Where did he say "universally?"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?
Where did he say "universally?"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"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?
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 aroundI was defending Cornell against what might be called a slander ...
My comment was not on the book, but on the offensive blurb promoting it.Might be helpful to wait until you’ve actually read Dr Varney’s book. Mr Baldwin however frowns on that. Comment first. Finish reading book later his policy.
The problem is there is so much to read about the Civil War. Thanks for your analysis though.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.”
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.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?
Yes, it should. Unfortunately some are more interested in advancing anti-Yankee narratives and other biased stories.However their individual stories are important to what happened here and why. Truth should mean something?
Always appreciated your feeble analysis.Yes, it should. Unfortunately some are more interested in advancing anti-Yankee narratives and other biased stories.
"To Rescue the Republic: Ulysses S. Grant, The Fragile Union, and the Crisis of 1876" by Brent Baier of Fox NewsGeneral Grant and the Verdict of History: Memoir, Memory, and the Civil War
A leader in military and general history book publishing.www.savasbeatie.com
Actually, I have studied the Western battles. Enough to recognize biased, fictionalized, narratives when I see them.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.
You must think Yankee is an insult? Welcome to the Club.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.
Nope, not at all.You must think Yankee is an insult? Welcome to the Club.
Or a Red Sox fanAnyone who thinks the word Yankee is an insult, is a lost-causer in my opinion.
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 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.”
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.
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.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.