Grant Grant Under Fire: A Question

[tony_gunter]

The notes for the paragraph:
OR 17:2:547, 866-867. OR 24:3:4. John McClernand to Abraham Lincoln, February 14 1863, Abraham Lincoln Papers, LOC. J.H. Wilson, Life of Rawlins, 116-117.

The paragraph comes after Rose criticizes Grants Memoirs for Grant claiming he never felt confident in the various measures that failed and that all winter he had been contemplating a way to get below Vicksburg by land. Rose argues in the quoted paragraph that McClernand knew all along how to successfully operate against Vicksburg, and that Grant should have consulted him.

That's similar but not the same. After reducing Port Hudson, Banks would have a limited number of troops but a surplus of transports. So McClernand's proposal assumes that Banks reduces Port Hudson quickly.

Grant had the opposite problem: an excess of troops and limited transportation. Grant lands at Young's Point and almost immediately proposes that he march down the West Bank. That idea certainly could have come from McClernand. Grant was open to ideas from all, and was terrible at attributing them to their source. If Rose is looking for more ammo, he can use the fact that Charles Hamilton was the source for the idea that became Grierson's Raid.

But by the time Grant landed at Young's Point the water was too high and rising. So he undertook other expeditions that would support the move once the river had fallen.

 

[Rhea Cole]

To be clear, the two books I've read are published by Westholme. I know them primarily as a top rate publisher of books on the AWI so I do not consider those "vanity publications". They publish authors such as Gary Ecelbarger, Gary Wheeler Stone, John Buchanan, Edward Lengel, Don Hagist, Mark Edward Lender, and Bert Dunkerly, among many others. That's a "who's who" in the AWI publishing area. Westholme and Savas Beatie are the two "go-to" niche publishers in that area. Night and day from the vanity publisher at issue here.

My little quip is completely smashed flat by the weight of your response.

 

[Belfoured]

My little quip is completely smashed flat by the weight of your response.

In all seriousness, if you are interested at any time in an AWI topic, Westholme and Savas Beatie are two excellent places to look. For example, Don Hagist is based in Providence RI but he is "the" recognized authority on the British foot soldier in the war and has done his "time" at the Archives in Kew UK. Savas Beatie is publisher of Michael Harris's definitive and soon-to-be-completed tactical trilogy on the 1777 Philadelphia Campaign. Both also welcome very good manuscripts from "newcomers". Matt Reardon's first book was published last year by Savas Beatie. It's the definitive modern, detailed, and objective study of Benedict Arnold's 1781 raid on New London for his "new" employer. When I read it I had difficulty believing it was Matt's first book - the writing, the research, and the analysis are that good.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Each corps had a cavalry regiment screening its advance.

Cavalry screen out, detected body of infantry two miles out, but the army was under strict orders not to risk a general engagement.

Had the equivalent of two cavalry regiments

It's not literally zero, but it's a pittance. Yes, a regiment of cavalry can chase away lookouts and uncover ambushes. But it's going to fall back in the face of any meaningful resistance.

Contrast that to the force of cavalry, on either side, during the Gettysburg Campaign, Overland Campaign, or Chickamauga Campaign. Brigades or Divisions, not Regiments.

 

[TallTallMan]

Because McClernand was a potato.

The mental image that brought up was disturbing.

 

[Belfoured]

The mental image that brought up was disturbing.

Well, looks like there's a shirt for that:

Mr Potato Head Beards Rule Youth T-Shirt

Shop for the Mr Potato Head Beards Rule Youth T-Shirt today. This is an officially licensed Mr Potato Head Youth T-Shirt available at Stylin Online now.

www.stylinonline.com

 

[TallTallMan]

Well, looks like there's a shirt for that:

Mr Potato Head Beards Rule Youth T-Shirt

Shop for the Mr Potato Head Beards Rule Youth T-Shirt today. This is an officially licensed Mr Potato Head Youth T-Shirt available at Stylin Online now.

www.stylinonline.com

I love the internet.

 

[Belfoured]

I love the internet.

Imagine NOT relieving thus guy in June 1863 ....

 

[TallTallMan]

@Skeptical Advocate It looks like you're never getting an answer.

 

[Bryce]

Joseph Rose submitted his manuscript to Ted Savas but Ted wanted it to be shorter. So Joe published the book on his own, which I think was a mistake.

I thought the manuscript should be publishedin two volumes. I was troubled that 2/3 of the book dealt with Grant in the West. That didn't leave much space for the eastern campaigns. Joseph practically ignores the siege of Petersburg.

 

[rbasin]

The only thing I'll say about Grant and the corruption trials if his friends was that Grant claimed his whole life to have a photographic memory, but at the trial, could t remember anything.

Also if memory serves, Grant did buy that home with money from donation right?

 

[Bryce]

That is not true. What is important is the quality of the source(s), and any verification or contradiction. There are many single-source assertions in the literature, some of which are simply untrue.

Dear 67th Tigers,

This man isn't really questioning Joseph's sources. He's really attacking Joseph because he is criticizing grant. That's what's been happening ever since the book 1st appeared. The grant lunatics have been t frothing at the mouth ever since the book appeared. You should see some of the other reactions. They're really bad

This is not a vanity book at all. Joseph offered the book to Ted Savas but Ted wanted to cut large sections of the book to make it shorter. Actually, I thought it should've been a two volume but because 2/3 of the volume. Of the volume are devoted to grant and his battles in the west. This left very little space for the campaigns in the east. Since my specialty is the siege of Petersburg, I was disappointed that not many pages were devoted to it.

 

[Belfoured]

Dear 67th Tigers,

This man isn't really questioning Joseph's sources. He's really attacking Joseph because he is criticizing grant. That's what's been happening ever since the book 1st appeared. The grant lunatics have been t frothing at the mouth ever since the book appeared. You should see some of the other reactions. They're really bad

This is not a vanity book at all. Joseph offered the book to Ted Savas but Ted wanted to cut large sections of the book to make it shorter. Actually, I thought it should've been a two volume but because 2/3 of the volume. Of the volume are devoted to grant and his battles in the west. This left very little space for the campaigns in the east. Since my specialty is the siege of Petersburg, I was disappointed that not many pages were devoted to it.

Is it your contention that any criticism of Rose's book by anybody means that the critic is a "grant lunatic"?

 

[DanSBHawk]

Dear 67th Tigers,

This man isn't really questioning Joseph's sources. He's really attacking Joseph because he is criticizing grant. That's what's been happening ever since the book 1st appeared. The grant lunatics have been t frothing at the mouth ever since the book appeared. You should see some of the other reactions. They're really bad

This is not a vanity book at all. Joseph offered the book to Ted Savas but Ted wanted to cut large sections of the book to make it shorter. Actually, I thought it should've been a two volume but because 2/3 of the volume. Of the volume are devoted to grant and his battles in the west. This left very little space for the campaigns in the east. Since my specialty is the siege of Petersburg, I was disappointed that not many pages were devoted to it.

The problem is not the books sources - it's what the author did with the sources. Is it really History? or is it a biased hatchet-job?

I think it would be interesting for someone to write a historiography of Grant critics. I know Joan Waugh's book went a little into the Grant historiography, but it didn't go very deep into it. There are several different strains of Grant critics going back to the war. Some were motivated by politics, some were southerners, some were rival generals, some were fans of other armies jealous of the renown of Grant and the Army of the Tennessee.

Of these last, I wonder if advocates of the Army of the Cumberland were the worst. Sherman called them "curs" and "coyotes" and said that had George Thomas lived, he wouldn't have had anything to do with them. A guy named Bob Redman brought this strain of Grant critic into the internet age, and I think some of the modern Grant critics who are Thomas/Rosecrans fans have probably been influenced by Redman to some degree.

So there is a long history of biased authors writing anti-Grant hatchet jobs. Most readers can tell the difference between quality history and hatchet-jobs, so the hatchet-jobs never become very influential in the Grant historiography. No credible scholar would recommend Grant Under Fire as an accurate book to learn about Grant.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Dear 67th Tigers,

This man isn't really questioning Joseph's sources. He's really attacking Joseph because he is criticizing grant. That's what's been happening ever since the book 1st appeared. The grant lunatics have been t frothing at the mouth ever since the book appeared. You should see some of the other reactions. They're really bad

This is not a vanity book at all. Joseph offered the book to Ted Savas but Ted wanted to cut large sections of the book to make it shorter. Actually, I thought it should've been a two volume but because 2/3 of the volume. Of the volume are devoted to grant and his battles in the west. This left very little space for the campaigns in the east. Since my specialty is the siege of Petersburg, I was disappointed that not many pages were devoted to it.

FYI: In the trade ANY SELF PUBLISHED BOOK IS CATEGORIZED AS
A "VANITY BOOK." The content, author, category such as children's book or meditations does not figure in. In this thread, the term "vanity" is mistaken for some kind of judgement of the author or content of the publication. That could hardly be further from the truth. It is merely the book selling industry's way of categorizing self published volumes vs books offered by publishing houses, e.g., Random House, University of Louisiana Press, Savas Beaty, etc.

What is the difference between a vanity history & a peer reviewed volume published by the University of Louisiana Press? It has been stated several times that the author of the Grant critique in question refused to allow Savas Beaty to edit his book.

By contrast, my good friend the award winning historian spent eight years doing original research & writing his soon to be published book. From the time LSU Press' committee chose to publish his book until last month when they began typesetting it was 18 months. Three complete edits reduced it to (+/-) half of its original sized. The final pre publication edit cut out an additional percentage. The author's next project is another book that will be largely based on the edited research & writing. It took him (+/-) two months to write the notes & index. Every sentence in that book has been gone over with meticulous care by acknowledged scholars.

That goes a long way toward explaining why Pulitzer Prize winning author Ron Chernow's 900 page biography of Grant is regularly rated as the best book on the subject. Imagine how many pages were edited out of a 900 page manuscript. That also goes a long way toward explaining why Rose's "vanity" book is only favorably discussed by 3 or 4 individuals in our little corner of the internet.

 

[Rhea Cole]

The problem is not the books sources - it's what the author did with the sources. Is it really History? or is it a biased hatchet-job?

I think it would be interesting for someone to write a historiography of Grant critics. I know Joan Waugh's book went a little into the Grant historiography, but it didn't go very deep into it. There are several different strains of Grant critics going back to the war. Some were motivated by politics, some were southerners, some were rival generals, some were fans of other armies jealous of the renown of Grant and the Army of the Tennessee.

Of these last, I wonder if advocates of the Army of the Cumberland were the worst. Sherman called them "curs" and "coyotes" and said that had George Thomas lived, he wouldn't have had anything to do with them. A guy named Bob Redman brought this strain of Grant critic into the internet age, and I think some of the modern Grant critics who are Thomas/Rosecrans fans have probably been influenced by Redman to some degree.

So there is a long history of biased authors writing anti-Grant hatchet jobs. Most readers can tell the difference between quality history and hatchet-jobs, so the hatchet-jobs never become very influential in the Grant historiography. No credible scholar would recommend Grant Under Fire as an accurate book to learn about Grant.

You have that right. The few reviews of Grant Under Fire I have been able to find are scathing. There is a great deal of excellent scholarship about Grant that would be a better use of a reader's time.

 

[TallTallMan]

Joseph Rose submitted his manuscript to Ted Savas but Ted wanted it to be shorter. So Joe published the book on his own, which I think was a mistake.

I thought the manuscript should be publishedin two volumes. I was troubled that 2/3 of the book dealt with Grant in the West. That didn't leave much space for the eastern campaigns. Joseph practically ignores the siege of Petersburg.

I had no idea. Thanks for the info!

 

[TallTallMan]

The problem is not the books sources - it's what the author did with the sources. Is it really History? or is it a biased hatchet-job?

I think it would be interesting for someone to write a historiography of Grant critics. I know Joan Waugh's book went a little into the Grant historiography, but it didn't go very deep into it. There are several different strains of Grant critics going back to the war. Some were motivated by politics, some were southerners, some were rival generals, some were fans of other armies jealous of the renown of Grant and the Army of the Tennessee.

Of these last, I wonder if advocates of the Army of the Cumberland were the worst. Sherman called them "curs" and "coyotes" and said that had George Thomas lived, he wouldn't have had anything to do with them. A guy named Bob Redman brought this strain of Grant critic into the internet age, and I think some of the modern Grant critics who are Thomas/Rosecrans fans have probably been influenced by Redman to some degree.

So there is a long history of biased authors writing anti-Grant hatchet jobs. Most readers can tell the difference between quality history and hatchet-jobs, so the hatchet-jobs never become very influential in the Grant historiography. No credible scholar would recommend Grant Under Fire as an accurate book to learn about Grant.

Huh, I'd never heard of this guy before.

Bring Thomas Home

A photographic essay and plea to restore General George H. Thomas to his rightful place in our nation's history

americancivilwar.com

 

[DanSBHawk]

Huh, I'd never heard of this guy before.

You can tell he was around during the early days of the web with that domain name. Another site that he ran was AOTC.net. He may have had more, I don't know. But in those days, if I was searching info on a battle or a person, I kept getting his sites in the results. I finally learned to avoid his sites because they so partisan. Rah-rah for the Army of the Cumberland and hatred of Grant and Sherman.

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

@Skeptical Advocate It looks like you're never getting an answer.

Not in this thread. In any case, the point's been made. No amount of obfuscation or diverting attention can change that.

My work is done.