Member Review Grant's Memoirs

[JerryD]

Instead of the "tremendous losses" suffered by Grant in the Overland campaign, he could have just taken the major part of his force up the James and avoided those grievous losses. Or he could have eschewed the foolish frontal assaults on fortified positions, often done at the spur of the moment, and just maneuvered his way overland towards Richmond. With his overwhelming force, he had the ability to take the initiative. Instead, the AotP was a chewed-up, relatively spent force by the time it arrived at the James under Grant and needed time and reinforcements to regain its strength.

I have heard this argument before, and I dont agree with it. I think it fails under the fallacious thinking that since he would end up in the same place in either event, then all other things must be the same as well. The fact is, the Overland Campaign chewed up Lee's army just as much as it did the AOP. Did Grant make mistakes during the Overland Campaign? Obviously. As Gordon Rhea pointed out, one of his biggest was the ill defined command structure he had with Meade. Many of the ill fated charges were due to Meade wanting to impress Grant that he was on board with Grant's grind them down strategy. As a result Meade insisted on charges that had no chance of success in order to secure his position with Grant. That is not to let Grant off the hook, though, as the ultimate commander he had responsibility to be closer to the fighting to see the actual state of affairs, instead of deferring to Meade.

All that being said, though, by the time Lee was trapped at Petersburg he had lost most of his senior officers and almost half his army, thus forcing him into a siege that he knew could only result in one result. I think its very fallacious to assume Grant could have avoided all that fighting and end up in front of Petersburg with the exact same strategic situation.

 

[Pollaco]

Not just Grant, but anyone who writes memoirs years after the fact from memory are bound to include some mistakes and possible inaccuracies.It is not possible to remember or recall some of the details. Especially in later life, believe me as a person ages the memory is not what it used to be. Most people don't take notes or write down quotes throughout life as they occur? Maybe Grant was that "one-in-a-million" who had a perfect memory.

 

[Saphroneth]

Actually, you don't even have to go by percentages. In actual numbers, armies commanded by Grant suffered about 150,000 casualties throughout the war. Those commanded by Lee suffered about 200,000 casualties. By real numbers, Lee was more of a butcher.

Lee commanded large armies for a longer period of time than Grant did. If we go by actual numbers, then Grant's major engagements before coming east are:

Donelson 2,700 (10%)
Shiloh 13,000 (20%)
Vicksburg Campaign 10,000 (variable %, campaign-scale about 15%)
Chattanooga-Ringgold 6,000 (about 8% on a campaign scale)

The largest army Grant operated in these campaigns was about 70,000 men.


In the same basic period of time, before Grant comes east, Lee commands armies on the same basic scale as Grant's Western campaigns - or larger - in:

Seven Days (multiple major battles)
Second Bull Run
South Mountain-Antietam (Antietam is the major battle)
Fredericksburg
Chancellorsville
Gettysburg

With lesser actions at Mine Run and Bristoe.

Notably the scale of all of these, adding both opposing sides together, is generally much larger than Grant's campaigns. At Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville Lee is facing an army about the same size as both sides combined in the largest campaigns Grant fought in the West.


It's not exactly surprising that Lee, in commanding in more major battles and generally on a much larger scale, suffered more casualties.



Fortunately, though, the period of time when Grant is fighting Lee offers a direct comparison - and during the Overland, for example, Grant typically has around a 2:1 advantage and suffers far more casualties than Lee does.



A big part of what makes Grant a successful general in the West is his ability to concentrate superior force against an enemy. I mean that sincerely - if you can do it you should, and Grant typically fights with a major numerical advantage which is why he can win his victories. But in the East, Grant is still able to do this, it's just that it doesn't translate into victory over Lee in the same way.

Does this indicate Grant is a butcher?
Well, not by itself! "Butcher" is a punitive term and I'd prefer to avoid it for that reason, among others. Grant is acting according to his previous experiences and applying the methods which have worked for him in the West, but here they don't, and perhaps his greatest error here is that he continues to try to apply them for a longer sustained period than he ever did in the West. This places an abnormal amount of strain on his army, as he asks things of them that he never asked of his Western armies.

 

[uaskme]

Not just Grant, but anyone who writes memoirs years after the fact from memory are bound to include some mistakes and possible inaccuracies.It is not possible to remember or recall some of the details. Especially in later life. Believe me as a person ages the memory is not what it used to be. Most people don't take notes or write down quotes throughout life as they occur? Maybe Grant was that "one-in-a-million" who had a perfect memory.

Well, yep, Grant was less than perfect with his memory.

Biographers have opinions. All people do. However many of these issues that happened on the Battlefield can be studied. Was Grant surprised at Shiloh. Study the Battle and find out for yourself. Did Grant lie about some of his subordinates? Did he play favorites? Did he protect Sherman? Study those battles.

This is what Mr Rose has done. Not sure most Biographers have done this. Obviously you can believe someone's analysis or not.

Grant had more than a Memory Problem.

 

[Library Lady]

Ladies and gentleman, this thread has degenerated into arguments that are available on many other threads elsewhere on Grant and on specific battles/theaters. If you want to continue in that vein, then please take your arguments over to them and contribute to those threads.

This thread is about a specific book and a specific genre (memoirs). There have been excellent posts about the pros and cons of that genre and of the book. There have been excellent posts about alternative books to the one under discussion. There have been excellent posts about the circumstances of the writing of the book and of the difficulties in writing in this genre. This is what I'm looking for here. Think American Lit class please.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Seven Days (multiple major battles)
Second Bull Run
South Mountain-Antietam (Antietam is the major battle)
Fredericksburg
Chancellorsville
Gettysburg

Fortunately, though, the period of time when Grant is fighting Lee offers a direct comparison - and during the Overland, for example, Grant typically has around a 2:1 advantage and suffers far more casualties than Lee does.

A big part of what makes Grant a successful general in the West is his ability to concentrate superior force against an enemy. I mean that sincerely - if you can do it you should, and Grant typically fights with a major numerical advantage which is why he can win his victories. But in the East, Grant is still able to do this, it's just that it doesn't translate into victory over Lee in the same way.

I disagree. It's not a direct comparison to those other battles if the confederate army was behind defensive works for most of the campaign.

And it wasn't a matter of just concentrating superior force that was successful in the west. It was also the ability to see opportunities. Grant certainly could have just conducted a long siege in front of Fort Donelson. But he saw an opportunity - the confederate forces massed on one end of the line which weakened the other end of the line - and he exploited that opportunity. Grant was opportunistic. Gordon Rhea noted this of Grant in the eastern campaigns as well.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Ladies and gentleman, this thread has degenerated into arguments that are available on many other threads elsewhere on Grant and on specific battles/theaters. If you want to continue in that vein, then please take your arguments over to them and contribute to those threads.

This thread is about a specific book and a specific genre (memoirs). There have been excellent posts about the pros and cons of that genre and of the book. There have been excellent posts about alternative books to the one under discussion. There have been excellent posts about the circumstances of the writing of the book and of the difficulties in writing in this genre. This is what I'm looking for here. Think American Lit class please.

Sorry, I posted before reading this. Back on topic.

 

[A. Roy]

Sorry, I posted before reading this. Back on topic.

Understandable. Grant is naturally a perennial favorite topic that gets us going!
AR

 

[Library Lady]

Sorry, I posted before reading this. Back on topic.

No worries, @DanSBHawk . I know several of you (primarily) gentleman enjoy getting into that kind of discussion. It's just that such discussions are better fits for other forums/threads that center on Grant personally, rather than his book, or particular battles or theaters. I'm going for more of a book club/library type of atmosphere here.

I figure you are a reader, so I'd love to hear about the books you've read, good ones and/or bad ones and why you think that about them. I see it as a service to other readers here. On the other hand, I've been accused of trying to melt down their Visas.

 

[David Moore]

A problem is the impact that Grant's Memoirs continue to have on the reputations of other figures in the War.
They tend to be cited as the definitive source on disputed topics by amateur and even professional historians.

William Lamers who wrote the first comprehensive biography of Rosecrans and who saw and cited documents never seen before wrote the following over sixty years ago. Note the words unfair and inaccurate. There is a reason why discussions about Grant tend to get testy.

 

[DanSBHawk]

A problem is the impact that Grant's Memoirs continue to have on the reputations of other figures in the War.
They tend to be cited as the definitive source on disputed topics by amateur and even professional historians.

William Lamers who wrote the first comprehensive biography of Rosecrans and who saw and cited documents never seen before wrote the following over sixty years ago. Note the words unfair and inaccurate. There is a reason why discussions about Grant tend to get testy.

View attachment 505594

William Lamers may have felt Grant was unfair and inaccurate towards Rosecrans. But that was just his opinion. Others would say that Grant was fair and accurate towards Rosecrans, and could have been much more negative towards Rosecrans, and McClernand, and others.

I don't see that Grant was all that negative towards anybody in his memoirs. Any criticism of others in the memoirs is pretty mild.

 

[JerryD]

A problem is the impact that Grant's Memoirs continue to have on the reputations of other figures in the War.
They tend to be cited as the definitive source on disputed topics by amateur and even professional historians.

William Lamers who wrote the first comprehensive biography of Rosecrans and who saw and cited documents never seen before wrote the following over sixty years ago. Note the words unfair and inaccurate. There is a reason why discussions about Grant tend to get testy.

View attachment 505594

This is the source of all the whining about inaccurate and unfair memoirs? Just my opinion, but that seems pretty mild.

And as I noted above, of course his memoirs are cited. They contain a lot of very good information. Unless, of course, you are contending that the memoirs are filled with nothing but lies and inaccuracies. Like any memoir it will contain statements that may not be true, but that does not mean its not still a valuable first person account. So no, that is not a problem at all, unless of course you are a partisan of someone who you think was slighted by Grant.

 

[David Moore]

This is the source of all the whining about inaccurate and unfair memoirs? Just my opinion, but that seems pretty mild.

And as I noted above, of course his memoirs are cited. They contain a lot of very good information. Unless, of course, you are contending that the memoirs are filled with nothing but lies and inaccuracies. Like any memoir it will contain statements that may not be true, but that does not mean its not still a valuable first person account. So no, that is not a problem at all, unless of course you are a partisan of someone who you think was slighted by Grant.

Why else would anyone care unless fairness and accuracy are the issue? Does that even count anymore?
As far as Grant the Memoirs are so self serving even affecting Washburne's and Rawlins' roles in his military career that one needs to look at them with skepticism.
I didn't say they are "nothing but lies and inaccuracies." you did but they are hardly objective especially when discussing certain subjects. One historian has called them fireside tales. That's really all I have to say about it. Caveat lector.

 

[JerryD]

Why else would anyone care unless fairness and accuracy are the issue? Does that even count anymore?
As far as Grant the Memoirs are so self serving even affecting Washburne's and Rawlins' roles in his military career that one needs to look at them with skepticism.
I didn't say they are "nothing but lies and inaccuracies." you did but they are hardly objective especially when discussing certain subjects. One historian has called them fireside tales. That's really all I have to say about it. Caveat lector.

But this is true of every memoir. You are attempting to impose a standard that is not achievable. Every memoir has flaws, but that does not mean they are useless. I have read countless memoirs and I think Grant's is a pretty good one, actually. Not perfect, but pretty good. But even memoirs that are flawed usually contain valuable info. So saying they are cited by historians if not a surprise at all. Its to be expected.

And I have yet to see on scintilla of evidence that reputable historians are so stupid that they actually think Grant's memoirs are gospel truth, as you and others are so fond of spouting. If a bunch of history hacks like us here know they are fallible, I am pretty sure professional historians get it as well. That is just a wholly silly argument.

 

[David Moore]

But this is true of every memoir. You are attempting to impose a standard that is not achievable. Every memoir has flaws, but that does not mean they are useless. I have read countless memoirs and I think Grant's is a pretty good one, actually. Not perfect, but pretty good. But even memoirs that are flawed usually contain valuable info. So saying they are cited by historians if not a surprise at all. Its to be expected.

And I have yet to see on scintilla of evidence that reputable historians are so stupid that they actually think Grant's memoirs are gospel truth, as you and others are so fond of spouting. If a bunch of history hacks like us here know they are fallible, I am pretty sure professional historians get it as well. That is just a wholly silly argument.

Dr. Frank Varney's two books address the role of the Memoirs in how people including
historians have interpreted aspects of the War pertaining to Graht. I don't know what modern books about Grant you've actually read but there is more than a scintilla of evidence in them of Grant's Memoirs being used to support Grant's position in his disputes with other generals. The use of the word gospel is rhetorical. Even the actual gospel is disputed. It's really a question of accepting Grant's POV over others.
Perhaps the greatest victims of Grant's Memoirs is Elihu Washburne who is barely mentioned and is all but unknown today. Close behind is John Rawlins. They deserved better from the general they created and sustained.

 

[JerryD]

Dr. Frank Varney's two books address the role of the Memoirs in how people including
historians have interpreted aspects of the War pertaining to Graht. I don't know what modern books about Grant you've actually read but there is more than a scintilla of evidence in them of Grant's Memoirs being used to support Grant's position in his disputes with other generals. The use of the word gospel is rhetorical. Even the actual gospel is disputed. It's really a question of accepting Grant's POV over others.
Perhaps the greatest victims of Grant's Memoirs is Elihu Washburne who is barely mentioned and is all but unknown today. Close behind is John Rawlins. They deserved better from the general they created and sustained.

Well, I think you have finally admitted the real issue for you. You don't like people accepting Grant's version of events. Which you are entitled to. Just be honest about your agenda. And Varney is not someone I view as reputable or reliable when it comes to Grant. He has a very defined agenda that colors everything he says.

So its perfectly fine to say Grant's memoirs did not treat Rosecrans fairly. But where I have an issue is when you and others make wild claims that this is somehow endemic and nefarious, and that Grant's memoirs are anymore inaccurate than anyone else's, and that its not fair that historians rely and quote from them, or treat them as gospel truth. Those are the silly arguments that really undercut your credibility. State your case fairly and people will listen. But when you make those kind of peripheral arguments that anyone can see are just wrong, then people dont want to hear the rest of what you say. Credibility is a valuable resource that you should guard carefully.

Agree re: Rawlins and Washburne with respect to Grant barely mentioning them. But he could have waxed on eloquently about both of them and I sincerely doubt it would affect how they are remembered today. Students of the war know who they are, and the general public barely knows about Grant so Washburne and Rawlins would continue to be footnotes in history to them, if that.

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

But this is true of every memoir. You are attempting to impose a standard that is not achievable. Every memoir has flaws, but that does not mean they are useless. I have read countless memoirs and I think Grant's is a pretty good one, actually. Not perfect, but pretty good. But even memoirs that are flawed usually contain valuable info. So saying they are cited by historians if not a surprise at all. Its to be expected.

And I have yet to see on scintilla of evidence that reputable historians are so stupid that they actually think Grant's memoirs are gospel truth, as you and others are so fond of spouting. If a bunch of history hacks like us here know they are fallible, I am pretty sure professional historians get it as well. That is just a wholly silly argument.

It's not a binary, fallible vs. gospel truth; it's where the Memoirs are on the spectrum of truthfulness and how historians treat them.

Grant's Memoirs are often considered the best or among the best of their kind. They are given a credibility in historical writings far beyond that given to those of other commanders in the American Civil War. Yet, few people acknowledge the hugely significant distortions and inaccuracies in Grant's Memoirs which have made their way into history books.

Historians believe Grant when he states such things as:
I did not put my faith in the Vicksburg bayou schemes.
I planned to pass Vicksburg and attack from the south the entire time.
I planned to have Thomas' troops ascend Missionary Ridge (in either one bound or two).

Not only are these untrue, they are contradicted by contemporary evidence and, especially in the case of the first two, by Grant's own writing.

 

[JerryD]

It's not a binary, fallible vs. gospel truth; it's where the Memoirs are on the spectrum of truthfulness and how historians treat them.

Grant's Memoirs are often considered the best or among the best of their kind. They are given a credibility in historical writings far beyond that given to those of other commanders in the American Civil War. Yet, few people acknowledge the hugely significant distortions and inaccuracies in Grant's Memoirs which have made their way into history books.

Historians believe Grant when he states such things as:
I did not put my faith in the Vicksburg bayou schemes.
I planned to pass Vicksburg and attack from the south the entire time.
I planned to have Thomas' troops ascend Missionary Ridge (in either one bound or two).

Not only are these untrue, they are contradicted by contemporary evidence and, especially in the case of the first two, by Grant's own writing.

I don t have time to dispute all this, but on the last point, I think you are proving yourself wrong. The general understanding of the assault on Missionary Ridge is that Grant ordered an assault on the rifle pits at the base of the ridge, and the troops, on their own, closely followed the CSA troops up the slope, without orders, until the ridge was taken. Grant's account differs from this. So no, historians are not taking his account as gospel, or even accurate.

 

[SSVilla]

The most fascinating thing for me about the memoirs, specially when compared to any comprehensive biography from any historian, is the sense one gets of his personality. You wouldn't get that from reading about him, as much as you would get a sense for the man reading his own words. His writing is clear and vibrant. Sometimes he's narrating things and it's like talking to someone across time, what's called the writer's voice. I have read other memoirs of the time, and Grant's stand out in quality and personality.

His letters to his wife are very tender as well. I find him a very fascinating character.

Sherman's memoirs are very well written as well, and there's also a lot of his personality that you can perceive from them. Sherman comes across as a sophisticated writer, with a polished writing style, specially when not limited to strictly military matters, and definitely obsessed with order. He's also very critical and opinionated. One can definitely get a sense for the man as well.

 

[121st PA Vols]

The most fascinating thing for me about the memoirs, specially when compared to any comprehensive biography from any historian, is the sense one gets of his personality. You wouldn't get that from reading about him, as much as you would get a sense for the man reading his own words. His writing is clear and vibrant. Sometimes he's narrating things and it's like talking to someone across time, what's called the writer's voice. I have read other memoirs of the time, and Grant's stand out in quality and personality.

His letters to his wife are very tender as well. I find him a very fascinating character.

I'm no Grant expert but believe Memoirs is understood to be a significant if not major literary work. He wrote most of his orders and to my understanding all his speeches and papers when President. Whatever anyone thinks of the man he definitely had literary talent!
And as a reminder to all of us as A. Roy mentioned in another threat, we shouldn't confuse a Memoir with a biography.