Member Review Grant's Memoirs

[TallTallMan]

I keep hearing this from Grant detractors, but in all my reading about the Civil War I have never seen a single instance of anyone making the claim that Grant's memoirs are gospel truth. Can you please give me a cite for who did this and where? It really sounds like a red herring argument.

Go look at the notes of a typical Grant biography of the past 20 years and you'll see. Also note on how the fake story about taking Paducah without orders is in both books.

I need to state here that not all Grant biographies are bad, since Smith and Simpson actually criticize Grant for something other than he was "surprised at Shiloh", a hagiographer's red herring to prove they aren't hagiographers. This Grant worship mainly took hold in the Sesquicentennial years (and 2010s events), when beforehand it was just outcast Bonekemper's junk.

 

[Kurtlg]

To me the whole story of Grant, deathly ill and worried about his family's future, holing himself up in this remote cottage to write what he hopes will be a successful book, is a touching story. The cottage is amazing to see. They even have some of the funeral flowers there preserved.

And the clock that his son stopped when he died. I was there many years ago when there was a prison behind it. You had to stop at a gate ,give your ID and tell them you were going to the Grant cottage . A huge fence with razor wire was behind the cottage. When you left they inspected your vehicle . In any case it turned out to be one of my favorite stops.

 

[TallTallMan]

Note, for example, how Grant's superfans label Freeman "hagiography". It is not perfect, since he mindreads and does that whole "answer he was born to make" weirdness. But he does actually have criticism of Lee. Particularly, he goes after his performance at the 7 Days and Gettysburg, and he doesn't 360 and defend him at the same time. Mistakes are mistakes.

Grant's hagiographers do no such things.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Grant's memoirs would not be a controversy if people had not and will stop relying on them as gospel truth, or spread cannards that they are, for the most part, accurate portrayals of the CW.

Nobody relies on Grant's Memoirs as if they are the gospel truth. They are one source among thousands. Historians do not rely on Grant's Memoirs. I know that Varney claims they do, but Varney is wrong. And some of his accusations against other historians are completely fabricated.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Well, it was not Rose and Varney who has been obscuring Paducah, Chattanooga, Santo Domingo, and the Black Hills, among others.

What about Paducah and Chattanooga are you referring to?

 

[DanSBHawk]

Go look at the notes of a typical Grant biography of the past 20 years and you'll see. Also note on how the fake story about taking Paducah without orders is in both books.

I need to state here that not all Grant biographies are bad, since Smith and Simpson actually criticize Grant for something other than he was "surprised at Shiloh", a hagiographer's red herring to prove they aren't hagiographers. This Grant worship mainly took hold in the Sesquicentennial years (and 2010s events), when beforehand it was just outcast Bonekemper's junk.

Okay, That's what you meant about Paducah.

Grant did take Paducah without orders. Rose is wrong and I can show you why, but that is going on a tangent in this thread. Rose has a habit of using parts of sources while leaving out the parts of those same sources that show he's wrong.

 

[121st PA Vols]

To me the whole story of Grant, deathly ill and worried about his family's future, holing himself up in this remote cottage to write what he hopes will be a successful book, is a touching story. The cottage is amazing to see. They even have some of the funeral flowers there preserved.

Here here!

 

[JerryD]

Go look at the notes of a typical Grant biography of the past 20 years and you'll see. Also note on how the fake story about taking Paducah without orders is in both books.

I need to state here that not all Grant biographies are bad, since Smith and Simpson actually criticize Grant for something other than he was "surprised at Shiloh", a hagiographer's red herring to prove they aren't hagiographers. This Grant worship mainly took hold in the Sesquicentennial years (and 2010s events), when beforehand it was just outcast Bonekemper's junk.

But you arent answering my question. Of course people will cite his memoirs, just like other people's memoirs are cited. Are you saying NOTHING is true in his memoirs, so any cite to it by definition is fraudulent? That seems bizarre.

We disagree, though, on what you purport to be Grant worship. I think to most folks its a long overdue factual assessment of Grant, without the myth of Lee infecting everything. Much like what we are seeing with Longstreet. Neither general was perfect. Far from it. But they both had their reputations unduly tarnished under the Lost Cause regime.

We do agree on the relative merits of Bonekemper, though.

 

[TallTallMan]

Okay, That's what you meant about Paducah.

Grant did take Paducah without orders. Rose is wrong and I can show you why, but that is going on a tangent in this thread. Rose has a habit of using parts of sources while leaving out the parts of those same sources that show he's wrong.

PUSG, 2:193

 

[TallTallMan]

But you arent answering my question. Of course people will cite his memoirs, just like other people's memoirs are cited. Are you saying NOTHING is true in his memoirs, so any cite to it by definition is fraudulent? That seems bizarre.

We disagree, though, on what you purport to be Grant worship. I think to most folks its a long overdue factual assessment of Grant, without the myth of Lee infecting everything. Much like what we are seeing with Longstreet. Neither general was perfect. Far from it. But they both had their reputations unduly tarnished under the Lost Cause regime.

We do agree on the relative merits of Bonekemper, though.

I am talking about how there is blathering on and on about the unreliability of the SHSP etc but somehow Grant's are basically beyond reproach. Not one scholar talks about its unreliability except Simpson, a minority. Most say its the greatest memoir of the war.

It is fraudulent to choose one memoir over others to be magically more "reliable" than others when it really isn't. It is who wrote it that makes it relied on.

Lee never "affected" Grant's reputation. It's the fakest of fake stories. The capitol statue was dedicated in 1922, when the "Lost Cause" supposedly had a "hold" on the North. I can find a monster more ton of evidence that Grant's reputation was overwhelming favorable from the supposed LC era of 1885 to the 1960s.

 

[DanSBHawk]

PUSG, 2:193

View attachment 505447

Yep, and the dispatch on page 190 is additional proof, saying in effect that based on the information he sent to Fremont, Grant was going to take Paducah unless he received an order from Fremont to stop.

Nobody who has ever served in the military would ever reply to an order to clean a latrine by saying, "well based on the information I sent You, I'm going to go clean the latrine. Unless you tell me to stop."

Grant did not have an order from Fremont when he left to take Paducah.

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

Well, it was not Rose and Varney who has been obscuring Paducah, Chattanooga, Santo Domingo, and the Black Hills, among others.

I think Chattanooga is a prime example where Grant's hagiographers come to the fore. The battle's historians basically state that Grant did not plan for Thomas' troops to ascend Missionary Ridge, in one bound or two. Grant's biographers basically state that he did. The latter are wrong.

And Grant's conspiring to break a treaty and force war on the Native Americans in order to steal the Black Hills should make him into the villain. Instead, his biographers turn him into the hero with his vaunted peace policy.

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

I am talking about how there is blathering on and on about the unreliability of the SHSP etc but somehow Grant's are basically beyond reproach. Not one scholar talks about its unreliability except Simpson, a minority. Most say its the greatest memoir of the war.

It is fraudulent to choose one memoir over others to be magically more "reliable" than others when it really isn't. It is who wrote it that makes it relied on.

Lee never "affected" Grant's reputation. It's the fakest of fake stories. The capitol statue was dedicated in 1922, when the "Lost Cause" supposedly had a "hold" on the North. I can find a monster more ton of evidence that Grant's reputation was overwhelming favorable from the supposed LC era of 1885 to the 1960s.

The "Lost Cause" is used as a cudgel to beat down the viewpoints that certain people don't like.

Look at the hundreds of extant Grant biographies. They are overwhelmingly very positive, with an alarming proportion of them verging on downright hagiography.

If someone criticizes Grant, however, that person is often called a "lost causer."

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

On the subject of Chernow, it is ABSOLUTE hagiography. It does the trick of lightly criticizing its subject but then in the same breath claiming he really didn't do anything wrong--thus, Grant is right when he's wrong. "Grant spilled milk all over the floor but the cat licked it up."

It's also the simplistic good guys vs. bad guys moral crusade version. I am not a Southern partisan but portraying the CSA as totally corrupt evil McBadguys is more about today than then.

I find the absolute hoops done for Grant irritating because it involves stepping on other people--even Lincoln himself, with his "bad" strategies--to make him the hero at every point in his life. I have read worshipful works on Lincoln and Lee and wasn't that bothered because it wasn't a "everyone's bad" writing.

Considering that people jump up and down about supposed "hagiography" about Lee, it is a wonder that Grant slobbering gets a pass. Most likely they don't dislike saint writing; they just don't want it for people they don't like.

Chernow does not have a good handle on the American Civil War, in general, and has a tough time separating fact from fiction when it comes to general Grant.

 

[JackADriscoll]

The "Lost Cause" is used as a cudgel to beat down the viewpoints that certain people don't like.

Look at the hundreds of extant Grant biographies. They are overwhelmingly very positive, with an alarming proportion of them verging on downright hagiography.

If someone criticizes Grant, however, that person is often called a "lost causer."

So grant is a villain?

 

[TallTallMan]

So grant is a villain?

Strawman. One can criticize and admire someone.

 

[TallTallMan]

Yep, and the dispatch on page 190 is additional proof, saying in effect that based on the information he sent to Fremont, Grant was going to take Paducah unless he received an order from Fremont to stop.

Nobody who has ever served in the military would ever reply to an order to clean a latrine by saying, "well based on the information I sent You, I'm going to go clean the latrine. Unless you tell me to stop."

Grant did not have an order from Fremont when he left to take Paducah.

Grant is trying to imply in his memoirs he took it while Fremont was diliberating, when the PUSG says that he was operating from Fremont from this Hungarian guy.

 

[JackADriscoll]

Strawman

Definitely not. He may think he's a villain and that's ok.

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

So grant is a villain?

When it comes to the theft of the Black Hills? Certainly!

 

[TallTallMan]

The "Lost Cause" is used as a cudgel to beat down the viewpoints that certain people don't like.

Look at the hundreds of extant Grant biographies. They are overwhelmingly very positive, with an alarming proportion of them verging on downright hagiography.

If someone criticizes Grant, however, that person is often called a "lost causer."

I think there is a legitimate Southern romantic myth (that existed more in Hollywood than in acadamia), but it has devolved since the 2010s into a "foolproof" way to stop any sort of constructive arguement/discussion of the CW. It is also delibertely ignores Northern romantization, suh as giant Lincoln Memorials and Grant Tombs.