Book Launch New book on Grant coming in 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
It's funny that these modern AOTC fan writers are claiming to correct the historical record. And yet their takes on historical events are so bad, and flawed, that they are even worse and more flawed than the existing historical record.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
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.
Varney’s book has.been reviewed in a number of CW publications. I merely posted that his new book was coming out next year and he was condemned by the usual Grant idolizers.
The problem is there is so much to read about the Civil War. Thanks for your analysis though.
and the deeper one gets into a subject the fewer the number of people one can discuss the subject with (This is true with all subjects)
People use history to justify their current political and cultural preferences. They generally read only what supports those views. This is not surprising because otherwise history can become the endless accumulation of information and lead to ceaseless arguments.

James N. and @east tennessee roots Perhaps the Varney book will change your opinions somewhat.
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.
But not in the opinions of the soldiers who were there. I recently posted a contemporary letter that showed that point. I can repost it and others although I doubt it would sway the opinions of those who’ve closed their mind on the subject. I also discuss this in my book. I suppose the fundamental question is was the prize Chattanooga or West Chickamauga Creek?

@John Hartwell In what way is the blurb offensive?

*Format edited by moderator*
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
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
The question is could someone else have done it more efficiently than Grant? You might find the letters of Cadwallader Washburn and Joseph Medill interesting ( cited in my book )
Also it appears that after Vicksburg Grant needed to rest in New Orleans ( and indulge in harmful habits)
After Tullahoma Rosecrans was ordered to “end the rebellion” ( paraphrase) and unreinforced at that.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
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.
Albert Castel in Victors in Blue also supports the idea that Rosecrans could have taken Vicksburg. Castel was a PhD, published author and teacher so that disqualifies him as a credible historian to some on this site.
Most people don’t even know about Corinth and Grant’s negative role in the battle.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
It's funny that these modern AOTC fan writers are claiming to correct the historical record. And yet their takes on historical events are so bad, and flawed, that they are even worse and more flawed than the existing historical record.
Your cited evidence is overwhelming. Historical research at its finest.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
"To Rescue the Republic: Ulysses S. Grant, The Fragile Union, and the Crisis of 1876" by Brent Baier of Fox News
How much of this book is about Grant’s military career? I don’t think this book will be popular with some Grant idolizers who see him as a social justice warrior and won’t like any association with Fox News. This book will have a shelf life of a year or two and then be forgotten. That’s better than most “serious” history books which are hardly ever read and languish on academic library shelves. However they languish there forever and from time to time someone reads them in an effort to determine what really happened in the past.
 
Last edited:

tony_gunter

Corporal
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
Mississippi
The idea that there’s got to be some kind of spitting match between Grant and Rosecrans is bizarre to me. They were both great generals, and it’s arguable which was the greatest operational planner of the war. They both had their faults: Grant tended to macromanage to a fault, and that led to disasters like Shiloh. Rosecrans micromanaged to a fault, and it drove him to exhaustion and led to fiascos like Chickamauga. I tend to favor Grant’s style because it created an environment where subordinates could come into their own: Ord, McPherson, Grierson, Sherman, Logan, Sheridan.

Rosecrans had a habit of creating conflict with his superiors. The conflict with Grant after Iuka was just bizarre and totally unnecessary. Whoever came out on top after that needless drama would be certain to harbor a grudge. It just so happened that Grant came out on top, posting his greatest victory just before Rosecrans suffered his greatest defeat.

Rosecrans can only blame himself for poisoning that well and Grant would have been a fool to risk having him in a major command knowing that he smeared him in the press once before for something that should have been chalked up to fog of war. That shouldn’t detract from Rosecrans’ greatness or Grant’s greatness.

From an X's and O's perspective, they were the best in the federal army if not the war. I don't think I could pinpoint a deciding factor that would make me choose one over the other.
 
Last edited:

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
What little I have read about Rosie, I like him as a decent General and his men like him and fought for him. Grant just didn’t have that charisma.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
The question is could someone else have done it more efficiently than Grant?
It would be a good question. But its not the one asked by Varney or the information offered by Varney.
To get to analytical questions like that, one has to start with a solid basis in factual information
"fewer than 40 miles more would have put them in Vicksburg" is factually wrong. Its not a matter of opinion.
This is a good illustration of how opinions or conclusions are not the issue here, its the basic presentation of fact that is the problem.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
The idea that there’s got to be some kind of spitting match between Grant and Rosecrans is bizarre to me. They were both great generals, and it’s arguable which was the greatest operational planner of the war. They both had their faults: Grant tended to macromanage to a fault, and that led to disasters like Shiloh. Rosecrans micromanaged to a fault, and it drove him to exhaustion and led to fiascos like Chickamauga. I tend to favor Grant’s style because it created an environment where subordinates could come into their own: Ord, McPherson, Grierson, Sherman, Logan, Sheridan.

Rosecrans had a habit of creating conflict with his superiors. The conflict with Grant after Iuka was just bizarre and totally unnecessary. Whoever came out on top after that needless drama would be certain to harbor a grudge. It just so happened that Grant came out on top, posting his greatest victory just before Rosecrans suffered his greatest defeat.

Rosecrans can only blame himself for poisoning that well and Grant would have been a fool to risk having him in a major command knowing that he smeared him in the press once before for something that should have been chalked up to fog of war. That shouldn’t detract from Rosecrans’ greatness or Grant’s greatness.

From an X's and O's perspective, they were the best in the federal army if not the war. I don't think I could pinpoint a deciding factor that would make me choose one over the other.
The conflict between Grant and Rosecrans began during the war and continued until their deaths. It’s not something newly created. Your interpretation of what happened after Iuka is faulty and I intend to prove that with my research. Grant had problems with many generals not just Rosecrans.) I believe Frank Varney’s PhD thesis was titled the Men Grant Didn’t Like. ) He had the politicking backing of one of the most powerful and more importantly ambitious politicians in Washington. That is a story that might be relevant today. Since I choose not to fully document what I’ve found on this site and it appears you have no documentation it’s probably best to end this discussion on this relatively civil tone.
 

tony_gunter

Corporal
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
Mississippi
The conflict between Grant and Rosecrans began during the war and continued until their deaths. It’s not something newly created. Your interpretation of what happened after Iuka is faulty and I intend to prove that with my research. Grant had problems with many generals not just Rosecrans.) I believe Frank Varney’s PhD thesis was titled the Men Grant Didn’t Like. ) He had the politicking backing of one of the most powerful and more importantly ambitious politicians in Washington. That is a story that might be relevant today. Since I choose not to fully document what I’ve found on this site and it appears you have no documentation it’s probably best to end this discussion on this relatively civil tone.
So what part of what happened at Iuka can't be chalked up to fog of war? Rosecrans was supposed to attack in the morning. He got lost. He sent a message to Grant that he was still 10 miles away around mid-day. That puts Rosecrans attacking around dusk. Grant told Ord to wait for the sounds of firing, because common sense would dictate that Rosecrans would pull up short and wait for the morning. One might think Rosecrans would be an idiot to bring on an engagement so close to dark, but the ground along Rosecrans' approach was marshy on both sides of the road. By the time he reached ground suitable for deployment, he was nearly on top of the confederate pickets.

Fog of war. It's silly for Rosecrans to assume anything else.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
It would be a good question. But its not the one asked by Varney or the information offered by Varney.
To get to analytical questions like that, one has to start with a solid basis in factual information
"fewer than 40 miles more would have put them in Vicksburg" is factually wrong. Its not a matter of opinion.
This is a good illustration of how opinions or conclusions are not the issue here, its the basic presentation of fact that is the problem.
And they never seem to acknowledge these things that are found that are factually wrong. Did Varney ever acknowledge the inaccuracies that you identified?
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Albert Castel in Victors in Blue also supports the idea that Rosecrans could have taken Vicksburg. Castel was a PhD, published author and teacher so that disqualifies him as a credible historian to some on this site.
You seem to resort to citing credentials when confronted with factual inaccuracies.

Do you acknowledge that the "40 miles" to Vicksburg was wildly wrong?
 

tony_gunter

Corporal
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
Mississippi
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.
Not to mention, a fresh division of veteran troops from Fort Donelson were already in the theater awaiting official notice of their exchange.
 
Last edited:

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
And they never seem to acknowledge these things that are found that are factually wrong. Did Varney ever acknowledge the inaccuracies that you identified?
He responded to one of my blog posts at TocWoc
He claimed "much of the research for this book was done as long as 14 years ago, and much cutting and pasting has taken place since then during the editing process. I certainly do not claim to be perfect, and it's possible that I made mistakes." 🤷‍♂️
 

dlofting

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"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."

So just for fun and because it's so easy to do I used Google Maps to plot the modern route from Corinth to Vicksburg. The shortest, and recommended route, is 276 miles.

Ain't modern technology grand :wink:
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
You seem to resort to citing credentials when confronted with factual inaccuracies.

Do you acknowledge that the "40 miles" to Vicksburg was wildly wrong?
It’s an odd double standard. Brooks Simpson has a PhD but David wants us to dismiss some of his conclusions. Yet when he likes the conclusions he cites their credentials as reason why we should all accept what they write.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top