Book Launch New Frank Varney Book

[wausaubob]

I've always maintained that Scott does not get nearly enough credit. His Mexican campaign was absolutely brilliant. He conquered a country when he was widely outnumbered, in foreign territory, ridiculously long supply lines, and with a hostile administration at his back.

And then Scott supported the negotiator sent by the US in scaling back the US demands and getting the US forces the heck out of Mexico.

 

[TallTallMan]

Not sure what you mean by "the Fuller thing". What he wrote in 1929 and 1932 regarding Grant should be assessed at least in part in light of the widely accepted public understanding at the time.

I have a problem with the "Nobody liked Grant until Fuller" thesis I've seen in books and on this site.

The idea appears to be that Grant was underrated until Fuller "discovered" him. The Lost Cause was "so prevalent" that everybody thought he was a "butcher", until Fuller proved everybody "wrong".

First of all, the idea that Grant was ever called a butcher in a serious history book is totally fake. The Generalship of U.S. Grant was published in 1929, nine years after Hamlin Garland won the Pulitzer for his favorable Ulysses S. Grant: His Life and Character. The only critical work on him up to that point was a year before, Meet General Grant, and it did not call him a butcher, except by quoting indirectly Democrats. So the nobody-liked-Grant-until-Fuller Thesis is completely faulty.

Also, in Fuller's books when he pulls out the "they called him butcher" theory, he does not annotate what source he's using for this accusation. The only books that bash Grant are super-pro-Confederate books that nobody has ever has read fully, like The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government and The Lost Cause, neither of which were and have ever been mainstream pop histories for Fuller to dissect.

In other words, Fuller has constructed a strawman that a few modern-day scholars and buffs take at face value.

 

[Belfoured]

I have a problem with the "Nobody liked Grant until Fuller" thesis I've seen in books and on this site.

The idea appears to be that Grant was underrated until Fuller "discovered" him. The Lost Cause was "so prevalent" that everybody thought he was a "butcher", until Fuller proved everybody "wrong".

First of all, the idea that Grant was ever called a butcher in a serious history book is totally fake. The Generalship of U.S. Grant was published in 1929, nine years after Hamlin Garland won the Pulitzer for his favorable Ulysses S. Grant: His Life and Character. The only critical work on him up to that point was a year before, Meet General Grant, and it did not call him a butcher, except by quoting indirectly Democrats. So the nobody-liked-Grant-until-Fuller Thesis is completely faulty.

Also, in Fuller's books when he pulls out the "they called him butcher" theory, he does not annotate what source he's using for this accusation. The only books that bash Grant are super-pro-Confederate books that nobody has ever has read fully, like The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government and The Lost Cause, neither of which were and have ever been mainstream pop histories for Fuller to dissect.

In other words, Fuller has constructed a strawman that a few modern-day scholars and buffs take at face value.

Respectfully, you're being too literal and you're ignoring the fact that Fuller was taking this on from a strictly military perspective. I didn't say anybody wrote a book using the term "butcher". The "Lost Cause" mentality was entrenched in much of the popular mind in the half century or so following the war - in the sense that Lee and the ANV were only ultimately defeated by Grant because he had a virtually limitless supply of replacements for his massive losses while Lee didn't and could afford the blunt instrument of incessant frontal attacks. Few if any focused on the maneuver elements of the Overland Campaign as opposed to the blood lettings in the Wilderness, at Spotsylvania, and at Cold Harbor. In addition, the western theater had been largely ignored by historians, including the ultimate maneuvers that allowed Grant to take Vicksburg.

What happened on the Western Front in WWI (in which Fuller participated) rekindled some the popular imagery. Fuller was an advocate of mobile/mechanised warfare and IIRC was involved with the use of tanks at Cambrai. It was from that perspective that he took on the popular image of how Grant defeated Lee.

It's not a "strawman" - that's a significant oversimplification.

 

[TallTallMan]

Respectfully, you're being too literal and you're ignoring the fact that Fuller was taking this on from a strictly military perspective. I didn't say anybody wrote a book using the term "butcher". The "Lost Cause" mentality was entrenched in much of the popular mind in the half century or so following the war - in the sense that Lee and the ANV were only ultimately defeated by Grant because he had a virtually limitless supply of replacements for his massive losses while Lee didn't and could afford the blunt instrument of incessant frontal attacks. Few if any focused on the maneuver elements of the Overland Campaign as opposed to the blood lettings in the Wilderness, at Spotsylvania, and at Cold Harbor. In addition, the western theater had been largely ignored by historians, including the ultimate maneuvers that allowed Grant to take Vicksburg.

What happened on the Western Front in WWI (in which Fuller participated) rekindled some the popular imagery. Fuller was an advocate of mobile/mechanised warfare and IIRC was involved with the use of tanks at Cambrai. It was from that perspective that he took on the popular image of how Grant defeated Lee.

It's not a "strawman" - that's a significant oversimplification.

With respect the same, I never said YOU said that, but Fuller said it and you repeat it, presumably because you are trusting Fuller.

The point of Fuller's thesis is that Grant was thought to be a "butcher", and he has gone out to prove them wrong. The only thing worth disputing book-length is something commonly believed, and it was not commonly believed unless you were a total Unreconstructed nutcase.

Please name the popular, non-memoir or not Southern-fringe titles up to 1929 that believe Grant was, per Fuller, "quite unjustly...been handed down to history as a butcher of men," or that "Even [in 1929] they have not lost their sting; for in the opinion of many Grant still represents the butcher type of general." I don't know what they say in Britain.

As for that Lost Cause thing, you are repeating Joan Waugh's thesis. Her idea that the Lost Cause toppled Grant and replaced him with Lee is so ridiculous its literally funny. Need I mention Grant is buried in a huge mausoleum with a Sistine Chapel painting at the top while Lee gets a tiny chapel (smaller than every church parish I've been member of) with some ugly velvet painting mounted on the wall. Again, there is no proof that Grant was "unpopular" up to Fuller or after, given the works written. in fact its the opposite.

 

[Belfoured]

With respect the same, I never said YOU said that, but Fuller said it and you repeat it, presumably because you are trusting Fuller.

The point of Fuller's thesis is that Grant was thought to be a "butcher", and he has gone out to prove them wrong. The only thin worth disputing book-length is something commonly believed, and it was not commonly believed unless you were a total Unreconstructed nutcase.

Please name the popular, non-memoir or not Southern-fringe titles up to 1929 that believe Grant was, per Fuller, "quite unjustly...been handed down to history as a butcher of men," or that "Even [in 1929] they have not lost their sting; for in the opinion of many Grant still represents the butcher type of general." I don't know what they say in Britain.

As for that Lost Cause thing, you are repeating Joan Waugh's thesis. Her idea that the Lost Cause toppled Grant and replaced him with Lee is so ridiculous its literally funny. Need I mention Grant is buried in a huge mausoleum with a Sistine Chapel painting at the top while Lee gets a tiny chapel (smaller than every church parish I've been member of) with some ugly velvet painting mounted on the wall. Again, there is no proof that Grant was "unpopular" up to Fuller or after, given the works written. in fact its the opposite.

Wow. Seriously, relax. You're off on a rail siding. Nobody said Grant was "unpopular" in the North. That isn't the issue. The issue is his reputation as a military tactician vs. that of Lee. Did Fuller do or say something about your ancestors that has you this riled up????

 

[TallTallMan]

Wow. Seriously, relax. You're off on a rail siding. Nobody said Grant was "unpopular" in the North. That isn't the issue. The issue is his reputation as a military tactician vs. that of Lee. Did Fuller do or say something about your ancestors that has you this riled up????

I ain't riled up! If I were riled up I would be attacking Fuller ad hominem. And believe me, there are plenty of weird things about Fuller.

But anyway, Grant's popularity is the issue. The idea is supposed to be that he was callously thought to be a "butcher" until Fuller proved them all wrong. Again, please tell me what he was reading that said this that is not fringe.

My problem is that Fuller's faulty idea is repeated ad nauseum in Grant books over the century, when there is no proof--in fact the proof is the opposite. The only quote from Brooks Simpson or Edward Bonekemper to prove that Grant was "underrated" is from Pollard, a nut.

 

[Belfoured]

I ain't riled up! If I were riled up I would be attacking Fuller ad hominem. And believe me, there are plenty of weird things about Fuller.

But anyway, Grant's popularity is the issue. The idea is supposed to be that he was callously thought to be a "butcher" until Fuller proved them all wrong. Again, please tell me what he was reading that said this that is not fringe.

My problem is that Fuller's faulty idea is repeated ad nauseum in Grant books over the century, when there is no proof--in fact the proof is the opposite. The only quote from Brooks Simpson or Edward Bonekemper to prove that Grant was "underrated" is from Pollard, a nut.

Grant's "popularity" isn't the issue. Of course he was "popular" - he won the war. Hello.There were a lot of assumptions out there that he prevailed over Lee because he could afford the extraordinary losses in the Overland Campaign and used his numerical advantage. Whether any authors used the "butcher" word or not, the concept was his use of significant numerical advantage to cause Lee losses he couldn't afford. The popular image was that he did that to prevail over the tactically superior Lee.

Show me who wrote about Grant's maneuver skills against Lee and how that got into the public understanding before Fuller. Don't do a word search for "butcher".

 

[TallTallMan]

Grant's "popularity" isn't the issue. Of course he was "popular" - he won the war. Hello.There were a lot of assumptions out there that he prevailed over Lee because he could afford the extraordinary losses in the Overland Campaign and used his numerical advantage. Whether any authors used the "butcher" word or not, the concept was his use of significant numerical advantage to cause Lee losses he couldn't afford. The popular image was that he did that to prevail over the tactically superior Lee.

Show me who wrote about Grant's maneuver skills against Lee and how that got into the public understanding before Fuller. Don't do a word search for "butcher".

Garland (i.e. Pulitzer winner):

 

[TallTallMan]

The critical Woodward:

 

[Belfoured]

The critical Woodward:
View attachment 496022View attachment 496023
View attachment 496024

We appear to be miscommunicating.

 

[TallTallMan]

We appear to be miscommunicating.

#88 and #89 are generous appraisals of the Overland conduct. The fact that even the critical Woodward defended him is telling. All of these were the ten years before Fuller. I do not know of any other Grant books before then not written around his lifetime.

 

[Belfoured]

#88 and #89 are generous appraisals of the Overland conduct. The fact that even the critical Woodward defended him is telling. All of these were the ten years before Fuller. I do not know of any other Grant books before then not written around his lifetime.

Woodward "defended" him while stating that Lee was a superior tactician. Woodward gave Grant marks for "tenacity" and "stubbornness". Read what I've been posting. Let me try again - the issue isn't whether Grant was "popular" or that everybody was using the "butcher" word. The issue is the perception that Grant prevailed because he used his numerical advantage to cause losses he could afford but Lee could not. That's the mindset Fuller was trying to go after.

 

[TallTallMan]

Woodward "defended" him while stating that Lee was a superior tactician. Woodward gave Grant marks for "tenacity" and "stubbornness". Read what I've been posting. Let me try again - the issue isn't whether Grant was "popular" or that everybody was using the "butcher" word. The issue is the perception that Grant prevailed because he used his numerical advantage to cause losses he could afford but Lee could not. That's the mindset Fuller was trying to go after.

Whiler criticizing Lee harsher-ly.

My point is that nobody believed this mentality except if you were a radical Yankee-hater, and it certainly was not in the pop histories. What is Fuller attacking and, again, please Fuller, where did you read this? Edward Pollard? He's not rational to begin with.

I say all this with respect to you. I think constructive argument is good for history, actually.