to ruin Genl Grant” but doesn’t offer specific evidence. He later says Rosecrans “must be at least privy”” to the whole devilish scheme.” So he appears unsure of actual Rosecrans’ role -if any - in defamation of USG.
Leggett presents no specifics. He doesn’t mention Bickham. The letter is written to Rawlins so it can be interpreted as a venting inter familia during a cloudy period for USG.

Wrong again.

Continuing with the same letter:

"It may be, that the sin is only at the door of the Cincinnati Commercial Correspondent 'W.D.B.' (Wm D. Bickham, late clerk of the Ohio Senate and one of the Satelites [sic] of old Ben. Stanton, Lt Gov. of Ohio, and Gen Grant's bitterest enemy.) if so, Major Genl. Rosecrans will yet do partial justice by dismissing said Bickham from his confidence & army. But I fear that the inordinate ambition of Rosecrans, leads him to seek the downfall of Grant, hoping that thereby he may succeed to the command of the department--a position for which he isn't, and never can be, fitted:--for while he is a brave, dashing officer, a good fighter, & well calculated to inspire his men with enthusiasm, yet he lacks the business talant [sic], and comprehensiveness of judgment, needed in the command of a department."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top