Most Overrated General?

[diane]

You know the French.

Well, you know, there's still classified letters and docs. Nelson was testing out some high tech weaponry and had a heck of a fine spy ring. He, like most of his time, thought spies were ignoble but...gotta get your information some way! Apparently there's some uneasiness that maybe some of the things he was testing were, well, not exactly up to code for humanitarian purposes. The French might get upset all over! (Nothing PC about Nelson, though - he believed the biggest favor anyone could do the world was to exterminate the French... )

 

[Drew]

I'm posting this rather long interview about William Faulkner

I watched all of it - thank your for posting.

 

[Drew]

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.

View attachment 43138

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

This is CYA communication, in my opinion. Meade new Grant's assault order at Cold Harbor was a disaster, so did the men on the line. Why the need to "protect the baby" I'll never understand.

 

[cash]

This is CYA communication, in my opinion. Meade new Grant's assault order at Cold Harbor was a disaster, so did the men on the line. Why the need to "protect the baby" I'll never understand.

Get back to us when you learn something about Cold Harbor.

 

[diane]

I watched all of it - thank your for posting.

I thought it might give a little insight as to why Shelby Foote could be mistaken for a Lost Causer. Faulkner wrote a lot about the old, decaying, pretty depressing South.

 

[Elennsar]

Writing about the South is something anyone can do. Presenting it in a romantic glow where all men were brave and all women beautiful is more than writing from a southern POV.

I haven't watched the Faulkner video, but at least Faulkner has the excuse of writing fiction. Foote's narrative is shelved in the nonfiction and needs to be weighed in that light.

 

[diane]

Writing about the South is something anyone can do. Presenting in a romantic glow where all men were brave and all women beautiful is more than writing from a southern POV.

It isn't about Faulkner. It's about what Shelby Foote says about the South and a number of other things within that interview. He's very representative of his generation of Southerners - one foot in the CW, one foot out.

 

[CSA Today]

Yep. All 5 of them.

I plan to go to the library in the morning to see if they have Rhea's In the Footsteps of Grant and Lee: The Wilderness Through Cold Harbor. If they don't, I'll see if they can get it for me through inter library loan. If he is, indeed, claiming to have new documents, and not just someone on this forum, proving established historian wrong about Grant's casualties at Cold Harbor, there should be mention of it in the preface, foreword, or introduction. I will also check footnote/endnotes and the bibliography for his sources.

 

[Elennsar]

It isn't about Faulkner. It's about what Shelby Foote says about the South and a number of other things within that interview. He's very representative of his generation of Southerners - one foot in the CW, one foot out.

And no foot on a particularly firm historical foundation.

 

[Elennsar]

I plan to go to the library in the morning to see if they have Rhea's In the Footsteps of Grant and Lee: The Wilderness Through Cold Harbor. If they don't, I'll see if they can get it for me through inter library loan. If he is, indeed, claiming to have new documents, and not just someone on this forum, proving established historian wrong about Grant's casualties at Cold Harbor, there should be mention of it in the preface, foreword, or introduction. I will also check footnote/endnotes and the bibliography for his sources.

I suggest if you want something on Cold Harbor specifically to look for this: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/cold-harbor-gordon-c-rhea/1110870294?ean=9780807128039 as it breaks down the losses and sources in detail.

 

[Drew]

Get back to us when you learn something about Cold Harbor.

Just read Trudeau's book. You told me to read it. It was great, thanks for the recommendation. Here, look at this video:

http://www.civilwar.org/video/cold-harbor-with-gordon-rhea.html

Watch Gordon Rhea's lips move at the four minute mark, where he assigns responsibility for the decision to assault Confederate entrenchments at Cold Harbor and describes George Meade's reaction. I'll read Rhea, eventually, but I'm busy. I'll take his spoken word in the meantime.

 

[diane]

And no foot on a particularly firm historical foundation.

That's fair to say! Take Faulkner's great imaginary scene of Pickett's Charge in Intruders in the Dust. That was his generation's angst and the one before it - all the hopes of the South embodied in that one fatal action, the hopes of generations to come.

 

[Ellsworth avenger]

I introduced myself as a reader not talker a few years ago,and this forum did a good job of bringing me out my shell. I have to admit it also helped point out some shortcomings and character defects in my thinking. My ability to look in the mirror first is also one of my better attributes . introduction aside to those who don't know me I have always been troubled by Cold Harbor. It is the battle where politics killed way to many brethren for the right cause. I know that I don't have to explain this feeling to any of the proponents on either side of this issue. The fact of down playing by the republican press of timely reporting and assurances of low casualties alone tells a lot of the debacle. I also feel,though ancestors were lost, that the Union and Grant were preserved by the continual pressure exerted in this campaign.

 

[Elennsar]

Just read Trudeau's book. You told me to read it. It was great, thanks for the recommendation. Here, look at this video:

http://www.civilwar.org/video/cold-harbor-with-gordon-rhea.html

Watch Gordon Rhea's lips move at the four minute mark, where he assigns responsibility for the decision to assault Confederate entrenchments at Cold Harbor and describes George Meade's reaction. I'll read Rhea, eventually, but I'm busy. I'll take his spoken word in the meantime.

Rhea's spoken word refers to Grant ordering another "major, frontal assault" - but at 4:22 he specifically refers to Meade as "in charge of the details of the assault".

That makes the (lack of) coordination and lack of reconnaissance and lack of pretty much any planning rest squarely on Meade's shoulders, not Grant's.

 

[M E Wolf]

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

Folks, please be aware that posting can become 'disjointed' by how a poster replies with or without quoting the poster one is replying to. This can cause miscommunication(s) and or misunderstandings that may/could lead to upsets.

The software posts in order differently those posts without quotes than with quotes.

I like to remind all the members here, if there is a member on the 'blocked' list --their posts and comments will not appear. If you (in general terms) are blocked from view--that person will not see any/all posts from the person on that block list--to include embedded or quotes included by another member. Example: John Doe is on blocked list. Jane Doe posts and carries on the conversation with other members. Don Doe replies to John Doe but Jane Doe won't see that post John Doe made.

It is very possible if a person has you (in a general sense) on ignore/block -- they will not see anything, to include the question posed and or any response. This could be construed as 'ignoring' or 'evading' the question--the fact is, it just may be that you (in a general sense) are blocked/on ignore list and won't see anything posted period.

I like all to consider that a lack of response might be due to:
1. Personal choice in not responding.
2. They aren't on line and or may have had computer problems where they can't respond in a rapid nature (computers do crash, connection break, lost or stolen, etc.)
3. On a person's ignore/block list.

M. E. Wolf
POSTED IN THE CAPACITY OF MODERATOR
July 29, 2014 10:17 p.m.

 

[Elennsar]

That's fair to say! Take Faulkner's great imaginary scene of Pickett's Charge in Intruders in the Dust. That was his generation's angst and the one before it - all the hopes of the South embodied in that one fatal action, the hopes of generations to come.

And that's a lot more understandable presentation in regards to Faulkner's novels than Foote's . . . quasihistory. I don't want to say pseudohistory, because that implies he deliberately wrote dishonestly (a charge I'll let someone else make if its to be made), but he wrote as a novelist at best and carelessly at worst.

 

[diane]

And that's a lot more understandable presentation in regards to Faulkner's novels than Foote's . . . quasihistory. I don't want to say pseudohistory, because that implies he deliberately wrote dishonestly (a charge I'll let someone else make if its to be made), but he wrote as a novelist at best and carelessly at worst.

Foote was asked to write his trilogy - it did take quite a while to get done, too. And, to be fair to him, he did try to be as accurate as he needed. That said...he couldn't resist a good yarn! The shoes at Gettysburg, for instance. Come now, does anyone really believe that's why Heth went down there? (He probably wouldn't have gone if he'd known Buford was hanging out there but...shoes? Naw!)

 

[huskerblitz]

And that's a lot more understandable presentation in regards to Faulkner's novels than Foote's . . . quasihistory. I don't want to say pseudohistory, because that implies he deliberately wrote dishonestly (a charge I'll let someone else make if its to be made), but he wrote as a novelist at best and carelessly at worst.

Foote wrote his series as a narrative, not as a novelist. Large distinction there.

Foote was asked to write his trilogy - it did take quite a while to get done, too. And, to be fair to him, he did try to be as accurate as he needed. That said...he couldn't resist a good yarn!

And there's a place for that! What people like about him is he writes as a human...something a lot of historians could do a lot better at. And his folksy, Southern-style gentleman comes out in his writings who manages to fit these quaint little stories into his work. Makes for an enjoyable read.

 

[Pat Answer]

Hmm. Is it time to ask who the most overrated lawyer/journalist/novelist/chef turned historian is?

 

[Drew]

Rhea's spoken word refers to Grant ordering another "major, frontal assault" - but at 4:22 he specifically refers to Meade as "in charge of the details of the assault".

That makes the (lack of) coordination and lack of reconnaissance and lack of pretty much any planning rest squarely on Meade's shoulders, not Grant's.

Maybe and I don't know enough to engage in this. But, Rhea's got Meade "balking" at the order and evidence holds that the men on the line knew they were going to die in this futile assault. Rhea explains in the video I posted up thread that Confederate engineers went out in the field and planted stakes at measured distance that would give artillerymen near perfect range at which to fire. This was a planned and predictable slaughter. The guys who were there said so, our opinions can't outweigh theirs.

Trudeau's implication that meaningful casualty figures were suppressed also says a lot. He didn't follow up on it, but it's not rocket science. An election year, don't-you-know.