Most Overrated General?

[Elennsar]

There are instances, I know, where specifics and precision matter a great deal. One has to know which is the wheat and which is the chaff, no?

That's why I wonder. Sorting the wheat from the chaff is maddening when weighing numbers and losses - especially on the Confederate side (due to worse record keeping and fewer preserved records).

 

[KeyserSoze]

Just because he wrote in detail doesn't mean other authors have not. It all depends on what one wants to write about I would guess.

And the agenda of the person reading it. I guess.

 

[KeyserSoze]

I guess it would cut down to who's book I would want to believe.

Believe the one which fits your agenda. It works for your compatriots.

It is a wonder someone has not challenged Rhea's figures.

Indeed. It's been 7 years since he wrote his book and presented his findings and yet nobody is challenging them. Except you and your friends like CSA Today and Civil War Scholar.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Keyser Soze,
You can't have it both ways. You declare all sources invalid and say the other authors have not done research and you insult those who don't belong in the same school of thought with you. It is not the subject of "what fits our agenda" but which claim is the one with more credence. You and cash always tell me that "credible historians" concur with Rhea yet you refuse to utter one of their names.
I don't mean to insult you, but in my opinion you accuse other people of something you are not innocent yourself.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Nathanb1]

Letters from Nelson locked up for secuitry reasons? What the heck were they afraid of?

You know the French.

 

[huskerblitz]

"Credible" here is defined by who's work you agree with.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

I tend to agree with you, huskerblitz. Yet, I still don't find any reason why Keyser Soze and cash still don't tell me a single name of a historian whom they consider to be credible.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[diane]

I can't really believe anyone is seriously questioning Gordon Rhea. He doesn't need any other colleagues to vouch for him, he got his information from careful study of the records. He's tackling the strange mythology that has come over this particular battle. It wasn't the first time Grant ordered a brutal and highly lethal assault - Spotsylvania comes to mind. Rhea's solid credentials are as long as your arm. Until I get a list that long, I'm inclined to accept the word of someone who does have it.

 

[Elennsar]

I can't really believe anyone is seriously questioning Gordon Rhea. He doesn't need any other colleagues to vouch for him, he got his information from careful study of the records. He's tackling the strange mythology that has come over this particular battle. It wasn't the first time Grant ordered a brutal and highly lethal assault - Spotsylvania comes to mind. Rhea's solid credentials are as long as your arm. Until I get a list that long, I'm inclined to accept the word of someone who does have it.

I tend to support this. Obviously its not perfect - but no one has offered any actual reason to doubt Rhea's research. No one has posted anything indicating that - for example - the casualties for the 182nd New York were higher (or lower) than 94 men.

 

[cash]

Shelby Foote wasn't a Lost Causer, rather he scoffed at that ideology. He said he was simply telling the story of the Civil War from the Southern viewpoint. He was trying to add balance - Bruce Catton was slanted toward the North, as he said himself. Some confuse a Southern perspective with the more militant Lost Cause.

"However pleasurable to read and admirable in embracing the war's geographic whole, much of Foote's narrative fits a bit too comfortably within the Lost Cause tradition developed by former Confederates. Although he includes Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman as well as Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest among his favorite characters, he cannot accept slavery's centrality to the coming war, attributes the United States triumph to overwhelming numbers and materiel, portrays the Confederacy battling gallantly and with no loss of honor against hopeless odds and imagines Reconstruction as a horror inflicted on the white South by victorious Yankees. He reiterated themes from the books in his contribution to Burns' series. 'I think the North fought that war with one hand behind its back' he remarked regarding the inevitable Union victory. 'I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that war.' " [Gary Gallagher, "Shelby Foote, Popular Historian: What is his real legacy?" Civil War Times, Vol 52, No. 1, February, 2013, p. 20]

Yes, Shelby was a lost causer.

 

[Drew]

"There was never an accurate accounting of Union losses for this day. A surgeon in Hancock's corps guessed the casualties to be 'not much less than 5,000.' The Confederate First Corps artillery chief, E. P. Alexander, later estimated the number to be seventy-thee hundred, while Provost Marshall Marsena Patrick of the Army of the Potomac was told by General Meade that their losses exceeded eight thousand. Drawing upon hospital records, Meade's chief of staff, Andrew Humphreys, put the June 3 totals at 4,517 wounded and 'at least 1,100 killed.'

Whatever the final determination, from this day on the Army of the Potomac's headquarters ceased to ask for morning reports from its company commanders. The number of lost men were potentially too explosive an issue for the staff to allow that data to be easily assembled."

Source: Bloody Roads South, Noah A. Trudeau, pp. 298-299, Little, Brown and Co., 1989. Italics mine.

 

[diane]

"However pleasurable to read and admirable in embracing the war's geographic whole, much of Foote's narrative fits a bit too comfortably within the Lost Cause tradition developed by former Confederates. Although he includes Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman as well as Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest among his favorite characters, he cannot accept slavery's centrality to the coming war, attributes the United States triumph to overwhelming numbers and materiel, portrays the Confederacy battling gallantly and with no loss of honor against hopeless odds and imagines Reconstruction as a horror inflicted on the white South by victorious Yankees. He reiterated themes from the books in his contribution to Burns' series. 'I think the North fought that war with one hand behind its back' he remarked regarding the inevitable Union victory. 'I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that war.' " [Gary Gallagher, "Shelby Foote, Popular Historian: What is his real legacy?" Civil War Times, Vol 52, No. 1, February, 2013, p. 20]

Yes, Shelby was a lost causer.

I disagree. I do understand how he could be mistaken for one but you have to consider Foote's generation. That's why I'm posting this rather long interview about William Faulkner, one of his friends and mentors. Faulkner's grandfather was one of Forrest's captains. Foote's was also a Confederate officer, I believe, but not with Forrest. That's not too far removed!

 

[cash]

One measure of credibility is not taking things out of context. For example, if we're going to talk about Grant's message to Meade regarding pressing attacks, credibility means providing the message in context.

Note that Grant told Meade that the moment it became certain the assault wasn't successful he was to stop.

 

[cash]

I disagree. I do understand how he could be mistaken for one but you have to consider Foote's generation. That's why I'm posting this rather long interview about William Faulkner, one of his friends and mentors. Faulkner's grandfather was one of Forrest's captains. Foote's was also a Confederate officer, I believe, but not with Forrest. That's not too far removed!

It doesn't matter what generation he was. Lost cause is lost cause.

Shelby's lost causism is on full display with his "Great Compromise" malarkey.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/shelby-foote-the-great-compromise.102044/

Foote was indeed a lost causer. He embodied a lot of the lost cause myth in his writings.

 

[diane]

It doesn't matter what generation he was. Lost cause is lost cause.

Shelby's lost causism is on full display with his "Great Compromise" malarkey.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/shelby-foote-the-great-compromise.102044/

Foote was indeed a lost causer. He embodied a lot of the lost cause myth in his writings.

Well, I'll have to give you that Compromise stuff is malarkey. But it just proves my point - when did you ever see a Lost Causer even think about compromise?

 

[CSA Today]

Wonder who wrote the blog?

Since he didn't identify this "One of the best Civil War historians alive today", I reckon we will continue to wonder.

 

[cash]

Well, I'll have to give you that Compromise stuff is malarkey. But it just proves my point - when did you ever see a Lost Causer even think about compromise?

Well, you just did.

 

[cash]

Since he didn't identify this "One of the best Civil War historians alive today", I reckon we will continue to wonder.

Those of at least average intelligence will not need to wonder, as they will know how to find the name of the author.

 

[diane]

Well, you just did.

 

[CSA Today]

Those of at least average intelligence will not need to wonder, as they will know how to find the name of the author.

Would it be Daffy Duck?