Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[David Moore]

Charles Dana was a primary source, with first-hand eyewitness accounts of the war in the west. Some writers now go out of their way to disregard his accounts.

He was also an admitted stretcher of the truth and in regard to Grants drinking a liar.

 

[David Moore]

Charles Dana was a primary source, with first-hand eyewitness accounts of the war in the west. Some writers now go out of their way to disregard his accounts.

Dana was an admitted stretcher of the truth and in the case of Grant's drinking an admitted liar.
He turned against President Grant when not offered the position of Controller of the Port of New York.
Widely regarded as a spy for Stanton he was infamously called a " loathsome pimp" by Gordon Granger.

 

[David Moore]

From Rowena Reed;s book Combined Operations ( page 255)
https://books.google.com/books?id=v...Z_3DpsQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=vicksburg&f=false

 

[cash]

So your idea of historic investigation and discussion is to keep narrowly in one lane? To not be curious about other participants that were affected by the original topic? Is Grant an island who had no interaction and influence on other generals and their campaigns?

I'm following the rules of the forum. This is a thread about Grant. Posting quotes about someone else is off topic.

 

[David Moore]

Please provide a list of books that only use Grant's memoirs as a source and show how often Grant's memoirs are used as the sole source.[/QU

In a thread about Grant, yes. You want to talk about your hero, start a new thread.

Won't a thread that is about whether or not Grant is an impressive general naturally involve discussions about other generals who might be more impressive? What is to be gained by limiting the scope of the topic as long as it related to whether Grant is an impressive general compared to other generals?

 

[cash]

Dana was an admitted stretcher of the truth and in the case of Grant's drinking an admitted liar.
He turned against President Grant when not offered the position of Controller of the Port of New York.
Widely regarded as a spy for Stanton he was infamously called a " loathsome pimp" by Gordon Granger.

So then you find it convenient to dismiss an account from someone who was there when it serves your propaganda purpose but you try to accuse others of propaganda when they say such accounts should not be taken at face value.

 

[David Moore]

I'm following the rules of the forum. This is a thread about Grant. Posting quotes about someone else is off topic.

To say Grant isn't impressive is to ask the question who was more impressive? Do you just want a discussion about Grant with no mention of any other general who was impacted by Grant. Isn't that a form of censorship?

 

[cash]

To say Grant isn't impressive is to ask the question who was more impressive? Do you just want a discussion about Grant with no mention of any other general who was impacted by Grant. Isn't that a form of censorship?

No.

Once again you're not accurately reflecting what happened.

 

[David Moore]

So then you find it convenient to dismiss an account from someone who was there when it serves your propaganda purpose but you try to accuse others of propaganda when they say such accounts should not be taken at face value.

A proved and admitted liar is not a good source in my opinion. Nor a man who was considered a spy and mocked as a sutler by the soldiers.

 

[cash]

A proved and admitted liar is not a good source in my opinion. Nor a man who was considered a spy and mocked as a sutler by the soldiers.

When it serves your propaganda purpose.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Dana was an admitted stretcher of the truth and in the case of Grant's drinking an admitted liar.
He turned against President Grant when not offered the position of Controller of the Port of New York.
Widely regarded as a spy for Stanton he was infamously called a " loathsome pimp" by Gordon Granger.

That "loathsome pimp" comment, written in a letter to Rosecrans, says more about Granger than it does about Dana. There is certainly no reason to dismiss Dana's opinions. He was there. His job was to accurately report what he saw back to Washington.

 

[Sid J.]

He was also an admitted stretcher of the truth and in regard to Grants drinking a liar.

Speaking of stretching the truth:

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/if-grant-had-not-stopped-us-we-could-have-gone-to-vicksburg.116351/

 

[samuel orris]

Would it be fair to say that post-Gettysburg, Lee's army was becoming more & more depleted after each battle or engagement and when Grant assumed command of the AoP he couldn't help having larger numbers due to a huge influx of conscription inn the Union Army? Lee was suffering losses he couldn't afford and the ANV never recovered from them.

 

[David Moore]

No.

We of course have been down this road before. I only involved myself on this thread because I recognized your tactic of throwing opinions without documentation at the originator of the thread. You are that curious student of history who boasts of the fact that he hasn't read books on topics he disagrees with. Please feel free to contact me if you ever do read books contrary to your beliefs and you'd like to discuss them.

 

[cash]

Would it be fair to say that post-Gettysburg, Lee's army was becoming more & more depleted after each battle or engagement and when Grant assumed command of the AoP he couldn't help having larger numbers due to a huge influx of conscription inn the Union Army? Lee was suffering losses he couldn't afford and the ANV never recovered from them.

Grant never assumed command of the Army of the Potomac.

 

[Sid J.]

A proved and admitted liar is not a good source in my opinion. Nor a man who was considered a spy and mocked as a sutler by the soldiers.

So was Rosecrans factual when he said he could have taken Vicksburg in 6 days from 240 miles away?

 

[cash]

We of course have been down this road before. I only involved myself on this thread because I recognized your tactic of throwing opinions without documentation at the originator of the thread. You are that curious student of history who boasts of the fact that he hasn't read books on topics he disagrees with. Please feel free to contact me if you ever do read books contrary to your beliefs and you'd like to discuss them.

Once again you completely misrepresent a discussion.

Please show where I said what you claim.

 

[David Moore]

That "loathsome pimp" comment, written in a letter to Rosecrans, says more about Granger than it does about Dana. There is certainly no reason to dismiss Dana's opinions. He was there. His job was to accurately report what he saw back to Washington.

In what way does it say more about Granger? Do you think Dana was a more important and honest CW figure than Granger?

 

[samuel orris]

Grant never assumed command of the Army of the Potomac.

I stand corrected. Thank you. How about commander of the Union Army? He still gave the orders to the army in the Eastern Theater in the ensuing battles after G-Burg. He made the decisions where to march, where to fight, etc. My point was that he couldn't help but to have larger numbers than Lee so it wasn't his fault that he outnumbered his foe. Not to mention that POW paroles were ended which hurt Lee even further.

 

[JohnW.]

Just so you know the ANV was actually larger in 1864 than ever before with far more Veterans in its ranks.

That may be....The ANV was still outnumbered 3-1 and had no supplies to sustain itself. Absolutely no clothing of any description. It had just enough food to sustain a division on full rations in 1864 to absolutely NO food in 1865 toward the end. Your post is duly noted but irrelevant considering men were deserting the army at a rate of hundreds if not thousands per day right up to Appomattox. Let's not forget about losses to disease and exposure to the elements.