Member Review Grant's Memoirs

[A. Roy]

"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.

This sounded familiar when you mentioned it.

What do you think Grant was trying to say when he claimed to be "without a command"? I see this letter from Halleck to McClellan evidently replacing Grant with Gen Charles F. Smith:

Headquarters Department of the Missouri,
Saint Louis, March 4, 1862.
Major-General McClellan, Washington:
A rumor has just reached me that since the taking of Fort Donelson General Grant has resumed his former bad habits.* If so, it will account for his neglect of my often-repeated orders. I do not deem it advisable to arrest him at present, but have placed General Smith in command of the expedition up the Tennessee. I think Smith will restore order and discipline.
I hear unofficially, but from a reliable source, that our forces took possession of Columbus this morning, the enemy falling back to Island No. 10 and New Madrid. I am expecting official telegram hourly.
H. W. HALLECK,
Major-General.

Did the appointment of Smith leave Grant without a command, or "virtually" so?

Although Halleck didn't think it necessary to arrest Grant at that time, did Grant have reason to think himself "virtually" or practically "in arrest"?

I'm just trying to understand what you mean in saying that Grant was inaccurate on this point in his memoirs.

ARB

 

[DanSBHawk]

Marszalek? You're kidding, right? He edited Grant's Memoirs and didn't even note that Grant denied the Shiloh surprise.

Not kidding at all. Marszalek is a respected historian. Tim Smith is also a very respected historian, and he has written about the "Shiloh surprise" and put it into perspective.

 

[JerryD]

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

By far, most boring was Jefferson Davis'. For the most part it reads like a legal brief on the constitutionality of secession, and he makes the same tired arguments over and over again. The only fun part was some his responses to articles written by Joe Johnston.

Another tedious one was McClellan's. His hubris just jumps off the page and beats you down.

 

[JackADriscoll]

The Shiloh thing makes me think of a situation where I got in trouble for something when I was a kid. Like no I knew the homework was due I wasn't surprised I knew I had to do it... I was just ill prepared

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

This sounded familiar when you mentioned it.

What do you think Grant was trying to say when he claimed to be "without a command"? I see this letter from Halleck to McClellan evidently replacing Grant with Gen Charles F. Smith:

Headquarters Department of the Missouri,
Saint Louis, March 4, 1862.
Major-General McClellan, Washington:
A rumor has just reached me that since the taking of Fort Donelson General Grant has resumed his former bad habits.* If so, it will account for his neglect of my often-repeated orders. I do not deem it advisable to arrest him at present, but have placed General Smith in command of the expedition up the Tennessee. I think Smith will restore order and discipline.
I hear unofficially, but from a reliable source, that our forces took possession of Columbus this morning, the enemy falling back to Island No. 10 and New Madrid. I am expecting official telegram hourly.
H. W. HALLECK,
Major-General.

Did the appointment of Smith leave Grant without a command, or "virtually" so?

Although Halleck didn't think it necessary to arrest Grant at that time, did Grant have reason to think himself "virtually" or practically "in arrest"?

I'm just trying to understand what you mean in saying that Grant was inaccurate on this point in his memoirs.

ARB

I would say that Grant was still in command of his district, Smith was given command of the upriver expedition, and nobody was in arrest, virtually or otherwise.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

By far, most boring was Jefferson Davis'. For the most part it reads like a legal brief on the constitutionality of secession, and he makes the same tired arguments over and over again. The only fun part was some his responses to articles written by Joe Johnston.

Another tedious one was McClellan's. His hubris just jumps off the page and beats you down.

Boring does not begin to describe the tedious, coma-inducing stupor of Jefferson Davis's ghostwritten memoirs. Never read McClellan's book so I cannot comment on that one.

 

[dlofting]

I would say that Grant was still in command of his district, Smith was given command of the upriver expedition, and nobody was in arrest, virtually or otherwise.

So when Grant said he was virtually under arrest he probably meant "almost" under arrest, which was his opinion. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[tony_gunter]

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.

Chernow really doesn't address the alcohol issue, pro or con. He occasionally notes rumors and conjectures by those around Grant, but it's not even until page 649 that he offhandedly mentions without explanation "frequent wartime binges."

 

[lupaglupa]

Just as an FYI, according to their website, Grant's Cottage is still closed for the season. It will reopen April 27th. If you're up that way, the New York State Military Museum in Saratoga Springs is also worth a stop, although their research center (my reason for going there) is closed due to renovations. They are about 10 miles apart.

The museum has reopened. Only the Research Center remains closed.

Saratoga Springs is a great place to visit and Grant's Cottage is well worth seeing.

 

[TallTallMan]

Not kidding at all. Marszalek is a respected historian. Tim Smith is also a very respected historian, and he has written about the "Shiloh surprise" and put it into perspective.

Being a "respected" does not make one infallible. Just because Marszalek says there are "few" errors does not make it true, no more than other historians who make untrue claims.

 

[TallTallMan]

On the subject of Chernow, it is ABSOLUTE hagiography. It does the trick of lightly criticizing its subject but then in the same breath claiming he really didn't do anything wrong--thus, Grant is right when he's wrong. "Grant spilled milk all over the floor but the cat licked it up."

It's also the simplistic good guys vs. bad guys moral crusade version. I am not a Southern partisan but portraying the CSA as totally corrupt evil McBadguys is more about today than then.

I find the absolute hoops done for Grant irritating because it involves stepping on other people--even Lincoln himself, with his "bad" strategies--to make him the hero at every point in his life. I have read worshipful works on Lincoln and Lee and wasn't that bothered because it wasn't a "everyone's bad" writing.

Considering that people jump up and down about supposed "hagiography" about Lee, it is a wonder that Grant slobbering gets a pass. Most likely they don't dislike saint writing; they just don't want it for people they don't like.

 

[dlofting]

Being a "respected" does not make one infallible. Just because Marszalek says there are "few" errors does not make it true, no more than other historians who make untrue claims.

A lot of it depends on interpretation of someone's words as English, and probably most other language, is imprecise.

For example when Grant says he wasn't surprised at Shiloh, what did he mean? Was he saying that he had established a camp with well defended positions or that he knew Confederate forces were in the vicinity. Both could be taken as " not surprised" but only one is correct.

Marszalek could be applying an interpretation to Grant's memoirs that makes his claim of "few errors" correct, while someone else's interpretation might legitimately yield a claim of more errors.

Neither claim is inherently untrue.

 

[TallTallMan]

A lot of it depends on interpretation of someone's words as English, and probably most other language, is imprecise.

For example when Grant says he wasn't surprised at Shiloh, what did he mean? Was he saying that he had established a camp with well defended positions or that he knew Confederate forces were in the vicinity. Both could be taken as " not surprised" but only one is correct.

Marszalek could be applying an interpretation tonGrant's memoirs that makes his claim of "few errors" correct, while someone else's interpretation might legitimately yield a claim of more errors.

Neither claim is inherently untrue.

"Stretching the truth" is still not truth.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Being a "respected" does not make one infallible. Just because Marszalek says there are "few" errors does not make it true, no more than other historians who make untrue claims.

I agree. No historian is infallible. And no one who writes a memoir is infallible.

If Grant had been a nobody, there would be no controversy about the accuracies of his memoirs. It's only because of Grant's success and acclaim that some people obsess over tearing him down. There is a resentment of Grant by fans of less successful generals.

Grant's Memoirs are certainly not any more inaccurate than anyone else's memoirs. If anything, they are probably more accurate than the typical memoirs of that period.

 

[DanSBHawk]

"Stretching the truth" is still not truth.

The critics of Grant are more guilty of stretching the truth than Grant or any of his recent biographers.

 

[TallTallMan]

I agree. No historian is infallible. And no one who writes a memoir is infallible.

If Grant had been a nobody, there would be no controversy about the accuracies of his memoirs. It's only because of Grant's success and acclaim that some people obsess over tearing him down. There is a resentment of Grant by fans of less successful generals.

Grant's Memoirs are certainly not any more inaccurate than anyone else's memoirs. If anything, they are probably more accurate than the typical memoirs of that period.

It can also be said that success and acclaim has led to some of his enemy generals starting an obsession with tearing them down. I'm thinking of one in particular. I resent hagiographers who claim they hate hagiography.

Grant's memoirs would not be a controversy if people had not and will stop relying on them as gospel truth, or spread cannards that they are, for the most part, accurate portrayals of the CW.

 

[dlofting]

"Stretching the truth" is still not truth.

So here we have a great example of different interpretation of words.

I'm sure there are multiple interpretations of the phrase "stretching the truth". So you and I might disagree on whether an author did itn or not, but both be right because we interpreted the phrase differently.

That was precisely my point about Grant's "not surprised" comment.

 

[lupaglupa]

To me the whole story of Grant, deathly ill and worried about his family's future, holing himself up in this remote cottage to write what he hopes will be a successful book, is a touching story. The cottage is amazing to see. They even have some of the funeral flowers there preserved.

 

[TallTallMan]

The critics of Grant are more guilty of stretching the truth than Grant or any of his recent biographers.

Well, it was not Rose and Varney who has been obscuring Paducah, Chattanooga, Santo Domingo, and the Black Hills, among others.

 

[JerryD]

Grant's memoirs would not be a controversy if people had not and will stop relying on them as gospel truth, or spread cannards that they are, for the most part, accurate portrayals of the CW.

I keep hearing this from Grant detractors, but in all my reading about the Civil War I have never seen a single instance of anyone making the claim that Grant's memoirs are gospel truth. Can you please give me a cite for who did this and where? It really sounds like a red herring argument.