Book Launch New book on Grant coming in 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California

For all it’s positive aspects CWT is not a serious scholarship site if only because so few statements by posters are documented …
Which makes Varneys first book a natural fit here, since it’s flaw is the documentation. Like the way he can say that the “50th Illinois was not part of Rosecrans's command; it was in Bolivar with Hurlbut” without providing any citation to any documentation when even amateurs here at CWT know that the 50th IL was part of Rosecrans command and that there is lots of documentation to back up that he is wrong.

Or “On August 25, Halleck had issued orders for Hurlbut, commanding elements of Grant's Army of the Mississippi, to cover the right flank of the army of the Cumberland.” With a footnote to a page in the ORs that isn’t from August 25 and has nothing to do with Hurlbut and a search of the rest of the ORs turns up no order on August 25. He basis a lot of conclusions on an invented order.

the phenomenon of footnotes pointing to OR pages that have nothing to with what is footnoted happens over and over and over

*Edited*
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
Frank Varney’s book is actually about the unreliability of Grant’s Memoirs and particularly how it relates to Rosecrans. It is not really a book about military campaigns. Mr Baldwin really should show examples where Varney’s criticism of The Memoirs is falso ( This assumes of course that Mr Baldwin actually had read Varney’s book. He once boasted in a website review that he hadn’t finished it before writing his review. it. He said later he had read it)
Varney is not the first author to criticize the Memoirs. AL Conger referred to them as fireside tales. Steven Starr criticized their discusión of Iuka.
Grant’s Memoirs are among the most read of any CW book. However because they are so readable and influential diesnt mean they are always accurate. Varney, whom I never met prior to publication of his book, has simply questioned
the accepted interpretation of the Memoirs. All history should raise new questions and challenge old assumptions. Varney has finally finished his second book. I mentioned it and the criticism started - for a book that hasn’t been published yet.
The Grant partisans on this site - none of whom has actually published any CW piece that could be cited in a serious CW articke- *Edited*
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
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

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.
It's true that I'm not a Rosecrans fan. Discussions here are not limited to worshiping historical figures.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
The Grant partisans on this site - none of whom has actually published any CW piece that could be cited in a serious CW articke- *Edited*
This is false. There are credible authors with strong opinions that comment here. Eric Wittenberg for example. The reason why some authors have left is that they could not handle disagreement with their faulty conclusions.

Authors that write solid history, even with some opinions included, are admired here. Authors that either write poor, biased, hit-jobs, or hagiographies, are not as admired.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Moore

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Location
Washington, DC
*Edited* I really only respond to things about Rosecrans which is the subject I’ve studied f9r +40 years)
Btw I did recommend the Tullahoma book Mr Whittenberg coauthored to someone on this site.
I think we are all waiting for his book on Meade which promises to make new observations and interpretations about that general.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Frank Varney’s book is actually about the unreliability of Grant’s Memoirs and particularly how it relates to Rosecrans. It is not really a book about military campaigns. Mr Baldwin really should show examples where Varney’s criticism of The Memoirs is falso
Here's one example of Varney inaccurately criticizing Grants Memoirs. Varney writes about the plan of attack at Iuka, that Grant in his memoirs "claimed that Rosecrans failed to close the trap that Grant had designed - which in fact had been designed by Rosecrans..."

But in his memoirs, Grant wrote this: "This plan was suggested by Rosecrans."

This was the result of a quick scan. I'm sure a person could find more examples of Varney falsely criticizing Grant's memoirs.
 

bdtex

Major General
★★ Sr. Moderator
Silver Patron
Annual Winner
Regtl. Quartermaster Chickamauga 2018 Vicksburg 2019
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Location
Texas
Thread permanently closed. The Moderation Team gave it a second chance and nothing changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top