Grant Grant Under Fire: A Question

[Belfoured]

The reason for that is, of course, it isn't factual. It was the U.S. Army, McClernand don't "own" an army. What is missing is Lincoln's need for a War Democrat & was an excellent recruiter. It was politics… Ed Bearss makes all that very clear. Absolutely nobody wanted McClernand put in command of anything.

The lesson being, reading three paragraphs on Wikipedia is no substitute for reading Ed Bearss' three volume history of the Vicksburg Campaign.

I understand and agree. I was making the point that Wikipedia doesn't say that "Grant stole his army". That's the proposition stated in the post.

 

[Belfoured]

We are not writing books on this website. But as one poster stated, an extraordinary claim should be supported by a solid citation. But citations are sometimes mislabeled and sometimes mis quoted. The only sanction here is a loss of credibility.

To be clear, nobody said we are writing books and nobody said that any poster has an obligation to provide sources. Far from it. But a lot of us, at least, find sources to be useful and informative. There are members here who like to learn a thing or seven about areas they don't have much knowledge about and to rely on what's posted. And there are posts that in part or in whole "make stuff up". It's unavoidable on a large site with a lot of members.

 

[JackADriscoll]

To be clear, nobody said we are writing books and nobody said that any poster has an obligation to provide sources. Far from it. But a lot of us, at least, find sources to be useful and informative. There are members here who like to learn a thing or seven about areas they don't have much knowledge about and to rely on what's posted. And there are posts that in part or in whole "make stuff up". It's unavoidable on a large site with a lot of members.

What I find great about cwt is not how well sourced things are or aren't but the sheer breath of things that people post for you to read for yourself. Something you never would have stumbled on. That's what makes stuff like this board special for research

 

[Rhea Cole]

I understand and agree. I was making the point that Wikipedia doesn't say that "Grant stole his army". That's the proposition stated in the post.

I was supporting your post.

 

[Belfoured]

I was supporting your post.

I know. I was just clarifying because by saying there was no source I wasn't explicitly saying "and there was no statement for a source".

 

[Belfoured]

What I find great about cwt is not how well sourced things are or aren't but the sheer breath of things that people post for you to read for yourself. Something you never would have stumbled on. That's what makes stuff like this board special for research

Agree. And giving sources can allow members to access even more information on a topic. Posts as a rule can only cover so much.

 

[TallTallMan]

What I find great about cwt is not how well sourced things are or aren't but the sheer breath of things that people post for you to read for yourself. Something you never would have stumbled on. That's what makes stuff like this board special for research

I've learned a lot from this forum in the 2 3/4ths years I've been on. It's only bad for those who think they know everything to begin with.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Agree. And giving sources can allow members to access even more information on a topic. Posts as a rule can only cover so much.

That is why I have been including links with my posts. This simply isn't a format that encourages long multi paragraph posts. In any case, when there is a question to be answered, a citation is the most informative way to answer in many cases.

 

[Belfoured]

And President Lincoln seems to have played it correctly. McClernand obtained a new command under Banks and he McClernand stayed out of politics in 1864, which probably was the goal. Then President Lincoln won the Illinois EC votes in November.

If Lincoln thought he was losing a brilliant officer he would have handled it differently and McClernand would have been summoned from sitting around in Illinois long before he was in early 1864, when he was put in command ultimately of a detachment of the XIII Corps under Banks. Lincoln knew why he had appointed McClernand in the first place and that the political necessity had diminished.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Side bar:

General Henry Beebee Carrington is an example of a political officer who was rightly kept on garrison duty with the 18th US during the Civil War. His management & engineer skills were put to good use.

While he was not a curtain climber like McClernand, he did crave active service after the Civil War. Along with many of the 18th's Stones River veterans, as commander of the regiment Carrington's engineering skills were called upon in the building of a series of forts extending into Lakota territory.

Like many desires, Carrington's active service was way more active than he ever could have imagined… it hit the fan in just about every form known to man.

This is an entertaining read, especially if this is new to you.

Link:

https://www.jamesmountainantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/A-BRIEF-HISTORY-OF-HENRY-B.-CARRINGTON.pdf

 

[TallTallMan]

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.

You're being very obtuse. Maybe you forgot the internet is full of weirdos? Maybe some people prefer their privacy. This stuff is in the cloud forever. Nobody is shoving a camera in your face at a roundtable.

Also, a quick reminder: a few "higher-ups" have handles

 

[Belfoured]

You're being very obtuse. Maybe you forgot the internet is full of weirdos? Maybe some people prefer their privacy. This stuff is in the cloud forever. Nobody is shoving a camera in your face at a roundtable.

Also, a quick reminder: a few "higher-ups" have handles

He seems to be under some delusion that members who use handles here - the vast majority, including as you point out several Board Ops/Mods - would be afraid to challenge his assertions in person. That assumption would be a significant error on his part.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Uh, most forums include pseudonyms.

Absolutely!

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Most of the CWT members who use their real name as their username do so specifically because they are published authors and their posts are entirely related to their books or subjects covered by their books. In other words, their presence here is primarily or entirely for marketing purposes.

However, it is worth noting that one of the people here who posts on the forum almost entirely for marketing purposes is probably the largest publisher of Civil War books yet uses neither his real name nor the name of his company as his username (though the company logo does serve as his profile pic)

There are some folks who use first initial (sometimes also middle initial) + last name for a username, probably entirely out of habit from when they first started using the internet as that was how work, school, and ISP-provided email address were and are usually formatted. It's not an initial rejection of anonymity. I used to use that username format on other websites. The main reason I stopped is my name is uncommon so separated from an email address it's not obvious when reading it that it's a name or how it should be pronounced.

It's also a matter of branding. Just as an author or musician might use different pseudonyms for different genres, my real name serves as a professional "brand" as part of my day job. However, I'm here on CWT as a hobby, not to market my brand.

 

[Belfoured]

Most of the CWT members who use their real name as their username do so specifically because they are published authors and their posts are entirely related to their books or subjects covered by their books. In other words, their presence here is primarily or entirely for marketing purposes.

However, it is worth noting that one of the people here who posts on the forum almost entirely for marketing purposes is probably the largest publisher of Civil War books yet uses neither his real name nor the name of his company as his username (though the company logo does serve as his profile pic)

There are some folks who use first initial (sometimes also middle initial) + last name for a username, probably entirely out of habit from when they first started using the internet as that was how work, school, and ISP-provided email address were and are usually formatted. It's not an initial rejection of anonymity. I used to use that username format on other websites. The main reason I stopped is my name is uncommon so separated from an email address it's not obvious when reading it that it's a name or how it should be pronounced.

It's also a matter of branding. Just as an author or musician might use different pseudonyms for different genres, my real name serves as a professional "brand" as part of my day job. However, I'm here on CWT as a hobby, not to market my brand.

Good points. There are a slew of reasons that members use pseudonyms/handles. Very few, if any, are sinister and calling that out on an internet forum is bizarre, to say the least.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

There are a slew of reasons that members use pseudonyms/handles. Very few, if any, are sinister and calling that out on an internet forum is bizarre, to say the least.

Yeah, the pros and cons of internet anonymity is certainly debatable, but after 30+ years of that genie ain't going back in the bottle.

(I've been on the internet, and regularly, since the summer of 1995. It's about the only thing I've ever done "before it was cool.")

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

I hope this thread has run its course.

Note I said *hope.*

 

[wausaubob]

General and President Grant were not under fire in the 19th century. Despite the corruption, I think his voters got the results they wanted when they voted for him.

 

[uaskme]

General and President Grant were not under fire in the 19th century. Despite the corruption, I think his voters got the results they wanted when they voted for him.

Didn't do too good expecting a 3rd run.

History is looking back and analyzing. Curious that some get so triggered over Grant. This stuff is 160 years ago. Problem is, all of the revisions, some historical people become cartoon characters. Some don't not like details. If it isn't your thing, they should move on.

 

[Skeptical Advocate]

Deleted

Who has asked you to apologize? I placed your claims in a larger context. That is part of taking you seriously on a serious site. Citing self-selected reader reviews as definitive evidence of quality while failing to note how one's work has failed to make an impact in the professional academic community is a sign of being less than serious about one's endeavors. But you be you.

Authors are to be commended for appearing on this platform, especially when they risk unhinged abuse by certain parties. Sometimes, however, they act in ways that invite and justify criticism and damage their ability to reach a wider audience. They impair the opportunity to be judged primarily by the work they have done.