Grant Grant Under Fire: A Question

[TallTallMan]

People at CWRTs also wouldnt wear disguises- unless it were a costumed event- or use pseudonyms. This says much about how public CW discussion has fallen.

Uh, most forums include pseudonyms.

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

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

So let's pursue that: in your 600+ page book where have you "gotten it wrong"? And I don't mean the list of typos and similar minor "errors" on your website (plus the point you were informed about the other day in one of these threads and have now apparently added).

To the list of authors chastised in your book you've asserted in these forums that Gordon Rhea made a number of "historical errors" in vol 5 of his Overland Campaign series. And we know that you've claimed that Tim Smith in Conquer or Perish made errors that in your words rise to the level of "massive" and "ridiculous""falsehoods", "distortions", and "covering up" for Grant.

I find the Dr. Smith goes so far out of his way to defend Generals Grant and Sherman (and usually demean people such as General McClernand along the way) that he should be criticized for any mischaracterizations and errors.

Just one example will suffice (you seemed to have no problem when someone just used an example of my error as the basis of this thread, right?):

On Page 5 of Conquer or Perish, he wrote that "... Sherman, who openly argued that the war in the west would take hundreds of thousands of lives and years to complete and was labeled crazy ...."

A couple of problems with that:

The phrase "hundreds of thousands of lives" is usually taken to mean hundreds of thousands of dead. That is so far removed from what Sherman said as to be laughable.

Even stating that Sherman meant he needed hundreds of thousands of soldiers to win the war in the west is wrong, because Sherman actually wrote "to accomplish the only purposes for which Kentucky can be used there should be a force here of 200,000 men," and "I am told that my estimate of troops needed for this line, viz, 200,000, has been construed to my prejudice." Not only was he not talking about winning the war with them, just for his portion of the western line, his formulation would omit all of the men under Halleck, as they also served in the West. Much more damning than those statements is what Sherman wrote to Tom Ewing Sr.: "If the Country has 640,000 volunteers, or even 500,000--at least 200,000 of them should be in Kentucky or on the Ohio River, and though I may be mistaken I am still firmly of the opinion that unless that number of armed men, are distributed along that Line, it will fall into the hands of the Rebels." That was an absurd military opinion.

I don't see, although Sherman may have stated it elsewhere, where he stated that it would take years to complete.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I find the Dr. Smith goes so far out of his way to defend Generals Grant and Sherman (and usually demean people such as General McClernand along the way) that he should be criticized for any mischaracterizations and errors.

I think you accusing Tim Smith of bias is absurd. None of the historians you attack are even close to you in terms of bias. Which is probably why they are well-regarded and respected historians.

 

[Belfoured]

I think you accusing Tim Smith of bias is absurd. None of the historians you attack are even close to you in terms of bias. Which is probably why they are well-regarded and respected historians.

Notice how he answered the question. He's the one who said "every" historian "gets it wrong". The question asked what he's gotten wrong. And we get multiple paragraphs about Smith, instead.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Notice how he answered the question. He's the one who said "every" historian "gets it wrong". The question asked what he's gotten wrong. And we get multiple paragraphs about Smith, instead.

Yes, I noticed how he changed the subject to an author other than himself.

 

[TallTallMan]

Yes, I noticed how he changed the subject to an author other than himself.

And one he's not very fond of.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I think you accusing Tim Smith of bias is absurd. None of the historians you attack are even close to you in terms of bias. Which is probably why they are well-regarded and respected historians.

You make a cogent point. "Ad Hominem Arguments" have a way of being an accurate mirror of the author's scholarship rather than those they attack.

Less poetically put, I learned about "Ad Hominem Arguments" from a Middle School debate manual. It is listed along with "Straw Man Arguments" & others as indicating a lack of factual evidence to support an argument.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

"Logical Fallacies & the Art of Debate"

Link:

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

 

[uaskme]

Biggest Fallacies here is most haven't studied these battles, in depth. Don't have the knowledge if someone is Biased or not.

Rose includes others arguments as well as his own. Don't know what else you could wish for?

Posters now quoting Nixon and Bill Gates. Wow.\

 

[dlofting]

Biggest Fallacies here is most haven't studied these battles, in depth. Don't have the knowledge if someone is Biased or not.

Rose includes others arguments as well as his own. Don't know what else you could wish for?

Posters now quoting Nixon and Bill Gates. Wow.\

Agree that a lot of us don't have in depth knowledge of battles, myself included. That's why I come here and read authors like Eric Wittenberg, Dave Powell and Tim Smith among others.

So I don't always know if an author is factually correct, but I can usually tell one who is overly biased. It's often just the adjectives and adverbs they choose to use. Was General X a liar or was he just incorrect. Was General Y a flaming blunderer or did he make several mistakes in judgment.

When I was conducting a lot of job interviews I could usually tell if candidates knew what they were talking about even if my knowledge of the subject was cursory. It's the same type of thing when reading material from an overly biased author.

 

[Belfoured]

Biggest Fallacies here is most haven't studied these battles, in depth. Don't have the knowledge if someone is Biased or not.

Rose includes others arguments as well as his own. Don't know what else you could wish for?

Posters now quoting Nixon and Bill Gates. Wow.\

You like tossing around the "biased" label when it suits your purposes. Spare us the objective/open-minded spin ...

HF - Jack Hinson Novel | Civil War Books, Stories, & Media

it was never reported in the ORN So I'm the Captain of a Union gunboat and will write a detailed report about an old man on the riverbank capturing my boat single-handed, or my Commanding Officer will write such a report. :bounce::dance::dance::frantic: I seriously doubt every incident during...

civilwartalk.com

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

Page 202: ""Just as Lawler led his men forward, an officer rode up to Grant. It was General William Dwight, one of Banks's staff officers, with a copy of a message from Halleck to Banks, also dated May 11, urging Banks to take the same course of action Halleck had recommended to Grant, adding that united action would render success "almost certain." Dwight, interpreting these messages as orders, implored Grant to break off his campaign and comply with Halleck's wishes. Grant declined. No one was going to stop him from taking Vicksburg. In later years he would confuse the arrival of Halleck's dispatch to him with that carried by the staff officer, and report that he had chosen to ignore what he termed an 'order.'" [Grant wasn't the only one confused. As opposed to Simpson's suppositions, Dwight's contemporary letter shows that he did not even get to the Champion Hill until 10 pm of the day of the battle, so he could not have been at Big Black River Bridge. He did not implore Grant "to break off his campaign." In fact, he wrote that so impressed was he with Grant's brilliant success up to that point, "I withheld these views from all but Genl Grant, and in a private conversation with him I only hinted at that plan of campaign as the one which had seemed to Genl Banks the most probable." He even offered his services to Grant.]

This is what people like to call a teachable moment. It depends, however, on whether one is willing to learn.

First, let me commend Mr. Rose for this diligent piece of research (say what you will, but there are times he shows an aptitude for this sort of thing, whatever one makes of his motivations). He's unearthed evidence that certainly challenges and in my mind disproves the story Grant told and some biographers repeated. Both Bruce Catton (Grant Moves South, pp. 447-448) and Simpson (Triumph over Adversity, p. 202) raise questions about Grant's rendering of the story, but Dwight's role in both accounts is still someone tapping Grant on the shoulder as to what to do. Jean Edward Smith (Grant, p. 252) takes Grant at his word. Perret and Chernow (the latter had access to Rose's work, but I wonder if he cited it ... homework for someone else) don't seem to have mentioned it.

So Rose's discovery--and I would argue that it is a worthwhile discovery--forever changes that narrative, although the import of the change is less than earthshaking. He is to be applauded for digging this up. But does not Rose nullify the impact of his discovery by burying it in one of his tirades against a favorite target? I think so. It gets lost in the fracas, one largely confined to this discussion board. Instead of placing the finding at the center of the story in an effort to advance and correct our understanding of the historical record, it becomes just another brickbat. It becomes a means to an end of continuous personal assault instead of what the finding should be--something that serves the end of historical understanding.

I venture that most of us here are here because we want to understand what happened, how, and why. The continuing game of attempted oneupsmanship in this thread (and a few others), with the same points being repeated again and again and again, with the same evidence adduced multiple times over several days, accompanied by the personal insults and snide comments, gets most readers nowhere. It may also explain why Mr. Rose struggles to be a footnote in Grant scholarship. Think of a well-framed article detailing several key myths/misrepresentations in Grant's memoirs that hits the big points, does not descend into tedium, and refrains from personal insults and snide comments ... that might make an impact in scholarship. For some people, however, I guess it's not getting it right that counts, but pointing fingers and declaring in a haughty arrogant manner that everyone else gets it wrong that matters, especially to an ever-shrinking audience.

It all depends on what you want to do and the impact you hope it makes on our understanding of history.

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

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.

And yet people slow down and crowd around a car crash. Civility and respect does not bring in the viewers. It's a business but a strange one.

 

[DanSBHawk]

So I don't always know if an author is factually correct, but I can usually tell one who is overly biased. It's often just the adjectives and adverbs they choose to use. Was General X a liar or was he just incorrect. Was General Y a flaming blunderer or did he make several mistakes in judgment.

Agreed. Rose constantly accuses Grant of lying, and often it's Rose that has it wrong. An example is that Rose claims that Grant lied in his Corinth report about instructing Rosecrans to pursue immediately. And yet we know that Grant did send Rosecrans instructions to pursue immediately and to not leave Hurlbut to face the retreating confederates alone. And to give Rosecrans more of an excuse for not pursuing, Rose wrongly claims the battle ended at 2 or 3 in the afternoon when even Rosecrans says it ended by noon.

As you say, the bias shows in the writing style. The exaggerated and overwrought judgments. Rather than saying "Grant wrote," Rose says "Grant went so far as to write...," and then inaccurately quotes what Grant wrote. This was pertaining to the end of the first day at Shiloh.

 

[Belfoured]

And one he's not very fond of.

Let's revisit that thread where Smith was accused of engaging in "massive" and "ridiculous" "falsehoods" and "distortions" "covering up" Grant's actions regarding the issue of surprise:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/gr...int-to-petersburg.210106/page-14#post-2770759

Let's look at what Smith actually wrote in Conquer or Perish at p. 91-93:

"On the strategic (or operational) level, Shiloh was indeed a total surprise … In dealing with this larger context, despite skirmishing in the days before April 6, the Federal commanders from Grant on down had no idea that the entire Confederate Army of the Mississippi was confronting them. They did not believe that they would be attacked in force and have to fight the biggest battle in American history to date. Shiloh was indeed similar to Pearl Harbor. Despite Grant and Sherman taking the viewpoint to their graves that they were not surprised, the accepted fact is that the Confederates slipped up on the Federals and launched a massive attack that the Army of the Tennessee was not expecting. ... On the tactical level, however, the Federals were not as surprised as later newspapers described. The press ran stories leading readers to believe that the Confederates had sneaked up on the Union soldiers, reached their camps, and bayoneted the soldiers as they slept. … In the largest sense, the Federals knew the enemy was to their front; skirmishing across the front line had been frequent in previous days. More significantly, Peabody's patrol uncovered the Confederate army a mile out from the camps, so Johnston had to start his attack a mile from the Union camps. … In that intervening period between when Peabody's patrol found the Confederates at dawn and when the Confederates first began assaulting the Union camps after 7:00 A.M., the Union commanders all posted their regiments in appropriate lines. … Peabody had done yeoman work in allowing time for the remainder of the army to form their lines and take substantial positions. As a result, when the slow and plodding Confederate advance began to approach the Union camps around 7:00 A.M., they did not find sleeping and surprised Federals who offered little resistance. … In that sense, Shiloh was no surprise, except perhaps for the Confederates who expected no such reception."

Let's take into account that Smith also twice describes Grant's staff as effectively a public relations outfit trying to denigrate Lew Wallace - who Smith credits with multiple, important maneuvers on April 7 that were critical to driving the Confederates from the field.

Making those sorts of outrageous public accusations against an accomplished and respected historian would be highly unprofessional and embarrassing to the accuser in any event. We were lectured in another thread about assertions that would not be acceptable at a CWRT meeting. I've presented at a couple and accessed meetings of other CWRT. There is no way on the planet these kinds of claims would be tolerated. But it's worse here. Unless somebody (1) cannot read for comprehension; (2) has not read the material: or (3) has an agenda that makes the actual content irrelevant, there is no possible way a reader can read this material and remotely credit the characterization of what Smith actually wrote.

If Smith was attempting to "cover up" for Grant or "exonerate" him, he did one lousy job of it.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Now I know why you hate some many authors--you instantly assume a nasty motive.

Well, of course he does. Everyone else is part of the Grant Conspiracy.

Even if you criticize Grant, if don't criticize Grant enough you're still a sycophant.

Standard conspiratorial thinking.

And yet people slow down and crowd around a car crash. Civility and respect does not bring in the viewers. It's a business but a strange one.

See also the transformation of the History Channel into the Psuedohistory Channel.

Archeologists are boring. Ken Burns is too subdued. Watch Ancient Aliens and learn all the dirty little secrets "they" don't want you to know!

 

[Belfoured]

Well, of course he does. Everyone else is part of the Grant Conspiracy.

Even if you criticize Grant, if don't criticize Grant enough you're still a sycophant.

Standard conspirators thinking.



See also the transformation of the History Channel into the Psuedohistory Channel.

Archeologists are boring. Ken Burns is too subdued. Watch Ancient Aliens and learn all the dirty little secrets "they" don't want you to know!

At one point - a long time ago - the History Channel appeared to actually be interested in presenting "history as entertainment". Of course, that doesn't generate nearly the ratings that "mysteries", sensationalism, and absurd conspiracies do, so they decided to change the formula to "entertainment as history."

 

[TallTallMan]

At one point - a long time ago - the History Channel appeared to actually be interested in presenting "history as entertainment". Of course, that doesn't generate nearly the ratings that "mysteries", sensationalism, and absurd conspiracies do, so they decided to change the formula to "entertainment as history."

"Ancient Astronaut theorists say 'yes' "

 

[tony_gunter]

Let's see how Professor Simpson does on Vicksburg:

Page 172: "Absent a major blunder by McClernand, the only way Grant could nullify him would be by taking Vicksburg" [No, Grant nullified him thru a mere technicality and not even a minor blunder, and it was before taking Vicksburg. In fact, Halleck gave him authority to nullify McClernand without reason.]

Page 173: On the Vicksburg canal, "Grant thought little of this particular effort ...." [The fact is that Grant acted as if he expected important results from this. ("Work on the canal is progressing as rapidly as possible.")]

Page 174: "Soon reports circulated that Grant's men, exposed to the swamps, were sick and dying at an alarming rate. These stories had a slim foundation in fact." [Statistics on illness and death contradict this. See U.S. Army, Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion.]

The next several pages are mostly on non-campaign issues, such as Grant's drinking, but include Simpson's egregious misquotation that "Halstead was blunt: 'How is it that Grant who was behind at Ft. Henry, drunk at Donelson, surprised and whipped at Shiloh and driven back from Oxford, Miss. , is still in command?' he thundered." on Page 177.

On the same page Simpson wrote that, "It had been Rosecrans who had whispered tales of an intoxicated Grant to another Commercial reporter the previous fall." [Evidence in PUSG and elsewhere does not confirm this. Long ago, online, I asked for his proof and he offered none. It's a hugely serious allegation, with apparently no documentation, besides Legget's thinking it might have been Rosey.]

Page 181: "Grant sent McPherson and a combined army-navy force to Yazoo Pass with orders to clear out the river and create a passage for transports and ironclads" [McPherson didn't go to Yazoo Pass.]

Page 189: On the second passage, "Although Vicksburg's cannon succeeded in disabling only one steamer, the Tigress (of Shiloh fame), the loss was serious because it was carrying the medical stores that would be so sorely needed after a battle." [Tigress was more than disabled. Grant to Meigs: "This will probably be forwarded to you with the papers intended to secure payment for the Steamer 'Tigress,' lost in running the Vicksburg Batteries." Grant tried to get increased compensation for his friend, the owner.]

Page 202: ""Just as Lawler led his men forward, an officer rode up to Grant. It was General William Dwight, one of Banks's staff officers, with a copy of a message from Halleck to Banks, also dated May 11, urging Banks to take the same course of action Halleck had recommended to Grant, adding that united action would render success "almost certain." Dwight, interpreting these messages as orders, implored Grant to break off his campaign and comply with Halleck's wishes. Grant declined. No one was going to stop him from taking Vicksburg. In later years he would confuse the arrival of Halleck's dispatch to him with that carried by the staff officer, and report that he had chosen to ignore what he termed an 'order.'" [Grant wasn't the only one confused. As opposed to Simpson's suppositions, Dwight's contemporary letter shows that he did not even get to the Champion Hill until 10 pm of the day of the battle, so he could not have been at Big Black River Bridge. He did not implore Grant "to break off his campaign." In fact, he wrote that so impressed was he with Grant's brilliant success up to that point, "I withheld these views from all but Genl Grant, and in a private conversation with him I only hinted at that plan of campaign as the one which had seemed to Genl Banks the most probable." He even offered his services to Grant.]

203: Simpson described the "rolling terrain and bluffs east of the city" [Really, it's deeply incised loess, which is not a "rolling" landscape.]

I'll stop here, but will note that Simpson's whole description of Grant's drunkenness on the trip up the Yazoo is an exercise of rank apologism.

I don't see much to do with bias, and many of these points are at least debatable:

Grant didn't express much faith in the canal, and Sherman was telling him it was a boondoggle a week after he arrived.

McPherson did go to Yazoo Pass, following Ross' initial push.

I don't see the correlation numbers that you claim in the army's data, instead the correlation I see is to latitude and proximity to the rivers. And it wasn't Grant's idea to shift to the river.

Cadwallader's Yazoo Bender story sounds grossly exaggerated, but even if true is hardly damning. There's another Grant drinking story in Cadwallader that has Grant slip into the tent after a long hard day of revising orders after Raymond, drink a couple cups of whiskey, make some small talk, and retire to bed. No bender, no dependency, just a guy having a drink before bed.

I don't see where Dwight arriving at Champion Hill at 10 pm precludes him from riding 4 miles to meet Grant the next morning, nor do I see bias. Simpson's entire point is that Grant's recollection of the event in his memoirs is incorrect.

The closest I see is the Rosecrans story, and I haven't heard from him why he stated what he stated. Bias? Error carried over from his time working with Cozzens? Don't know.

Is there any bias in your book? What about the story of Grant conspiring to steal away with McClernand's campaign when he knew nothing of it at first, and later had to be ordered to steal it? And even then called Sherman to his tent to discuss making a mad dash to Jackson rather than attacking downriver?

 

[TallTallMan]

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?

Well then, is there any Grant writer you have a high opinion of (excluding Varney)?

 

[Rhea Cole]

I don't see much to do with bias, and many of these points are at least debatable:

Grant didn't express much faith in the canal, and Sherman was telling him it was a boondoggle a week after he arrived.

McPherson did go to Yazoo Pass, following Ross' initial push.

I don't see the correlation numbers that you claim in the army's data, instead the correlation I see is to latitude and proximity to the rivers. And it wasn't Grant's idea to shift to the river.

Cadwallader's Yazoo Bender story sounds grossly exaggerated, but even if true is hardly damning. There's another Grant drinking story in Cadwallader that has Grant slip into the tent after a long hard day of revising orders after Raymond, drink a couple cups of whiskey, make some small talk, and retire to bed. No bender, no dependency, just a guy having a drink before bed.

I don't see where Dwight arriving at Champion Hill at 10 pm precludes him from riding 4 miles to meet Grant the next morning, nor do I see bias. Simpson's entire point is that Grant's recollection of the event in his memoirs is incorrect.

The closest I see is the Rosecrans story, and I haven't heard from him why he stated what he stated. Bias? Error carried over from his time working with Cozzens? Don't know.

Is there any bias in your book? What about the story of Grant conspiring to steal away with McClernand's campaign when he knew nothing of it at first, and later had to be ordered to steal it? And even then called Sherman to his tent to discuss making a mad dash to Jackson rather than attacking downriver?

This post reminds me of how Ed Bearss responded to this kind of thing. He would cock his head & close his eyes. There followed a stream of facts that…well… it was like watching an express coal train go through a crossing…

Just when you thought he might be running out, like a pusher engine embedded in the lash up, he beat them down with a final string of facts.