Book Launch New book on Grant coming in 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Please tell me one of my “fantastic assertions” or fantasies.
A modern NPS article about public mourning after Grant’s death is your “proof” that Grant’s military career was universally praised in the 19th century?
The fantasy Wausabob was reacting to in this case is "It is actually in the mid 20th century when the legend of Grant began." The public mourning over Grant's death is proof that "the legend of Grant" is a 19th Century phenomenon. 19th Century biographies of Grant are more "legend" style than mid-20th century ones. Of course, since you cant defend your assertions, you change the gol posts to "Grant's military career was universally praised"
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
I was defending Cornell against what might be called a slander ...
Another thing I want to say about this -- slander is making a false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. Learn what the terms mean before you toss them around

Saying im embarrassed for something is not false.
Its also not damaging to their reputation (or I should be flattered you think my feelings are damaging to Cornell).

What is damaging to their reputation is that one of their PhDs is so bad at writing history.
 

uaskme

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Why would I care about either Grant or Rosecrans? I have studied these western battles and it is important to me. Could care less about bolstering one over the other. However their individual stories are important to what happened here and why. Truth should mean something?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
Mr Baldwin you are a master of misinformation and misinterpretation. But allow me to clarify: I want to find as much information about the battle of Iuka as I can ( thanks for sparking my curiosity)
I have seen enough evidence to convince most objective readers that Grant was distracted, uninterested and uninvolved during the battle. However there will always be people- I suspect you’re one - for whom there will never be enough evidence. I also research for evidence of people on Grant’s side of the army who heard the sounds of battle coming from where Rosecrans was fighting. As I said I do this in part because it is fun and moving to read the words of men who were there as opposed to the opinions of those who weren’t.
You like Grant and don’t like Rosecrans. You evidently are on a mission to denigrate anyone who has a different opinion on that subject than you have. You admit you wrote a negative review of Frank Varney’s book before you had even finished reading the book. However I - and others- have discovered that your position on the battle of Iuka is incorrect. You evidently are fixed in your view and read nothing that might challenge your preconceived ideas. You apparently haven’t done any actual primary source research on the topic.
I on the other hand search for any eyewitness accounts of Iuka. I think that’s the better approach to doing historical research and forming opinions.
Now I shall sign off for the night.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2020
I think Chernow’s book ( I’ve only skimmed the parts that discuss topics I’m most interested in) is more of a survey history and emphasizes his post military career. It’s pretty superficial on Iuka and Corinth admittedly two battles most general readers have never heard of. Frank Varney’s first book is a more specialized study of Grant’s Memoirs and how they have influenced people’s perception of other Civil War figures particularly William Rosecrans. It’s scholarly history and not for everyone. I think his forthcoming book will look at Gouvernour Warren’s treatment by Grant. You’ll have to decided how deep you want to get into this topic. 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.”
The problem is there is so much to read about the Civil War. Thanks for your analysis though.
 

dlofting

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Please tell me one of my “fantastic assertions” or fantasies.
A modern NPS article about public mourning after Grant’s death is your “proof” that Grant’s military career was universally praised in the 19th century?
At one time you claimed that the Union won the battle of Chickamauga because they ended up in Chattanooga which was their original objective....by any measure used to determine who won a Civil War battle, that is a fantasy, in my opinion.
 

uaskme

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Yes, it should. Unfortunately some are more interested in advancing anti-Yankee narratives and other biased stories.
Always appreciated your feeble analysis.

I’m tagged as a Lost Causer. So now I guess Lost Cause includes pointing out some inconvenient truths about the relationships and recorded histories between Grant, Sherman vs Thomas, Rosecrans and other Federal Officers?

Unlike you, I have studied these western battles these guys participated in. Nothing stopping you from doing so. Might have to *Edited* do a little work. Won’t wait for that.

Iuka is a good example. There are several narratives about Iuka. Maybe there is one you haven’t studied.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Always appreciated your feeble analysis.

I’m tagged as a Lost Causer. So now I guess Lost Cause includes pointing out some inconvenient truths about the relationships and recorded histories between Grant, Sherman vs Thomas, Rosecrans and other Federal Officers?

Unlike you, I have studied these western battles these guys participated in. Nothing stopping you from doing so. Might have to put down your tube of lipstick and do a little work. Won’t wait for that.

Iuka is a good example. There are several narratives about Iuka. Maybe there is one you haven’t studied.
Actually, I have studied the Western battles. Enough to recognize biased, fictionalized, narratives when I see them.

Anyone who thinks the word Yankee is an insult, is a lost-causer in my opinion.
 

James N.

Colonel
Forum Host
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Location
East Texas
I think Chernow’s book ( I’ve only skimmed the parts that discuss topics I’m most interested in) is more of a survey history and emphasizes his post military career. It’s pretty superficial on Iuka and Corinth admittedly two battles most general readers have never heard of. Frank Varney’s first book is a more specialized study of Grant’s Memoirs and how they have influenced people’s perception of other Civil War figures particularly William Rosecrans. It’s scholarly history and not for everyone. I think his forthcoming book will look at Gouvernour Warren’s treatment by Grant. You’ll have to decided how deep you want to get into this topic. 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.”
Although I agree that Grant's treatment of several of his subordinates including Rosecrans, Warren, Hooker, and most notably Thomas - but also including McClernand, Prentiss, Custer, and likely Hurlbut as well - was often mean and shabby, I seriously doubt that any of them with the likely exception of Thomas didn't to at least an extent deserve it or bring it upon themselves. And as far as any of them - again excepting Thomas - challenging Grant's subsequent reputation, I seriously doubt that too. Grant seems to me to have unreasonably held a grudge against anyone he perceived - correctly or otherwise - to have ever challenged him or stood in his way, especially when it involved tale-bearing or skullduggery of some kind as with McClernand, Hooker, and possibly Rosecrans.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Any book - or website post for that matter- should be judged by its documentation.
Frank Varney -much maligned by some on this site- is a Cornell history PhD and recently retired from teaching. He came to academia later in his life and possibly with a more open mind than those who entered the academy at a younger age.

Well, his work is maligned on this site and you are trying to establish a good reputation for him on this site, so why don't you post a Peer Review and some critical book reviews on his books to vindicate the man? You already have started the historiography work by posting that author's credentials, so post a peer review on his book or book(s) to validate his education and credibility as a credible author? First, having a doctorate does not mean anything pertaining to a high level of intellect, but more on the side of endurance. Second, I was in academia for years and you alluding to older profs have more of an open mind than younger profs to discover the truth and be more flexible is just plain implausible. Actually you have it backward, younger profs have more pliable minds than older profs who are set in their beliefs. Last, end the speculation by posting a Peer Review on that author's previous book, and then if he checks out then will read his new book.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Just as another example of the embarrassing inaccuracies in Varney's first book, Varney tried to claim that after the Battle of Corinth, Rosecrans had pursued Van Dorn almost to Vicksburg before Grant called him back. The implication is that Rosecrans could have captured Vicksburg in October 1862. Varney writes:

"Rosecrans's infantry followed the confederates more than 40 miles and his cavalry almost 60. A push of fewer than 40 miles more would have put them in Vicksburg."

In fact, even at the furthest point of Rosecrans pursuit, he was no closer than 250 miles to Vicksburg. Or approximately the same distance as the March to the Sea.

After the war, Rosecrans made the ridiculous claim that he could have made this 250 mile march in 6 days. With no planning or preparation. Fans of Rosecrans, such as Varney, continue to claim this would have been feasible, if only Grant had not called him back.
 
Last edited:

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Just as another example of the embarrassing inaccuracies in Varney's first book, Varney tried to claim that after the Battle of Corinth, Rosecrans had pursued Van Dorn almost to Vicksburg before Grant called him back. The implication is that Rosecrans could have captured Vicksburg in October 1862. Varney writes:

"Rosecrans's infantry followed the confederates more than 40 miles and his cavalry almost 60. A push of fewer than 40 miles more would have put them in Vicksburg."

In fact, even at the furthest point of Rosecrans pursuit, he was no closer than 250 miles to Vicksburg. Or approximately the same distance as the March to the Sea.

After the war, Rosecrans made the ridiculous claim that he could have made this 250 mile march in 6 days. With no planning or preparation. Fans of Rosecrans, such as Varney, continue to claim this would have been feasible, if only Grant had not called him back.
It does not appear that General Halleck, nor Sec'y Stanton nor the President agreed with that speculation. They were either ignorant of the fact, because Rosecrans kept it secret, or they knew the facts were contrary. The amusing thing was that Rosecrans was removed from Mississippi and Grant did capture Vicksburg. Grant, Thomas and Curtis were not obviously impaired in efficiency when Rosecrans was not present for their operations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top