A Mr. Rose point well taken.
- Dear Pards-
As I have stated, for what little it is worth, Mr. Rose has not yet
convinced me of his point that USG was purposely untruthful in his
book regarding this incident, Mr. Rose I do think raises another
very valid point. Specifically, Mr. Rose stated that General
Fremont, deserved more credit than popular history has given, for
some of his decisions during his tenure in command at St. Louis.
While popular history tends to pass Fremont's tenure off as pretty
much an ameturistic (sp?)joke characterised by out of control and
corrupt spending, humorous use of foreign born officers, and
allegedly outlandish reckless unauthorized emancipation declarations-
I sometimes wonder just how much of Fremont's treatment is the
product of politically motivated contemporary press and how much is
the product of real critical historical analysis or even Lincoln's
artful destruction of a potentially dangerous political rival.
ISTM that arguments can be fashioned that Fremont did lay the
organizational and command ground work for the Union's successes in
the first quarter of 1862. Also Fremont did authorize, I think, the
early development of the Union's 'brown water navy' and the
construction of the decisive River Iron Clads. In addition,
Fremont's tenure saw the cementing of the Western European
Immigrants to the Union cause (maybe all those German and Slavic
officers with the funny names had some influence?)- something that
did not occur in the East. Finally, Fremont was certainly not the
ONLY Union officer who apparently honestly felt Slave Emancipation
was a real moral and military necessity after all Lincoln himself
came to that conclusion within 10 months and successfully claimed
all the historical and political credit. Was the comic part of this
story that Fremont sent his wife instead of himself to argue the
point face to face with the President?
Just some food for thought-
I certainly could be all wrong-