Most Overrated General?

[diane]

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.

I think you're mostly right about Grant. I also think you're right about general-bashing with Lee and Jackson - but that's probably because they've been set on an impossibly high pedestal for a long time. Whenever that happens, somebody just has to run up and start hammering on the clay toes! But it's good to bring them to the proper level without taking anything away that should be their due. No human being stands deification very well!

 

[CSA Today]

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

Strange they would invite someone like Rhea since the National Park system estimates of Grant's casualties at Cold Harbor at 13,000, but then again maybe it's fund raising time –sensationalism does sell.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Reb,

He is rude and very likely another protected poster that can post what he pleases without worry of censure -- see what he said to me in post 253. I hope all he is doing is trying to protect a friend. Somehow I don't see him as so protective if someone put forth a "historian" with similar academic background, but with a more mainline interpretation of the Cold Harbor battle.

No, champ. I'm simply giving this individual the same condescending and dismissive response that he gave others a couple of weeks ago when others disagreed with him, so he can get a real taste of how that feels. As I said, he has a very short and extremely convenient memory.

As for you: you conveniently disregarded my question of you: what does Gordon's profession have to do with the topic at hand? YOU are the one who introduced the inappropriate personal attack here, champ. Not me.

 

[cash]

Gordon Rhea's estimate of the casualties at Cold Harbor is not supported by ANY other source. I have read countless of articles and several books on Grant, but he is criticized for making the attack at Cold Harbor. If his casualties were only 3000 why is he criticized?

Gordon Rhea's figures are the new standard, accepted by all credible historians. Grant is criticized mostly by people who don't know what actually took place.

And what are the "actual history books"?

Books other than what you've read, obviously.

Grant regretted the failure of those two assaults and the second was even costlier than the first.

He certainly did. I'm sure he also regretted the fact that Meade didn't coordinate the attacks, and I'm sure he regretted the fact that the corps commanders and Meade failed to do the most basic reconnaissance before the assaults.

Grant had all the resources he wanted and always could replenish his losses.

People who don't know much about the Overland Campaign make that claim all the time. If Grant had all the resources he wanted, he would have been able to completely surround Lee at any point with artillery and blast the ANV to Kingdom Come until Lee was forced to surrender.

Lee and Jackson never enjoyed that advantage, yet they gained victories that make military historians marvel at them.

You need to read more. Lee received reinforcements during the Overland Campaign.

When I said "destroyed", I meant thrown back with very heavy losses or forced to surrender, at least some parts.

We should all try to say what we mean. It was impossible to destroy a Civil War army.

And Lee had the opportunity which Longstreet left unexploited.

Your repetition of an error doesn't turn that error into a fact.

Once again, which history books do you consider as "actual"?

Quite obviously, what you're not reading.

Sickles was routed and his corps was badly mauled. But, he gained time for Meade to concentrate on Longstreet's attack and manage to repulse them.

No, he didn't. Meade had sufficient forces in place and also close enough to the action to repel the attack had Sickles remained in place. Had Sickles remained in place his corps would have remained intact, with anchored flanks. The II Corps and V Corps wouldn't have had to go to his rescue, and the XII Corps wouldn't have had to go to the rescue.

Wait one minute. It is foolish to rely on Shelby Foote, the NPS is not sufficient or trustworthy to contradict Rhea, right?

Half right.
It is foolish to rely on Shelby Foote, and the NPS itself does not contradict Rhea.

You cannot have it this way, by declaring all sources invalid and saying that Rhea has done research.

Rhea's work is the standard for the Overland Campaign.

Grant regretted having made the assault. He ordered it to be carried out, which caused many of his subordinates, such as Hancock to get furious at him.

Grant regretted the assault was made. I bet you've never read his memoirs.

Let's get Grant's casualties at those engagements. Figures come from Wikipedia:
Haw's Shop: 365
Totopotomoy Creek: 731
Old Church: 90
Clashes on June 1, 1864 near Cold Harbor: 2200
Total:3386. Assuming that 13000 is the overall figure, how many men did Grant lose on June 3? More than 9000. Simple arithmetic.

Wrong again. There was constant contact from Totopotomoy Creek through the end of Cold Harbor, with men dying every day. You're only looking at major clashes during the campaign.

Grant was the one who ordered Meade to "vigorously exploit any successful part of the assault".

The key word being "successful."

Also, Grant could stop Meade since he was Meade's superior.

Which he did.

Finally, you give me a link to the NPS, while you have stated it is not sufficient to contradict Rhea.
Thanks,
Civil War Scholar.

I said they don't contradict Rhea. Read for comprehension.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Strange they would invite someone like Rhea since the National Park system estimates of Grant's casualties at Cold Harbor at 13,000, but then again maybe it's fund raising time –sensationalism does sell.

I seem to have missed something here.....

How many award-winning books have you published?

It's easy to sit in the cheap seats and boo when you've never played the game.....

 

[cash]

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

He regretted it was made. He never said he regretted that he made it. There's a huge difference between the two.

 

[cash]

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.

The key word is "successful." Meade wasn't successful.

 

[cash]

Strange they would invite someone like Rhea since the National Park system estimates of Grant's casualties at Cold Harbor at 13,000, but then again maybe it's fund raising time –sensationalism does sell.

The NPS estimates are from Totopotomoy Creek to the end of Cold Harbor. Obviously you have no understanding of what you're posting.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

For cash.
Who are those "credible historians"? I have mentioned historians I have read and I think they are trustworthy. Why don't you suggest me a work to read, and make me believe what you say? I hope the 'credible historians" are not like Boonekemper.
Have you read Foote or McPherson? They were not advocates of the "Lost Cause" theory neither are they criticized for inaccuracies.
What I said about the two assaults in that part of my message was about Vicksburg. And, why was MEADE who was furious on GRANT for ordering an attack without appropriate reconnaissance?
You stated before that no Civil War army would be destroyed. Now, you say that, with artillery reinforcements, Grant would destroy the Army of Northern Virginia? You are contradicting yourself, cash.
Again, names for the 'actual" books, please?
Had Sickles remained in his place, Longstreet's attack would have caused panic. In at least one part of the Union line, the soldiers would panic and go for the rear, creating a gap which Old Peter's veterans would be ready to exploit.
Why is it foolish to rely on Shelby Foote? Everybody praises his work. Northern and Southern commentators.
Really can all those sources be invalid?
I haven't read it all. Some parts available online yes.
You are talking about skirmishing. A skirmish is not a battle. Even an exchange of some shots can be considered a skirmish. And, may I ask you, what's your estimate of the casualties? Same as Rhea's, I bet.
What I reproduced from Grant's order to Meade shows that Grant was not objected to the assault.
He stopped after the three corps were slaughtered at all points.
You say the NPS doesn't contradict Rhea. Then, why is the NPS' estimate of Grant's casualties different than Rhea's?
Sincerely,
Civil War Scholar.

 

[KeyserSoze]

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

But in how many of those did the author concentrate on the Overland Campaign alone? Foote and McPherson wrote books that covered the entire rebellion. They relied on the research done by others. Rhea did not. Rhea made his own study, did his own research, consulted the original documentation available to a depth not attempted by any of the others. I have a great deal of admiration for those men you mentioned. They have all done wonderful work and I've read books by all of them. But it is one thing to deal with Grant's campaign in forty pages and quite another to deal with it in well over a thousand pages, as Rhea has done. I will give more credence to the specialist every time.

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".

Except that you quote other figures without the slightest idea of how those numbers were arrived at. The NPS says 13,000 so you say it must be true. Why? Where did that number come from? Rhea does a detailed study and gives his reasons for why he disagrees with the commonly accepted figures and how he arrived at his numbers and you dismiss him and say he is wrong. It makes it look like you use Cold Harbor casualty counts for the same reason why a drunken man uses a lightpost - for support rather than illumination. They make Grant look bad so you like them. The truth removes much of the stigma of "Grant the butcher" so you have no use for them.

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.

You have to note that why? Personal experience? Quotable source? Or wishful thinking?

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?

And again...and again and again and again...I have explained why.

 

[CSA Today]

I seem to have missed something here.....

How many award-winning books have you published?

It's easy to sit in the cheap seats and boo when you've never played the game.....

You might be right, while I do have a MA in History and Social Science from Appalachian U. (1969), I haven't been to law school.

 

[cash]

Who are those "credible historians"?

For the Overland Campaign, Rhea is the standard. There is no credible historian who doesn't accept his figures.

Have you read Foote or McPherson? They were not advocates of the "Lost Cause" theory neither are they criticized for inaccuracies.

Foote is criticized for inaccuracies and lost causism.

McPherson's book is almost 30 years old. McPherson accepts Rhea's figures.

What I said about the two assaults in that part of my message was about Vicksburg.

Clarity is the responsibility of the writer. If you want to talk about Vicksburg in a discussion about the Overland Campaign, then clearly label what you're talking about. Grant didn't want to make that assault, but McClernand said that he had made a successful breach of the rebel lines and needed support.

And, why was MEADE who was furious on GRANT for ordering an attack without appropriate reconnaissance?

You have bad comprehension. It was Meade's and his corps commanders' responsibility to conduct reconnaissance. Meade wasn't furious at Grant for that.

You stated before that no Civil War army would be destroyed. Now, you say that, with artillery reinforcements, Grant would destroy the Army of Northern Virginia? You are contradicting yourself, cash.

Wrong again. I never said he would destroy the ANV. You need better comprehension.

Again, names for the 'actual" books, please?

Again, obviously not what you've been reading.

Had Sickles remained in his place, Longstreet's attack would have caused panic.

Baloney.

In at least one part of the Union line, the soldiers would panic and go for the rear, creating a gap which Old Peter's veterans would be ready to exploit.

Baloney again.

Why is it foolish to rely on Shelby Foote? Everybody praises his work. Northern and Southern commentators.
Really can all those sources be invalid?

Everybody does not praise his work. It's foolish to rely on Foote because he did no independent research and made a number of errors in his narrative. It's instructive he called his three volumes a narrative of the war and not a history of the war. He even said himself that he was no historian.

I haven't read it all. Some parts available online yes.

Don't you think you should read it before you claim what's in it?

You are talking about skirmishing. A skirmish is not a battle. Even an exchange of some shots can be considered a skirmish.

Do you think men don't die during skirmishing? You have a lot to learn. One regiment at Gettysburg lost well over a hundred men during three days where they were only involved in skirmishing. One man at a time. Additionally, there were other, smaller battles taking place beyond skirmishing.

And, may I ask you, what's your estimate of the casualties? Same as Rhea's, I bet.

Rhea is the standard, and I'll go by that.

What I reproduced from Grant's order to Meade shows that Grant was not objected to the assault.

He stopped after the three corps were slaughtered at all points.

He stopped Meade from attacking again when it was clear that Meade wasn't going to gain any advantage by attacking.

You say the NPS doesn't contradict Rhea. Then, why is the NPS' estimate of Grant's casualties different than Rhea's?

As anyone with any understanding of what they're looking at can tell you, they aren't. One set of numbers corresponds to one time period, the other set of numbers corresponds to a part of that overall time period.

 

[Ellsworth avenger]

He has certainly been allowed to set his own agenda, and his memoirs are treated without the skepticism they deserve.

In fact when one steps back his war record is very mixed, and had he been relieved in July/August '64, which he very well could have been, as he was seen as an ignominious failure who had become "McClellanised" in siege lines and almost allowed Washington to be captured by Early, he would simply be another in a long line of so called "failures". Only 8-9 months more of slow siege would bring success and vindication.

Have enjoyed the thread ,thanks all,but I've never read where the six corps was ever in any real danger of losing to Early.

 

[CSA Today]

For the Overland Campaign, Rhea is the standard. There is no credible historian who doesn't accept his figures.




Foote is criticized for inaccuracies and lost causism.

McPherson's book is almost 30 years old. McPherson accepts Rhea's figures.




Clarity is the responsibility of the writer. If you want to talk about Vicksburg in a discussion about the Overland Campaign, then clearly label what you're talking about. Grant didn't want to make that assault, but McClernand said that he had made a successful breach of the rebel lines and needed support.





You have bad comprehension. It was Meade's and his corps commanders' responsibility to conduct reconnaissance. Meade wasn't furious at Grant for that.



Wrong again. I never said he would destroy the ANV. You need better comprehension.



Again, obviously not what you've been reading.



Baloney.




Baloney again.



Everybody does not praise his work. It's foolish to rely on Foote because he did no independent research and made a number of errors in his narrative. It's instructive he called his three volumes a narrative of the war and not a history of the war. He even said himself that he was no historian.



Don't you think you should read it before you claim what's in it?



Do you think men don't die during skirmishing? You have a lot to learn. One regiment at Gettysburg lost well over a hundred men during three days where they were only involved in skirmishing. One man at a time. Additionally, there were other, smaller battles taking place beyond skirmishing.




Rhea is the standard, and I'll go by that.






He stopped Meade from attacking again when it was clear that Meade wasn't going to gain any advantage by attacking.



As anyone with any understanding of what they're looking at can tell you, they aren't. One set of numbers corresponds to one time period, the other set of numbers corresponds to a part of that overall time period.

The Battle of Cold Harbor was 150 years ago, has someone received a revelation from heaven in the past 30?

 

[cash]

The Battle of Cold Harbor was 150 years ago, has someone received a revelation from heaven in the past 30?

As has been stated, Rhea has gone through the returns line-by-line and has made corrections to what were essentially just guesses that had been accepted previously on face value.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

For cash.
Again and again I have been asking you, who are those credible historians I am missing? Tell me so that I can know what they tell.
I can't believe Foote is criticized for lost causism. He said that he deliberately avoided lost cause in his book.
McPheron may accept Rhea's figures, yet in his book he states otherwise.
In my earlier message I had specified that the paragraph the exempt comes from was about the attacks at Vicksburg.
Meade wrote to his wife that after Cold Harbor Grant begins to understand that "Virginia and Lee's army is not Tennessee and Bragg's army". Would Meade attempt an attack against so strong entrenchments? After Gettysburg, he hesitated to pursue Lee under far better circumstances.
You said that Grant could blast Lee's army to King Cone Heaven or something similar with more artillery until Lee was forced to surrender. When I say this is equivalent to destroying an army, it isn't. When I used the same verb for the possibility that Pope's army would be caught between the two rebel wings and blown to pieces until surrender, it's impossible to be done.
Why do you refuse to give me the names of some of the books?
You seem to underestimate the effects of panic. All military historians and analysts say that panic plays a significant role in combat.
You previously said that Foote relied on the research of others. Those researches were carried out in a some decades after the war and therefore have much credence.
I just said that men don't always die in skirmishing. And what happened to the regiment at Gettysburg happened when the great battle was in progress, right?
Grant could had said "No" to Meade and never launch the assault.
Finally, how is it possible for the two estimates to be the same? For the Battle of Cold Harbor, Rhea says 3000 and the NPS 13000. Not the same at all.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[CSA Today]

For cash.
Again and again I have been asking you, who are those credible historians I am missing? Tell me so that I can know what they tell.
I can't believe Foote is criticized for lost causism. He said that he deliberately avoided lost cause in his book.
McPheron may accept Rhea's figures, yet in his book he states otherwise.
In my earlier message I had specified that the paragraph the exempt comes from was about the attacks at Vicksburg.
Meade wrote to his wife that after Cold Harbor Grant begins to understand that "Virginia and Lee's army is not Tennessee and Bragg's army". Would Meade attempt an attack against so strong entrenchments? After Gettysburg, he hesitated to pursue Lee under far better circumstances.
You said that Grant could blast Lee's army to King Cone Heaven or something similar with more artillery until Lee was forced to surrender. When I say this is equivalent to destroying an army, it isn't. When I used the same verb for the possibility that Pope's army would be caught between the two rebel wings and blown to pieces until surrender, it's impossible to be done.
Why do you refuse to give me the names of some of the books?
You seem to underestimate the effects of panic. All military historians and analysts say that panic plays a significant role in combat.
You previously said that Foote relied on the research of others. Those researches were carried out in a some decades after the war and therefore have much credence.
I just said that men don't always die in skirmishing. And what happened to the regiment at Gettysburg happened when the great battle was in progress, right?
Grant could had said "No" to Meade and never launch the assault.
Finally, how is it possible for the two estimates to be the same? For the Battle of Cold Harbor, Rhea says 3000 and the NPS 13000. Not the same at all.
Civil War Scholar.

He probably hasn't thought of that.

 

[cash]

Again and again I have been asking you, who are those credible historians I am missing? Tell me so that I can know what they tell.

Again and again, quite obviously not what you've been reading.

I can't believe Foote is criticized for lost causism. He said that he deliberately avoided lost cause in his book.

LOL ... he's a lost causer.

McPheron may accept Rhea's figures, yet in his book he states otherwise.

Are you able to read and understand publication dates?

In my earlier message I had specified that the paragraph the exempt comes from was about the attacks at Vicksburg.

No, you didn't.

Meade wrote to his wife that after Cold Harbor Grant begins to understand that "Virginia and Lee's army is not Tennessee and Bragg's army". Would Meade attempt an attack against so strong entrenchments? After Gettysburg, he hesitated to pursue Lee under far better circumstances.

That was actually on June 6. Correction. June 5.

On June 4, the day after the big assault at Cold Harbor, Meade wrote:

What do you think he meant by "I had immediate and entire command on the field all day."

You said that Grant could blast Lee's army to King Cone Heaven or something similar with more artillery until Lee was forced to surrender.

Until Lee was forced to surrender. That's not destroying an army. It was impossible to destroy a Civil War army.

Why do you refuse to give me the names of some of the books?

They're all the books you obviously haven't read.

You seem to underestimate the effects of panic.

You seem to confuse your imagination with fact.

You previously said that Foote relied on the research of others. Those researches were carried out in a some decades after the war and therefore have much credence.

Do they? Where did Foote get his information? Can you open a volume of his to any random page and point to a random fact and tell where he got it?

I just said that men don't always die in skirmishing. And what happened to the regiment at Gettysburg happened when the great battle was in progress, right?

Elsewhere on the field, but not where the skirmishing was happening.

Grant could had said "No" to Meade and never launch the assault.

I'm sure if he knew Meade would have been so incompetent he would have taken measures to ensure a different outcome.

Finally, how is it possible for the two estimates to be the same? For the Battle of Cold Harbor, Rhea says 3000 and the NPS 13000. Not the same at all.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the NPS figures and Rhea's figures are not for the same period of time?

 

[CSA Today]

That's what I figured. How's the view from the cheap seats?

My view of your recent posts would be the same from any seat.

On a less contentious subject, I see where you wrote a book on the Battle of Monroe Cross Roads, do you know a Ken Belew (sp)? He was a retired army sergeant and worked for the army in some capacity (I don't remember his job title) but it had something to do with overseeing and protecting historical and archaeological sites at Fort Bragg. This man had an extraordinary knowledge of the battle. He came to my SCV camp on two occasions giving programs. He literally had an arm load of documentation for this relative small and short battle and could come close to a blow by blow account. He arranged for tour of the battle site for my SCV camp, and others, which was good because this one battlefield that you can't just go tour without army permission. All of this occurred at least ten years ago and I don't know if Ken is still at Fort Bragg.

Just curious to know if you ever came across him.

 

[KeyserSoze]

The Battle of Cold Harbor was 150 years ago, has someone received a revelation from heaven in the past 30?

No revelations. Just hard work, tons of research, and a willingness to do the hard work of wading through documents that other historians didn't have. Not all historians are from the Kennedy/DiLorenzo school you know.