Grant Grant Under Fire: A Question

[Rhea Cole]

You're referring to the report that got him canned? I thought Bearss' treatment of McClernand up to that point was rather friendly?

No, I wouldn't exactly call Bearss' depiction of McClernand as "friendly." He was what he was, a politician who came down river believing that he should be in command of the army.

One of Grant's strengths was to accept what cards he was dealt. Lincoln needed McClernand so he put up with him. When the political cover ended & McClernard clearly misrepresented the situation & then wasted his men's lives, Grant fired him.

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

No serious historian should ever post theories on this site about Grant Why? Because there's a group whose sole purpose is to not just defend Grant but attack those who criticize him. Some do this without reading the books they criticize.

No serious historian should ever post theories on this site about Grant. Why? Because there's a group whose sole purpose is not just to attack Grant but to denigrate those who do not share the opinions held by members of the group.

Fixed!

 

[Belfoured]

No serious historian should ever post theories on this site about Grant. Why? Because there's a group whose sole purpose is not just to attack Grant but to denigrate those who do not share the opinions held by members of the group.

Fixed!

Fortunately, there are serious historians who are members of this site and who carefully avoid putting up unprofessional posts. I have literally no doubt that their publishers are very happy with that.

 

[David Moore]

No serious historian should ever post theories on this site about Grant. Why? Because there's a group whose sole purpose is not just to attack Grant but to denigrate those who do not share the opinions held by members of the group.

Fixed!

I think the difference is that some of the Grant critics have published documented works involving original archival research that have been reviewed. The Grant supporters on this site have published nothing as far as I know.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Fortunately, there are serious historians who are members of this site and who carefully avoid putting up unprofessional posts. I have literally no doubt that their publishers are very happy with that.

I think that's probably true in most cases. I imagine academic publishers might want to maintain some professionalism. But what if a private publisher happens to share the same bias as a controversial author? Would he tend to overlook the unprofessionalism? Maybe he even thinks the controversy generates more interest, and thus profit?

I would think that any publisher would be horrified if he published a book in which the author made false accusations against a respected historian. But apparently no one bothered to check if Varney's multiple accusations against Woodworth about sole-sourcing Grant's Memoirs were actually true. Maybe the publisher enjoys the controversial nature of these anti-Grant authors. And it's alleged in this thread that the same publisher would have published the Rose book.

University presses may be concerned with standards and professionalism and reputation, but I'm not too sure about private presses. I think the private ones have their own priorities. Mainly profits.

 

[David Moore]

The recent scholarship regarding McClernand basically restates Bearss' opinions on McClernand from 50 years ago because there's been a failure to critically analyze the only battle at which McClernand was in command, Port Gibson. McClernand was on the cusp of losing that battle to a force half his size.

Showing would be more effective than saying.

 

[Rebforever]

I did a quick peek at Wiki. General McClernand built an army and it was taken away from him by General Grant. That would tick me off too.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I did a quick peek at Wiki. General McClernand built an army and it was taken away from him by General Grant. That would tick me off too.

If you read a more comprehensive account, McCleernand recruited regiments. Grant built the army.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

University presses may be concerned with standards and professionalism and reputation, but I'm not too sure about private presses. I think the private ones have their own priorities. Mainly profits.

Short answer: it depends.

Some are practically a free for all, like History Press.

Some will publish apologia that aligns with their political agenda, like Regnery.

I think some are willing to publish a controversial and questionable book that is well-written and well-sourced. In other words: if you put a historical figure on trial and used the book as the prosecutions case, would the prosecutor get disbarred?

 

[Rhea Cole]

Short answer: it depends.

Some are practically a free for all, like History Press.

Some will publish apologia that aligns with their political agenda, like Regnery.

I think some are willing to publish a controversial and questionable book that is well-written and well-sourced. In other words: if you put a historical figure on trial and used the book as the prosecutions case, would the prosecutor get disbarred?

People who write books like that are always careful to feature dead people who can't sue them. Can't be sued for libel by a dead person. Their lawyer's careers are not in jeopardy.

Imagine one of these characters calling Grant or Sherman a liar to his face?

 

[Belfoured]

I think that's probably true in most cases. I imagine academic publishers might want to maintain some professionalism. But what if a private publisher happens to share the same bias as a controversial author? Would he tend to overlook the unprofessionalism? Maybe he even thinks the controversy generates more interest, and thus profit?

I would think that any publisher would be horrified if he published a book in which the author made false accusations against a respected historian. But apparently no one bothered to check if Varney's multiple accusations against Woodworth about sole-sourcing Grant's Memoirs were actually true. Maybe the publisher enjoys the controversial nature of these anti-Grant authors. And it's alleged in this thread that the same publisher would have published the Rose book.

University presses may be concerned with standards and professionalism and reputation, but I'm not too sure about private presses. I think the private ones have their own priorities. Mainly profits.

To my point, I can assure you that there are non-university publishers that would have a very substantial problem with an author making accusations of the sort we've seen here, whether in a manuscript, at events/meetings, or on an internet forum. Whatever issues you may have regarding Varney asserting that Woodworth "sole sourced" the Memoirs, that is fundamentally different from accusing an author of stating "massive" and "ridiculous" "falsehoods" and "distortions" as a "cover up". I haven't read Varney so I can't comment on his assertons and analysis. The assertion regarding the Rose book doesn't address what would have happened if that publisher had actually published the book because it didn't happen. We do know that it would have required that the manuscript be materially shorter. We don't know what other editorial input there would have been because the manuscript was never submitted to it.

 

[David Moore]

If you read a more comprehensive account, McCleernand recruited regiments. Grant built the army.

So give us a link to the account.

 

[TallTallMan]

You're saying the hundreds of people I've spoken to at Civil War Round Tables were using pseudonyms? Don't worry I won't ask for documentation for that statement.

You know exactly what I meant, Mister.

 

[Belfoured]

So give us a link to the account.

I assume/hope you mean something more reliable than "Wiki".

 

[TallTallMan]

Fortunately, there are serious historians who are members of this site and who carefully avoid putting up unprofessional posts. I have literally no doubt that their publishers are very happy with that.

These people live a lonely life. They only want to learn if they agree with the "interpretation". I don't think that's learning at all.

 

[Belfoured]

These people live a lonely life. They only want to learn if they agree with the "interpretation". I don't think that's learning at all.

Any author who does not understand that their interpretation of historical events involves choices they make that another might reasonably choose differently is in the wrong line of work. The same with any author who thinks their conclusions are the only correct ones and are the "definitive" and unimpeachable resolution of the matter.

As for Smith's interpretation in C or P that was attacked in these forums, I would be happy to place those three pages before any objective panel that actually reads what Smith wrote and to place a wager on whether they believe that Smith asserted "falsehoods". The absolute irony is that anybody who knows Smith knows that he would never make such statements about an author whose interpretation he disagrees with in private, let alone in a public forum. And that's despite the fact that he has been published numerous times by reputable presses.

Inspector Callahan in Magnum Force: "A man's got to know his limitations ...."

 

[Rhea Cole]

I think that's probably true in most cases. I imagine academic publishers might want to maintain some professionalism. But what if a private publisher happens to share the same bias as a controversial author? Would he tend to overlook the unprofessionalism? Maybe he even thinks the controversy generates more interest, and thus profit?

I would think that any publisher would be horrified if he published a book in which the author made false accusations against a respected historian. But apparently no one bothered to check if Varney's multiple accusations against Woodworth about sole-sourcing Grant's Memoirs were actually true. Maybe the publisher enjoys the controversial nature of these anti-Grant authors. And it's alleged in this thread that the same publisher would have published the Rose book.

University presses may be concerned with standards and professionalism and reputation, but I'm not too sure about private presses. I think the private ones have their own priorities. Mainly profits.

There is an example of what happened when one of the premier military historians of the 20th Century's book was published by a vanity press.

I remember looking forward to John Keegan's Civil War history with great anticipation. His WWII are brilliant. His Civil War book is an example of why the LSU press, for example, has such a sterling reputation. Keegan desperately needed an editor… instead it was all about making a quick buck off of his name.

Don't take my word for it. Here is an excerpt from James McPherson review NY Times October 9, 2009.

"The analytical value of Keegan's geostrategic framework is marred by numerous errors that will leave readers confused and misinformed. I note this with regret, for I have learned a great deal from Keegan's writings. But he is not at top form in this book. Rivers are one of the most important geostrategic features he discusses. "The Ohio and its big tributaries, the Cumberland and the Tennessee," he writes, "form a line of moats protecting the central Upper South, while the Mississippi, with which they connect, denies the Union any hope of penetration." The reality was exactly the contrary. These navigable rivers were highways for Union naval and army task forces that pierced the Confederate heartland, capturing Nashville, New Orleans, Memphis and other important cities along with large parts of Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas."

What grade would you give a 6th grader who made that mistake?

The essential lesson is that without proper editing even a brilliant world class historian can come off as a doofus who doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Belfoured]

Short answer: it depends.

Some are practically a free for all, like History Press.

Some will publish apologia that aligns with their political agenda, like Regnery.

I think some are willing to publish a controversial and questionable book that is well-written and well-sourced. In other words: if you put a historical figure on trial and used the book as the prosecutions case, would the prosecutor get disbarred?

"Short answer: it depends."

That is the indisputably correct answer. "Private"/non-academic publishers is a very large umbrella with a wide range of practices, requirements, editorial control, etc. In fact, the level of review/oversight/control, etc can actually vary even among "academic" presses as well, not to mention trade publishers. The only thing we can say for certain is that these things are not required in self-publishing.

 

[Belfoured]

There is an example of what happened when one of the premier military historians of the 20th Century's book was published by a vanity press.

I remember looking forward to John Keegan's Civil War history with great anticipation. His WWII are brilliant. His Civil War book is an example of why the LSU press, for example, has such a sterling reputation. Keegan desperately needed an editor… instead it was all about making a quick buck off of his name.

Don't take my word for it. Here is an excerpt from James McPhereson review YY Times October 9, 2009.

"The analytical value of Keegan's geostrategic framework is marred by numerous errors that will leave readers confused and misinformed. I note this with regret, for I have learned a great deal from Keegan's writings. But he is not at top form in this book. Rivers are one of the most important geostrategic features he discusses. "The Ohio and its big tributaries, the Cumberland and the Tennessee," he writes, "form a line of moats protecting the central Upper South, while the Mississippi, with which they connect, denies the Union any hope of penetration." The reality was exactly the contrary. These navigable rivers were highways for Union naval and army task forces that pierced the Confederate heartland, capturing Nashville, New Orleans, Memphis and other important cities along with large parts of Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas."

What grade would you give a 6th grader who made that mistake?

The essential lesson is that without proper editing even a brilliant world class historian can come off as a doofus who doesn't know what he is talking about.

McPherson was actually being generous IMHO. Keegan's book has a lot of basic, puzzling mistakes. That's a great example of a trade publisher assuming that because Keegan was Keegan, there was no need for specialized review/editing but only a copy editor who could trim pages and keep things coherent. I understand how that could happen with a trade publisher ...

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

I did a quick peek at Wiki. General McClernand built an army and it was taken away from him by General Grant. That would tick me off too.

Does 20 regiments an army make?