Lamers's biography (which I recently reread) falls under the category of
an apology disguised as a corrective. All pro-Rosecrans evidence is
uncritically accepted; all anti-Rosecrans evidence is carefully scrutinized
and sometimes simply explained away. Lamers's anti-Grant bias is so clear that
he accuses Grant of being under the influence in battle at Iuka.
Having said this, I must add that there are elements of truth to Lamers's
discussion of Rosecrans's removal at Chattanooga. Rosecrans had indeed
laid out plans (with the great help of William F. Smith) for the operation
which would come down to us as the reopening of the cracker line (a supply
line to the hungry boys in blue in Chattanooga); he had suffered greatly
at the hands of Charles A. Dana (and James A. Garfield), who said critical
and perhaps unfair things about him. Even Grant indicated in his MEMOIRS
that Rosecrans had drawn up plans, adding that the only thing that surprised
him was Rosey's failure to execute them. Therein lies the problem and the
reason for Rosecrans's removal. It was Grant's decision: Edwin M. Stanton
had offered Grant two versions of the order placing him in command of the
vast majority of the Western theater, and Grant chose the version which
replaced Rosecrans with George H. Thomas. Grant had long ago learned that
Rosecrans was not always a proper subordinate, that he was a pompous self-
promoter (usually at the expense of others), and failed as a battlefield
commander at Iuka and Corinth when he let slip opportunities to destroy
his opponent. It is a sign of Grant's disgust with Rosecrans that he was
willing to elevate Thomas, because there was little love lost between
those two men. Planning is not execution; to have a plan does not mean it
will work; and there was no chance that Grant would retain Rosecrans. of
course, Rosecrans was not above being personal himself, as when he blocked
Grant's placement on the retirement list of the army as Grant was dying
(although Grant eventually made it).
Grant's MEMOIRS need to be judged critically as a historical source. One
should, however, recall the circumstances under which it was composed before
making the sort of inferences Lamers makes. Rosecrans still awaits his
biographer.
Brooks D. Simpson ATBDS@ASUACAD
Department of History 602-965-5778
Arizona State University