Book Launch New book on Grant coming in 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Ulysses Grant was a witness to the Civil War. Frank Varney is an interpreter of what survived in the written records. Is the recollection of any particular witness to an event completely reliable? No.
As to Grant's memoirs, he was protecting his son who got a lot of people involved with Ferdinand Ward, and they incurred huge losses. He was protecting his wife from poverty. But he was also protecting his privacy, the intelligence work that went on during the war. He skipped over his own life long struggles with alcohol consumption. He wasn't writing a history book. He was writing something that veterans and libraries could keep on their shelves for a generation.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
I look forward to reading it. Varney isn’t the only person to come to most of his conclusions.

I can understand that Grant cult worshipers wouldn’t be happy with it. So it goes.
Almost every in depth study of the Grant-Rosecrans conflict written in the last two decades sides with Rosecrans. Evan Jones and Albert Castel are two examples. Even the late Michael Ballard wo worked on the Grant Papers at Mississippi State. .
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
It’s scholarly history and not for everyone.
...
You’ll discover the number of people you can discuss these topics with is relatively small. However there is something to be said for trying to determine “ historical truth.”
It's not scholarly. When anyone with an internet connection can easily and instantly look up online primary sources that prove a writer wrong, it can't be called "scholarly."

And it's not historical truth.

Thomas DiLorenzo. If you want to understand Varney and Rose and Moore, look at DiLorenzo's writing on Lincoln. It's the same kind of faux history with an agenda.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Almost every in depth study of the Grant-Rosecrans conflict written in the last two decades sides with Rosecrans. Evan Jones and Albert Castel are two examples. Even the late Michael Bradley wo worked on the Grant Papers at Mississippi State. .
Actually, no. Partisans just read it that way.
 
Last edited:

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
Ulysses Grant was a witness to the Civil War. Frank Varney is an interpreter of what survived in the written records. Is the recollection of any particular witness to an event completely reliable? No.
As to Grant's memoirs, he was protecting his son who got a lot of people involved with Ferdinand Ward, and they incurred huge losses. He was protecting his wife from poverty. But he was also protecting his privacy, the intelligence work that went on during the war. He skipped over his own life long struggles with alcohol consumption. He wasn't writing a history book. He was writing something that veterans and libraries could keep on their shelves for a generation.
But Varney’s point is that the Memoirs are taken as “ truth” and has resulted in the destruction of the reputations of many generals - and their soldiers.
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
As for William Rosecrans, he was not given a job in the eastern theater after West Virginia, when first Scott, the McClellan were running the armies. He had the unique experience of not making friends with either McClellan nor Grant. And unlike most Civil War generals that were relieved of their commands, Rosecrans never got a field assignment after Chickamauga.
Granger, Curtis, McClernand, Pleasonton, and Hooker all got second chances. But the Cumberland command was Rosecrans' second chance and the opinion of the US civilian leadership, he had failed.
But by making it a Grant v Rosecrans issue, that elevates Rosecrans because Grant was a two term President(elected with the help of the votes of freedmen) so that elevates Rosecrans to a status he never obtained in the 19th century.
Grant became a political figure. Attacking political figures is a time honored tradition in the US, for people who are interested in that sort of thing.
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
But Varney’s point is that the Memoirs are taken as “ truth” and has resulted in the destruction of the reputations of many generals - and their soldiers.
Grant fired many generals, including some that President Lincoln noted were Grant's friends. Then the army shrank drastically after the war ended, and there weren't many men whose reputations survived the shrinkage. Every Civil War figure who fought for the US has been criticized by some historical account. I don't see why the generals that had been fired by Grant should be considered a special class.
 

uaskme

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
But Varney’s point is that the Memoirs are taken as “ truth” and has resulted in the destruction of the reputations of many generals - and their soldiers.
Yep, we have had discussions of Grant‘s lies about people and his battle plans at Chattanooga. David Powell uncovers many of those. Grant casts off these embellishments in his memoirs. Lazy historians pick them up in Grant’s memoirs and uses them as a primary source. So they alter the story telling. Never were true to begin with.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
As for William Rosecrans, he was not given a job in the eastern theater after West Virginia, when first Scott, the McClellan were running the armies. He had the unique experience of not making friends with either McClellan nor Grant. And unlike most Civil War generals that were relieved of their commands, Rosecrans never got a field assignment after Chickamauga.
Granger, Curtis, McClernand, Pleasonton, and Hooker all got second chances. But the Cumberland command was Rosecrans' second chance and the opinion of the US civilian leadership, he had failed.
But by making it a Grant v Rosecrans issue, that elevates Rosecrans because Grant was a two term President(elected with the help of the votes of freedmen) so that elevates Rosecrans to a status he never obtained in the 19th century.
Grant became a political figure. Attacking political figures is a time honored tradition in the US, for people who are interested in that sort of thing.
Curtis became disgusted with Rosecrans in Missouri.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
As for William Rosecrans, he was not given a job in the eastern theater after West Virginia, when first Scott, the McClellan were running the armies. He had the unique experience of not making friends with either McClellan nor Grant. And unlike most Civil War generals that were relieved of their commands, Rosecrans never got a field assignment after Chickamauga.
Granger, Curtis, McClernand, Pleasonton, and Hooker all got second chances. But the Cumberland command was Rosecrans' second chance and the opinion of the US civilian leadership, he had failed.
But by making a Grant v Rosecrans issue, that elevates Rosecrans because Grant was a two term President(elected with the help of the votes of freedmen) so that elevates Rosecrans to a status he never obtained in the 19th century.
Grant became a political figure. Attacking political figures is a time honored tradition in the US, for people who are interested in that sort of thing.
After Chickamauga Rosecrans was given command in very troublesome Missouri. He did pretty well. The very Republican NY Times - edited by Republican Party Chairman Henry Raymond- wrote after Rosecrans’ removal in 1863 that he was second only to Grant in achievement and no history of the War could be written in which Rosecrans didn’t play a prominent role. It is actually in the mid 20th century when the legend of Grant began. With all due respect your analysis is wrong. Also some documentation would be useful
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
Grant fired many generals, including some that President Lincoln noted were Grant's friends. Then the army shrank drastically after the war ended, and there weren't many men whose reputations survived the shrinkage. Every Civil War figure who fought for the US has been criticized by some historical account. I don't see why the generals that had been fired by Grant should be considered a special class.
Maybe Varney’s book will prove illuminating to you.
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
After Chickamauga Rosecrans was given command in very troublesome Missouri. He did pretty well. The very Republican NY Times - edited by Republican Party Chairman Henry Raymond- wrote after Rosecrans’ removal in 1863 that he was second only to Grant in achievement and no history of the War could be written in which Rosecrans didn’t play a prominent role. It is actually in the mid 20th century when the legend of Grant began. With all due respect your analysis is wrong. Also some documentation would be useful
You have made some fantastic assertions in the past, but I think now you have outdone all past fantasies:
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
When an advocate argues about everything, they lose credibility. The trier of fact, or the reader loses interest, and stops listening and stops reading. Which is a good summary of @NedBaldwin 's response to the first book by Varney in this sequence.
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
I would rely on Ned, but my recollection is that Curtis commanded in the field, and Pleasonton commanded the cavalry. The US effort to suppress Price's raid I believe was successful.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
I would rely on Ned, but my recollection is that Curtis commanded in the field, and Pleasonton commanded the cavalry. The US effort to suppress Price's raid I believe was successful.
Rosecrans commanded in Missouri; Curtis in Kansas. Price entered Missouri with hopes of attacking St Louis or perhaps the state capital Jefferson City. Price was met at Pilot Knob and then veered west. Rosecrans did go into the field and was part of the force pushing Price west toward Kansas. Rosecrans was of course responsible for protecting all of Missouri and couldn’t just concentrate on one area. Might be interesting to compare this with Grant’s actions during Early’s 1864 raid.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
I would rely on Ned, but my recollection is that Curtis commanded in the field, and Pleasonton commanded the cavalry. The US effort to suppress Price's raid I believe was successful.
Curtis commanded the Department of Kansas; Rosecrans commanded the Department of Missouri.
Price was raiding through Missouri. Rosecrans and Curtis were supposed to coorperate to stop him but it did not go smoothly. Curtis brought his forces from Kansas into Missouri to fight Price and did connect with Pleasanton's cavalry sent by Rosecrans.

For various reasons, the high command had tired of Rosecrans by late 1864 and he was fired from Missouri, the position assigned to Dodge. Rosecrans had no other position in 1865
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
When an advocate argues about everything, they lose credibility. The trier of fact, or the reader loses interest, and stops listening and stops reading. Which is a good summary of @NedBaldwin 's response to the first book by Varney in this sequence.
Is this from a book titled Quotations from Mr Baldwin?
Maybe one day he will write a book. A bit harder than merely criticizing those who have ( and the universities they studied at)
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Rosecrans was of course responsible for protecting all of Missouri and couldn’t just concentrate on one area. Might be interesting to compare this with Grant’s actions during Early’s 1864 raid.
Might be interesting to compare Rosecrans' absence at Westport with Grant's absence at Iuka and Corinth.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top