Grant Grant's Current Critics: Recent Books

[Horace Porter]

Recently three books have appeared that either directly or indirectly offer sustained criticisms of the military career of Ulysses S. Grant. Joseph A. Rose's Grant Under Fire (2015) is a detailed look at Grant's military record that is highly critical of Grant as well as much of Grant scholarship. Dr. Frank P. Varney's General Grant and the Rewriting of History: How the Destruction of General William S. Rosecrans Influenced Our Understanding of the Civil War (2013) looks carefully at Grant's Memoirs, primary sources, and the work of other scholars to examine Grant's impact on the reputation of William S. Rosecrans. Finally, although David Moore's William S. Rosecrans and the Union Victory: A Civil War Biography (2014) is ostensibly a biography of Rosecrans, both in the book and on this discussion board (as well as elsewhere, I gather) Mr. Moore frames much of his treatment of Rosecrans in the context of Grant's record and writings.

Two of the authors--Mr. Rose and Mr. Moore--have been frequent contributors to this discussion group when the conversation turns to Grant-related subjects. Here's an opportunity for us to chat with them (and they with us) about how their work sheds light upon the military career of Ulysses S. Grant. Doubtless the discussion will be far-ranging, but at least this way other threads devoted to specific aspects of Grant's life and career can remain focused on those subjects, while we can come here to learn something about the topics brought up in those conversations that tend to take those threads off-topic. My thanks to Mr. Rose and Mr. Moore for their participation here.

 

[5fish]

These authors want to talk about Rosecrans and Thomas but what Lew Wallace most everyone believes Grant was wrong about Lew. Did ever exchange letters about the issue? I know Grant never back down...

 

[Horace Porter]

These authors want to talk about Rosecrans and Thomas but what Lew Wallace most everyone believes Grant was wrong about Lew. Did ever exchange letters about the issue? I know Grant never back down...

They did indeed correspond multiple times. I assume anyone who wants to chat about that issue can also do so here.

 

[johan_steele]

Having read two of the three I admit to being mightily underwhelmed. I would call both Rose & Moore's work poorly concealed and poorly coordinated hatchet jobs.

 

[NedBaldwin]

... I know Grant never back down...

Have you read the footnote Grant put in his memoirs regarding new information he received that "modifies very materially what I have said, and what has been said by others, of the conduct of General Lew. Wallace at the battle of Shiloh"?

 

[dlofting]

Having read two of the three I admit to being mightily underwhelmed. I would call both Rose & Moore's work poorly concealed and poorly coordinated hatchet jobs.

I'm really not interested in reading a "hatchet job". I like authors who go where the evidence takes them. Opinions are fine and can add a lot to a book, as long as it's clear that they are opinions. I don't really "love" or "hate" any Civil War soldiers, but find things to admire and dislike in all of them.

 

[Sbc]

Recently three books have appeared that either directly or indirectly offer sustained criticisms of the military career of Ulysses S. Grant. Joseph A. Rose's Grant Under Fire (2015) is a detailed look at Grant's military record that is highly critical of Grant as well as much of Grant scholarship. Dr. Frank P. Varney's General Grant and the Rewriting of History: How the Destruction of General William S. Rosecrans Influenced Our Understanding of the Civil War (2013) looks carefully at Grant's Memoirs, primary sources, and the work of other scholars to examine Grant's impact on the reputation of William S. Rosecrans. Finally, although David Moore's William S. Rosecrans and the Union Victory: A Civil War Biography (2014) is ostensibly a biography of Rosecrans, both in the book and on this discussion board (as well as elsewhere, I gather) Mr. Moore frames much of his treatment of Rosecrans in the context of Grant's record and writings.

Two of the authors--Mr. Rose and Mr. Moore--have been frequent contributors to this discussion group when the conversation turns to Grant-related subjects. Here's an opportunity for us to chat with them (and they with us) about how their work sheds light upon the military career of Ulysses S. Grant. Doubtless the discussion will be far-ranging, but at least this way other threads devoted to specific aspects of Grant's life and career can remain focused on those subjects, while we can come here to learn something about the topics brought up in those conversations that tend to take those threads off-topic. My thanks to Mr. Rose and Mr. Moore for their participation here.

To borrow a phrase from a well known member:

Sigh

 

[David Moore]

To borrow a phrase from a well known member:

Sigh

Having read two of the three I admit to being mightily underwhelmed. I would call both Rose & Moore's work poorly concealed and poorly coordinated hatchet jobs.

You seem to have had a strong reaction against my book. Could you mention a couple of things that particularly made you think it was a "hatchet job?"

 

[rbasin]

These authors want to talk about Rosecrans and Thomas but what Lew Wallace most everyone believes Grant was wrong about Lew. Did ever exchange letters about the issue? I know Grant never back down...

Grant did back down when it came to his criticism of McCook during the pursuit of Beauregard after Shiloh.

 

[David Moore]

I'm really not interested in reading a "hatchet job". I like authors who go where the evidence takes them. Opinions are fine and can add a lot to a book, as long as it's clear that they are opinions. I don't really "love" or "hate" any Civil War soldiers, but find things to admire and dislike in all of them.

Aren't you assuming my book is a "hatchet job?" I would say I went where the evidence took me. You can't know if you don't read it.

 

[johan_steele]

You seem to have had a strong reaction against my book. Could you mention a couple of things that particularly made you think it was a "hatchet job?"

We are in polite company. As I said, I was rather underwhelmed. I believe you started with a conclusion and used only those sources which supported said conclusion. That isn't history.

 

[hanna260]

Aren't you assuming my book is a "hatchet job?" I would say I went where the evidence took me. You can't know if you don't read it.

Mr. Moore, I have never read your book, so I cannot comment on whether it is a hatchet job. But I would like to comment on this: it is a little hard, judging by your posts and Mr. Roses' posts, to always take your analysis of Grant seriously, simply because I have yet to see any acknowledgement of appealing qualities he might have possessed or any sort of compromise with the people who disagree with your stance. Mr. Varney, freely, from my knowledge, said that he thought Grant had good qualities as a general and as a person, which made me believe that his book was more fair and balanced. I get that you were writing a book on Rosecrans, not Grant, and that Mr. Rose was writing an expose, not a biography, but in all of your two arguments here on Grant, I have yet to see any bit of conceding. I didn't even see you make any sort of substantive reply to @cash when he asked if you thought Grant had ANY redeeming qualities. Most people, short of Hitler or the Zodiac Killer, do have them.

 

[johan_steele]

Mr. Moore, I have never read your book, so I cannot comment on whether it is a hatchet job. But I would like to comment on this: it is a little hard, judging by your posts and Mr. Roses' posts, to always take your analysis of Grant seriously, simply because I have yet to see any acknowledgement of appealing qualities he might have possessed or any sort of compromise with the people who disagree with your stance. Mr. Varney, freely, from my knowledge, said that he thought Grant had good qualities as a general and as a person, which made me believe that his book was more fair and balanced. I get that you were writing a book on Rosecrans, not Grant, and that Mr. Rose was writing an expose, not a biography, but in all of your two arguments here on Grant, I have yet to see any bit of conceding. I didn't even see you make any sort of substantive reply to @cash when he asked if you thought Grant had ANY redeeming qualities. Most people, short of Hitler or the Zodiac Killer, do have them.

Ma'am, thank you. You just voiced my issue w/ two of the three authors mentioned in the OP. I have rarely witnessed such abject hatred towards a historical figure as evidenced by some.

When you start reading a man, learning about them they are rarely found to be cartoon characters but real men with both merits and flaws. You don't learn about a man by watching his fans **** all over another at every opportunity.

 

[JerseyBart]

Sending to moderated status so that "hatchet job insults" will not be slung around like other threads with this topic and member regulars posting here.

Posted as moderator

 

[Bee]

I like this quote for the subject of writing biographies:

People who search for perfect heroes reveal much more about themselves than their subjects; so do those who make their subjects scapegoats for an age. (Ulysses S. Grant Triumph over Adversity, 1822-1865, pg xviii)​

 

[Horace Porter]

Why can't someone write a biography of Rosecrans without turning into an attack against Grant? That's not clear to me. So the two men had a falling out ... and that in turn meant that when Grant took over in October 1863, he was not going to have Rosecrans as a subordinate.

I'd say both men are good haters. Even William Lamers pointed out that Rosecrans was often his own worst enemy.

I'm reminded of a recent biography of George Thomas that was essentially a recapitulation of much earlier biographies ... and which spent a great amount of time on Grant and Sherman at Shiloh, not exactly a proper part of a Thomas biography. And for every Adam Badeau there's a Donn Piatt, Henry Van Ness Boynton, or Thomas B. Van Horne. And, if we went after that biography with a fine-tooth comb, we'd find lots and lots of errors.

Now, I understand that Mr. Rose has termed his book an expose, and not a biography,and he's frankly admitted his bias. So I don't know what is wrong when others concur with him on that point. I think Mr. Moore would concede that he's rather enamored of Rosecrans. In either case, I think the results are as one might expect, and the same can be said for the polarizing reactions. I was just wondering whether we could get past that, but perhaps not.

 

[7th Texas Mounted Rifles]

Mr. Moore, I have never read your book, so I cannot comment on whether it is a hatchet job. But I would like to comment on this: it is a little hard, judging by your posts and Mr. Roses' posts, to always take your analysis of Grant seriously, simply because I have yet to see any acknowledgement of appealing qualities he might have possessed or any sort of compromise with the people who disagree with your stance. Mr. Varney, freely, from my knowledge, said that he thought Grant had good qualities as a general and as a person, which made me believe that his book was more fair and balanced. I get that you were writing a book on Rosecrans, not Grant, and that Mr. Rose was writing an expose, not a biography, but in all of your two arguments here on Grant, I have yet to see any bit of conceding.

Very well put, ma'am!
And this is coming from a High School student?!?!

I didn't even see you make any sort of substantive reply to @cash when he asked if you thought Grant had ANY redeeming qualities.

Completely understandable, and I do not fault Mr. Moore one bit for his lack of a response.

Most people, short of Hitler or the Zodiac Killer, do have them.

Freakin' Hilarious!

Hitler had some - oratory skills immediately come to mind.

And the Zodiac Killer is an expert at eluding law enforcement!

 

[David Moore]

Mr. Moore, I have never read your book, so I cannot comment on whether it is a hatchet job. But I would like to comment on this: it is a little hard, judging by your posts and Mr. Roses' posts, to always take your analysis of Grant seriously, simply because I have yet to see any acknowledgement of appealing qualities he might have possessed or any sort of compromise with the people who disagree with your stance. Mr. Varney, freely, from my knowledge, said that he thought Grant had good qualities as a general and as a person, which made me believe that his book was more fair and balanced. I get that you were writing a book on Rosecrans, not Grant, and that Mr. Rose was writing an expose, not a biography, but in all of your two arguments here on Grant, I have yet to see any bit of conceding. I didn't even see you make any sort of substantive reply to @cash when he asked if you thought Grant had ANY redeeming qualities. Most people, short of Hitler or the Zodiac Killer, do have them.

But admittedly you haven't read my book. How can we possibly have a discussion about it then?

 

[David Moore]

We are in polite company. As I said, I was rather underwhelmed. I believe you started with a conclusion and used only those sources which supported said conclusion. That isn't history.

So you have read my book? But you can't cite even one example of it being

Why can't someone write a biography of Rosecrans without turning into an attack against Grant? That's not clear to me. So the two men had a falling out ... and that in turn meant that when Grant took over in October 1863, he was not going to have Rosecrans as a subordinate.

I'd say both men are good haters. Even William Lamers pointed out that Rosecrans was often his own worst enemy.

I'm reminded of a recent biography of George Thomas that was essentially a recapitulation of much earlier biographies ... and which spent a great amount of time on Grant and Sherman at Shiloh, not exactly a proper part of a Thomas biography. And for every Adam Badeau there's a Donn Piatt, Henry Van Ness Boynton, or Thomas B. Van Horne. And, if we went after that biography with a fine-tooth comb, we'd find lots and lots of errors.

Now, I understand that Mr. Rose has termed his book an expose, and not a biography,and he's frankly admitted his bias. So I don't know what is wrong when others concur with him on that point. I think Mr. Moore would concede that he's rather enamored of Rosecrans. In either case, I think the results are as one might expect, and the same can be said for the polarizing reactions. I was just wondering whether we could get past that, but perhaps not.

Horace: quick response yes or no Have you read my book? Have you read Joseph Rose's book? What is the Thomas book you are referring to? You realize the ratio of biographers you cited is three to one against Grant? I will repeat again I have done, and continue to do, twenty plus years of primary source research and my conclusions went where the evidence took me. Horace you seem to know more about Grant than most of his defenders on this site. What is your background? Do you have advanced degrees in history? Have you taught? Done primary source research? Written any articles? Why such defense of Grant? What exactly do like most about him (be specific) I stumbled upon the Rosecrans story by accident and as I said before went where the evidence took me. What is the basis for your strident defense of Grant?

 

[David Moore]

Mr. Moore, I have never read your book, so I cannot comment on whether it is a hatchet job. But I would like to comment on this: it is a little hard, judging by your posts and Mr. Roses' posts, to always take your analysis of Grant seriously, simply because I have yet to see any acknowledgement of appealing qualities he might have possessed or any sort of compromise with the people who disagree with your stance. Mr. Varney, freely, from my knowledge, said that he thought Grant had good qualities as a general and as a person, which made me believe that his book was more fair and balanced. I get that you were writing a book on Rosecrans, not Grant, and that Mr. Rose was writing an expose, not a biography, but in all of your two arguments here on Grant, I have yet to see any bit of conceding. I didn't even see you make any sort of substantive reply to @cash when he asked if you thought Grant had ANY redeeming qualities. Most people, short of Hitler or the Zodiac Killer, do have them.

My interest in Grant is primarily his military career and specifically as that relates to Rosecrans and to a lesser extent other Union generals. If one reads Mr Rose's book one will find many documented instances of questionable behavior of Grant in regard to non military actions. Rather than me list them from memory I'd suggest you read them for yourself. (Request your local library to get the book if you don't want to but it.) I'm not saying Grant had no positive qualities but I do think that his break with people who were important to him like Badeau, Elihu Washburne and even John Rawlins ( little mention of him in the Memoirs) is telling. William Marvel's biography of Stanton finds few positive qualities in him so it is possible that unlikable people do exist. Perhaps the pursuit of power does that to people.
I will also say that Grant was chosen by Washburne and his career was really the product of Washburne's ambition. I do feel sorry for the US Grant who was placed in positions for which he had no real competency. He was doing the will of Washburne. I have posted the following before but perhaps you haven't seen it. It was written by the editor of the Chicago Tribune to Washburne in Feb 1863. I think it paints a portrait of Grant worse than anything I have said on this site:


"When do you think the Union is going to be saved out west? I write to you because it is through your influence mainly that he [Grant] holds the trust which he thus betrays. No man's military career in the army is more open to destructive criticism than Grant's. We have kept off of him on your account. We could have made him stink in the nostrils of the public like an old fish had we properly criticized his military blunders. Look at that miserable and costly campaign into northern Miss. when he sent crazy Sherman to Vicksburg and agreed to meet him there by land. Was there ever a more weak and imbecile campaign. But we forbore exposing him to the examination of the people.