Most Overrated General?

[KeyserSoze]

What's your problem with Gordon?

Because he had the temerity to post conculsions that CSA Today disagreed with.

I've read Rhea's four volumes on the Overland Campaign. I can't think of a single historian who researched battles as thoroughly as he did. If you are a friend of Mr. Rhea then please pass on to him my my respects and my complements on his books. They are truly remarkable works.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Why hasn't he done more than just opinions is my question? That is what you asked the poster. Show proof instead of opinion, right?

Your opinion is noted, chief. See how you like that response.

I hope you like it. Because like your use of it, it's all YOU are going to get from me, now or ever.

 

[Rebforever]

Your opinion is noted, chief.

My answer to you was "Facts" and anyone can find by reading the thread, Eric.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Because he had the temerity to post conculsions that CSA Today disagreed with.

I've read Rhea's four volumes on the Overland Campaign. I can't think of a single historian who researched battles as thoroughly as he did. If you are a friend of Mr. Rhea then please pass on to him my my respects and my complements on his books. They are truly remarkable works.

Gladly. I will be seeing him in a few weeks.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Dear Eric,
Nobody doubted that Rhea did research. Yet, the results he published are coming in contradiction with every other source. This is problematic itself.

Is it now? Other than meandering through Lost Causer websites and Wikipedia how much research have you done?

Moreover, his staunch supporters in the thread claim that it is foolish to rely on other historians who don't support his claim. .

As he details in his book, Rhea literally went line by line through regimental musters before and after the battle and used that data to arrive at his casualty figures. How did your other sources arrive at theirs? Just curious.

 

[Elennsar]

Saying he wish he hadn't ordered it and saying he regretted having done so is very close to the same thing.

Grant did not regret that he had done so, he regretted that it had been done, with no words implying in any way shape or form that he had ordered it or felt responsible for it.

Whether or not that responsibility rightfully rests on him is a good question, but if we're talking "Why did Grant say X?" - well, Grant did not say X.

Dear Elennsar,
the wording is as you said. But, if Grant didn't want the attack to be made, he could stop its execution. Instead, he told Meade to "vigorously exploit any successful part of the assault". Didn't sound even hesitating to order the assault.
Thanks,
Civil War Scholar.

What is the full statement Grant made to Meade?


And I wonder if I need to repost that the ~13,000 is for June 2 to June 15th, not simply for June 3rd.

 

[67th Tigers]

Is that figure for Grant's PFD accounting for units whose enlistments expired (A subtraction the only Hooker and Meade have previously had to deal with to any significant effect), or are we just tallying up the total PFD of every unit that took part in the Overland campaign?

Obviously the latter as it is from, as I said, the 30th April 1864 trimonthly reports in the ORs.

Care to provide an illustration of this ("something that looks like analysis") as applies to Grant?

As stated previously in this thread I haven't read any of his work, but if people are going to criticize it, "Take my word for it that it sucks." is a singularly unconvincing argument.

No, because I took the books of his I bought and I burnt them, along with Bobrick, rather than release them into the second hand market to be read again. They join Harry Harrison's "Stars and Stripes" trilogy of the dubious distinction of the only books I ever considered destroying to be a service to society. Ergo I'm not buying new copies.

 

[diane]

I've always had more the impression that many have stood Lee on top of Grant and so pushed Grant into near oblivion. (He's been being revived of late, though.) Grant and Lee were both great generals and both had their stumbling beginnings. Lee didn't spring forth a brilliant general from Mars' forehead, and neither did Grant. Grant, for a very long time, was seriously under-rated rather than over-rated. The North was not inexhaustible, the supply of men not inexhaustible, the people not willing to continue to watch endless streams of bodies and wounded coming home. As another poster pointed out, if so many resources were available why did it take so large an army and so long a time? Well, Lee and Grant were a match. It's one of history's great contests.

 

[Rebforever]

Your opinion is noted, chief. See how you like that response.

I hope you like it. Because like your use of it, it's all YOU are going to get from me, now or ever.

So sorry you feel that way. This is a place for legitimate question and answer. Your answer is quite puzzling!

 

[Civil War Scholar]

For Keyser Soze.
I have countless books about the war. I have Foote, McPherson, Eicher, Long, Hennessy, Sears and Rhea, too. Whatever I or other people say that comes in contradiction with Rhea or tries to show the other side of the coin, you put the label "Lost Causer".
I have to note something: when a regiment is badly mauled in a conflict, usually no report comes from it. So, there are regiments their losses may are not counted. And again, I ask you, why do all those historians say that Grant lost 13000 men at Cold Harbor? He gained considerable criticism from the North for executing the assault. If the losses were 3000, there wouldn't be so much wrath, don't you agree?

 

[Elennsar]

Obviously the latter as it is from, as I said, the 30th April 1864 trimonthly reports in the ORs.

I think that presenting those figures without any attempt to show that neither Grant or Lee had all those troops at once gives a misleading sense of the resources available at any given point of decision (I don't want to say "battle" because the North Anna was a situation where a battle could have occurred and in only slightly different circumstances would have occurred, and as such what forces Lee had to strike Grant and what Grant had to face Lee with is relevant) - which would be more relevant to how well or poorly the available assets were used.

No, because I took the books of his I bought and I burnt them, along with Bobrick, rather than release them into the second hand market to be read again. They join Harry Harrison's "Stars and Stripes" trilogy of the dubious distinction of the only books I ever considered destroying to be a service to society. Ergo I'm not buying new copies.

A pity that it leaves you unable to demonstrate the basis for your comments on his work, though.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

So sorry you feel that way. This is a place for legitimate question and answer. Your answer is quite puzzling!

You have a very short memory, don't you?

 

[CSA Today]

What's your problem with Gordon?

Gordon is an old friend. Nobody is more thorough with research than he is. Instead of insulting someone you don't know because you don't like what he does for a living, why don't you instead tell us what your issue is with his work?

Otherwise, you continue to prove that Lincoln was absolutely correct when he said, "It's better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

It wasn't my intention to insult him, I'm sure he is a good attorney.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I have countless books about the war. I have Foote, McPherson, Eicher, Long, Hennessy, Sears and Rhea, too.

What primary source research have you done? I'm not interested in hearing you regurgitate what some modern author has written. Tell me what research into the original sources you have done.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

It wasn't my intention to insult him, I'm sure he is a good attorney.

Then why raise the issue of his occupation in the first place? What does it have to do with the discussion at hand, other than substantially less than nothing?

 

[SouthernRebel772]

To comment on the original point of the thread, Grant isn't so much overrated, he's seems to be viewed for the most part in my opinion as he should. A competent strategist and organizer, and a ham-fisted tactician. He lacks a certain finesse when one looks at his tactical handling on the battlefield, the equivalent of throwing hay makers that eventually beat your opponent into submission.

For being overrated one has to look at those who have never had their records seriously looked over. Lee's no longer in those ranks, bashing him has been in vogue for awhile. Jackson and Forrest come to mind though, Sheridan as well.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Dear Eric,
Historians, modern and contemporaries alike, agree about Grant's casualties at Cold Harbor. General F.A. Walker, the historian of Hancock's corps, wrote not only about Cold Harbor, but on the whole campaign: "As the corps turned southward from Cold Harbor to take its part in the second act of the great campaign of 1864, the historian is bound to confess that something of its pristine virtue had departed under the terrific blows that had been showered upon it in the series of fierce encounters which have been recited. Its casualties had averaged more than 400 a day for the whole period since it crossed the Rapidan ... Moreover, the confidence of the troops in their leaders had been severely shaken. They had again and again been ordered to attacks which the very privates in the ranks knew to be hopeless from the start; they had seen the fatal policy of "assaults all along the line" persisted in, even after the most ghastly failures; and they had almost ceased to expect victory when they went into battle. The lamentable story of Petersburg cannot be understood without reference to facts like these." The 'assaults all along the line" the historian says can be considered as a reference to the Cold Harbor and Spotsylvania battles. Also, William Swinton, another historian of Grant's army wrote that after Cold Harbor 'The Army of the Potomac was not the Army of the Potomac anymore".
Grant's contemporaries and subordinates harshly criticized his decision to attack at Cold Harbor. I wonder, if the losses had been 3000, would they criticize him so harshly?
Civil War Scholar.

 

[cash]

?


Not as foolish as relying on Gordon Rhea.
http://www.gordonrhealaw.com/

Only someone who knows nothing about Civil War history would claim it's foolish to rely on Gordon Rhea.

 

[cash]

Then why did Grant say he wished he had not ordered the Cold Harbor attack in his Memoirs?

He didn't. You should read what he actually wrote.

 

[cash]

I only know Gordon Rhea from what I've read here on CivilWar Talk and the link you posted. After looking at his website I would characterize him as an experienced, successful lawyer and well recognized historian who has published several books on the Overland Campaign.

And one who is a recognized authority on the Overland Campaign, invited by the National Park Service to lecture and give tours on it.