Most Overrated General?

[wilber6150]

Lets knock off the snide comments and nicknames for each other and discuss the question of the OP
posted as mod

 

[CSA Today]

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.

I'm sure the main line historians had credible documentation before the likes of Gordon Rhea, Edward Bonekemper and Alan Nolan swaggered forth from their law offices to write history. Where were these "document's found anyway – in a trunk in somebody attic?

 

[wilber6150]

I'm sure the main line historians had credible documentation before the likes of Gordon Rhea, Edward Bonekemper and Alan Nolan swaggered forth from their law offices to write history. Where were these "document's found anyway – in a trunk in somebody attic?

I think thats a very valid and good question, what documentation were early historians using versus latter ones like Rhea used that came up with very different results casualty wise..Was it merely breaking it down into smaller increaments of time or incidents of conflict or were different unit returns examined...

 

[KeyserSoze]

I'm sure the main line historians had credible documentation before the likes of Gordon Rhea, Edward Bonekemper and Alan Nolan swaggered forth from their law offices to write history. Where were these "document's found anyway – in a trunk in somebody attic?

Since you persist in criticizing Rhea for being a lawyer, let me point out that Tommy DiLorenzo is an economist and the senior Kennedy brother is an insurance agent. You must really be critical of their work.

Peter Cozzens has written several noteworthy books on Chickamauga, Stones River, Iuka, and Chattanooga. He was a diplomat. Shelby Foote was a novelist before he turned his hand to writing about the rebellion. Noah Andre Trudeau, author of books on Gettysburg, Sherman's Georgia campaign, and others, was a producer at NPR. It takes, in my opinion, a special kind of hubris to criticize those who produced works that you never could, and to discount their work just because they don't fit your tortured and narrow definition of what the background of someone in that profession should be.

 

[wilber6150]

A writers profession has nothing to do with their ability to write well researched books, lets knock off those comments as well and have a civilized discussion...Prove or disprove what a writer publishes, comments on their occupation do nothing to support a persons position...
posted as mod

 

[KeyserSoze]

I think thats a very valid and good question, what documentation were early historians using versus latter ones like Rhea used that came up with very different results casualty wise..Was it merely breaking it down into smaller increaments of time or incidents of conflict or were different unit returns examined...

One which is easily answered by looking at any of Rhea's books, which CSA Today apparently has not done. His bibliographies are extensive and his sources are clearly identified.

 

[diane]

Bruce Catton is considered a reliable source - an oldie but a goodie! He was a journalist. Jack Hurst, too - his biography of Forrest is the best out there. Sometimes non-academics do all right.

 

[huskerblitz]

T. R. Fehrenbach as well.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

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.

Mr. Belew had already retired by the time that I began working on that project in earnest in the fall/winter of 2001-2002 (my first visit to the battlefield was on 9/8/01--three days before 9/11; you can imagine how access changed between my first and second visits). I dealt a great deal with his successor, Charles Heath, who remains the cultural resources guy at Fort Bragg to this day.

 

[CSA Today]

Mr. Belew had already retired by the time that I began working on that project in earnest in the fall/winter of 2001-2002 (my first visit to the battlefield was on 9/8/01--three days before 9/11; you can imagine how access changed between my first and second visits). I dealt a great deal with his successor, Charles Heath, who remains the cultural resources guy at Fort Bragg to this day.

Thanks, I guess it has been that long -- we were there definitely before 9-11 now that I think about it. I wonder if Ken Belew is still in the area or gone back home to Kennesaw Georgia?

 

[wilber6150]

One which is easily answered by looking at any of Rhea's books, which CSA Today apparently has not done. His bibliographies are extensive and his sources are clearly identified.

But, what I think that CSA is asking is that weren't these numbers also available to earlier writers, and if so why the difference? Or are they new rosters and unit returns that have surfaced?

 

[Rebforever]

In a reply to another poster. Grant took over after the battle of the Wilderness. Meade did relieve him of some of his work while be very close to Grant but Grant was running the show.

HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
Cold Harbor, Va., June 5, 1864.

GENERAL: A full survey of all the ground satisfies me that it would

not be practicable to hold a line northeast of Richmond that would protect the Fredericksburg railroad, to enable us to use if for supplying the army. To do so would give us a long vulnerable line of road to protect, exhausting much of our strength in guarding it, and would leave open to the enemy all of his lines of communication on the south side of the James. My idea from the start has been to beat Lee's army, if possible, north of Richmond, then, after destroying his lines of communication north of the James River to transfer the army to the south side and besiege Lee in richmond, or follow him south if he should retreat. I now find, after more than thirty days of trial, that the enemy deems it of the first importance to run no risks with the armies they now have. They act purely on the defensive, behind breast-works, or feebly on the offensive immediately in front of them, and where in case of repulse they can instantly retire behind them. Without a greater sacrifice of human life than I am willing to make, all cannot be accomplished that I had designed outside of the city. I have, therefore, resolved upon the following plan: I will continue to hold substantially the ground now occupied by the Army of the Potomac, taking advantage of any favorably circumstance that may present itself, until the cavalry can be sent west to destroy the Virginia Central Railroad from about Beaver Dam for some 25 or 30 miles west. When this is effected, I will move the army to the south side of James River, either by crossing the Chickahominy and marching near to City Point, or by going to the mouth of the Chickahominy on the north side and crossing there. To provide for this last and most probable contingency six or more ferry-boats of the largest size ought to be immediately provided. Once on the south side of James River I can cut off all sources of supply to the enemy, except what is furnished by the canal. If Hunter succeeds in reaching Lynchburg that will be lost to him also. Should Hunter not succeed I will still made the effort to destroy the canal by sending cavalry up th south side of the river with a pontoon train to cross wherever they can. The feeling of the two armies now seems to be that the rebels can protect themselves only by strong entrenchments, while our army is not only confident of protecting itself without entrenchments, but that it can beat and drive the enemy whenever and whenever he can be found without this protection.

Very respectfully,

U. S. GRANT,

There are others. I am using the book "Meade of Gettysburg" by Freeman Cleaves to find these orders in his footnotes.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/recordView.cfm?Content=067/0012

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Thanks, I guess it has been that long -- we were there definitely before 9-11 now that I think about it. I wonder if Ken Belew is still in the area or gone back home to Kennesaw Georgia?

That I cannot say. Sorry. You might consider reaching out to Charles Heath at Fort Bragg. He might know.

 

[KeyserSoze]

But, what I think that CSA is asking is that weren't these numbers also available to earlier writers, and if so why the difference? Or are they new rosters and unit returns that have surfaced?

One would assume they are period documents which have been available to those who took the trouble to find them. They just never went looking for them. But really who other than Rhea has tackled the Overland Campaign to the level of detail that he has? So who other than he has had the motivation to examine the available data in such painstaking detail?

 

[Rebforever]

I don't know how much digging Rhea did.

 

[wilber6150]

I don't know how much digging Rhea did.

Have you read his books?

 

[diane]

I noticed one of the things that made Rhea's work outstanding was his attention to detail and the willingness to do really hard work verifying data. There's always new information surfacing and not necessarily out of somebody's attic. My old pal Nelson, for example - many documents and letters were locked up for international security reasons and only in the last couple decades have been released. The late Colin White, the foremost Nelson authority, literally stumbled onto piles of new information simply by cleaning out and re-ordering the museum and archives at Portsmouth! Got almost a whole new admiral out of it.

 

[suzenatale]

How about the flagrant lie in the very first sentence of his memoirs?

How about that 1-12-1 record in battle as commander of the Cavalry Corps and then flagrantly lying about it?

How about the demonstrated hypocrisy?

That's just some of it.

My sources are fully set forth in my book, Little Phil. Trust me when I tell you that this man was a terrible, horrible human being who does not deserve the adulation he receives.

I was just curious to see if anyone would list Chamberlain or the Warren court of inquiry.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I was just curious to see if anyone would list Chamberlain or the Warren court of inquiry.

Certainly the Warren Court of Inquiry. It's an absolute must for any such discussion.

 

[cash]

In a reply to another poster. Grant took over after the battle of the Wilderness. Meade did relieve him of some of his work while be very close to Grant but Grant was running the show.

HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
Cold Harbor, Va., June 5, 1864.



There are others. I am using the book "Meade of Gettysburg" by Freeman Cleaves to find these orders in his footnotes.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/recordView.cfm?Content=067/0012

Meade threw a temper tantrum in May. As a result of that, Grant allowed him full control for Cold Harbor until Grant stopped things.

http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/cold-harbor-myths/