veritasbulldog82
Retired User
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2018
I am looking to find a good biography of U.S. Grant. I am not a big fan of Ron Chernow because I don't trust his objectivity. Anyone have some suggestions?
I am looking to find a good biography of U.S. Grant. I am not a big fan of Ron Chernow because I don't trust his objectivity. Anyone have some suggestions?
The most balanced Grant biography remains McFeely's. It's sympathetic to Grant, but not overly so.
That's a false statement.
That's a false statement.
The OP wanted a non-hagiographic biography of Grant. McFeely's was the last biography to really consider Grant's flaws.
I am looking to find a good biography of U.S. Grant. I am not a big fan of Ron Chernow because I don't trust his objectivity. Anyone have some suggestions?
McFeely's book was a hatchet job. It didn't consider Giant's faults, it manufactured them.
McFeely mishandled evidence throughout the book. It's a poor example of biography.
Last time this came up the best example with was a dispute about an account of an conversation Grant's brother had.
Whilst of course a few points could be disputed, and there are a few typos, there is no evidence of anything like what you allege. If there was I think Simpson's 1987 paper would have found it. As it was he could provide a few counterarguments, but for one of them Simpson claims Grant was unaware that the Federal Army suffered casualties for two days after the 3rd July assault at Cold Harbor. If that's true it speaks to something else, but it obviously isn't. For another the fact that Grant decided he didn't want to sleep in an active hospital with the pools of blood and amputations occurring it his prospective bedroom is mustered as evidence of Grant not being indifferent to the plight of the wounded. They are not great counterarguments.
McFeely's book is obviously not a hatchet job. Yes, you don't like McFeely shining a light into a dark corner, but that's why McFeely is important.
Don’t limit yourself to one book. Grant is an important figure in US history and his military reputation has waxed and waned over the last 150 years. Ultimately one reads for ones’s own education.
You have to decide how much you want to know about him.
Pure baloney. Brooks Simpson wrote two articles detailing McFeely's mishandling of evidence.
Really? There is only one listed in Simpson's publication list, his 1987 paper. It certainly contains no suggestion of "mishandling of evidence", but rather a weak attempt to provide a counterargument by overconcluding from a few references. Is there a second paper that he doesn't put on his publication list?
Well, I don't know where you pulled this alleged publication list from. I simply read what he wrote. If by "his 1987 paper" you mean the article in Civil War History titled "Butcher? Racist? An Examination of William S. McFeely's Grant: A Biography," you haven't told the truth about all the problems identified in the article. The article is filled with corrections to McFeely's fumbles.
Well, I don't know where you pulled this alleged publication list from.
I simply read what he wrote. If by "his 1987 paper"
you haven't told the truth about all the problems identified in the article. The article is filled with corrections to McFeely's fumbles.
He wrote another article that answered McFeely's inaccuracies in Civil War History in 1990 titled " 'The Doom of Slavery': Ulysses S. Grant, War Aims, and Emancipation, 1861-1863."