Member Review Grant's Memoirs

[DanSBHawk]

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.

Varney is an author who has claimed the Memoirs are sole-sourced by modern historians, but many of the specific accusations Varney makes are false. If a person actually tries to verify Varneys claims, especially against Steven Woodworth, they'll find that in most of the cases Woodworth cites other sources, and in some cases he doesn't even mention Grant's Memoirs!

 

[SSVilla]

I have no interest whatsoever on reading Varney. I am reminded of the words of another great American:

 

[David Moore]

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

To the best of my knowledge you've read none of the books you've passed judgement on. I only wanted to encourage one new poster to continue reading a book he had already started reading and to advise another who said he was moved to tears by Grant's Memoirs that they are subject to criticism. I have no desire to try and persuade anyone to change their opinions only to get them to broaden their reading beyond the usual books BUT only if they want to. I have no desire to try and get you to do anything but respect the labors people who've done serious documented research and attached their real name to that effort. May I assume you don't fall into that group?
I would hope you agree that people should at least consider reading books that take a different look at the conventional wisdom.
Finally any book on Grant that doesn't dwell on Washburne and Rawlins is missing why anyone even knows who Grant is today.

 

[David Moore]

I have no interest whatsoever on reading Varney. I am reminded of the words of another great American:
View attachment 505704

Why? History is more than quotations. In fact serious history - an admittedly less fun subject than feel good story books- is the antithesis of quotes .

 

[David Moore]

For the record I used to be in my younger days a Grant admirer parroting the standard story that Lincoln believed he was the only man who could get the job done. I'd never heard of Washburne. Rawlins and Rosecrans were just names to me. I'd never heard of Iuka and Corinth much less the controversies surrounding them. Lew Wallace was the author of Ben Hur. Gouvernor Warren was the Hero of Little Round Top. Both having no disputes with Grant.
Then I quite unexpectedly stumbled on another interpretation of Grant and have spent over 30 years studying the controversies surrounding him and primarily Rosecrans. This included primary source research involving going through hundreds of letters and diaries and hard to find books in those pre internet days in dozens of libraries. I have documented my conclusions. I won't apologize for doing what I've done even though someone on this site once called my mentioning the fact that I've written a book "shilling" for it. Joseph Rose and Frank Varney have done the same if not more than I. They have documented their conclusions and yet to some this makes them untrustworthy. The fact that some on this site condemn books they've never read or intend to read says more about themselves than it does the books involved. The deeper question is why does anyone read what they do? Each person needs to answer that for themselves.

 

[SSVilla]

Why? History is more than quotations. In fact serious history - an admittedly less fun subject than feel good story books- is the antithesis of quotes .

You can interpret easily what I meant. A man who was lived and influenced events of his era in a very controversial and conflicting time would have made enemies out of jealousy, rivals, political, ideological and otherwise. As we are all human, we all make mistakes but only a few get a chance to change things in a public arena. That is what the Roosevelt quote alludes to.

 

[JerryD]

To the best of my knowledge you've read none of the books you've passed judgement on. I only wanted to encourage one new poster to continue reading a book he had already started reading and to advise another who said he was moved to tears by Grant's Memoirs that they are subject to criticism. I have no desire to try and persuade anyone to change their opinions only to get them to broaden their reading beyond the usual books BUT only if they want to. I have no desire to try and get you to do anything but respect the labors people who've done serious documented research and attached their real name to that effort. May I assume you don't fall into that group?
I would hope you agree that people should at least consider reading books that take a different look at the conventional wisdom.
Finally any book on Grant that doesn't dwell on Washburne and Rawlins is missing why anyone even knows who Grant is today.

I have read plenty of books on Grant and on the war, that present all kinds of points of views. So I suggest you dont go round making any assumptions. Of course people need to be exposed to various opinions. I mean, to the best of my knowledge you have never read a single book on the Civil War. Of course, I have no knowledge on you whatsoever just like you dont know anything about me. So can you see why your comment about me is kind of silly?

I'd love to hear what books on Grant dont address his relationships with Rawlins and Washburne. I already said it was a flaw in Grant's memoirs that he doesnt give them the credit they deserve. But I am not aware of any professional historian making that mistake.

 

[jackt62]

Then I quite unexpectedly stumbled on another interpretation of Grant and have spent over 30 years studying the controversies surrounding him and primarily Rosecrans.

I have read enough material about Grant and the controversies surrounding him to acknowledge the credibility of his detractors' interpretations. Although I still consider myself a Grant admirer, I accept that he was a complicated individual who was neither sinner nor saint. Rather, Grant's seemingly modest persona masked a shrewd and cunning leader who would not hesitate to safeguard his position and standing at the expense of others, while rewarding his friends and supporters often unduly. To be sure, Grant's many enemies and envious professionals meant that Grant was constantly on his guard to remain top dog, and this of course continued long after the war was over. But that shouldn't detract from Grant's real accomplishments while at the same time there is nothing wrong with considering alternative versions of his dealings with Rosecrans, et. al., with an open mind.

 

[SSVilla]

Sherman during the campaign against Vicksburg:

" All the men that can be spared from West Tennessee will be called here, and I trust Rosecrans will not allow any of Bragg's army to be detached against us, but we hear he is planting gardens and it may be he will wait to gather a crop"

Excerpt From
Home Letters of General Sherman
William Tecumseh Sherman
This material may be protected by copyright.

On July 5, just after the fall of Vicksburg:

"Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia being threatened and Rosecrans sitting idly by, writing for personal fame in the newspapers"

Excerpt From
Home Letters of General Sherman
William Tecumseh Sherman
This material may be protected by copyright.

On August 14, 1864 during the siege of Atlanta:

"Rosecrans had his army starving at Chattanooga, and I have brought an army double its size 138 miles further, and all agree that they were never better fed, clothed and supplied."

Excerpt From
Home Letters of General Sherman
William Tecumseh Sherman
This material may be protected by copyright.

These are all from letters of the time. I believe Rosecrans to have been extremely bitter about his removal from command and have satisfied myself that it was warranted by circumstances and recommended by the administration (Stanton specially), but the AoC also favored and desired his removal having lost confidence with him after his defeat at Chickamauga—and I call it defeat bc whatever happened to him, bad luck, mistakes, bad judgment, battle fatigue, exhaustion, whatever went on he had his army in great peril.

When Grant was swindled, Rosecrans bitterly opposed a pension for him, who was not only a 2 time president, but was also a soldier and a general for the majority of his productive adult life. Today we wouldn't question this. Obviously the politics of the time cannot be disentangled, but nevertheless Rosecrans opposed it, conveniently he then advocated for a military pension for himself. Considering the enmity between the two, a good part of which was brought on by Rosecrans himself, him being as much as fault for his bad luck as anyone, I think Grant let him up easy. He could have been vindictive, but instead the things he wrote are about Rosecrans if you look past the minutiae, are that he was a man with an independent streak and demeanor that would probably do better on his own independent command and that for him, the Chickamauga battle reflected better on Thomas. He probably omitted a lot more that would have been informed by Stanton personally, and probably reserved for himself what he really thought.

Whatever reconstruction one can make of Iuka and Corinth, Grant wasn't at either battle, so anyone reading what he says about it must know he's relying on reports of others. Even when he was in the rear at Iuka, there were communication problems, and the roads were bad, plus staff officers got lost. And Rosecrans went ahead and threw Grant to the wolves after Iuka anyway.

 

[uaskme]

Sherman during the campaign against Vicksburg:

" All the men that can be spared from West Tennessee will be called here, and I trust Rosecrans will not allow any of Bragg's army to be detached against us, but we hear he is planting gardens and it may be he will wait to gather a crop"

Excerpt From
Home Letters of General Sherman
William Tecumseh Sherman
This material may be protected by copyright.

On July 5, just after the fall of Vicksburg:

"Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia being threatened and Rosecrans sitting idly by, writing for personal fame in the newspapers"

Excerpt From
Home Letters of General Sherman
William Tecumseh Sherman
This material may be protected by copyright.

On August 14, 1864 during the siege of Atlanta:

"Rosecrans had his army starving at Chattanooga, and I have brought an army double its size 138 miles further, and all agree that they were never better fed, clothed and supplied."

Excerpt From
Home Letters of General Sherman
William Tecumseh Sherman
This material may be protected by copyright.

These are all from letters of the time. I believe Rosecrans to have been extremely bitter about his removal from command and have satisfied myself that it was warranted by circumstances and recommended by the administration (Stanton specially), but the AoC also favored and desired his removal having lost confidence with him after his defeat at Chickamauga—and I call it defeat bc whatever happened to him, bad luck, mistakes, bad judgment, battle fatigue, exhaustion, whatever went on he had his army in great peril.

When Grant was swindled, Rosecrans bitterly opposed a pension for him, who was not only a 2 time president, but was also a soldier and a general for the majority of his productive adult life. Today we wouldn't question this. Obviously the politics of the time cannot be disentangled, but nevertheless Rosecrans opposed it, conveniently he then advocated for a military pension for himself. Considering the enmity between the two, a good part of which was brought on by Rosecrans himself, him being as much as fault for his bad luck as anyone, I think Grant let him up easy. He could have been vindictive, but instead the things he wrote are about Rosecrans if you look past the minutiae, are that he was a man with an independent streak and demeanor that would probably do better on his own independent command and that for him, the Chickamauga battle reflected better on Thomas. He probably omitted a lot more that would have been informed by Stanton personally, and probably reserved for himself what he really thought.

Whatever reconstruction one can make of Iuka and Corinth, Grant wasn't at either battle, so anyone reading what he says about it must know he's relying on reports of others. Even when he was in the rear at Iuka, there were communication problems, and the roads were bad, plus staff officers got lost. And Rosecrans went ahead and threw Grant to the wolves after Iuka anyway.

So, you have studied the battles at Iuka, Chickamauga Chattanooga and others in Mississippi?

This is the Fallacy. People who haven't studied these battles can be easily swayed by a couple of ORs or communications of a few.

 

[A. Roy]

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.

Thanks for mentioning this! Actually we should say 'don't confuse a memoir with an autobiography.'
AR

 

[SSVilla]

To be honest, the more I learn about Rosecrans, the less I like him.

I was initially intrigued by him reading Castel's book Victors in Blue, which I am enjoying, but it is a book which obviously has the author's own impression of matters, about which he is very forthcoming and upfront in the preface. With that said, it's a very easy and enjoyable read. However, when I research Rosecrans through contemporanous writings, he comes off very poorly, and I am talking about non Grant-related sources here.

Here is a letter Rosecrans writes President Lincoln. What strikes me is the arrogant tone he uses with the President of the U.S., seeking to impose his will, in this case asking for his commission to be backdated to 1861, when he had already obtained a backdate to outrank Thomas in the first place. There can be no doubt that what he's seeking here is to outrank nearly everyone else and specially his nemesis Grant, who became a major general after Donelson in 1862. The way in which he asks for this is presumptuous and then says, oh I am not asking for any personal favor for myself.

I believe this is the kind of letter you will never find Grant to write Lincoln. And I am sure that the more I look, the worse Rosecrans interactions with others will come off.

From William S. Rosecrans to Abraham Lincoln, March 16, 1863

The following Telegram received at Washington 1. A.M Mar 17th 1863,

From Murfreesboro 9. P. M.

Dated, Mar 16th 1863.

The Secy of War telegraphed after the battle of Stone River:—

"Anything you & your command want you can have." I asked that Paymaster like other staff officers should serve with the others in the field, it was not granted. I then asked as a personal favor that my commission should date from Dec 1861. It was not granted. I then asked that Major Larned1 Chief Paymaster of this Dept might be left here & not removed as I have reason to believe he has been to gratify the spleen of Andrews2 who hates him on account of his dislike the old Col Larned. that was refused when asked that the major might stay to expedite the payment of the troops. Maj Terrel being then sick, that was not granted. Now I find an Aid has been appointed whom having once recommended requested not to be appointed because he went off on a spree the very night after I told him I had recommended him hoping that he would at least quit drinking. After telegraphing the withdrawal & explaining to his brother-in-law Col Don Piatt the reason, I nominated R. S. Thoms3 Esq a young man lawyer of Cincinnati who paying his own way served at the battle of Stone River with as much gallantry & effect as anyone of the staff. This request was disregarded & an aid appointed in spite of my request. I am not covetous of the personal favors, I have never yet made one request in which the public interest has not in my judgement first consulted but I hate injustice & regret it a duty I owe the Govt to lay these facts before you asking that from Chief Himself which for some reason I deem not elsewhere I deem to be accorded me4


1 Charles T. Larned, son of the late Colonel Benjamin F. Larned, was a major and paymaster in the U. S. Army.
2 Colonel Timothy P. Andrews was the paymaster general of the U. S. Army.
3 Robert S. Thoms was commissioned a captain and aide-de-camp on April 25, 1863.
4 A draft of Lincoln's March 17, 1863 reply to Rosecrans is in this collection.


W S Rosecrans

Original Handwritten Letter from Rosecrans to Lincoln

 

[SSVilla]

OMG this is just gold. I might have to make a thread about this or seek to revive one that specifically deals with this... I am sure there are probably enough over the years to have rehashed all of this... but Lincoln's answer is just gold. I think the more on learns about how Lincoln dealt with so many powerful men trying to wrangle favors from him left and right, and rivals left and right (and center) well the more one appreciates his skill.

Here's Lincoln for the ages:

From Abraham Lincoln to William S. Rosecrans [Draft]1, March 17, 1863

1 Lincoln replies here to a telegram Rosecrans sent on March 16 (See Rosecrans to Lincoln, March 16, 1863), in which the general retailed a series of requests that he had made of the secretary of war which were not honored, in spite of Stanton's apparently expansive response to Rosecrans' victory at Stone's River. Lincoln responds to some of them in the letter that follows.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, March 17, 1863.
My dear Sir,
I have just received your telegram saying that "The Secy of War telegraphed after the battle of Stone River" "Anything you & your command want, you can have," and then specifying several things you have requested, and have not received.

The promise of the Secretary, as you state it, is certainly pretty broad; nevertheless it accords with the feeling of the whole government here towards you. I know not a single enemy of yours here. Still the promise must have a reasonable construction. We know you will not purposely make an unreasonable request; nor persistantly in one after it shall appear to be such.

Now, as to the matter of a Pay-Master— You desired one to be permanently attached to your Army, and, as I understand, desired that Major Larned2 should be the man— This was denied you; and you seem to think it was denied, partly to disoblige you, and partly to disoblige Major Larned — the latter, as you suspect, at the instance of Paymaster-General Andrews—3 On the contrary, the Secretary of War assures me the request was refused on no personal ground whatever, but because to grant it, would derange, and substantially break up the whole pay-system as now organized, and so organized on very full consideration, and sound reason as believed— There is powerful temptation in money; and it was and is believed that nothing can prevent the Pay-Masters speculating upon the soldiers, but a system by which each is to pay certain regiments so soon after he has notice that he is to pay those particular regiments that he has no time or opportunity to lay plans for speculating upon them. This precaution is all lost, if Paymasters respectively are to serve permanently with the same rigiments, and pay them over and over during the war. No special application of this has been intended to be made to Major Larned, or to your Army—

2 Major Charles T. Larned had been chief paymaster of the Department of the Cumberland . Rosecrans had requested that Larned be allowed to remain in his command, but Larned was reassigned outside of Rosecrans' department.

3 Timothy P. Andrews was the army's paymaster-general. Rosecrans alleged that Andrews had reassigned Larned out of personal dislike for him.

And as to Gen. Andrews, I have, in another connection, felt a little agrieved, at what seemed to me, his implicit following the advice and suggestions of Major Larned — so ready are we all to cry out, and ascribe motives, when our own toes are pinched.

Now, as to your request that your Commission should date from December 1861. Of course you expected to gain something by this; but you should remember that precisely so much as you should gain by it others would lose by it— If the thing you sought had been exclusively ours, we would have given it cheerfully; but being the right of other men, we having a merely arbitrary power over, it the givi taking it from them and giving it to you, became a more delicate matter, and more deserving of consideration. Truth to speak, I do do not appreciate this matter of rank on paper, as you officers do— The world will not forget that you fought the battle of "Stone River" and it will never care a fig whether you rank Gen. Grant on paper, or he so, ranks you.

As to the appointment of an aid contrary to your wishes, I knew nothing of it until I received your despatch; and the Secretary of War tells me he has known nothing of it, but will trace it out. The examination of course will extend to the case of R. S. Thoms,4 whom you say you wish appointed.

4 Robert S. Thoms, a Cincinnati lawyer, was appointed captain and aide-de-camp as of April 25, 1863.

And now be assured, you wrong both yourself and us, when you even suspect there is not the best disposition on the part of us all here to oblige you.
Yours very truly
A. Lincoln
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
To. Gen. Rosecrans.
March 17. 1863.

Licnoln's Answer to Rosecrans Demand for a Promotion over Grant: NO!

 

[Library Lady]

I was sorting books this morning for the shop at the environmental nonprofit where I volunteer when I came across a copy of Grant's Memoirs printed by Konecky & Konecky. They've done some very nice hardbound reprints of other Civil War-era works. Since there are many editions of this work out there, is there an edition you would recommend? What makes it the best in your opinion? Does anyone here have a first edition from 1885?

 

[SSVilla]

I was sorting books this morning for the shop at the environmental nonprofit where I volunteer when I came across a copy of Grant's Memoirs printed by Konecky & Konecky. They've done some very nice hardbound reprints of other Civil War-era works. Since there are many editions of this work out there, is there an edition you would recommend? What makes it the best in your opinion? Does anyone here have a first edition from 1885?

Frankly, I do most of my reading online, therefore I read kindle or other ebooks from libraries online. I read Grant's memoirs through guttenberg for free, but there are annotated versions that are really good and you can find through google easily.

I get the sense you are asking for physical books though and I have no information on that, I just wanted to reply.

 

[A. Roy]

I might have to make a thread about this or seek to revive one that specifically deals with this... I am sure there are probably enough over the years to have rehashed all of this... but Lincoln's answer is just gold. I think the more on learns about how Lincoln dealt with so many powerful men trying to wrangle favors from him left and right, and rivals left and right (and center) well the more one appreciates his skill.

It could be that some of this has been discussed in previous CWT threads, but it doesn't hurt to start a new thread. Time moves on, and new members join, and folks find new sources to bring to bear -- or new points of view.
AR

 

[dlofting]

I was sorting books this morning for the shop at the environmental nonprofit where I volunteer when I came across a copy of Grant's Memoirs printed by Konecky & Konecky. They've done some very nice hardbound reprints of other Civil War-era works. Since there are many editions of this work out there, is there an edition you would recommend? What makes it the best in your opinion? Does anyone here have a first edition from 1885?

I think mine might be, but I'm not at home so can't check. It has a facsimile of Grant's note to Buckner at Ft Donelson and another of the Appomattox surrender document.

 

[A. Roy]

I've seen some versions of Grant's memoirs on archive.org in their Open Library section. This morning I retrieved what looks like a nicely-scanned 1894 version described as "two volumes in one."
AR

 

[SSVilla]

It could be that some of this has been discussed in previous CWT threads, but it doesn't hurt to start a new thread. Time moves on, and new members join, and folks find new sources to bring to bear -- or new points of view.
AR

I might just have to do that, thanks for the suggestion.

Looking at these letters that reference Rosecrans, whether addressed to him, written by him, or mentioning him at the time... contemporaneous with events, I found a letter from Chase, the same Salmon P. Chase that resigned three or four times and tried to pressure Lincoln into one thing or another for his own political gain, referencing a letter sent by Garfield, as in Rosecrans' Chief of Staff, greatly praising the Army of the Cumberland, Rosecrans, and suggesting in some way that Sherman be appointed General over Grant. [Considering circumstances, I understand why Grant was specially emphatic to give credit to Sherman for everything Sherman did in the Army of the Tennessee. To have a reliable and loyal subordinate was gold in circumstances that would rival Game of Thrones rivalries].

I suspect that the more I research this, if I were inclined to do so, I would find all sorts of conspiracies trying to unseat Grant from what he had rightfully earned. I thought it was only Halleck and McClernand that he had to worry about. Clearly Rosecrans was a more politically active rival, and press-loving seeker, than anyone here gives him credit for.

Chase to Lincoln:

I have just received a letter from my friend Gen Garfield,1 who is Chief of Rosecrans Staff. It gives me the best idea of that army, its relations and purposes that I have yet obtained from any quarter, and inspires me with fresh hopes. Unless something decisive is to be done on the Mississippi & done promptly, is it not now clear that Grants Army should be made to cooperate otherwise with Rosecrans? How I wish that Sherman was at the head of that army instead of Grant. He is certainly an abler & better & more reliable Commander.

Letter from Chase to Lincoln April 22, 1863

Who is coming off as the conniving squirrelling schemer here, Rosecrans or Grant? I am rather inclined to think Grant was right to be wary of having Rosecrans under his command and would have been stupid not to remove him when presented with the opportunity. On top of that, circumstances warranted it, and the administration could live with that just fine. Let Grant take care of that problem child. One could even say that Lincoln was even maybe attempting to kill two birds with one stone, making it appear that the removal of Rosy from command was a Grant decision shifted all criticism - specially political criticism - from himself to Grant - who maybe was someone he was already worrying about politically as well.

 

[SSVilla]

I'll have to start that thread about these letters later. It will just take a little bit of trouble to make a cohesive post with the links I have found. I kind of don't want to just repost what I have already stated, so I might just post the links with some comments. I think there is more yet to be unearthed.