Grant Best book on Grant (as a commander)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I take it that the book in question had two historians working on it, which Mr. Moore wants you to forget. Perhaps that's because the other historian is Brooks Simpson. I don't think Castel would have entrusted the completion of his last work to someone whom he did not respect and admire. Yet Moore wants to erase Simpson's contribution from the record. Why?
Simpson in a conversation with me on his blog wrote me that the Victors book -or its conclusions- was essentially Castel's and he was called in to help out. (My memory could be hazy on details but I'm pretty sure that's the case.) Because that is my recollection I have not mentioned Simpson much. There is also that "courageous" issue I wouldn't want to imply that because Simpson hasn't written a Rosecrans biography he isn't courageous. He may just not like WSR. John Y. Simon wrote Frank Varney that he just didn't like Rosecrans. Clearly of all the current Grant biographies Simpson's are the most academic. I have some objections but a serious student of Grant needs to read them.
 
I don't quite
Rawlins often was less than truthful about Grant and their relationship particularly to his friends. On the specific subject of Grant drunk in Chattanooga, I have no special knowledge. Grant apparently got drunk easily on small amounts of liquor, so it is certainly possible that he got drunk in Chattanooga.
I don't quite get the animosity toward Rawlins. One could say he sacrificed himself for USG. The Chattanooga letter is written in a very caring way. Btw I don't hate Grant. I actually sympathize with a man who was put in a position thrust him that he really never sought. Again the key is Washburne. Of course I think he treated WSR badly.
 
You seem to recall? The master of scholarship does not address this issue specifically? In at least one case you are absolutely wrong, and that suggests volumes about the reliability of your other statements.



This may be the most arrogant statement I've read on this newsgroup.
Speaking in riddles again. Spit it out.
 
Simpson in a conversation with me on his blog wrote me that the Victors book -or its conclusions- was essentially Castel's and he was called in to help out. (My memory could be hazy on details but I'm pretty sure that's the case.) Because that is my recollection I have not mentioned Simpson much. There is also that "courageous" issue I wouldn't want to imply that because Simpson hasn't written a Rosecrans biography he isn't courageous. He may just not like WSR. John Y. Simon wrote Frank Varney that he just didn't like Rosecrans. Clearly of all the current Grant biographies Simpson's are the most academic. I have some objections but a serious student of Grant needs to read them.

So Simpson helped to bring to publication a book which in some particulars contained arguments with which he might have disagreed?
 
And the review doesn't mention Hamilton Fish, either. You do understand how a review functions, right? Review essays are about historical literature. If you don't understand that, then I assess your chiding other posters about their understanding of scholarship accordingly.
So who do you think was more important in the rise of US Grant as a public figure Washburne or Fish? Could Grant have survived his terrible 1862 without Washburne? Cadwallader Washburn and Joseph Medill said no.
 
Not even Grant had a conception of how things were going to work at that point.

Grant knew he would take Vicksburg.

And the lack of understanding of what Grant was doing was part of the problem -- which is why CC asked his brother to come visit Grant and try to figure out what he was doing.

I don't think Elihu did that, did he?


Not quite.
He claimed Grant was "frittering away time & strength to no purpose." Grant had a purpose.

He said of Grant, "You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

"Public opinion also turned against Grant, abetted by grumbling from the occasional officer with too much time on his hands. Brigadier General Cadwallader Washburn, an officer in McPherson's corps, wrote to his brother Elihu, who was Grant's chief congressional supporter, that the Vicksburg campaign was being badly managed." [Jean Edward Smith, Grant, p. 230]

Yep. Disloyal backstabber. Grant was his commanding officer, and if he had a problem with what was going on, he owed it to Grant to go to him and ask him to his face what was happening.

I think you are wrong. From Simpson's book (after discussing how Elihu shared CC's letter with Chase, who shared it with Lincoln): "Even Grant's old patron had lost faith in his man."

But did Elihu withdraw his support from Grant? I don't think he did.
 
I take it that the book in question had two historians working on it, which Mr. Moore wants you to forget. Perhaps that's because the other historian is Brooks Simpson. I don't think Castel would have entrusted the completion of his last work to someone whom he did not respect and admire. Yet Moore wants to erase Simpson's contribution from the record. Why?

Not the only thing that's been attempted to be hidden.
 
My impression is that you do indeed cherry-pick, given your selective rendering of the world of Grant scholarship. If you have read as much as possible, and yet ignore the work of several historians in your assessments offered here, what are we to conclude?

Exactly. The best way to avoid cherrypicking is to not cherrypick. It doesn't matter how widely one reads if one only cites carefully selected portions.
 
You have been so free and open to admonish me for not being a"serious student" of Grant, yet you avoid the most basic query that pertains to this thread: what 21st century Grant Biogaphy have you read, David?

I specifically couch the query in terms of century, because the PUG were not completed until the early 200o's.

Step up and answer the question, David, as I have patiently tolerated your insults pertaining to my choice of biographies and to me, personally,spread over two threads.
Evan Jones', Castel's and Ballard's works are all 21st century. The PUSG started coming out in 1967. The volumes covering the period through the war were all in print by 1988. ( I would consider the PUSG 19th century sources.)
I am interested in Grant almost exclusively for his relationship with Rosecrans. I have read the relevant parts in all the recent biographies and found them incomplete. Chernow's biography doesn't seem to me to be much of a military biography. It raises some of the controversies in Grant's military career but doesn't discuss them in much detail. The Smith book is even worse in this regard.
Now to my alleged insults. I think you said you were very well informed on Iuka. I asked you what primary source research you had done and you took that as an insult. I consider myself pretty well informed on Iuka. I have been to over thirty research libraries looking for info on Iuka and other Rosecrans related items. I have been to the libraries at Corinth and Shiloh- among other places- looking for eye witness accounts. I have found things that have never been published. That is the standard I would expect of someone claiming to be well informed on any subject. I'm not bragging I'm just relating what I have done and continue to do. I hope to get to Minnesota this year and revisit libraries in Michigan. Of course UCLA is always beckoning to me even though it's 3000 miles away.
 
I have tired of this refrain. It really doesn't matter to you whether someone else has done the research you insist they must do ... it is whether they agree with you. You have deliberately overlooked the findings of scholars who have read Washburne's correspondence because they do not concur with your opinions. That's a dishonest practice, and I can understand who someone might question the credibility of someone who engages in such misrepresentation of the historiography in order to promote their own labors.
Again no examples just accusations.
 
Simpson in a conversation with me on his blog wrote me that the Victors book -or its conclusions- was essentially Castel's and he was called in to help out. (My memory could be hazy on details but I'm pretty sure that's the case.)

I would think someone who made those posts wouldn't want to mention them, as they don't reflect very well.

https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/forthcoming-part-two-of-two/


Because that is my recollection I have not mentioned Simpson much. There is also that "courageous" issue I wouldn't want to imply that because Simpson hasn't written a Rosecrans biography he isn't courageous. He may just not like WSR.

I think is comments at the above link belie that speculation.
 
Grant gave up on tactics early in the war. He concentrated on geography, and logistics and tried as hard to keep in touch with what Halleck knew about the changing rules of war with respect to the freedmen.
With respect to the freedmen and the soldiers, for that matter, the conditions along the Mississippi in 1863 with respect to disease and hunger have never been fully captured, in my mind.
The 10 points are idiotically irrelevant compared to the thousands that were dying from bad water and poor diet.
 
I am interested in Grant almost exclusively for his relationship with Rosecrans. I have read the relevant parts in all the recent biographies and found them incomplete. Chernow's biography doesn't seem to me to be much of a military biography.

In other words, you are judging these biographies based on cherry-picked snippets that appeal to your interest, alone. Gotcha.

You are in no place to be judging me as "a serious student" or these biographies that you merely scan.

Now to my alleged insults. I think you said you were very well informed on Iuka. I asked you what primary source research you had done and you took that as an insult. I consider myself pretty well informed on Iuka. I have been to over thirty research libraries looking for info on Iuka and other Rosecrans related items. I have been to the libraries at Corinth and Shiloh- among other places- looking for eye witness accounts. I have found things that have never been published. That is the standard I would expect of someone claiming to be well informed on any subject. I'm not bragging I'm just relating what I have done and continue to do. I hope to get to Minnesota this year and revisit libraries in Michigan. Of course UCLA is always beckoning to me even though it's 3000 miles away.

I said that I had read quite a bit on Iuka; I did not claim to be a scholar of the subject. I was summarily dismissed by you because I had not visited some far-flung repository and read a pile of soldiers letters. Get it right, David. Unlike you, I do not pose to be a scholar, judge the works of others, and judge others by what they have read, without actually reading the material first. I am a modest individual. I try not to judge others, and I certainly do not try to elevate myself by listing all of the places I have visited. Who cares? I am not trying to compete with you, yet you feel the need to belittle my efforts by boasting your "resume".

By the by, for someone who imposes "expectations" upon another "That is the standard I would expect of someone claiming to be well informed on any subject", I would expect YOU to have at least read the Grant biographies in full, before you summarily dismiss them. Perhaps my standards are too high?
 
Last edited:
In other words, you are judging these biographies based on cherry-picked snippets that appeal to your interest, alone. Gotcha.

You are in no place to be judging me as "a serious student" or these biographies that you merely scan.



I said that I had read quite a bit on Iuka; I did not claim to be a scholar of the subject. I was summarily dismissed by you because I had not visited some far-flung repository and read a pile of soldiers letters. Get it right, David. Unlike you, I do not pose to be a scholar, judge the works of others, and judge others by what they have read, without actually reading the material first. I am a modest individual. I try not to judge others, and I certainly do not try to elevate myself by listing all of the places I have visited. Who cares? I am not trying to compete with you, yet you feel the need to belittle my efforts by boasting your "resume".

By the by, for someone who poses "expectations" upon another "That is the standard I would expect of someone claiming to be well informed on any subject", I would expect YOU to have at least read the Grant biographies in full, before you summarily dismiss them. Perhaps my standards are too high?
My inte
In other words, you are judging these biographies based on cherry-picked snippets that appeal to your interest, alone. Gotcha.

You are in no place to be judging me as "a serious student" or these biographies that you merely scan.



I said that I had read quite a bit on Iuka; I did not claim to be a scholar of the subject. I was summarily dismissed by you because I had not visited some far-flung repository and read a pile of soldiers letters. Get it right, David. Unlike you, I do not pose to be a scholar, judge the works of others, and judge others by what they have read, without actually reading the material first. I am a modest individual. I try not to judge others, and I certainly do not try to elevate myself by listing all of the places I have visited. Who cares? I am not trying to compete with you, yet you feel the need to belittle my efforts by boasting your "resume".

By the by, for someone who poses "expectations" upon another "That is the standard I would expect of someone claiming to be well informed on any subject", I would expect YOU to have at least read the Grant biographies in full, before you summarily dismiss them. Perhaps my standards are too high?
"A pile of soldier letters." At least you didn't call the author of one of them " a poor sap" like one of the Grant cabal did. I will not be ashamed or apologize for visiting "far flung libraries." May I ask what you have read on Iuka aside from Brooks Simpson, White and Chernow? But let us end this. You don't like what I write ( even though I don't think you've actually read the book I've written.) Let me repeat: I have no desire to convert the Grant fans. I only want to present what I've found in the pile of letters in far flung libraries and warn newcomers to this site that there is a lot of misinformation on it. It's probably a hopeless task. Let's also be frank almost all book authors have been driven from this site although there is a suspicion that a pretty well known historian posts under pseudonyms. Perhaps he's embarrassed to have his name associated with the site.
 
May I ask what you have read on Iuka aside from Brooks Simpson, White and Chernow? But let us end this

I answered this same question by showing you the thread that I started on the topic of Iuka:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/iuka-a-tale-of-two-views.126946/#post-1383071

I just realized that it was Ned Baldwin that really got me started on Iuka -- Thanks @NedBaldwin !

( even though I don't think you've actually read the book I've written.)

Correct (and you will note that I say nothing good or bad about this book that I have not read). I am knee-deep in Alan Nevins Hamilton Fish & John Marszalek's Annotated Memoirs of Ulysses S Grant --that is enough to keep me busy for months.

Let's also be frank almost all book authors have been driven from this site although there is a suspicion that a pretty well known historian posts under pseudonyms. Perhaps he's embarrassed to have his name associated with the site.

I do not care if Daffy Duck is posting under the name of Porky Pig: as long as the information is valuable and accurate, I will take it from wherever I can find it. As an aside: there are many reasons to post under pseudonyms; I have come to understand this over my recent two years on social media.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top