Grant Grant Under Fire: A Question

[wausaubob]

If you read a more comprehensive account, McCleernand recruited regiments. Grant built the army.

Lincoln, Stanton and mainly Halleck were controlling the armies. If memory serves me right Halleck remarked that giving a command to a general like McClerndan was tantamount to murder. Events demonstrated Halleck was right. And that is why Stanton gave permission to Grant to relieve anyone in his command. Grant waited until the risk was minimal, he had the Vicksburg garrison in a victory grip. Thus Lincoln's friend McClerndan was relieved in two steps.

 

[wausaubob]

There is an example of what happened when one of the premier military historians of the 20th Century's book was published by a vanity press.

I remember looking forward to John Keegan's Civil War history with great anticipation. His WWII are brilliant. His Civil War book is an example of why the LSU press, for example, has such a sterling reputation. Keegan desperately needed an editor… instead it was all about making a quick buck off of his name.

Don't take my word for it. Here is an excerpt from James McPhereson review YY Times October 9, 2009.

"The analytical value of Keegan's geostrategic framework is marred by numerous errors that will leave readers confused and misinformed. I note this with regret, for I have learned a great deal from Keegan's writings. But he is not at top form in this book. Rivers are one of the most important geostrategic features he discusses. "The Ohio and its big tributaries, the Cumberland and the Tennessee," he writes, "form a line of moats protecting the central Upper South, while the Mississippi, with which they connect, denies the Union any hope of penetration." The reality was exactly the contrary. These navigable rivers were highways for Union naval and army task forces that pierced the Confederate heartland, capturing Nashville, New Orleans, Memphis and other important cities along with large parts of Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas."

What grade would you give a 6th grader who made that mistake?

The essential lesson is that without proper editing even a brilliant world class historian can come off as a doofus who doesn't know what he is talking about.

I think I listened to it as a audio book. Flawed, deeply flawed.

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

I think the difference is that some of the Grant critics have published documented works involving original archival research that have been reviewed. The Grant supporters on this site have published nothing as far as I know.

Please share with us the reviews in question.

Are you suggesting that those who have not published (including self-published) have no right to offer their opinions and talk about extant scholarship?

I understand that you have published a book on William S. Rosecrans. Have any reviews you would like to share? And no, that doesn't include reviews on Amazon.

 

[wausaubob]

Why would I feel even the slightest need to write about Grant? Good scholars have filled the shelves and many of their works were available at the library.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Does 20 regiments an army make?

Does a blowhard politician a general make?

 

[David Moore]

You know exactly what I'm

You know exactly what I meant,

There is an example of what happened when one of the premier military historians of the 20th Century's book was published by a vanity press.

I remember looking forward to John Keegan's Civil War history with great anticipation. His WWII are brilliant. His Civil War book is an example of why the LSU press, for example, has such a sterling reputation. Keegan desperately needed an editor… instead it was all about making a quick buck off of his name.

Don't take my word for it. Here is an excerpt from James McPhereson review YY Times October 9, 2009.

"The analytical value of Keegan's geostrategic framework is marred by numerous errors that will leave readers confused and misinformed. I note this with regret, for I have learned a great deal from Keegan's writings. But he is not at top form in this book. Rivers are one of the most important geostrategic features he discusses. "The Ohio and its big tributaries, the Cumberland and the Tennessee," he writes, "form a line of moats protecting the central Upper South, while the Mississippi, with which they connect, denies the Union any hope of penetration." The reality was exactly the contrary. These navigable rivers were highways for Union naval and army task forces that pierced the Confederate heartland, capturing Nashville, New Orleans, Memphis and other important cities along with large parts of Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas."

What grade would you give a 6th grader who made that mistake?

The essential lesson is that without proper editing even a brilliant world class historian can come off as a doofus who doesn't know what he

I think I listened to it as a audio book. Flawed, deeply flawed.

Please share with us the reviews in question.

Are you suggesting that those who have not published (including self-published) have no right to offer their opinions and talk about extant scholarship?

I understand that you have published a book on William S. Rosecrans. Have any reviews you would like to share? And no, that doesn't include reviews on Amazon.

View attachment 552464

It was reviewed in Civil War News and Civil War Times. It's also been reviewed on Good Reads by a published author who posts on this site.
I note you only listed Joseph Rose on the Amazon reviews. There are other reviews.
But why not judge for yourself. There was a fellow named Ned Baldwin who used to post on this site who wrote a review of Frank Varney's first book in which he admitted he hadn't finished reading the book. But as useful as reviews can be it's no substitute for actually reading the work itself - especially if one is going to comment on it.

 

[DanSBHawk]

There was a fellow named Ned Baldwin who used to post on this site who wrote a review of Frank Varney's first book in which he admitted he hadn't finished reading the book.

And as Ned told you repeatedly - over and over and over again - he did finish reading the book. The fact that Ned wrote several blog posts as he was reading the book is something that you repeatedly bring up, even though Ned did indeed finish the book.

 

[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.

Check III at 859 - McClernand "did mislead" Grant. FWIW Hess at 170-171 and Smith at 273 reach essentially the same conclusion.

 

[David Moore]

I'd like to say a word about Mr Rhea Cole's work. He actually is pretty positive about Rosecrans unless Grant is involved.
He's written a lot on the signal corps and Rosecrans. I wanted to use his comments in talks I gave at CWRTs but I couldn't find any documentation citations for his work. I believe strongly in documentation especially since Ive used a lot of unpublished original sources that I found in research libraries. Silly me for thinking documentation mattered to people.
If Mr Cole could provide the sources for his signal corps work it would make me happy.

 

[dlofting]

I'd like to say a word about Mr Rhea Cole's work. He actually is pretty positive about Rosecrans unless Grant is involved.

I don't understand why you characterize other historians as positive or negative concerning a given historical figure. Why do you label them like this? Does a historian need to view someone in a predictable manner ?

The historians I like to read (and there are many of them, both amateur and professional) go where the evidence they turn up takes them. If they feel a Civil War figure made a mistake in judgment they say so. They may then compliment that same person for something they did right, in their opinion. There is no fandom involved and as few preconceived notions as is possible for a human being.

I can say that Rosecran's well developed logistic and planning skills, as an example, were very evident in the Tullahoma campaign. I can also say that his overall command of the army at Chickamauga was less than I would have expected it to be.....this does not make me a fan or degrader of Rosecrans.

I am no historian, researcher or author, but I believe the way a look at things historically is shared by a lot of people who are.

 

[tony_gunter]

I did a quick peek at Wiki. General McClernand built an army and it was taken away from him by General Grant. That would tick me off too.

If you check the muster dates of those units, most of them mustered before McClernand arrived. McClernand recruited about a division of troops if I remember correctly.

But to me the real story isn't Grant vs McClernand but this: why were Lincoln, Stanton, and Halleck promoting internal backstabbing with men's lives on the line.

 

[David Moore]

I don't understand why you characterize other historians as positive or negative concerning a given historical figure. Why do you label them like this? Does a historian need to view someone in a predictable manner ?

The historians I like to read (and there are many of them, both amateur and professional) go where the evidence they turn up takes them. If they feel a Civil War figure made a mistake in judgment they say so. They may then compliment that same person for something they did right, in their opinion. There is no fandom involved and as few preconceived notions as is possible for a human being.

I can say that Rosecran's well developed logistic and planning skills, as an example, were very evident in the Tullahoma campaign. I can also say that his overall command of the army at Chickamauga was less than I would have expected it to be.....this does not make me a fan or degrader of Rosecrans.

I am no historian, researcher or author, but I believe the way a look at things historically is shared by a lot of people who are.

A historian who wants their work to be taken seriously needs to back up with evidence what they write. Without that basic rule history is merely opinion or even guessing. There has to be a foundation.
You acknowledge that your knowledge of Rosecrans is limited. I invite you to read more about him. You're under no obligation to do so of course but you probably should refrain from commenting about him on topics you haven't studied.

Why would I feel even the slightest need to write about Grant? Good scholars have filled the shelves and many of their works were available at the library.

But have you read things that challenge the current interpretation of Grant? Your avatar suggests you've made your mind up about Grant.

 

[Jamieva]

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.

He's being purposely obtuse

 

[David Moore]

He's being purposely obtuse

I understood a CW forum to mean any place where people gather to discuss the CW. I got into this before there was the internet and in person forums were the norm. People didn't come dressed in costumes and I assumed the names they used were genuine. Hope I'm not being obtuse.

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

There is an example of what happened when one of the premier military historians of the 20th Century's book was published by a vanity press.

I remember looking forward to John Keegan's Civil War history with great anticipation. His WWII are brilliant. His Civil War book is an example of why the LSU press, for example, has such a sterling reputation. Keegan desperately needed an editor… instead it was all about making a quick buck off of his name.

Don't take my word for it. Here is an excerpt from James McPherson review NY Times October 9, 2009.

"The analytical value of Keegan's geostrategic framework is marred by numerous errors that will leave readers confused and misinformed. I note this with regret, for I have learned a great deal from Keegan's writings. But he is not at top form in this book. Rivers are one of the most important geostrategic features he discusses. "The Ohio and its big tributaries, the Cumberland and the Tennessee," he writes, "form a line of moats protecting the central Upper South, while the Mississippi, with which they connect, denies the Union any hope of penetration." The reality was exactly the contrary. These navigable rivers were highways for Union naval and army task forces that pierced the Confederate heartland, capturing Nashville, New Orleans, Memphis and other important cities along with large parts of Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas."

What grade would you give a 6th grader who made that mistake?

The essential lesson is that without proper editing even a brilliant world class historian can come off as a doofus who doesn't know what he is talking about.

A very well-respected individual in the Civil War history community just gave me the wise advice to not get/stay involved in these petty arguments.

But, upon leaving, I can't help myself from noting the post above. In it, LSU Press is accused of "making a quick buck off" of Keegan's name. Then, James McPherson apparently criticizes a fellow historian who "is not at top form in this book," which is "marred by numerous errors that will leave readers confused and misinformed." Next, the poster indicates that Keegan is "a doofus." Lastly, this post is afterward "liked" by six others (at this point in time), most of whom have just been attacking me for being critical of other authors.

It's a good time to go. Bye (although I may stay around, however, to see your cogent and witty replies).

 

[Belfoured]

He's being purposely obtuse

Oh, I know the game being played. But it's a men's league tactic, not NHL.

 

[Belfoured]

A very well-respected individual in the Civil War history community just gave me the wise advice to not get/stay involved in these petty arguments.

But, upon leaving, I can't help myself from noting the post above. In it, LSU Press is accused of "making a quick buck off" of Keegan's name. Then, James McPherson apparently criticizes a fellow historian who "is not at top form in this book," which is "marred by numerous errors that will leave readers confused and misinformed." Next, the poster indicates that Keegan is "a doofus." Lastly, this post is afterward "liked" by six others (at this point in time), most of whom have just been attacking me for being critical of other authors.

It's a good time to go. Bye (although I may stay around, however, to see your cogent and witty replies).

Don't let the door …

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

A very well-respected individual in the Civil War history community just gave me the wise advice to not get/stay involved in these petty arguments.

It's also a good idea not to initiate them.

Your decision is easily understood.

 

[David Moore]

Don't let the door …

A sad comment really. Knowledgable people need not apply in your CW world apparently.

 

[DanSBHawk]

But, upon leaving, I can't help myself from noting the post above.

Of course you can't.