Book Launch New Frank Varney Book

[Belfoured]

Oddly I was watching a talk Varney did for the america civil war museum on YouTube today. In that talk he said Grant wasn't on the field at Shiloh, he was on the river gunboat for the battle. So which is it? He just can't keep his story straight.

Side note in the presentation he repeated the 7000 casualty figure for Cold Harbor which Rhea debunked years and years ago. Again someone with an anti grant bias would use that number.

I read both books because I want to be open minded to all scholarship. But I have to be honest when he starts out saying well known reputable historians have looked at the same info he did and they got it wrong, that always makes me pause. Like they're nit all idiots and you are the only one with a brain to see it.

If Varney said that "Grant wasn't on the field at Shiloh, he was on the river gunboat for the battle", that's disconcerting, to say the least. Even Buell, who challenged Grant's accounts, etc., said in his article in B&L, Vol. 1 at 494, that he met with Grant on board the gunboat when Buell arrived later in the fighting in April 6 and that Grant then rode away to the fighting after their brief meeting. That doesn't even address the innumerable accounts regarding Grant's presence on the field earlier in the day.

 

[Jamieva]

46 minute mark he mentions a colonel that didn't see grant issue one order all day. Never says who this colonel is. Then he says Buell found him on the steamer.

 

[TallTallMan]

Have not read it, but want to. If he's willing to push against the storm, he is my hero any day.

 

[lelliott19]

For anyone who is interested and will be in the Chicago area, the Lincoln/Davis Civil War Round Table is hosting a presentation by Mr. Varney on US Grant on the Rewriting of History on Tuesday, May 16, 2023, at the Country House Restaurant, 5400 W. 127th Street in Alsip, Illinois. This is in the (far) south suburbs. For more information, contact the Round Table at [email protected] .

Thanks for posting this @Library Lady We actually hosted Mr. Varney twice on CivilWarTalk Presents. First several months ago when he talked about his first book General Grant and the Rewriting of History: How the Destruction of General William S. Rosecrans Influenced Our Understanding of the Civil War. Then a few weeks ago, he was our featured guest to discuss the second book -- General Grant and the Verdict of History: Memoir, Memory, and the Civil War. The first book focuses mostly on Grant's relationship with Rosecrans, and the second book examines Grant's relationships with Joe Hooker, George H. Thomas, and Gouverneur Kemble Warren. Mr. Varney's presentations were very interesting. We enjoyed hosting him and the audience asked some great questions.

I had no idea there were "Fan Boy" accusations and don't understand why people are unable to read/listen to opposing viewpoints without resorting to such childish behavior. Just because something is well-known or commonly accepted doesn't mean there aren't opportunities to revise our understanding by considering new/previously unutilized evidence. New sources are coming to light all the time and they are more available with the age of digitization. Computer programs that can decipher handwritten documents and make content searchable. It's truly amazing!

As a result, historians continue to locate additional supporting evidence for some commonly accepted interpretations. They also find and provide evidence that forces us to evaluate long-held interpretations. When this occurs, I don't understand why people want to exhibit such childish behavior. Just examine the evidence and make up your own mind. IMHO there is no need for people to publicly critique every historian who proposes or has proposed in the past an interpretation that differs from theirs.

Thanks again for sharing the info about the May 16 event.

 

[Virginia Dave]

General Grant and the Verdict of History: Memoir, Memory, and the Civil War

A leader in military and general history book publishing.

www.savasbeatie.com

Added to my list also.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Have not read it, but want to. If he's willing to push against the storm, he is my hero any day.

Similar to why I respect Kevin Levin standing up against a storm of abuse.

The problem with Varney is that if a historian is going to write a book accusing other historians of sloppy scholarship, he should make sure his own scholarship is impeccable. Instead, Varney's scholarship is worse than those he criticizes, and his work is rife with false claims.

 

[TallTallMan]

Similar to why I respect Kevin Levin standing up against a storm of abuse.

The problem with Varney is that if a historian is going to write a book accusing other historians of sloppy scholarship, he should make sure his own scholarship is impeccable. Instead, Varney's scholarship is worse than those he criticizes, and his work is rife with false claims.

What I meant was that the historians who claim that Lee has been made into a flawless demigod apparently don't care that Grant has become virtually incorruptible, at the same time repeating some lie that he is "forgotten" because of Lost Causers (witness huge Sistine Chapelesque mausoleum compared to tiny chapel). Literally, if Grant said he preferred tacos to burritos, Simpson and Chernow will tell you tacos are better than burritos that as fact.

Am I saying that Lee deserves that kind of praise? No. I am not a fan of Dowdey's fawning. But why does Grant get a get out of jail free card?

I have not read Varney's book to comment, but the fact that a scholar will actually speak against this deification sounds good to me.

(I never said I hated Levin. His blig posts on Lee are good. I just think he's pompous and a little bit too obsessed with one certain topic.)

 

[DanSBHawk]

What I meant was that the historians who claim that Lee has been made into a flawless demigod apparently don't care that Grant has become virtually incorruptible, at the same time repeating some lie that he is "forgotten" because of Lost Causers (witness huge Sistine Chapelesque mausoleum compared to tiny chapel). Literally, if Grant said he preferred tacos to burritos, Simpson and Chernow will tell you tacos are better than burritos that as fact.

Am I saying that Lee deserves that kind of praise? No. I am not a fan of Dowdey's fawning. But why does Grant get a get out of jail free card?

I have not read Varney's book to comment, but the fact that a scholar will actually speak against this deification sounds good to me.

(I never said I hated Levin. His blig posts on Lee are good. I just think he's pompous and a little bit too obsessed with one certain topic.)

There is no deification of Grant. With one exception, all his modern biographers include criticisms of Grant as well as praise.

But even if that were true, the corrective is not to go to the opposite extreme. The corrective is to write good history.

 

[TallTallMan]

There is no deification of Grant. With one exception, all his modern biographers include criticisms of Grant as well as praise.

But even if that were true, the corrective is not to go to the opposite extreme. The corrective is to write good history.

If you said there is no deification of Grant, where have you been? Almost every book on him in the last twenty years is worshipful (Simpson, Chernow, Bonekemper, White, etc). The only criticisms are light, usually Shiloh or Cold Harbor, and then they defend those with a few excuses to lighten them. DSF criticized Lee for his conduct on the Pennsylvania Campaign, yet I can't imagine anyone saying he was not "deifying" him.

As for the opposite extreme statement, you are apparently fine with Ty Seidule and others's attacks on Lee's personal character and abilities, which are far harsher than anything Rose ever said.

 

[tony_gunter]

If you said there is no deification of Grant, where have you been? Almost every book on him in the last twenty years is worshipful (Simpson, Chernow, Bonekemper, White, etc). The only criticisms are light, usually Shiloh or Cold Harbor, and then they defend those with a few excuses to lighten them. DSF criticized Lee for his conduct on the Pennsylvania Campaign, yet I can't imagine anyone saying he was not "deifying" him.

As for the opposite extreme statement, you are apparently fine with Ty Seidule and others's attacks on Lee's personal character and abilities, which are far harsher than anything Rose ever said.

How does Simpson deify Grant? I don't know that I've ever read a biography that engages in so little cheerleading for its subject.

 

[tony_gunter]

Frank Varney posts and reads here, but I have never seen a rebuttal of the criticism raised by Ned Baldwin.

 

[DanSBHawk]

If you said there is no deification of Grant, where have you been? Almost every book on him in the last twenty years is worshipful (Simpson, Chernow, Bonekemper, White, etc). The only criticisms are light, usually Shiloh or Cold Harbor, and then they defend those with a few excuses to lighten them. DSF criticized Lee for his conduct on the Pennsylvania Campaign, yet I can't imagine anyone saying he was not "deifying" him.

As for the opposite extreme statement, you are apparently fine with Ty Seidule and others's attacks on Lee's personal character and abilities, which are far harsher than anything Rose ever said.

I disagree. Simpson, White, and Chernow all wrote really good biographies. Not even close to "worshipful."

I'm not crazy about Bonekemper's books, but he's only one writer.

What does Lee have to do with any of this? If you think Seidule is wrong about something, then argue about it in a Lee thread.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Frank Varney posts and reads here, but I have never seen a rebuttal of the criticism raised by Ned Baldwin.

I don't remember Varney posting here, but I think you're right about Varney never really addressing the issues Ned brought up.

 

[JerryD]

Yes, I suppose to make my stance on the issue clear, I don't think it was cowardice, I think it was the type of snap judgement you get from a chronic micromanager who's under pressure and hasn't slept.

I dont think anyone can seriously accuse Rosecrans of cowardice. Seems like just a bad choice under intense pressure. If I remember correctly, I remember reading that some thought he was in shock or somehow disordered by the disaster.

 

[TallTallMan]

deleted

 

[DanSBHawk]

Are you sure about those books? My memories are different.

You said "the corrective is not to go to the opposite extreme" with criticism, and yet you have praised Seidule's book in other threads, so you must be okay with attacks of Lee, but not Grant. Point being, you must only hate extreme criticism when it is directed at Grant. I am questioning why you are saying you are against historical bashing, when you must not be, given your praise of Seidule.

You're wrong. I've noted the hostility towards Seidule but I've never "praised" his book.

Yes, I'm sure about those Grant books.

 

[Jamieva]

I dont think anyone can seriously accuse Rosecrans of cowardice. Seems like just a bad choice under intense pressure. If I remember correctly, I remember reading that some thought he was in shock or somehow disordered by the disaster.

No would never consider him a coward. But in command in battle he was fairly high strung and he also tended to micro manage, especially the non Thomas corps commanders. He was quite the opposite style of Lee.

 

[wausaubob]

I dont think anyone can seriously accuse Rosecrans of cowardice. Seems like just a bad choice under intense pressure. If I remember correctly, I remember reading that some thought he was in shock or somehow disordered by the disaster.

I don't think that Rosecrans has been accused of cowardice, even here. I think he overestimated what a commanding officer can accomplish and did not let his corps and division commanders in the field exercise their own judgement. Combat isn't easy. We can only guess at what happened to him in the aftermath of Chattanooga. But he might have understood his ambitions were shattered and that the Sec'y of War then had the facts he needed to wreck Rosecrans' career.

 

[JerryD]

You're wrong. I've noted the hostility towards Seidule but I've never "praised" his book.

Yes, I'm sure about those Grant books.

Its pretty ridiculous to claim the Chernow book tried to deify Grant. My memory is that is acknowledged many of his defects, including the occasional drinking problem, the order with respect to Jews, and his naivete. It was generally a positive account, as you would expect for the general who ended up winning the war. But it does not come anywhere close to Freeman's treatment of Lee in terms of being worshipful. I think those who dont like it prefer to cling to the image of Grant as an incompetent butcher.

 

[Belfoured]

No would never consider him a coward. But in command in battle he was fairly high strung and he also tended to micro manage, especially the non Thomas corps commanders. He was quite the opposite style of Lee.

i agree. I don't recall seeing any posts asserting he was a coward - he clearly was not and on several occasions put himself in danger. But he also clearly could fly off the handle and was more "excitable" than others at army level command, such as Lee and Grant, and that could interfere with effective command and control.