magicman101
Cadet
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
For Grant Biographies in addition to Chernow's and White's is Mcfeely's bio pretty good as well?
If I were to read one book on Grant, which one should I read - and why that particlar book? (And reversely, are there any real stinkers that should be avioded?)
I would prefer a book that focus on Grant's Civil war years, his generalship, G as a commander, but appreciate views on books with a broader scope.
McFeely has not stood up well to the test of time. Other historians, such as Brooks Simpson, have found flaws in his work.For Grant Biographies in addition to Chernow's and White's is Mcfeely's bio pretty good as well?
This is not true, unless by "informed" you mean a reader needs to be exposed to every falsehood pertaining to Grant.Anyone who hasn’t read Varney’s or Rose’s books can’t really consider himself informed on Grant.
Ignorance may be bliss but it’s not conducive to being informed. Education should be about broadening one’s perspective.
For a readable summary of the “revisionist” look at Grant one should read Victors in Blue by Albert Castel.
The two best ones are:
1. General Grant and the Rewriting of History by Dr. Frank Varney.
2. Grant Under Fire by Joseph Rose.
Im not telling anyone not to read any book.
Depends on what means as a commander both certainly discuss Grant’s actions and decisions while in command.Actually, neither of these books is about Grant as a commander, although sometimes the authors offer their opinions about Grant.
I don’t see how anyone can consider themselves a serious CW student without having read it.
One could also read 19th century accounts about Grant - available on line- but the easy way to get introduced to an against the 20 th century consensus take on Grant (and other generals) is Victors in Blue. I don’t see how anyone can consider themselves a serious CW student without having read it.
He knew to write the story would invite scorn.
The author of Victors raises questions about Grant vs other generals specifically Rosecrans. He states his desire for a historian to write a biography of Rosecrans which tells me questions were raised in his mind about the accepted story. He had already come to a somewhat negative assessment of Sherman’s military career. Most interestingly Castel calls for a courageous historian. He knew to write the story would invite scorn.