Rosecrans had nothing to do with the fall of Atlanta.The last hope would have been Lincoln's defeat in 1864 but the fall of Atlanta snuffed that out.
Atlanta fell because of what happened in Tennessee 1863 - under Rosecrans.
Rosecrans had nothing to do with the fall of Atlanta.The last hope would have been Lincoln's defeat in 1864 but the fall of Atlanta snuffed that out.
Atlanta fell because of what happened in Tennessee 1863 - under Rosecrans.
Rosecrans, born in 1819, had converted to Catholicism in his late twenties. I wouldn't call that recent relative to 1861.Rosecrans was a recent convert to Catholicism. It is a cliche, but he really had the fervor of a convert. You have to pity the staff who had to rise & shine in a few hours.
No, actually it's not. Both men can be studied and analyzed and criticized. Taking extreme sides makes for bad history.To really study and judge Rosecrans is to necessarily criticize Grant.
Milo Hascall served with Rosecrans in the early 50's and noted how obsessed he was with Catholicism.Rosecrans, born in 1819, had converted to Catholicism in his late twenties. I wouldn't call that recent relative to 1861.
Rosecrans did little public proselytizing. Catholicism was associated with Irish and to a lesser extent German immigrants. Rosecrans was not descended from either group. His was an intellectual conversion. This is discussed in my book.Could Rosecrans have thought that sharing his Catholic faith would inspire those around him to fight more inspired? That perhaps God was actually fighting on the side of the North. Stonewall Jackson I believe from studying his life thought God was on the side of the South. Excuse my ignorance but I'm just yearning to learn. Thank you all again!!!
The soldiers of the AOTC saw it as vindication however. Perhaps they were still inspired by their dismissed leader.I simply do not understand why people talk about Missionary Ridge in this way when Thomas had exactly as much to do with that attack as Grant did, which is nothing. Neither of them ordered it.
Might find the discussion on Rosecrans' religiosity in my book relevant.Besides the need for all the sleep you can get in a war, Rosecrans was being obsessive about a topic that few of his subordinates were interested in, and probably none shared his views or faith. He could have just as soon been fixated on astronomy or astrology, and it would have been little better.
It's said that none are so evangelical as adult converts, but it's worth noting that hyperfixation and inability to "read the room" fit with the Aspergers theory I mentioned earlier.
The Cracker Line originated with Rosecrans not Smith. Pg 20 from the Report of the War Dept Board commissioned to study the issueIn fairness, the material contributions of Hooker's Easterners and Sherman's Army of the Tennessee were far less than those of Thomas' men when it came to relieving the supply situation at Chattanooga.
From September to October, the Army of the Cumberland sustained itself for over a month upon a supply line which consisted of a single road stretching from Bridgeport into the Sequatchie Valley, and from there over the difficult Walden's Ridge into the town. The concept of forging a new supply line via Brown's Ferry, the famous "Cracker Line," originated with Baldy Smith, then Chief Engineer of the Army of the Cumberland. Additionally, it was troops from the Army of the Cumberland who would ultimately make the crossing at Brown's Ferry and secure the bridgehead across the river. While Orland Smith's 11th Corps brigade and John Geary's 12th Corps division would fight and fight well during the night of the following day at Wauhatchie, Sherman's troops would not arrive until another three weeks. When it came to surviving upon their existing line of supply, and creating and seizing a bold, more efficient line of supply, it originated from Army of the Cumberland officers and was carried out by Army of the Cumberland enlisted men.
Stanton was in the title of a recent biography " Lincoln's Autocrat"It sounds like Stanton was the "Teflon" politician back then.Rumours and innuendo that couldn't be proven. Controversial?
It is amazing how much religious diversity there was in the US in the 19th century. Most of it had some Christian tinge.There was a lot of prejudice against Catholics in 19th century America, especially because most Catholics were Irish immigrants. In the decades following the American Civil War there was a lot of Italian immigration that was the target of similar prejudice. Anti-Catholic prejudice remained strong into the mid-20th century (we can't discuss it here, but I recommend looking into 1920s politics for more on this issue).
Catholics were a particular target of the Know Nothings (American Party) of the 1850s.
Besides the correlation with certain ethnic groups that were the target of prejudice, the loyalty of Catholics was questioned because of the Pope.
Here's a starting point on the subject:
Anti-Catholicism in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I don't know that any particular Protestant denomination was dominant, North or South, in the 1860s.
That's not to say it was impossible to successful as a non-WASP.
By way of comparison: Ely Parker was on Grant's staff and became a Brevet Brigadier General yet I hope nobody would think that somehow disproves widespread prejudice against Native Americans in the 19th century.
Maybe drinkingIf anything was being discussed up till 2 in the morning it should have been battle plans.
The agreement - brokered by Washburne- was that Grant being made Lt General would would keep him from challenging Lincoln.
Since sourcing is important to you, perhaps you could source this claim that Lincoln promoted Grant to Lt Gen for political reasons rather than for wanting to win the war.Sourcing upon request. ( I sometimes feel sourcing is a waste of time here)
True - but his troops carried it out and that still showed up Grant and Sherman. Not so much who gave an order but who took it upon themselves to do the right thing.I simply do not understand why people talk about Missionary Ridge in this way when Thomas had exactly as much to do with that attack as Grant did, which is nothing. Neither of them ordered it.
Taking Chattanooga had everything to do with the fall of Atlanta. Read up about Sherman's logistics base there for 1864.Rosecrans had nothing to do with the fall of Atlanta.
Sure. It's in my book btw. Lincoln knew little about Grant. May take a day or so to get to it. ( I do have other things to do in my life)Since sourcing is important to you, perhaps you could source this claim that Lincoln promoted Grant to Lt Gen for political reasons rather than for wanting to win the war.
Atlanta is the product of what happened in Tennessee in 1863. Sherman is given a gigantic army and takes longer to get to Atlanta than it took Rosecrans to get from Murfreesboro to Chattanooga. Rosecrans wins the battle for the permanent possession of Chattanooga. ( Rebels get West Chickamauga Creek) Part of Sherman's army is the technologically advanced Army of the Cumberland.Taking Chattanooga had everything to do with the fall of Atlanta. Read up about Sherman's logistics base there for 1864.
Taking Chattanooga had everything to do with the fall of Atlanta. Read up about Sherman's logistics base there for 1864.
True - but his troops carried it out and that still showed up Grant and Sherman. Not so much who gave an order but who took it upon themselves to do the right thing.
There is a distance between Nashville and Chattanooga. Interesting terrain. Also an opposing army. Makes a nice fall trip.So taking Nashville had everything to do with the fall of Chattanooga. And taking Fort Donelson had everything to do with taking Nashville. And Grant took Fort Donelson...