Grant Grant Under Fire: A Question

[Skeptical Advocate]

*EDITED*

Please turn to page 571. Or you can consult this screen capture:

Focus on the second paragraph, the indented excerpt, that quotes Secretary of War William W. Belknap as he "inadvertently condemned Grant of corruption."

Here's the paragraph in context below, found within this document (https://archive.org/details/proceedingssena00housgoog/page/972/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater) ...

... and then patiently flip back slowly to page 960. There you'll learn that the author of the material quoted is not William W. Belknap, but Belknap's attorney, Jeremiah Black, a distinguished Democratic lawyer and no friend of President Grant or the Republican party. Black offered the statement during Belknap's impeachment trial. He was defending his client by raising charges against others, especially Grant (recall, this was an election year). Rose erroneously attributed Black's statement to Belknap.

Oh my. It appears that Black was attacking Grant to defend his client ... not that Belknap was saying anything, inadvertent or otherwise, because it's Black, not Belknap, speaking.

That changes everything, doesn't it?

So what are we to make of an author who makes such a misleading misattribution? Is this a simple mistake (everyone makes them)? Is this evidence of sloppiness, which is embarrassing, even humiliating, and in extreme cases throws into doubt the credibility and competence of the author?

Or is this something even more sinister, evidence of a deep desire to deliberately warp, distort, and misrepresent the historical record by someone whose agenda drives his desire to destroy the reputation of Ulysses S. Grant and attack those scholars he deems Grant's defenders?

Personally, I might be generous, but, as I've suggested, if the author in question is relentless and extreme in his criticism of others, it is only reasonable that his own work be subjected to the same standard that he uses to judge others.

The floor is open. Thank you, everyone.

 

[RedRover]

Old history books used to preface their work with something like "all errors of fact or interpretation are those of the author alone."

Might presume the author in this case made an error. Academic or professional historians have some advantage in that their various debates and peer review to catch these minor things. Even then some rather glaring simple errors of fact can show up, especially from uncritically paraphrasing other authors, etc.

 

[Belfoured]

Old history books used to preface their work with something like "all errors of fact or interpretation are those of the author alone."

Might presume the author in this case made an error. Academic or professional historians have some advantage in that their various debates and peer review to catch these minor things. Even then some rather glaring simple errors of fact can show up, especially from uncritically paraphrasing other authors, etc.

That's one of the advantages of submitting a manuscript to a reputable publisher. These sorts of flaws are more likely to be caught. Another good exercise is to review an author's bibliography. If relevant and important sources have been missed, that says something.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Or is this something even more sinister, evidence of a deep desire to deliberately warp, distort, and misrepresent the historical record by someone whose agenda drives his desire to destroy the reputation of Ulysses S. Grant and attack those scholars he deems Grant's defenders?

Bingo.

Rose's book is one of those books that really require a person to check the sources. Key parts of sources are conveniently left out of his interpretations, such as with his Paducah claims. At times, he misquotes or misrepresents Grant's Memoirs, such as Sherman's messages to Grant at Fort Donelson, and the residual firing at the end of the first day at Shiloh.

One of the most comically bad interpretations in Rose's book is the section on the Battle of Franklin. Being a George Thomas partisan, Rose tries to paint Schofield in the absolute worst light possible, while trying to make Thomas seem absolutely perfect. It's all badly skewed but one part stood out to me. Anyone familiar with the battle knows that Wagner's brigade was out in front of the line, and Wagner screwed up his instructions by staying out there too long. Stanley noted in his report that Wagner had not followed his orders. But Rose strangely blames Schofield for not ordering Wagner in, and even more strangely writes, "Schofield secured Wagner's relief shortly thereafter." Yet Wagner belonged to George Thomas' army, not Schofield's army. And Wagner resigned after being demoted. He wasn't "relieved."

The whole book is really an attempt to twist everything and anything into a negative for Grant and for the officers who are perceived to be allied with Grant.

 

[tony_gunter]

Readers of this discussion group are lucky to have Joseph A. Rose as a contributor. He is an active and passionate poster as well as a (self-) published author. What follows should interest those individuals interested in his work and the argument presented.

Please turn to page 571. Or you can consult this screen capture:

View attachment 551603

Focus on the second paragraph, the indented excerpt, that quotes Secretary of War William W. Belknap as he "inadvertently condemned Grant of corruption."

Here's the paragraph in context below, found within this document (https://archive.org/details/proceedingssena00housgoog/page/972/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater) ...View attachment 551605 ... and then patiently flip back slowly to page 960. There you'll learn that the author of the material quoted is not William W. Belknap, but Belknap's attorney, Jeremiah Black, a distinguished Democratic lawyer and no friend of President Grant or the Republican party. Black offered the statement during Belknap's impeachment trial. He was defending his client by raising charges against others, especially Grant (recall, this was an election year). Rose erroneously attributed Black's statement to Belknap.

Oh my. It appears that Black was attacking Grant to defend his client ... not that Belknap was saying anything, inadvertent or otherwise, because it's Black, not Belknap, speaking.

That changes everything, doesn't it?

So what are we to make of an author who makes such a misleading misattribution? Is this a simple mistake (everyone makes them)? Is this evidence of sloppiness, which is embarrassing, even humiliating, and in extreme cases throws into doubt the credibility and competence of the author?

Or is this something even more sinister, evidence of a deep desire to deliberately warp, distort, and misrepresent the historical record by someone whose agenda drives his desire to destroy the reputation of Ulysses S. Grant and attack those scholars he deems Grant's defenders?

Personally, I might be generous, but, as I've suggested, if the author in question is relentless and extreme in his criticism of others, it is only reasonable that his own work be subjected to the same standard that he uses to judge others.

The floor is open. Thank you, everyone.

How does the Vicksburg portion read? Does it cast McClernand as competent and unfairly maligned by Grant?

Because McClernand was a potato.

 

[DanSBHawk]

How does the Vicksburg portion read? Does it cast McClernand as competent and unfairly maligned by Grant?

Because McClernand was a potato.

Rose praises McClernand far more than Grant, Sherman, or McPherson. Here are some sentences related to McClernand, starting in a section Rose titled Stealing McClernand's Mississippi Expedition:



With both men showing a good grasp of strategy, John McClernand met President Lincoln immediately after Antietam and convinced him of the suitability of a downriver expedition.
...
Grant and Halleck despised McClernand, and they were in a position to subvert Lincoln's and Stanton's intentions.
...
Grant's and Halleck's scheme to abscond with McClernand's expedition became evident as December progressed.
...
Grant dismissed John McClernand as "unmanageable and incompetent" in another missive to the General-in-Chief, despite his more-than-capable performances in three straight battles and far stronger administrative talents than himself.
...
Showing a better grasp of strategy right from the start, McClernand had advised Stanton back in mid-November that troops could move down the west bank and cross on transports brought upriver past Port Hudson, which the rebels had started to strengthen.
...
Grant should also have mentioned how McClernand showed foresight in pointing Union operations down the Mississippi.
...
Inexplicably, unless he meant to send his rival off to join Banks, Grant chose McClernand - and officer he allegedly judged incompetent and unmanageable - to march past Vicksburg, cross the river, and advance onto the high ground.
...
Fertile in ideas, McClernand offered three suggestions: ascend Black River to get in the rear of Grand Gulf or march down the Mississippi and cross to the east bank at Bayou Pierre or take the position by frontal assault after the gunboats had purchased a foothold.
...
Porter's failure to reduce Grand Gulf "induced Grant to adopt McClernand's suggestion for outflanking the position."
...
McClernand recommended that feints be made at Warrenton and Haynes', and Grant broached the latter idea to Porter on the succeeding day.
...
Wilson wrote how McClernand "had behaved with his usual gallantry and sound judgment," and "without waiting for orders or for reenforcements he attacked vigorously and gained a substantial victory."
...
To be sure, McClernand could -and probably should - have ignored Grant's hesitancy and let the sounds of combat guide him to an immediate and vigorous advance. (Champion Hill)
...
"McClernand commenced the assault earlier," this account continued, "than any other commander."
...
[Grant] had entrusted his subordinate to lead the way down from Milliken's and across the Mississippi. [Grant] offered little oversight while McClernand fought at Port Gibson and, at Champion Hill, provided almost none at all. For the assaults on and throughout the siege of Vicksburg, [Grant] kept himself and his headquarters far away from the Thirteenth Corps. That spoke volumes. Better use of his staff and signal corps, as well as closer personal supervision, could have obviated the problems in managing the assault. To excuse the failure to see for himself on May22nd or to respond to McClernands requests for support in a timely fashion, Grant dubiously contended that - at a distance of a mile and a half - "I occupied a position from which I believed I could see as well as he what took place in his front, and I did not see the success he reported."
...
McClernand had earlier justified his military actions to Governor Yates, telling how, after repeated appeals for a diversion to his right or for more troops, "reinforcements finally came up, but too late; night cut short the engagement." Once ousted, he strenously complained to the President and the Secretary of War, telling the latter that Grant's motive - "personal hostility" - grew out of McClernands assignment to the Mississippi River expedition. This had no effect.

 

[TallTallMan]

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Old history books used to preface their work with something like "all errors of fact or interpretation are those of the author alone."

Might presume the author in this case made an error. Academic or professional historians have some advantage in that their various debates and peer review to catch these minor things. Even then some rather glaring simple errors of fact can show up, especially from uncritically paraphrasing other authors, etc.

"all errors of fact or interpretation are those of the author alone." - THAT sounds like something with which I should preface each of the 14 three-ring binders of my family history and genealogy work! (Many errors undoubtedly exist despite my attempts to use sound genealogy fundamentals. Hahaha!)

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

View attachment 551819

Hahaha!

 

[Belfoured]

View attachment 551819

Paging Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger ....

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

"all errors of fact or interpretation are those of the author alone." - THAT sounds like something with which I should preface each of the 14 three-ring binders of my family history and genealogy work! (Many errors undoubtedly exist despite my attempts to use sound genealogy fundamentals. Hahaha!)

The only people who don't make errors are those who do nothing.

Although sometimes doing nothing is an error in itself.

I don't think the issue in some threats is whether authors sometimes err. They do. The issue seems to be in how other people characterize those who make errors, but who refuse to understand that if they are held to the same standards, they should also be subject to the same recriminations. Moreover, difference of opinion or interpretation in itself is not a sign of someone's moral depravity, intellectual incompetence, or lack of integrity.

Most of us understand that.

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

Paging Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger ....

"Someone" would protest that Sullenberger decided to land his plane on the Hudson River within sight of Grant's Tomb.

 

[Belfoured]

"Someone" would protest that Sullenberger decided to land his plane on the Hudson River within sight of Grant's Tomb.

And as a multi-engine licensed version of Brooks Simpson, he steered it away from Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn to denigrate Fitz John Porter and Slocum.

 

[genbeau]

Reading Rhea's account of the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. Seems Grant let Phil Sheridan and his entire calavary separate off and go looking for Jeb Stuart. The result was, without the horse soldiers, Grant had a very hard time determining the layout of Lees troops at Spotsylvania which causedno end of troubles to the unionists.

 

[TallTallMan]

"all errors of fact or interpretation are those of the author alone." - THAT sounds like something with which I should preface each of the 14 three-ring binders of my family history and genealogy work! (Many errors undoubtedly exist despite my attempts to use sound genealogy fundamentals. Hahaha!)

For my "Civil War Library of the Absurd" I'm going to put a notice: All errors of judgement are those of the buyer alone.

 

[Philip Leigh]

The only people who don't make errors are those who do nothing.

Although sometimes doing nothing is an error in itself.

I don't think the issue in some threats is whether authors sometimes err. They do. The issue seems to be in how other people characterize those who make errors, but who refuse to understand that if they are held to the same standards, they should also be subject to the same recriminations. Moreover, difference of opinion or interpretation in itself is not a sign of someone's moral depravity, intellectual incompetence, or lack of integrity.

Most of us understand that.

"Credit belongs to the man in the arena."

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

Reading Rhea's account of the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. Seems Grant let Phil Sheridan and his entire calavary separate off and go looking for Jeb Stuart. The result was, without the horse soldiers, Grant had a very hard time determining the layout of Lees troops at Spotsylvania which causedno end of troubles to the unionists.

Rhea admitted at a conference I attended that Grant usually did not employ cavalry that way throughout his career. Both sides were a bit blind.

If you read the series chronologically, Rhea becomes less critical of Grant as he goes along. That doesn't mean he's not critical.

 

[genbeau]

Rhea admitted at a conference I attended that Grant usually did not employ cavalry that way throughout his career. Both sides were a bit blind.

If you read the series chronologically, Rhea becomes less critical of Grant as he goes along. That doesn't mean he's not critical.

I am planning to read the whole sequence thru to the end. I've read wilderness and in the middle of Spotsylvania.

 

[tony_gunter]

Rhea admitted at a conference I attended that Grant usually did not employ cavalry that way throughout his career. Both sides were a bit blind.

If you read the series chronologically, Rhea becomes less critical of Grant as he goes along. That doesn't mean he's not critical.

He used cavalry that way at Vicksburg, the exception being Raymond because McPherson sent his cavalry off to break the railroad to Port Hudson.

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

"Credit belongs to the man in the arena."

Apparently Mr. Rose is skipping this arena.