Grant Grant Under Fire: A Question

[David Moore]

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.

Uh, most forums include pseudonyms.

Uh, most forums include pseudonyms.

You're saying the hundreds of people I've spoken to at Civil War Round Tables were using pseudonyms? Don't worry I won't ask for documentation for that statement.

 

[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 adhere to.

You'd agree most posts here are not serious history documents that could be cited in other works. Just folks shooting the breeze?

 

[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

"Any discussion" not an accurate description for me. But of course this is just a fun show; accuracy not needed.

 

[Belfoured]

You're saying the hundreds of people I've spoken to at Civil War Round Tables were using pseudonyms? Don't worry I won't ask for documentation for that statement.

Do you really not understand the use of "forums" in that post? That's disconcerting but I'll help out. It's a reference to internet forums - not to CWRT meetings. Note the category "Forums" above. And there have been a few posts in these "forums" where the poster might have been better off using a pseudonym.

 

[Belfoured]

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…

View attachment 552360
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.

Uh oh. Ed Bearss was critical of the unfairly maligned, highly capable McClernand, who was just one more undeserving victim of Grant's vindictive envy. So much for another well-regarded historian.

 

[David Moore]

Uh oh. Ed Bearss was critical of the unfairly maligned, highly capable McClernand, who was just one more undeserving victim of Grant's vindictive envy. So much for another well-regarded historian.

So no one should ever investigate and challenge any "accepted" conclusions?
Btw I was once was a Grant fan based on my reading of the basic literature. I stumbled upon the long extant but little known/taught alternative interpretations of his military career. Glad I did. I feel fortunate I did.

 

[tony_gunter]

You'd agree most posts here are not serious history documents that could be cited in other works. Just folks shooting the breeze?

I thought this was a forum for discussing those documents?

And, seriously, some historians should test their ideas out here before publishing. What some folks here lack in prior publishing credentials, they make up for in sheer obsession with the subject matter.

Take Tim Smith's Bayou Battles for Vicksburg. If he was a member here he wouldn't have missed the existence of a successful canal at Ashton.

 

[David Moore]

They would indeed. You may not understand who that group includes, however.

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.

Uh oh. Ed Bearss was critical of the unfairly maligned, highly capable McClernand, who was just one more undeserving victim of Grant's vindictive envy. So much for another well-regarded historian.

More recent scholarship on McClernand is more favorable to him. Even Grant idolizer Robert McCormick writing over 70 years ago said McClernand was the victim of a "conspiracy." Why not seek out new interpretations?

 

[tony_gunter]

Uh oh. Ed Bearss was critical of the unfairly maligned, highly capable McClernand, who was just one more undeserving victim of Grant's vindictive envy. So much for another well-regarded historian.

I think you misunderstood the post. Ed Bearss was kind to McClernand and viewed him positively.

 

[David Moore]

I thought this was a forum for discussing those documents?

And, seriously, some historians should test their ideas out here before publishing. What some folks here lack in prior publishing credentials, they make up for in sheer obsession in the subject matter.

Take Tim Smith's Bayou Battles for Vicksburg. If he was a member here he wouldn't have missed the existence of a successful canal at Ashton, nor would he have whiffed on the fact that the idea of splitting the army in north Mississippi and sending half of it downriver didn't originate with Grant as he claimed.

No serious historian should ever post theories on this site about Grant Why? Because there's a group whose sole purpose is to not just defend Grant but attack those who criticize him. Some do this without reading the books they criticize.

 

[uaskme]

I think you misunderstood the post. Ed Bearss was kind to McClernand and viewed him positively.

He didn't misunderstand. Bearss being kind to McClernand interpreted as being biased toward Grant. Whether it is true or not, has no merit to some.

 

[tony_gunter]

More recent scholarship on McClernand is more favorable to him. Even Grant idolizer Robert McCormick writing over 70 years ago said McClernand was the victim of a "conspiracy." Why not seek out new interpretations?

The recent scholarship regarding McClernand basically restates Bearss' opinions on McClernand from 50 years ago because there's been a failure to critically analyze the only battle at which McClernand was in command, Port Gibson. McClernand was on the cusp of losing that battle to a force half his size.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Uh oh. Ed Bearss was critical of the unfairly maligned, highly capable McClernand, who was just one more undeserving victim of Grant's vindictive envy. So much for another well-regarded historian.

When Ed was in town for events or bus tours I was his, "Local guy." Our Roundtable sponsored a lecture by Ed on the 150th of Forrest's Murfreesboro Raid. Folks I know very well, self described Forrest worshipers, were in the audience. During the Inquisition they would have been burned at the stake for the sin of idolatry. In the Q&A one of them asked what was more damaging the Johnsonville Raid or some other attack in West TN. I was seated onstage beside the speaker's podium with a clear view of the worshipful looking Forrest fans.

Ed gave one of those memory trick stream of obscure facts responses that left them with a collective look of saints in a Renaissance painting. They were gazing upward, mouths slightly agape… albeit with pinched foreheads of incomprehension. There were no follow up questions.

On the way to Nashville the next morning I asked Ed what the real answer was. All of Forrest's actions in West Tennessee were a complete waste. No strategic impact was possible. The real war was with Johnston / Hood in Georgia. He went on to explain how after the Battle of Milton or before, the Army of TN cavalry went into a steep decline form which it never recovered. Wheeler's raids did irreparable harm without inflicting any significant damage.

Ed knew how to handle the Forrest worshipers & how to inspire me into a years long inquiry.

 

[Belfoured]

So no one should ever investigate and challenge any "accepted" conclusions?
Btw I was once was a Grant fan based on my reading of the basic literature. I stumbled upon the long extant but little known/taught alternative interpretations of his military career. Glad I did. I feel fortunate I did.

Who on earth said that? But there's a big difference between (1) researching and challenging accepted interpretations if that's where the "chips fall" based on an objective analysis and (2) doing so with the purpose of challenging, deciding that your interpretation is irrefutably the correct one, that any conflicting interpretation is simply wrong, and - worse - that a conflicting interpretation is based on "massive" and "ridiculous" "falsehoods" and "distortions" and is intended as a "cover up". I haven't read your book but I wouldn't be surprised if one could find interpretations that can reasonably be disagreed with. That doesn't mean that yours is based on "falsehoods", "distortions" or is intended as a "cover up" - any more than it means the same regarding a contrary interpretation.

Any qualified historian knows that much of interpreting historical events involves gray areas where there can be reasonable disagreement. And the ones I know make no claim of infallibility and make no claim that they have definitvely "solved" a question where the question requires one to assess voluminous sources that often conflict.

As an aside, and for the record, I'm not a "fan" of any of the historical figures we discuss in these forums.

 

[Belfoured]

I think you misunderstood the post. Ed Bearss was kind to McClernand and viewed him positively.

Well, I'm referring to the discussion in Vol. III of Bearss's trilogy regarding McClernand's role in the May 22 assault, including his messages. That is far from positive.

 

[tony_gunter]

Well, I'm referring to the discussion in Vol. III of Bearss's trilogy regarding McClernand's role in the May 22 assault, including his messages. That is far from positive.

I may be misremembering, but I thought Ed's opinion was that McClernand was correct: he held part possession of two forts and needed reinforcements, that Grant could not have as he claimed see that McClernand was fudging the truth about "part possession" and was too slow reinforcing McClernand.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Well, I'm referring to the discussion in Vol. III of Bearss's trilogy regarding McClernand's role in the May 22 assault, including his messages. That is far from positive.

I had that volume at hand, so read the citation with my morning coffee & can support Belfoured's statement. The posturing & puffery of a politician pandering to his base, which McClernard clearly was, did not go down well with Bearss at all.

 

[tony_gunter]

I had that volume at hand, so read the citation with my morning coffee & can support Belfoured's statement. The posturing & puffery of a politician pandering to his base, which McClernard clearly was, did not go down well with Bearss at all.

You're referring to the report that got him canned? I thought Bearss' treatment of McClernand up to that point was rather friendly?

 

[Belfoured]

I may be misremembering, but I thought Ed's opinion was that McClernand was correct: he held part possession of two forts and needed reinforcements, that Grant could not have as he claimed see that McClernand was fudging the truth about "part possession" and was too slow reinforcing McClernand.

I had looked at it recently for another reason. IIRC he said that McClernand's messages back to HQ during the assault were misleading regarding the status of his corps' accomplishments.

 

[Belfoured]

No serious historian should ever post theories on this site about Grant Why? Because there's a group whose sole purpose is to not just defend Grant but attack those who criticize him. Some do this without reading the books they criticize.

No "serious historian" should - or would - post "theories" on this site directly impugning the integrity of another serious historian who they disagree with regarding an interpretation of historical events.