Book Launch New book on Grant coming in 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.

tony_gunter

Corporal
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
Mississippi
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.
I would argue that Thomas’ mistreatment was by Sherman, not Grant. Grant’s only source for how Thomas was performing at the head of the AotC was Sherman’s telegraphs, and Sherman had a habit of throwing subordinates under the bus.

If you can’t tell, I really don’t like Sherman. 😂

That being said, Thomas’ frequency of communication with Grant didn’t help.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Albert Castel in Victors in Blue also supports the idea that Rosecrans could have taken Vicksburg. ...
And you see this as a positive for Castel?

Castel claimed that if Grant had followed Rosecrans suggestion to keep going he could have captured Vicksburg in October 1862.

At the time Grant stopped Rosecrans, there was about 25 days left in October and he was about 250 miles from Vicksburg with several river crossings, no functional railroad, and confederates in the way.

Castle isnt giving us serious scholarly analysis.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
I would argue that Thomas’ mistreatment was by Sherman, not Grant. Grant’s only source for the matter was Sherman’s telegraphs, and Sherman had a habit of throwing subordinates under the bus.

If you can’t tell, I really don’t like Sherman. 😂
Sherman was out of the picture by the time of the Nashville situation
 

tony_gunter

Corporal
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
Mississippi
Sure, but that’s the only feedback Grant had gotten with regard to Thomas’ handling of the AotC, and Sherman complained regularly about their temerity and lack of speed.
Or was it? It’s rumored that Schofield was sending telegrams to Grant from Nashville. It’s hard to imagine Grant giving much weight to Schofield’s complaints except for the fact that they echoed the same from Sherman.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Or was it? It’s rumored that Schofield was sending telegrams to Grant from Nashville. It’s hard to imagine Grant giving much weight to Schofield’s complaints except for the fact that they echoed the same from Sherman.
After the war, when Schofield read about those rumors, he wrote Grant, and Grant refuted the rumors.

I think Schofield gets a bum rap from many of the AotC people. Steedman, especially.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Sure, but that’s the only feedback Grant had gotten with regard to Thomas’ handling of the AotC, and Sherman complained regularly about their temerity and lack of speed.
I think all the westpointers knew of Thomas's reputation for slow, methodical, action. Grant wasn't the only one getting nervous in December '64.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
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.
More rhetoric, but no proof? So it would not be too hard for you to find a reviewing and post it to make your argument plausible? I don't care one way or another but you are arguing with those other members about this author's credibility and no one has gained any headway and it has devolved once again to a quintessential internet argument that results in a impasse and mostly consists of potshots. I just would love to read a thread that actually obeys the laws of historiography and denounces that 21st century blogger mentality that unsolicited opinions and verbose rhetoric are suffice to make an argument plausible. The people who so-called are Grant idolizers posted his inaccuracies, post something to counter it. You didn't just merely post that his new book was coming out next year, you defended him and posted his credentials. You took the first step of historiography by claiming that Ph.D. and working in the academia makes a person credible. I say post a peer review on his previous works to validate his work.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
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.
Okay, it says on your signature that you are a book reviewer. So you should know not not go by you gut reaction and opinions and cite your sources. You used, "I seriously doubt" twice as your citations. I'm quite sure that is your opinion. Perhaps, putting a strong emphasis on doubt by prefacing it with "serious" makes you think that is believable?
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
More rhetoric, but no proof? So it would not be too hard for you to find a reviewing and post it to make your argument plausible? I don't care one way or another but you are arguing with those other members about this author's credibility and no one has gained any headway and it has devolved once again to a quintessential internet argument that results in a impasse and mostly consists of potshots. I just would love to read a thread that actually obeys the laws of historiography and denounces that 21st century blogger mentality that unsolicited opinions and verbose rhetoric are suffice to make an argument plausible. The people who so-called are Grant idolizers posted his inaccuracies, post something to counter it. You didn't just merely post that his new book was coming out next year, you defended him and posted his credentials. You took the first step of historiography by claiming that Ph.D. and working in the academia makes a person credible. I say post a peer review on his previous works to validate his work.
Is that Northern peers or Southern peers?
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Okay, it says on your signature that you are a book reviewer. So you should know not not go by you gut reaction and opinions and cite your sources. You used, "I seriously doubt" twice as your citations. I'm quite sure that is your opinion. Perhaps, putting a strong emphasis on doubt by prefacing it with "serious" makes you think that is believable?
I have a question for you in a friendly sort of way. Why don’t you argue the topic instead of arguing with posters?
 

lelliott19

Brigadier General
Moderator
* OFFICIAL *
CWT PRESENTER
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Regtl. Staff Chickamauga 2018
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Ladies and gentlemen, this thread has been locked for review by the moderation team.
Posts that are found to be in violation of the Official Rules will be edited and warnings may be issued. To avoid future penalties, I suggest that everyone participating in the thread review the Official Rules, with specific attention to Rule 3: Be Civil "Respect the participation of others. Attack arguments, not people. Don't post personal attacks or insults, or join a thread for the purposes of attacking someone else."
 
Last edited:

lelliott19

Brigadier General
Moderator
* OFFICIAL *
CWT PRESENTER
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Regtl. Staff Chickamauga 2018
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Ladies and gentlemen, this thread has been reopened after serious moderation.
A number of posts that were in violation of the Official Rules were edited or deleted and warnings/points were issued to the offenders.

The moderation team will adopt a zero tolerance policy for this thread, so please ensure that your participation is compliant with the rules.

Just a reminder: 'Spaghetti' posting is a violation of the Official Rules. Please do not include more than three previous quotes (or sections of quotes) in each of your posts.

And to avoid penalties, please review the Official Rules, with specific attention to Rule 3: Be Civil "Respect the participation of others. Attack arguments, not people. Don't post personal attacks or insults, or join a thread for the purposes of attacking someone else." And, as always, please ensure that your posts are consistently compliant.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
More rhetoric, but no proof? So it would not be too hard for you to find a reviewing and post it to make your argument plausible? I don't care one way or another but you are arguing with those other members about this author's credibility and no one has gained any headway and it has devolved once again to a quintessential internet argument that results in a impasse and mostly consists of potshots. I just would love to read a thread that actually obeys the laws of historiography and denounces that 21st century blogger mentality that unsolicited opinions and verbose rhetoric are suffice to make an argument plausible. The people who so-called are Grant idolizers posted his inaccuracies, post something to counter it. You didn't just merely post that his new book was coming out next year, you defended him and posted his credentials. You took the first step of historiography by claiming that Ph.D. and working in the academia makes a person credible. I say post a peer review on his previous works to validate his work.
Varney’s book was reviewed favorably in Blue and Gray magazine. I have a copy of the review somewhere and may post it if I can find it.
There evidently was some controversy about the review in Civil War Monitor in which a positive review was switched for a negative review.
I am not an academic so I firmly believe anyone can and may write serious documented history.
For all it’s positive aspects CWT is not a serious scholarship site if only because so few statements by posters are documented and usually only with things easily found in the internet. Being a PhD doesn’t guarantee great scholarship but it dors require that basic rules of research be followed.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
More rhetoric, but no proof? So it would not be too hard for you to find a reviewing and post it to make your argument plausible? I don't care one way or another but you are arguing with those other members about this author's credibility and no one has gained any headway and it has devolved once again to a quintessential internet argument that results in a impasse and mostly consists of potshots. I just would love to read a thread that actually obeys the laws of historiography and denounces that 21st century blogger mentality that unsolicited opinions and verbose rhetoric are suffice to make an argument plausible. The people who so-called are Grant idolizers posted his inaccuracies, post something to counter it. You didn't just merely post that his new book was coming out next year, you defended him and posted his credentials. You took the first step of historiography by claiming that Ph.D. and working in the academia makes a person credible. I say post a peer review on his previous works to validate his work.
I of course originally only posted the fact that a new book of Dr Varney coming out next year. I believe it was Mr Hawk who
More rhetoric, but no proof? So it would not be too hard for you to find a reviewing and post it to make your argument plausible? I don't care one way or another but you are arguing with those other members about this author's credibility and no one has gained any headway and it has devolved once again to a quintessential internet argument that results in a impasse and mostly consists of potshots. I just would love to read a thread that actually obeys the laws of historiography and denounces that 21st century blogger mentality that unsolicited opinions and verbose rhetoric are suffice to make an argument plausible. The people who so-called are Grant idolizers posted his inaccuracies, post something to counter it. You didn't just merely post that his new book was coming out next year, you defended him and posted his credentials. You took the first step of historiography by claiming that Ph.D. and working in the academia makes a person credible. I say post a peer review on his previous works to validate his work.
I initially only posted that Dr Varney’s new book was coming out next year. I believe it was Mr Hawk who questioned Varney’s methods and conclusions. I, perhaps foolishly, then defended Varney’s works.
On another thread - not originated by me-which simply noted Rosecrans’ birthday Mr Hawk also criticized Rosecrans.
Note the pattern two informational threads with no opinions in the opening post immediately draw negative comment. Perhaps this is why things start spiraling downhill.
 

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
In regard to Brooks Simpson my main scholarship related complaint with him would be hos sourcing for his claim that Rosecrans caused unfavorable stories about Grant to be planted in Cincinnati newspapers. I’ve actually read those papers and will address this in my projected Iuka book.
Otherwise I think Simpson is pretty frank on
Grant’s drinking and about his role in the asssult on Missionary Ridge. He did edit a book on the CW in 1861 and mentions the WV Campaign of that year but doesn’t mention Rosecrans in connection with it. Proof that even PhDs can turn in incomplete work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top