Member Review Grant's Memoirs

[Tennessee Union Gal]

Going to Saratoga would make it worth my while even more! Thanks!!

Sounds like a good trip!

 

[A. Roy]

Even the most honest memoirs will give more attention and focus to what the author thinks is important and less on what the author considers less important. But the author's focus can be as revealing as what they have to say.

There might be a point to make also about the distinction between a memoir and an autobiography. I guess the distinction tends to get blurred, but I understand that a memoir is meant to be more focused on a certain series of events or period of the writer's life.
AR

 

[Bruce Vail]

The great popularity of the Memoirs is due more to the celebrity of its author than any historical or literary value of the book itself.

I tackled it a couple of years back and found it boring and unreadable. Maybe I should give it another try.

 

[121st PA Vols]

I've yet to read Grant's Memoirs, still recovering from Chernow's Grant.

 

[jackt62]

The great popularity of the Memoirs is due more to the celebrity of its author than any historical or literary value of the book itself.

I tackled it a couple of years back and found it boring and unreadable. Maybe I should give it another try.

It's the most famous and popular CW memoir by far, and without doubt the celebrity of its author in the decades after the war is the best explanation. That being said, I did enjoy reading the Memoirs, and found Grant's writing style very easy to follow. But it's important to emphasize that Grant downplayed episodes that did not present him in the most favorable light so reading the Memoirs by itself is not a great way to be informed on the objective facts of the war.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

I recently glanced at my annotated copy of Grant's Memoirs. I first read them decades ago. I find the Memoirs to be thoroughly readable, and I do see genuine literary merit in the work, but I would never claim they are especially reliable as a historical source. Read with caution would be my advice

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

The great popularity of the Memoirs is due more to the celebrity of its author than any historical or literary value of the book itself.

I tackled it a couple of years back and found it boring and unreadable. Maybe I should give it another try.

Boring? Try Longstreet's and I like Longstreet and pushed my whole way through.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I've yet to read Grant's Memoirs, still recovering from Chernow's Grant.

Despite its own problems, Chernow's book is much better than Grant's. Chernow is a better writer and he has the advantage of 150 years of historical perspective.

 

[CWLeadManiac]

I totally agree Grant wrote his memoirs in a way to make himself look better but let's remember that his was but one of many perspectives AND Grant was advised by one of the best storytellers of the time, Mark Twain. I don't doubt, for one minute, that the whole book was slightly embellished. I do, however, find it a great read.

 

[A. Roy]

I totally agree Grant wrote his memoirs in a way to make himself look better but let's remember that his was but one of many perspectives AND Grant was advised by one of the best storytellers of the time, Mark Twain. I don't doubt, for one minute, that the whole book was slightly embellished. I do, however, find it a great read.

These embellishments have been brought up a couple of times here. Are there some specific inaccuracies that could be mentioned?
AR

 

[CWLeadManiac]

These embellishments have been mentioned a couple of times here. Are there some specific inaccuracies that could be mentioned?
AR

I'm a relative novice but I've heard from people who do intense study of ACW military tactics that there are inaccuracies. I, also, would be curious to know what specific inaccuracies the memoirs contain.

 

[JackADriscoll]

I totally agree Grant wrote his memoirs in a way to make himself look better but let's remember that his was but one of many perspectives AND Grant was advised by one of the best storytellers of the time, Mark Twain. I don't doubt, for one minute, that the whole book was slightly embellished. I do, however, find it a great read.

Yes. It's like I was hanging out with grant fishing and just shooting the breeze. I find it extremely conversational and enjoyable.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Despite its own problems, Chernow's book is much better than Grant's. Chernow is a better writer and he has the advantage of 150 years of historical perspective.

I thought Chernow's biography of Washington was excellent and his biography of Hamilton was so popular it got a musical based on it. But "Triumph Over Alcoholism" is one of those books I don't think I'm ever going to bother with.

 

[A. Roy]

I thought Chernow's biography of Washington was excellent and his biography of Hamilton was so popular it got a musical based on it. But "Triumph Over Alcoholism" is one of those books I don't think I'm ever going to bother with.

Hmm, well, this thread is about Grant's memoirs, but I read Chernow's biography and that didn't stick in my mind as the chief theme.
AR

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

These embellishments have been brought up a couple of times here. Are there some specific inaccuracies that could be mentioned?
AR

At the Battle of Belmont, "we were not again molested on our way to the boats." Very wrong.
"Our loss at Belmont was 485 in killed, wounded and missing." Dougherty's and McClernand's ORs app have 377 and 208, respectively, but it was even higher than the total provided by those two commanders.
"On our first appearance Tilghman had sent his entire command, with the exception of about one hundred men left to man the guns in the fort, to the outworks on the road to Dover and Donelson, so as to have them out of range of the guns of our navy; and before any attack on the 6th he had ordered them to retreat on Donelson. He stated in his subsequent report that the defence was intended solely to give his troops time to make their escape." Both Grant and Tilghman were wrong.
Concerning Fort Donelson: "But every boat that came up with supplies or reinforcements brought a note of encouragement from Sherman, asking me to call upon him for any assistance he could render and saying that if he could be of service at the front I might send for him and he would waive rank." Sherman wasn't even around yet.
"Thus in less than two weeks after the victory at Donelson, the two leading generals in the army were in correspondence as to what disposition should be made of me, and in less than three weeks I was virtually in arrest and without a command." Wrong; he was not virtually in arrest or without a command.
"On the 17th of March the army on the Tennessee River consisted of five divisions, commanded respectively by Generals C. F. Smith, McClernand, L. Wallace, Hurlbut and Sherman. General W. H. L. Wallace was temporarily in command of Smith's division, General Smith, as I have said, being confined to his bed." Lauman was in temporary command of the Second Division.
Before Shiloh, "The fact is, I regarded the campaign we were engaged in as an offensive one and had no idea that the enemy would leave strong intrenchments to take the initiative when he knew he would be attacked where he was if he remained. This view, however, did not prevent every precaution being taken and every effort made to keep advised of all movements of the enemy." Very few precautions or preparations were taken.

These are only some of the many inaccuracies, and the Battle of Shiloh hasn't even been reached (about which he argued that, as a Union patrol started the battle , "It also seems to me to settle the question as to whether there was a surprise").

Making matters much worse, Grant's Memoirs are treated differently than all others, in that they are often accepted as the truth in histories of the American Civil War, even when much contradictory evidence is available.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Concerning Fort Donelson: "But every boat that came up with supplies or reinforcements brought a note of encouragement from Sherman, asking me to call upon him for any assistance he could render and saying that if he could be of service at the front I might send for him and he would waive rank." Sherman wasn't even around yet.

This is false, and it shows why people need to be very skeptical of modern authors. Read and verify for yourself. Some authors just want to tear Grant down.

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

This is false, and it shows why people need to be very skeptical of modern authors. Read and verify for yourself. Some authors just want to tear Grant down.

Grant's Memoirs stated that, "During the siege General Sherman had been sent to Smithland, at the mouth of the Cumberland River, to forward reinforcements and supplies to me."

Sherman wasn't at Smithland, as far as I know, and he didn't reach Paducah until February 15th. So boats sent to Grant during the siege "with supplies or reinforcements" before that date could not have "brought a note of encouragement from Sherman."

 

[DanSBHawk]

Grant's Memoirs stated that, "During the siege General Sherman had been sent to Smithland, at the mouth of the Cumberland River, to forward reinforcements and supplies to me."

Sherman wasn't at Smithland, as far as I know, and he didn't reach Paducah until February 15th. So boats sent to Grant during the siege "with supplies or reinforcements" before that date could not have "brought a note of encouragement from Sherman."

"During the siege" Sherman received orders sending him to Smithland. After he arrived at Smithland, he was forwarding reinforcements and supplies.

Grant didn't write that Sherman had already arrived at Smithland during the siege. You're simply trying to twist Grants words.

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

"During the siege" Sherman received orders sending him to Smithland. After he arrived at Smithland, he was forwarding reinforcements and supplies.

Grant didn't write that Sherman had already arrived at Smithland during the siege. You're simply trying to twist Grants words.

I didn't imply that Grant wrote "that Sherman had already arrived at Smithland during the siege" and, therefore, wasn't twisting Grants words. As stated, Grant wrote in his Memoirs, "During the siege General Sherman had been sent to Smithland, at the mouth of the Cumberland River, to forward reinforcements and supplies to me."

Sherman wasn't even ordered to Paducah until 2/13. As I stated, Sherman wasn't at Smithland, as far as I know. He didn't reach Paducah until February 15th. So boats sent to Grant during the siege "with supplies or reinforcements" before that date could not have "brought a note of encouragement from Sherman."

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Sherman was at Smithland during the siege?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Sherman sent any messages to Grant during the siege? If so, where is it?

Days after Donelson fell, on the 19th, Grant referred to "the kind tone" of Sherman's letter. So, at best, we have one undated letter; so it couldn't have been "every boat that came up with supplies or reinforcements."

Please provide proof for your suppositions.

 

[JackADriscoll]

We have grants word in his memoir. If you are saying it's untrue I'd like to see it. Please provide documentation of Sherman's movements during the donelson campaign so that we know he couldn't have been in smithland