Grant very much cared in 1862. He evidently suffered an alcohol relapse after Missionary Ridge ( according to Rawlins)
Because of things posted here? How? Why? Recent literature is favorable to Rosecrans and Thomas. Grant is more extolled as a president than a general today. You are of course entitled to your opinions.
In your professional opinion is Rosecrans attacked mostly from fans of U.S. Grant? If so, why? Wasn't both gentlemen fighting on the same side? Let me put it this way if I may. Did New England Patriots fans pull for Tom Brady while pulling against Bill Belichick?
I think there is a divide between Grant and Rosecrans that can't be bridged. It originated during the War. Basically the Rosecrans position is that Grant benefitted from what Rosecrans did in northern Mississippi in 1862 and Tennessee in 1863.
Have a look at this talk by Brooks Simpson from 2012. https://www.c-span.org/video/?305846-3/lincoln-congress-grant-lieutenant-general-act
Sources? You might want to look over the Washburne Papers which are on line. I cite things relevant to Washburne in my book that I've not seen anywhere else. If you're going to criticize my work you should at the very least read my book. Then you can rip it to shreds on this site - with or without documentation. It almost seems that your main concern is to disuade people from reading my book by panning it even though you've never read it.
Well the battle had gotten too big in terms of the enemy's numbers but I don't think you can blame Rosecrans for that.
You problem is, you come across as a partisan instead of a neutral observer. I have seen far too many value judgements from you that tell where your prejudice lies. And I continue to disagree with your contention that you have to like either Rosecrans or Grant, but you can't like both. You made that argument to me in another thread, and I find it ridiculous, since I respect them both.
Hascall is the one big critic I've found of Rosecrans' religiosity. I cite a long critical passage from of Hascall in my book. ( The one with the Allah, white elephants and Chinese Gongs references since you seem to be familiar with it)
You can blame Rosecrans for having separated his army and losing his nerve once his right retreated at chickamauga.
You might get a fuller picture if you read my book. The Grant-Rosecrans divide is real and started during the War. It was bitter. History isn't a public relations campaign. Grant had problems with other generals too.
Conventional superficial opinions. You need to do some more reading. Advice offered kindly as I once had similar views. Start with Victors in Blue by Albert Castel.
Your standard response. "If you disagree with me its becuase you are ignorant you need to buy my book".
Ord? While he does fine in 1865, his record before that largely consists of repeatedly getting shot, and going AWOL from his command in the Valley before the 1864 campaign and getting away with it because he was friendly with Grant.
Fuller picture and ignorant don't mean the same thing. I haven't told anyone to buy my book but to read it and then only if they're going to criticize what they think I believe on this topic. Let's leave it at that.
Washburne and his brother lost faith in Grant during the Vicksburg attempts, and then conveniently became supporters again.
I know what Simpson has written. I know there were concerns about Grant's political ambitions. But you claimed that Lincoln nominated Grant "to keep him from challenging Lincoln."
It is a fallacy to post made up alternative facts on a thread where everyone else is very knowledgeable.
Bringing the