The New York Times, October 22, 1863. . . .
Some of the Government's Reasons for
the Step.
                   WASHINGTON, Wednesday, Oct. 21.
    The removal of ROSECRANS is the subject of much and contradictory comment. The more correct understanding of the causes that led to it is that charges were preferred against him by Gens. McCOOK and CRITTENDEN of unofficer-like conduct on the battle-field, of a panic-stricken flight from the field to Chattanooga, while the battle was in its crisis, and of his unsoldierly and mischievous conduct in publicly reporting, on reaching Chattanooga, to both officers and men that the day was lost. Superadded to this is alleged Governmental resentment of his disobedience of positive orders not to risk a general engagement by advancing beyond Chattanooga before he was reinforced; also, its impatience of his disposition and handling his troops on the field.
    The reputation for courage that he won at Stone River is plead in bar to the imputation of cowardice in his abandonment of the battle ground, and his friends attribute it to a mistaken impression that his army had been wholly whipped and was wholly on the retreat. The replication to this is that such a mistake is a complete disqualification for command.
    The statement acquiring growth that he had an attack of epilepsy during the battle and that he was subject to that disease, is untrue; but that he was constitutionally and by education subject to fits of religious depression of the profoundest character, is correct, though he was an austere Roman Catholic, as is well known. In connection with this is it may not be unsuitable to add that it is understood that the fourth specification of the preferred charge is an excessive use of opium.
    The relations between Gen ROSECRANS and General-in-Chief HALLECK, have been bad. A sharp correspondence took place between them after the battle of Chattanooga, and before that the Government had found fault with his military conduct on several occasions, and he had retorted by charges of neglect by the Government and want of support.
    His removal has been in contemplation for some time.
The New York Times
Published: October 22. 1863
Copyright The New York Times
Return to General Rosecrans: Part 4 Civil War