Book Launch New Frank Varney Book

[wausaubob]

The achievement of Ulysses Grant was combining battlefield success with political flexibility sufficiently to get the US Congress to fully fund the war potential of the US. As that progressed during 1864 the US artillery drove the Confederate armies to cover, the US navy completed the blockade, and the US cavalry units invented a version of mobile warfare, and then raided through the Confederacy almost unopposed. Grant managed the war, and Congress gave the army and the navy the stuff.
A conspiracy theory that Grant's success and popularity in the 19th century was a facade is not worth the time it takes to describe it.

 

[TallTallMan]

d

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.

Thanks for the strawman. I think Grant is an incompetent butcher? I don't.

Also, Freeman criticizes Lee for his first campaign, his lightness at Gettysburg, and for making Ewell and Hill corps commanders. Obviously he admires Lee passionately, but not without a few quibbles. It was Dowdey who claimed he was perfect.

You seem to have a problem with admiration for Lee. I do not have a problem with admiration for Grant, except excessive.

The problem with Grant's superfans is they believe he was flawless except for a few things and yet the Lee superfans are somehow "evil" for what they did. Hypocrisy.

 

[wausaubob]

Except the story of Grant is a comedy, ending with him dying in bed surrounded by his loving family. The interesting thing about Grant is his humanity, not any superhuman powers. He messed up. But with the help of Julia, William Sherman, Hamilton Fish and others, Grant was able to fix his errors and proceed.
I just don't think 1.5M people attended a funeral parade for Grant based on a conspiracy theory.
What did Grant advocate? National reunion and abolition of slavery, stabilization of the war debt, better relations with Britain, and the French exodus from Mexico. He criticized the US drift towards elimination of the indigenous population. And most notably. he advocated free, and non sectarian education. Does Mr. Varney seriously want to advocate the opposite principles?

 

[Belfoured]

d
Thanks for the strawman. I think Grant is an incompetent butcher? I don't.

Also, Freeman criticizes Lee for his first campaign, his lightness at Gettysburg, and for making Ewell and Hill corps commanders. Obviously he admires Lee passionately, but not without a few quibbles. It was Dowdey who claimed he was perfect.

You seem to have a problem with admiration for Lee. I do not have a problem with admiration for Grant, except excessive.

The problem with Grant's superfans is they believe he was flawless except for a few things and yet the Lee superfans are somehow "evil" for what they did. Hypocrisy.

A matter of personal opinion, but I fully expect that biographers will be generally favorable/sympathetic to their subject - human nature. The exceptions are rare and one I'm familiar with actually resulted in the biographer - McWhiney on Bragg - throwing in the towel after vol. 1, leaving vol. 2 to his grad student. I've always admired Kershaw for being able to stomach turning out multiple volumes on Hitler. My biggest issue with Freeman is his admission that he bowed or genuflected or some such every day when he passed Lee's statue. That unfortunately calls a lot into question and it should.

 

[TallTallMan]

A matter of personal opinion, but I fully expect that biographers will be generally favorable/sympathetic to their subject - human nature. The exceptions are rare and one I'm familiar with actually resulted in the biographer - McWhiney on Bragg - throwing in the towel after vol. 1, leaving vol. 2 to his grad student. I've always admired Kershaw for being able to stomach turning out multiple volumes on Hitler. My biggest issue with Freeman is his admission that he bowed or genuflected or some such every day when he passed Lee's statue. That unfortunately calls a lot into question and it should.

The McWhiney thing always was funny. Did he ever say that was the reason? He didn't say so in the reprint preface.

I don't have a problem with reverential biographies (Lloyd Lewis and Bruce Catton are favorite authors of mine, and they love their subjects). I'm sure I would of Hannibal Hamlin, whom I really like. But what I hate are authors who proclaim that Lee inspired "hagiography" while those same people are writing them about their heroes.

 

[JerryD]

d
Thanks for the strawman. I think Grant is an incompetent butcher? I don't.

Also, Freeman criticizes Lee for his first campaign, his lightness at Gettysburg, and for making Ewell and Hill corps commanders. Obviously he admires Lee passionately, but not without a few quibbles. It was Dowdey who claimed he was perfect.

You seem to have a problem with admiration for Lee. I do not have a problem with admiration for Grant, except excessive.

The problem with Grant's superfans is they believe he was flawless except for a few things and yet the Lee superfans are somehow "evil" for what they did. Hypocrisy.

Your strawman is that people think Grant is flawless. No one believes that. Its just not true. Show me one quote from anyone on this board who ever said that. But I can show you plenty who still make the claim Grant was a butcher. Nor do anyone think fans of Lee are evil. Show me one quote where anyone said that as well. I'll wait.

I have a great deal of respect for Lee. By all accounts he was a fine man and a great general. But I remember reading Freeman growing up and the almost religious aspect of his treatment of him. I grew up believing the lie that Grant was nothing but a dullard who won only by force of numbers. Lee truly was the Marble Man in many people's eyes, including mine. What is going on with Grant and Lee is a long past due re-assessment that looks honestly at their careers and gives Grant the respect he is due and removes Lee from his pedestal and shows that he was human after all. It is not deifying Grant to say he was actually a very good general, and it is not disrespectful to Lee to say his tactics bled his army dry.

 

[JerryD]

A matter of personal opinion, but I fully expect that biographers will be generally favorable/sympathetic to their subject - human nature. The exceptions are rare and one I'm familiar with actually resulted in the biographer - McWhiney on Bragg - throwing in the towel after vol. 1, leaving vol. 2 to his grad student. I've always admired Kershaw for being able to stomach turning out multiple volumes on Hitler. My biggest issue with Freeman is his admission that he bowed or genuflected or some such every day when he passed Lee's statue. That unfortunately calls a lot into question and it should.

I'll add that I thought Sears was overly critical of McClellan. But yes, in general I think is pretty common for biographers to be sympathetic to their subjects.

 

[wausaubob]

Your strawman is that people think Grant is flawless. No one believes that. Its just not true. Show me one quote from anyone on this board who ever said that. But I can show you plenty who still make the claim Grant was a butcher. Nor do anyone think fans of Lee are evil. Show me one quote where anyone said that as well. I'll wait.

I have a great deal of respect for Lee. By all accounts he was a fine man and a great general. But I remember reading Freeman growing up and the almost religious aspect of his treatment of him. I grew up believing the lie that Grant was nothing but a dullard who won only by force of numbers. Lee truly was the Marble Man in many people's eyes, including mine. What is going on with Grant and Lee is a long past due re-assessment that looks honestly at their careers and gives Grant the respect he is due and removes Lee from his pedestal and shows that he was human after all. It is not deifying Grant to say he was actually a very good general, and it is not disrespectful to Lee to say his tactics bled his army dry.

General Lee had to attempt to win land battles. And he had to attempt to win when the numbers and the artillery power were with his opponents. And he had to do it quickly, because the US advantages in combined arms and cavalry were going to increase, and increase quickly.
Grant's task was to systematically apply the US advantages and do so in a way that Congress continued to apply the full national might. He succeeded.

 

[wausaubob]

I'll add that I thought Sears was overly critical of McClellan. But yes, in general I think is pretty common for biographers to be sympathetic to their subjects.

Passing the politically based criticism of McClellan into history is invalid. He was a young man, who was disgusted by the reality war and he was thinking there had to be a better way. And in the moment of truth he attached his name to a valid choice for the people and accepted the decision of the sovereign of the US, the voters. The US voters, like a king, decided that George McClellan was OK, but his plan to end the war was too little and too late.

 

[Rebforever]

Except the story of Grant is a comedy, ending with him dying in bed surrounded by his loving family. The interesting thing about Grant is his humanity, not any superhuman powers. He messed up. But with the help of Julia, William Sherman, Hamilton Fish and others, Grant was able to fix his errors and proceed.
I just don't think 1.5M people attended a funeral parade for Grant based on a conspiracy theory.
What did Grant advocate? National reunion and abolition of slavery, stabilization of the war debt, better relations with Britain, and the French exodus from Mexico. He criticized the US drift towards elimination of the indigenous population. And most notably. he advocated free, and non sectarian education. Does Mr. Varney seriously want to advocate the opposite principles?

Have you read his book yet?

 

[Belfoured]

The McWhiney thing always was funny. Did he ever say that was the reason? He didn't say so in the reprint preface.

I don't have a problem with reverential biographies (Lloyd Lewis and Bruce Catton are favorite authors of mine, and they love their subjects). I'm sure I would of Hannibal Hamlin, whom I really like. But what I hate are authors who proclaim that Lee inspired "hagiography" while those same people are writing them about their heroes.

The McWhiney thing always was funny. Did he ever say that was the reason? He didn't say so in the reprint preface.

He didn't have to. In all seriousness, I think it was pretty accepted common knowledge. Handing off vol. 2 when you're fully able to finish the job yourself is "unusual", to say the least.

I think the "Lee issue" is that he was raised almost to the level of a canonized saint for a long time (something I suspect, by the way, he would have been personally appalled at). Hence the "Marble Man" image that Connelly took on. For better or for worse, others - certainly Grant for one - never reached that level. Even the books that are criticized by some as "hagiography" really aren't, because to one degree or another they recognize things that have been known for many decades - the drinking, the surprise at Shiloh, the infamous order regarding Jewish folks, etc. Publicly Grant had the polar opposite of the Marble Man image until Fuller took another look at his tactics, etc in the 1920's-1930's. And I do have a problem with an author who bows/kneels/whatever daily to a bloody statue. I find that "disconcerting". Obviously a matter of opinion.

 

[TallTallMan]

He didn't have to. In all seriousness, I think it was pretty accepted common knowledge. Handing off vol. 2 when you're fully able to finish the job yourself is "unusual", to say the least.

I think the "Lee issue" is that he was raised almost to the level of a canonized saint for a long time (something I suspect, by the way, he would have been personally appalled at). Hence the "Marble Man" image that Connelly took on. For better or for worse, others - certainly Grant for one - never reached that level. Even the books that are criticized by some as "hagiography" really aren't, because to one degree or another they recognize things that have been known for many decades - the drinking, the surprise at Shiloh, the infamous order regarding Jewish folks, etc. Publicly Grant had the polar opposite of the Marble Man image until Fuller took another look at his tactics, etc in the 1920's-1930's. And I do have a problem with an author who bows/kneels/whatever daily to a bloody statue. I find that "disconcerting". Obviously a matter of opinion.

I like some revisionist works, such as Nolan and Connelly, simply because they analyze him as Human, where he's much more interesting. I don't agree with everything they say, though.

I don't buy the Fuller thing, since I've looked into his work, but that's for another time.

 

[wausaubob]

Fuller anticipated Eisenhower. Fuller noted that Grant successfully applied the US advantages. Fuller noted that the US had more artillery power than it utilized. But he noted Grant won.
Ike noted, Grant took command and in about 11 months of fighting the war ended, in complete victory for the national government I might add. Ike said, that's a pretty good piece of generalship.

 

[Jamieva]

A matter of personal opinion, but I fully expect that biographers will be generally favorable/sympathetic to their subject - human nature. The exceptions are rare and one I'm familiar with actually resulted in the biographer - McWhiney on Bragg - throwing in the towel after vol. 1, leaving vol. 2 to his grad student. I've always admired Kershaw for being able to stomach turning out multiple volumes on Hitler. My biggest issue with Freeman is his admission that he bowed or genuflected or some such every day when he passed Lee's statue. That unfortunately calls a lot into question and it should.

My recollection is he saluted when he drove by the Lee statue on monument avenue.

 

[wausaubob]

Why was Lee glorified and Winfield Scott not glorified? Scott was a well known figure even in Europe and he picked the right side. And his much ridiculed blockade plan basically worked. History copied the stupid journalism of 1861 and did the US a disservice.

 

[JerryD]

Why was Lee glorified and Winfield Scott not glorified. Scott was a well known figure even in Europe and he picked the right side. And his much ridiculed blockade plan basically worked. History copied the stupid journalism of 1861 and did the US a disservice.

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.

 

[Belfoured]

My recollection is he saluted when he drove by the Lee statue on monument avenue.

Still bizarre conduct towards a statue - IMHO, of course.

 

[Belfoured]

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.

Good points. I think too much is made of the poor quality of the opposition. Terrain, etc made any opposition formidable and as you indicate he surmounted big logistical hurdles.

 

[Belfoured]

I like some revisionist works, such as Nolan and Connelly, simply because they analyze him as Human, where he's much more interesting. I don't agree with everything they say, though.

I don't buy the Fuller thing, since I've looked into his work, but that's for another time.

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.

 

[uaskme]

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.

Scott also did a GREAT JOB removing the Cherokee.

Trail of Tears: Definition, Date & Cherokee Nation - HISTORY

The Trail of Tears was the deadly route used by Native Americans when forced off their ancestral lands and into Oklahoma by the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

www.history.com