Is it correct to conclude...

[E_just_E]

I think that the Union Army (and probably more generalized) internal political struggles is a fascinating subject for someone to study and write about, because the more and more I (peripherally) dig on it, the more and more it appears that opinions of "merit" were pretty much depending on the political leaning of the subject and the object of that opinion. And some times it is totally counter-intuitive of results or generalship.

Case in point: Gettysburg. On the field the 2 most undermined Union Generals (Sickles does not count; he was really not undermined on the field...) were the 2 most outspoken Republicans and fierce abolitionists (Howard and Doubleday.) After the fact, the actions of the most Democratic and McClellanite Union General (Meade; Reynolds was dead and Hancock was wounded and both 'heroes' ) came into question by the Republican politicians.

Just some food for thought. Doing some research about the political beliefs of the Union Generals before you read what contemporary others (with particular political beliefs one better identify) thought about them is an extremely enlightening exercise in weeding out sources.

The Confederate side is a bit more complicated, as far as trying to define context and potentially filter it out...

 

[Andrew]

To clarify, I agree about both Harsh and Hartwig. Taken at the Flood and To Antietam Creek are my two favorite books about the campaign, and by a good margin. Both are well written, but I think Sears' writing (not content or analysis) is even better.

 

[Deleted User CS]

I think that the Union Army (and probably more generalized) internal political struggles is a fascinating subject for someone to study and write about, because the more and more I (peripherally) dig on it, the more and more it appears that opinions of "merit" were pretty much depending on the political leaning of the subject and the object of that opinion. And some times it is totally counter-intuitive of results or generalship.

Case in point: Gettysburg. On the field the 2 most undermined Union Generals (Sickles does not count; he was really not undermined on the field...) were the 2 most outspoken Republicans and fierce abolitionists (Howard and Doubleday.) After the fact, the actions of the most Democratic and McClellanite Union General (Meade; Reynolds was dead and Hancock was wounded and both 'heroes' ) came into question by the Republican politicians.

Just some food for thought. Doing some research about the political beliefs of the Union Generals before you read what contemporary others (with particular political beliefs one better identify) thought about them is an extremely enlightening exercise in weeding out sources.

The Confederate side is a bit more complicated, as far as trying to define context and potentially filter it out...

I concur with all of your points. I have been seriously researching and studying Howard for over two years in preparation for an article and I find the man absolutely fascinating on the one hand and somewhat an enigma on the other. If you have not already read the Joint Committee reports please do so. They provide interesting reading. I always wondered why the Committee never called Howard to testify about his role at Gettysburg. I have no idea what his relationship was with various members of the Joint Committee such as Benjamin Wade. If you or anyone else on this forum knows the answer to this question please feel free to share it with me.

 

[Deleted User CS]

To clarify, I agree about both Harsh and Hartwig. Taken at the Flood and To Antietam Creek are my two favorite books about the campaign, and by a good margin. Both are well written, but I think Sear's writing (not content or analysis) is even better.

When reading a book on civil war history are you attracted to a particular book and author according to the topic with the goal of being entertained by the writing or attracted to the books educational value regardless of the writing style? I would be very interested in your response. Thank You.

 

[Andrew]

I am much more interested in the educational value, hence my strong preference for Hartwig & Harsh. But I can appreciate writing style too. Landscape Turned Red was a very enjoyable read for me, almost novel-like at times. There was plenty of good content in it as well. I don't want to sound like I think Sears is merely a good writer and not much else, because I don't believe that. But I do think Harsh's and Hartwig's books are exceptional.

 

[James N.]

...All historians have their quirks and scholarship moves on. There's no reason to diss McPh or Sears (except for those with an agenda). Freeman had definite goals in mind; he'd written Washington (for somewhat more time than I love Lucy lasted on TV) and in writing Lee his goal was to place the man on the same pedestal. He's good for some facts and tedious detail but one must rather squint at his presentation/slant. (My own thought was that no one made Washington look more boring - but I enjoy Lee much more).

I agree with you perfectly in your proposal, but I'm afraid you have your chronology wrong - R. E. Lee was written first, in the 1930's; Freeman supposedly said that when it was finished he missed Lee so much he next turned to Lee's Lieutenants. George Washington was written last, in the 1950's, the first two volumes making up Young Washington appearing together. Unfortunately Freeman didn't live to see Washington finished; the final book on the presidency and his retirement was completed by his research assistants following his death.

Edit: If you'd like to know more about Washington and haven't read the late James Thomas Flexner's multi-volume Pulitzer Prize-winning treatment, you'd likely find it much more reader-friendly than the often-ponderous Freeman. My only observation about Flexner is that since he was writing in and for a 1970's audience, he tends to "psychoanalyze" his subjects, especially where documentation is lacking, as it frequently is. If you're aware of this and don't mind that approach, I highly recommend his books.

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks for the correction James N. I was confused by the order in which I recently read them!!!! My overwhelming impression from Freeman on Washington was that George didn't actually do much except whine (or more likely, not whine) to Congress about not having food, shoes, tents and er... soldiers, money, and other peripheral requirements to do battle.

 

[James N.]

Thanks for the correction James N. I was confused by the order in which I recently read them!!!! My overwhelming impression from Freeman on Washington was that George didn't actually do much except whine (or more likely, not whine) to Congress about not having food, shoes, tents and er... soldiers, money, and other peripheral requirements to do battle.

In fairness to Freeman - or maybe even more, his team of research assistants - his biography of Washington is by far the most complete and contains the most information, much like Robertson's Stonewall Jackson does for that individual.

 

[SharonS]

Sears may "own" Antietam now, but he's not alone - for detail, especially on regimental level you should check out the former Antietam go-to classic, The Gleam of Bayonets by Edward G. Murfin. The reputations of the two generals have been discussed here in previous threads ad nauseum, but I've personally always been a fan of Little Mac, undoubtedly for all the wrong reasons: he looked like a general, looked after his men (too well!) and was loved by them.

He designed a really useful saddle too, even if he borrowed from others.

 

[cash]

Sears may "own" Antietam now, but he's not alone - for detail, especially on regimental level you should check out the former Antietam go-to classic, The Gleam of Bayonets by Edward G. Murfin.

James V. Murfin.

 

[kel1985]

Mac was great at building and training an army for battle, but when he had to use it in battle, he was too cautious, and unwilling to press an advantage. I'm not a fan of Mac, I think his ego was too big for his accomplishments.
Grant on the other hand was the opposite (on the battlefield) in my opinion. He understood that to win the war, there would have to be bloodshed. He pressed the advantage when he could.

 

[civilken]

Dear member How do you put Sears and McPherson on the same level number one . Number two a I find Freeman of the suspect on some of his views. Number three general grant is not overrated he is the greatest general of the Civil War remember lee surrendered to him and so if you want to say lee was the best who did he surrender to the worst.

 

[BillO]

Mac was great at building and training an army for battle, but when he had to use it in battle, he was too cautious, and unwilling to press an advantage. I'm not a fan of Mac, I think his ego was too big for his accomplishments.
Grant on the other hand was the opposite (on the battlefield) in my opinion. He understood that to win the war, there would have to be bloodshed. He pressed the advantage when he could.

I agree to a point. Mac would have been an excellent #2. Give him a task and let him go but simply didn't have the inner drive to take risks. Lee was an excellent engineer but with the heart of a riverboat gambler. Mac was a good engineer with the soul of an accountant.
To say that Grant was a brilliant anything is to say that Gen. Westmorland was as well. They had basically the same strategy just in different wars. The primary reason it worked better for Grant is that Lincoln had more control over hostile politicians and the press than LBJ did.

 

[James N.]

Dear member How do you put Sears and McPherson on the same level number one . Number two a I find Freeman of the suspect on some of his views. Number three general grant is not overrated he is the greatest general of the Civil War remember lee surrendered to him and so if you want to say lee was the best who did he surrender to the worst.

Freeman was guilty of the same sort of bias toward his subjects as mere recently Robertson toward his. He probably wasn't analytical or critical enough with either Washington or Lee but to his credit with both he was very thorough and well-documented. A common problem with biographers like them is that of identifying or sympathizing too much with their subjects; of course, why shouldn't they - few would go to the trouble to document the life of a bounder! But that's one reason my favorite book by Flexner, The Traitor and the Spy - a triple biography of Benedict Arnold, John Andre, and Peggy Shippen, the woman who brought them together - was so interesting.

 

[TFSmith121]

Freeman was guilty of the same sort of bias toward his subjects as mere recently Robertson toward his. He probably wasn't analytical or critical enough with either Washington or Lee but to his credit with both he was very thorough and well-documented. A common problem with biographers like them is that of identifying or sympathizing too much with their subjects; of course, why shouldn't they - few would go to the trouble to document the life of a bounder! But that's one reason my favorite book by Flexner, The Traitor and the Spy - a triple biography of Benedict Arnold, John Andre, and Peggy Shippen, the woman who brought them together - was so interesting.

Sounds like it; which one was Peggy?

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

I agree to a point. Mac would have been an excellent #2. Give him a task and let him go but simply didn't have the inner drive to take risks. Lee was an excellent engineer but with the heart of a riverboat gambler. Mac was a good engineer with the soul of an accountant.
To say that Grant was a brilliant anything is to say that Gen. Westmorland was as well. They had basically the same strategy just in different wars. The primary reason it worked better for Grant is that Lincoln had more control over hostile politicians and the press than LBJ did.

Like the GBM and Lee summaries; your take on Grant seems off-base, however.

Grant was fighting a conventional enemy in the field in 1862-65, and won three absolute victories over his enemies (Donelson, Vicksburg, and Appomattox) and were won as much my maneuver as by force, Vicksburg being an obvious example. Grant also managed his victories in the secondary theater, in strong partnership with the Navy, and even his victories that were less than total (Shiloh and Chattanooga) were of consequence in terms of reducing the enemy's strength by substantial margins, and all of which liberated territory and yielded addional strength.

Westmirland accomplished very little that compares, other than - essentially holding the line in what was, in terms of resources deployed, the primary theater. In that sense, Westmorland's accomplishments are much more akin to those of McClellan than Grant.

Best,

 

[Yankeedave]

Freeman was guilty of the same sort of bias toward his subjects as mere recently Robertson toward his. He probably wasn't analytical or critical enough with either

Freeman is guilty of being in love with his subject. Its not uncommon.

 

[BillO]

Like the GBM and Lee summaries; your take on Grant seems off-base, however.

Grant was fighting a conventional enemy in the field in 1862-65, and won three absolute victories over his enemies (Donelson, Vicksburg, and Appomattox) and were won as much my maneuver as by force, Vicksburg being an obvious example. Grant also managed his victories in the secondary theater, in strong partnership with the Navy, and even his victories that were less than total (Shiloh and Chattanooga) were of consequence in terms of reducing the enemy's strength by substantial margins, and all of which liberated territory and yielded addional strength.

Westmirland accomplished very little that compares, other than - essentially holding the line in what was, in terms of resources deployed, the primary theater. In that sense, Westmorland's accomplishments are much more akin to those of McClellan than Grant.

Best,

Depends, I guess, on how you view things. I approach wars and battles primarily from a tactical viewpoint. It's just my training and my interests lead me in that direction. If you look with an unbiased eye at Donelson, Shiloh and especially the entirety of the Vicksburg campaign it is easy to see why the Continental European militaries didn't really see us as a proper military power. Vicksburg was handled so poorly on both sides as to be seen as a tragicomedy. Now don't misunderstand me, I consider Grant a fairly good general and his Appomattox Campaign, from Petersburg to the courthouse was handled very well. I just can't place him among the truly great leaders in history.
As to Westy he was actually winning his fight but he simply took too long and he did make some poor decisions which, in the end, cost him his job.

 

[Yankeedave]

The south mishandled vicksburg. It took the north a while to get it together, and i agree awkwardly, but they solved the problem.

 

[BillO]

The south mishandled vicksburg. It took the north a while to get it together, and i agree awkwardly, but they solved the problem.

Absolutely, The real core theme of the entire war. Both sides made lots of serious, costly mistakes but the north could afford to and the south couldn't.