Grant A different "Grant as a Soldier"

[67th Tigers]

A paper read by Theodore Dodge before the Military Historical Society of Massachusetts:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hx4m7e;view=1up;seq=39

 

[RobertP]

Good stuff. The pattern of Grant being regarded early on as an uninspired plodder is beginning to emerge. Watch for the skeleton hunt in the Lt. Col. Dodge's closet.

 

[Rebforever]

Good stuff. The pattern of Grant being regarded early on as an uninspired plodder is beginning to emerge. Watch for the skeleton hunt in the Lt. Col. Dodge's closet.

I agree.

 

[matthew mckeon]

According to Wikipedia, Dodge fought in the Army of the Potomac, until losing a leg at Gettysburg. He then transferred into the Regular Army(!) before retiring, pursuing a twin career manufacturing firehose and historic writing. He wrote several books of military subjects, including A Bird's Eye View of the Civil War. His wartime military journals have been published, edited by Stephen Sears

He was educated at the University of Heidelberg, famous for dueling scars, Wikipedia says a "military education" without elaborating.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Lately any thread concerning General Grant seems to create a lot of heat.

If you have something to post, please make it a contribution to the thread, not a provocation.

 

[Rebforever]

According to Wikipedia, Dodge fought in the Army of the Potomac, until losing a leg at Gettysburg. He then transferred into the Regular Army(!) before retiring, pursuing a twin career manufacturing firehose and historic writing. He wrote several books of military subjects, including A Bird's Eye View of the Civil War. His wartime military journals have been published, edited by Stephen Sears

He was educated at the University of Heidelberg, famous for dueling scars, Wikipedia says a "military education" without elaborating.

Seems to me Dodge is making an observation and writes down what he saw. That is good.

 

[David Moore]

This post is part of an assemblage and presentation of critical 19th century opinion of Grant. One needn't agree with all or any of the authors's assessments or opinions but it is important to know they exist.

 

[contestedground]

We've been here before. Most interesting is that Dodge and Alexander often disagree, in part because Alexander's more concerned with the West (and McClernand) while Dodge's more interested with the East. That said, this is little more than a review of Badeau's second and third volume.

 

[David Moore]

We've been here before. Most interesting is that Dodge and Alexander often disagree, in part because Alexander's more concerned with the West (and McClernand) while Dodge's more interested with the East. That said, this is little more than a review of Badeau's second and third volume.

But a critical review hence its importance and reason for interest. Any idea of it's cited by the main Grant biographers of the last 25-30 years?

 

[David Moore]

But a critical review hence its importance and reason for interest. Any idea if it's cited by the main Grant biographers of the last 25-30 years?

 

[wausaubob]

Since Grant became a politician, there was abundant criticism of everything he did. How could a person with even slight interest in his career not know that the criticism existed?

 

[wausaubob]

And why is it important to spend time on this criticism? Although the people who engaged in history might be judged by the morals of their time, to some extent, this person Dodge was not a participant, but a commentator. His commentary must be judged by its rational content.
Why is this particular person important, but say Grenville Dodge, and William T. Sherman not equally or more important?

 

[contestedground]

But a critical review hence its importance and reason for interest. Any idea of it's cited by the main Grant biographers of the last 25-30 years?

You might try to answer your own question. But here we go again.

 

[Burning Billy]

Dodge wrote a fantastic military biography of Hannibal that is still worth a read today.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0306813629/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

I don't agree with his assessment of Grant, but he was no hack.

 

[contestedground]

And why is it important to spend time on this criticism? Although the people who engaged in history might be judged by the morals of their time, to some extent, this person Dodge was not a participant, but a commentator. His commentary must be judged by its rational content.
Why is this particular person important, but say Grenville Dodge, and William T. Sherman not equally or more important?

Precisely. And then we'd have to ask why, if we are asked to spend so much time here on criticism, why don't we spend the same time and energy on praise?

Dodge actually says some very positive things about Grant, as anyone who actually reads the article will see, but I have heard nothing about that. He also trashed McClernand, Alexander's little hero.

 

[contestedground]

Everyone knows that Grant had his 19th century critics. To claim otherwise is to construct a strawman that in truth is a dishonest representation of what people know.

 

[David Moore]

Since Grant became a politician, there was abundant criticism of everything he did. How could a person with even slight interest in his career not know that the criticism existed?

The Dodge article actually praises Grant as among the greatest of Americans. It's criticism is strictly of his military career. Thus the title of the article.

 

[David Moore]

"Agreement " with a source is not the issue, rather, like any source used for any topic: it must be examined. Does it cross-check with other contemporaries? Does it align with other documents regarding the time and place?

But it appears to have been overlooked by most (all?) recent biographers. A source has to be presented and known before it can be fairly criticized.

 

[DanSBHawk]

This is a far more tempered and reasonable criticism of Grant than the Alexander book. There is definitely a bit of eastern theater vs western theater bias on the part of this author. Some of his details of western battles are a little off. And like Contested Ground mentioned, he definitely has a problem with Badeau's writing on Grant.

But it's not an entirely negative sketch of Grant. In fact, this book contains sketches of several generals, both confederate and union, and some of the writing is far more negative. Here is the final sentences of the Grant article compared to the final sentences of the McClellan article:

Grant:
Though he may not have shown the
salient qualities of a Bonaparte, a Wellington, or a Von
Moltke, he is none the less part of the history of this country,
and he will justly go down to posterity as the man who,
through good and ill fortune alike, unflinchingly bore the
banners of the North, despite many a doubtful hour, to a final
happy issue. He deservedly ranks as one of the greatest of
Americans.

McClellan:
It is impossible to
get up much sympathy for General McClellan. And we do
not think that this book of his will raise him in the opinion
of his countrymen.

 

[David Moore]

Precisely. And then we'd have to ask why, if we are asked to spend so much time here on criticism, why don't we spend the same time and energy on praise?

Dodge actually says some very positive things about Grant, as anyone who actually reads the article will see, but I have heard nothing about that. He also trashed McClernand, Alexander's little hero.

Because the 19th century criticism is little known and rarely cited. Praise of Grant on the other hand is plentiful on this site and in almost recent biographies.