Grant Grant Under Fire: A Question

[TallTallMan]

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.

I was a baby then, but I wish I could've been there at the Golden Age of the Internet. Rotov, Wittenberg, Levin, S*mpson, Epperson, etc. Now it's all different.

 

[TallTallMan]

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.

I'm actually losing track of all these threads. One of those "blow-ups" again.

 

[wausaubob]

I haven't read this thread in great detail. But of all things going on in the early Reconstruction era to waste time with this humorless, narrowly focused criticism of Grant is tedious in the extreme. 1. Getting the national railroad finished despite the early and massive corruption on east to west portion named the Union Pacific, 2. Getting the national debt refinanced with the goal eventually achieved of returning to the gold standard, 3. Getting the civil rights amendments passed, 4. establishing a permanent working relationship with the British empire, 5. getting the French out of Mexico, which was not done with any spirit of co-operation by the French, and several more issues more important that the accusations made against General and President Grant. 19th century politics was corrupt. Get over it. If the topic expanded to create a context for Grant's actions that would be interesting.

 

[David Moore]

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.

Could you post links to those reviews?

 

[David Moore]

So is the point that a question about documentation regarding Grant's post Civil War career makes everything else in Joseph Rose's book false? Aren't most people on this site because of Civil War topics? Shouldn't Rose's discussion of Grant's military career be of more interest?
Dan Hawk on April 14 2025 posted an erroneous citation from a document he presumably found on line.
He apparently did not know the citation transposed words that reversed the actual meaning of the citation. This in turn indicates to me a lack of knowledge on his part of the broader relevant topic. Does this mistake render everything Mr Hawk has posted on this site or elsewhere erroneous?

Anyone interested on the specifics can find it in the recent thread entitled Rosecrans posts 61, 80 and 81.

 

[TallTallMan]

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

An angry reaction is the typical response to a hatchet job. Look at its title: Grant Under Fire. That implies you're "firing" on somebody--note how a list of Grant's good points lasted a short paragraph. Rose makes a few good points, but overall it is Rose grinding the axe. In fact, the book had the opposite effect on me: I was a big Grant critic until I read the book, as I'm sure many posters here remember.

 

[TallTallMan]

So is the point that a question about documentation regarding Grant's post Civil War career makes everything else in Joseph Rose's book false? Aren't most people on this site because of Civil War topics? Shouldn't Rose's discussion of Grant's military career be of more interest?
Dan Hawk on April 14 2025 posted an erroneous citation from a document he presumably found on line.
He apparently did not know the citation transposed words that reversed the actual meaning of the citation. This in turn indicates to me a lack of knowledge on his part of the broader relevant topic. Does this mistake render everything Mr Hawk has posted on this site or elsewhere erroneous?

Anyone interested on the specifics can find it in the recent thread entitled Rosecrans posts 61, 80 and 81.

Rose has been telling us for years to distrust every ACW military historian because he disagrees with their interpretations.

 

[DanSBHawk]

So is the point that a question about documentation regarding Grant's post Civil War career makes everything else in Joseph Rose's book false? Aren't most people on this site because of Civil War topics? Shouldn't Rose's discussion of Grant's military career be of more interest?
Dan Hawk on April 14 2025 posted an erroneous citation from a document he presumably found on line.
He apparently did not know the citation transposed words that reversed the actual meaning of the citation. This in turn indicates to me a lack of knowledge on his part of the broader relevant topic. Does this mistake render everything Mr Hawk has posted on this site or elsewhere erroneous?

Anyone interested on the specifics can find it in the recent thread entitled Rosecrans posts 61, 80 and 81.

Well, I wasted my time and found these posts. You're wrong. The meaning wasn't reversed. Both versions had question marks at the end, so it would be like me asking "It is possible that David Moore is nitpicking?" versus "Is it possible that David Moore is nitpicking?"

 

[wausaubob]

You should be so lucky. He was never divorced. His children all lived to adulthood. When financial disaster struck, like the cinematic George Bailey, his friends and the public bailed out his soon to be widow. He died in bed surrounded by his family after getting enough content in his autobiography to make it his. How many Presidents served two full terms without getting caught up in a foreign war?

 

[David Moore]

Rose has been telling us for years to distrust every ACW military historian because he disagrees

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.

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

Well, I wasted my time and found these posts. You're wrong. The meaning wasn't reversed. Both versions had question marks at the end, so it would be like me asking "It is possible that David Moore is nitpicking?" versus "Is it possible that David Moore is nitpicking?"

The fact is you didn't realize the quote from a secondary source you presumably got off the internet was incorrect. If you were truly informed on the subject you would have noticed that. I noticed it immediately and checked to make sure it was incorrect. I suppose you call that nitpicking.
The fact is Rosecrans was being given incorrect and conflicting information from Washington. He was asking Washington to consider the possibility Lee was reenforcing Bragg.

 

[dlofting]

The fact is you didn't realize the quote from a secondary source you presumably got off the internet was incorrect. If you were truly informed on the subject you would have noticed that. I noticed it immediately and checked to make sure it was incorrect. I suppose you call that nitpicking.
The fact is Rosecrans was being given incorrect and conflicting information from Washington. He was asking Washington to consider the possibility Lee was reenforcing Bragg.

There are three things certain on this board

@Joseph A. Rose will criticize Grant
@67th Tigers will praise McClellan
@David Moore will bring Rosecrans into any discussion

 

[David Moore]

There are three things certain on this board

@Joseph A. Rose will criticize Grant
@67th Tigers will praise McClellan
@David Moore will bring Rosecrans into any discussion

My comment was motivated by Dan Hawk's post which contained an erroneous citation referencing Rosecrans which appeared in a Rosecrans thread started by Mr Tony Gunter.
I usually only post now to correct factual errors or make research suggestions.

 

[Rhea Cole]

There are three things certain on this board

@Joseph A. Rose will criticize Grant
@67th Tigers will praise McClellan
@David Moore will bring Rosecrans into any discussion

It is CWT's philosophy to allow members to post anything that doesn't violate the rules we all follow. That open ended policy is one of the reasons I enjoy CWT threads. The threads here resemble a conversation amongst friends in a way that other websites with rigid topical rules cannot. That freedom only flourishes if members adhere to universally recognized behavior standards. There are folks who have a commitment to eccentric interpretations of the facts. They are honest actors. Sadly, there are two individuals who have been banned from other Civil War discussion sites because they deliberately post falsehoods that do not violate the letter CWT's open format, but they do trample on the basic integrity we expect of each other.

There is a simple way to just "click" & block posts by individuals who employ falsehoods to argue just for the sake of argument. In my experience it helps CWT discussions stand up to the level of historical focus that the vast majority of us adhere to.

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

Rose has been telling us for years to distrust every ACW military historian because he disagrees with their interpretations.

I have not "been telling [you plural] for years to distrust every ACW military historian because [I disagree] with their interpretations." What a crock.

I point out where historians get it wrong (and every one does to a greater or lesser degree).

I am just amazed how many of the pro-Grant historians take vast liberties with the truth (or in the case of Dr. Simpson's omission of Dana's assertion that neither Grant nor Thomas intended it, they hold the truth hostage). Yet, people here won't even acknowledge that simple fact. Why don't you?

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

[snip]

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

[snip]

At Shiloh, Grant had upwards of 2000 cavalry. They did not detect an enemy army bivouacking just outside the Shiloh encampment. During the battle they did almost nothing, so they should have been fresh enough for Grant to have sent them out en masse in pursuit. He didn't.

Grant's mismanagement of cavalry in and out of the Wilderness caused huge problems for the Union army.

 

[tony_gunter]

There are three things certain on this board

@Joseph A. Rose will criticize Grant
@67th Tigers will praise McClellan
@David Moore will bring Rosecrans into any discussion

Imma drag Vicksburg into it just to cross-check for bias.

 

[David Moore]

It is CWT's philosophy to allow members to post anything that doesn't violate the rules we all follow. That open ended policy is one of the reasons I enjoy CWT threads. The threads here resemble a conversation amongst friends in a way that other websites with rigid topical rules cannot. That freedom only flourishes if members adhere to universally recognized behavior standards. There are folks who have a commitment to eccentric interpretations of the facts. They are honest actors. Sadly, there are two individuals who have been banned from other Civil War discussion sites because they deliberately post falsehoods that do not violate the letter CWT's open format, but they do trample on the basic integrity we expect of each other.

There is a simple way to just "click" & block posts by individuals who employ falsehoods to argue just for the sake of argument. In my experience it helps CWT discussions stand up to the level of historical focus that the vast majority of us

 

[tony_gunter]

At Shiloh, Grant had upwards of 2000 cavalry. They did not detect an enemy army bivouacking just outside the Shiloh encampment. During the battle they did almost nothing, so they should have been fresh enough for Grant to have sent them out en masse in pursuit. He didn't.

Grant's mismanagement of cavalry in and out of the Wilderness caused huge problems for the Union army.

They pushed the Confederate cavalry until they ran into a brigade of infantry. Their primary directive was to avoid a general engagement. Several federal commanders suspected an attack, including WHL Wallace and McPherson. But Grant was leaning on Sherman to compile intel and keep him informed, which was a huge mistake.

 

[David Moore]

CWT is I think a business. The more posts the more views the more ad revenue. I'm ok with that. There's a lot of really valuable information on it. It provides a service but documentation and original sources are not its strong points. Discussions that involve Grant are also not its strength IMO. Too much opinion and vitriol.

 

[uaskme]

I haven't read this thread in great detail. But of all things going on in the early Reconstruction era to waste time with this humorless, narrowly focused criticism of Grant is tedious in the extreme. 1. Getting the national railroad finished despite the early and massive corruption on east to west portion named the Union Pacific, 2. Getting the national debt refinanced with the goal eventually achieved of returning to the gold standard, 3. Getting the civil rights amendments passed, 4. establishing a permanent working relationship with the British empire, 5. getting the French out of Mexico, which was not done with any spirit of co-operation by the French, and several more issues more important that the accusations made against General and President Grant. 19th century politics was corrupt. Get over it. If the topic expanded to create a context for Grant's actions that would be interesting.

Facts don't matter. We get it.

Some are more focused on Revisionist History. So maybe they should stick to that. Get frustrated with the details,