Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[JerseyBart]

If you want to understand what a disgraceful scumbag Grant could be, I recommend reading two books:

General Grant and the Rewriting of History, by Frank Varney.

Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas, by Benson Bobrick

Grant repeatedly smeared officers/generals he didn't like and/or that he viewed as rivals. His memoirs have been proven to be loaded with lies, distortions, and outright fabrications.

This is not to mention the fact that Grant used his men as canon fodder for most of the war and on at least two occasions (that we know of) left wounded men to die on the battlefield because he was too proud to follow the tradition of sending a flag of truce to call for the retrieval of the wounded and the burial of the dead.

Like most human beings, Grant was not all bad. Sometimes he behaved honorably and showed he was capable of being decent and noble. His order prohibiting large-scale frontal assaults is very commendable (and was long overdue). His decision to stand up to the Radicals when they tried to prosecute Robert E. Lee deserves great praise. But, sadly, when all the facts are weighed, the picture that emerges of Grant is not a pretty one.

Welcome to the 1800s in United States of America, all of it.

 

[NedBaldwin]

If you want to understand what a disgraceful scumbag Grant could be, I recommend reading two books:

General Grant and the Rewriting of History, by Frank Varney.
...
His memoirs have been proven to be loaded with lies, distortions, and outright fabrications.

It is Varney's book that has been proven to be loaded with lies, distortions, and outright fabrications.
If you want to learn actual history, avoid that book.

 

[cash]

It is Varney's book that has been proven to be loaded with lies, distortions, and outright fabrications.
If you want to learn actual history, avoid that book.

And Bobrick's book has been shown to be pathetic.

 

[Bee]

If you want to understand what a disgraceful scumbag Grant could be, I recommend reading two books:

General Grant and the Rewriting of History, by Frank Varney.

Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas, by Benson Bobrick

Grant repeatedly smeared officers/generals he didn't like and/or that he viewed as rivals. His memoirs have been proven to be loaded with lies, distortions, and outright fabrications.

This is not to mention the fact that Grant used his men as canon fodder for most of the war and on at least two occasions (that we know of) left wounded men to die on the battlefield because he was too proud to follow the tradition of sending a flag of truce to call for the retrieval of the wounded and the burial of the dead.

Like most human beings, Grant was not all bad. Sometimes he behaved honorably and showed he was capable of being decent and noble. His order prohibiting large-scale frontal assaults is very commendable (and was long overdue). His decision to stand up to the Radicals when they tried to prosecute Robert E. Lee deserves great praise. But, sadly, when all the facts are weighed, the picture that emerges of Grant is not a pretty one.

"Disgraceful scumbag" -- rhetorical standards plummiting by the minute! Such derogatory statements never bode well for what is to follow.

Regarding the collection of the Cold Harbour wounded, for those who are not familiar with what transpired, here is the NPS version. The was plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

Thousands of wounded Federals between the armies suffered horribly. They lay under the scorching sun among putrefying corpses, bereft of food, water, or medical assistance. Grant was reluctant to ask for a truce to recover his wounded because doing so amounted to a concession that he had lost the battle. Urged by Hancock to do something, Grant on June 5 penned a note to Lee proposing that "when no battle is raging either party be authorized to send to any point between the pickets or skirmish lines, unarmed men bearing litters to pick up their dead and wounded without being fired upon by the other party." He made no mention of a truce. Lee rejected Grant's proposal as conducive to "misunderstanding and difficulty" and asked for the customary flag of truce. Grant's reply ignored Lee's letter and instead proposed that both sides collect their dead and wounded between noon and 3:00 P.M. Lee again insisted on a flag of truce, and Grant finally requested a formal suspension of hostilities for two hours. Lee agreed, but misunderstandings delayed the removals until the evening of June 7. Not surprisingly, after lying exposed for four days, most of the wounded men had become bloated corpses. Very few remained alive.https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/civil_war_series/11/sec14.htm​

 

[cash]

"Disgraceful scumbag" -- rhetorical standards plummiting by the minute! Such derogatory statements never bode well for what is to follow.

It's called "projection."

Regarding the collection of the Cold Harbour wounded, for those who are not familiar with what transpired, here is the NPS version. The was plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

Thousands of wounded Federals between the armies suffered horribly. They lay under the scorching sun among putrefying corpses, bereft of food, water, or medical assistance. Grant was reluctant to ask for a truce to recover his wounded because doing so amounted to a concession that he had lost the battle. Urged by Hancock to do something, Grant on June 5 penned a note to Lee proposing that "when no battle is raging either party be authorized to send to any point between the pickets or skirmish lines, unarmed men bearing litters to pick up their dead and wounded without being fired upon by the other party." He made no mention of a truce. Lee rejected Grant's proposal as conducive to "misunderstanding and difficulty" and asked for the customary flag of truce. Grant's reply ignored Lee's letter and instead proposed that both sides collect their dead and wounded between noon and 3:00 P.M. Lee again insisted on a flag of truce, and Grant finally requested a formal suspension of hostilities for two hours. Lee agreed, but misunderstandings delayed the removals until the evening of June 7. Not surprisingly, after lying exposed for four days, most of the wounded men had become bloated corpses. Very few remained alive.https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/civil_war_series/11/sec14.htm​

Yes, some folks tend to solely blame Grant when there was another general involved who could have helped the situation greatly by not being a punctilious p***k. Neither general looked good in that instance.

 

[John S. Carter]

I'd give Joe Johnston equal credit for the Union victory at Vicksburg

Major,this sounds like the same tactics that he would use in the East against Lee,correct? He used Sherman and his army to entertain Johnson and to destroy the supplies from the south from getting to Lee and Sheridan in the Valley to entertain Early and to destroy that supply line to Lee.Richmond was not Grant's objective but Lee .It seems primary objectives of Grant and thus became the Union army objectives ,destroy the armies,the sources of supply ,and discourage the civilians from the continuation of the war.These he succeeded in doing.In doing so he shorten the war which could have been done so if the generals would have followed this strategy

 

[contestedground]

Did Grant perform well in removing Rosecrans from command or was he just removing a rival. Also he seems to have slighted Thomas because Thomas was a southerner.

Evidence that Grant slighted Thomas because Thomas was a southerner?

 

[contestedground]

If you want to understand what a disgraceful scumbag Grant could be, I recommend reading two books:

General Grant and the Rewriting of History, by Frank Varney.

Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas, by Benson Bobrick

Grant repeatedly smeared officers/generals he didn't like and/or that he viewed as rivals. His memoirs have been proven to be loaded with lies, distortions, and outright fabrications.

This is not to mention the fact that Grant used his men as canon fodder for most of the war and on at least two occasions (that we know of) left wounded men to die on the battlefield because he was too proud to follow the tradition of sending a flag of truce to call for the retrieval of the wounded and the burial of the dead.

Like most human beings, Grant was not all bad. Sometimes he behaved honorably and showed he was capable of being decent and noble. His order prohibiting large-scale frontal assaults is very commendable (and was long overdue). His decision to stand up to the Radicals when they tried to prosecute Robert E. Lee deserves great praise. But, sadly, when all the facts are weighed, the picture that emerges of Grant is not a pretty one.

Every time Mike recommends books, others demonstrate that the books are in fact badly flawed.

By the way, it was Andrew Johnson -- hardly a Radical Republican -- who battled to try Lee for treason.

But I did enjoy reading this: "Like most human beings, Grant was not all bad." So some human beings are all bad, while others are more bad than good. No one else is left.

 

[Robert Rutledge]

Evidence that Grant slighted Thomas because Thomas was a southerner?

Evidence to that effect would be interesting, considering how Grant married a Southerner. Julia was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri. He couldn't have hated Southerners that much since they managed to have 4 children together...

 

[Mike Griffith]

Explanation ; I did not mean to demean the General. What I was stating was that he was a Eisenhower ,Patton,or Alexander as for as his military skills than the previous commanders where.Lee was taken off his strategy by Grant's persistent moves . Grant never retreated as with the other generals . He has Eisenhower recognized the abilities in subordinates as with Sherman and Thomas,he even kept Meade in charge of the PA and Burnside.He as with Patton was like the Pit Bull that would not retreat or let go once committed..Grant did not have a Monty to placate.

Grant wasted thousands of his men's lives in foolish frontal assaults, and sometimes left his wounded to die on the battlefield because he was too proud to admit he'd been defeated and thus didn't want to follow the custom of the losing commander sending a flag of truce to ask for time to retrieve the wounded and bury the dead. As an Army vet, my blood starts to boil when I read about such shameful, immoral behavior.

Grant played favorites and knowingly sent false reports to Washington at the expense of many lives and needless delay in ending the war. He outright fabricated some battle accounts. He smeared Thomas and covered-up Sherman's bungling because he liked Sherman and didn't like Thomas. He put Sherman in charge of the Atlanta campaign when Sherman was the obvious choice, not only by seniority but by proven ability. If Grant had had his way at the Battle of the Chattanooga, he might very well have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and then he lied about the battle in his reports in order to cover for Sherman and denigrate Thomas.

As for Grant's drinking, until now I had not paid much attention to the issue, but after reading Bobrick's discussion on the matter, I see that this is another case where pro-Republican revisionists have tried to sweep the truth under the rug. The evidence that Grant had a drinking problem throughout the war is considerable and comes from a variety of sources (see Bobrick, Master of War, pp. 223-225). A member of Grant's own staff, Dr. E. D. Kittoe, admitted the truth after the war. Or, just read the letter that Grant's chief of staff, General Rawlins, sent Grant in June 1863 (Bobrick, p. 224).

I applaud Brooks Simpson, with whom I rarely agree, for being willing to admit a decent-sized chunk of the truth about Grant's drinking problem:

https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/grant-and-drinking-revisited/

Additional sources on Grant's drinking problem:

http://www.grantunderfire.com/539/an-alcoholic-ulysses-s-grant-resigns-his-commission/

http://www.rbhayes.org/research/hayes-historical-journal-the-problem-of-ulysses-s.-grant/

 

[Mike Griffith]

Every time Mike recommends books, others demonstrate that the books are in fact badly flawed.

No, they don't. You guys just take each other's word that this or that book is flawed. Bobrick's book is a perfect example of this. Among professional historians, Bobrick's book has been very well received. Even those scholars who have a few critical things to say about it also state that overall Bobrick's book is a serious work of scholarship and contains persuasive arguments. Bobrick's documentation speaks for itself. Go read the book yourself and make up your own mind. If you find evidence that Bobrick is demonstrably wrong on something, I'd like to see it.

 

[Bee]

Grant wasted thousands of his men's lives in foolish frontal assaults, and sometimes left his wounded to die on the battlefield because he was too proud to admit he'd been defeated and thus didn't want to follow the custom of the losing commander sending a flag of truce to ask for time to retrieve the wounded and bury the dead. As an Army vet, my blood starts to boil when I read about such shameful, immoral behavior.

Well, since Mike feels the need to repeat himself, I guess I better re-inject sometruth to the rhetoric:

Regarding the collection of the Cold Harbour wounded, for those who are not familiar with what transpired, here is the NPS version. The was plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

Thousands of wounded Federals between the armies suffered horribly. They lay under the scorching sun among putrefying corpses, bereft of food, water, or medical assistance. Grant was reluctant to ask for a truce to recover his wounded because doing so amounted to a concession that he had lost the battle. Urged by Hancock to do something, Grant on June 5 penned a note to Lee proposing that "when no battle is raging either party be authorized to send to any point between the pickets or skirmish lines, unarmed men bearing litters to pick up their dead and wounded without being fired upon by the other party." He made no mention of a truce. Lee rejected Grant's proposal as conducive to "misunderstanding and difficulty" and asked for the customary flag of truce. Grant's reply ignored Lee's letter and instead proposed that both sides collect their dead and wounded between noon and 3:00 P.M. Lee again insisted on a flag of truce, and Grant finally requested a formal suspension of hostilities for two hours. Lee agreed, but misunderstandings delayed the removals until the evening of June 7. Not surprisingly, after lying exposed for four days, most of the wounded men had become bloated corpses. Very few remained alive.https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/civil_war_series/11/sec14.htm
​

As an Army vet, my blood starts to boil when I read about such shameful, immoral behavior.

Yup. Pretty bad behavior all the way around -- both sides.

Grant played favorites and knowingly sent false reports to Washington at the expense of many lives and needless delay in ending the war. He outright fabricated some battle accounts. He smeared Thomas and covered-up Sherman's bungling because he liked Sherman and didn't like Thomas. He put Sherman in charge of the Atlanta campaign when Sherman was the obvious choice, not only by seniority but by proven ability. If Grant had had his way at the Battle of the Chattanooga, he might very well have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and then he lied about the battle in his reports in order to cover for Sherman and denigrate Thomas.

Do entertain enlighten us with sources on these false reports. PS your blog is not a source. Just so you know.

I applaud Brooks Simpson, with whom I rarely agree, for being willing to admit a decent-sized chunk of the truth about Grant's drinking problem:

I agree: Prof Simpson is a light in the forest when others try so desperately to cast shadows.

​

 

[contestedground]

No, they don't. You guys just take each other's word that this or that book is flawed. Bobrick's book is a perfect example of this. Among professional historians, Bobrick's book has been very well received. Even those scholars who have a few critical things to say about it also state that overall Bobrick's book is a serious work of scholarship and contains persuasive arguments. Bobrick's documentation speaks for itself. Go read the book yourself and make up your own mind. If you find evidence that Bobrick is demonstrably wrong on something, I'd like to see it.

We've already been there. So please don't say that we haven't been.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/dr...est-point-before-the-war.136589/#post-1591334

 

[contestedground]

As for Grant's drinking, until now I had not paid much attention to the issue, but after reading Bobrick's discussion on the matter, I see that this is another case where pro-Republican revisionists have tried to sweep the truth under the rug. The evidence that Grant had a drinking problem throughout the war is considerable and comes from a variety of sources (see Bobrick, Master of War, pp. 223-225). A member of Grant's own staff, Dr. E. D. Kittoe, admitted the truth after the war. Or, just read the letter that Grant's chief of staff, General Rawlins, sent Grant in June 1863 (Bobrick, p. 224).

I applaud Brooks Simpson, with whom I rarely agree, for being willing to admit a decent-sized chunk of the truth about Grant's drinking problem:

https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/grant-and-drinking-revisited/

Do you not think it odd that the renowned scholar Dr. Bobrick decided to ignore Dr. Simpson's explanation of what happened in June 1863? As you have here acknowledged Dr. Simpson's handling of the question, are you not implicitly offering a dam*ing indictment of Bobrick as a scholar through admitting his ignorance of important work that bears on his argument?

Note: Bobrick's book came out in 2009; Simpson's in 2000. Ignorance is no excuse.

 

[John S. Carter]

[QUOTggggE="Mike Griffith, post: 1598850, member: 12425"]Grant wasted thousands of his men's lives in foolish frontal assaults, and sometimes left his wounded to die on the battlefield because he was too proud to admit he'd been defeated and thus didn't want to follow the custom of the losing commander sending a flag of truce to ask for time to retrieve the wounded and bury the dead. As an Army vet, my blood starts to boil when I read about such shameful, immoral behavior.

Grant played favorites and knowingly sent false reports to Washington at the expense of many lives and needless delay in ending the war. He outright fabricated some battle accounts. He smeared Thomas and covered-up Sherman's bungling because he liked Sherman and didn't like Thomas. He put Sherman in charge of the Atlanta campaign when Sherman was the obvious choice, not only by seniority but by proven ability. If Grant had had his way at the Battle of the Chattanooga, he might very well have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and then he lied about the battle in his reports in order to cover for Sherman and denigrate Thomas.

As for Grant's drinking, until now I had not paid much attention to the issue, but after reading Bobrick's discussion on the matter, I see that this is another case where pro-Republican revisionists have tried to sweep the truth under the rug. The evidence that Grant had a drinking problem throughout the war is considerable and comes from a variety of sources (see Bobrick, Master of War, pp. 223-225). A member of Grant's own staff, Dr. E. D. Kittoe, admitted the truth after the war. Or, just read the letter that Grant's chief of staff, General Rawlins, sent Grant in June 1863 (Bobrick, p. 224).

I applaud Brooks Simpson, with whom I rarely agree, for being willing to admit a decent-sized chunk of the truth about Grant's drinking problem:

https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/grant-and-drinking-revisited/

Additional sources on Grant's drinking problem:

http://www.grantunderfire.com/539/an-alcoholic-ulysses-s-grant-resigns-his-commission/

http://www.rbhayes.org/research/hayes-historical-journal-the-problem-of-ulysses-s.-grant/[/QUOTE]

 

[John S. Carter]

Why as this not been written abou ?The books that are being written are praising Grant the general and the president? If there is a true bio. please to inform me .There was a bio. the title was "Bloody Grant" but I can not remember the author.Then there was on on comparing he and Lee as who was sacrificed the most men in obtaining victory.

 

[Bee]

Why as this not been written abou ?The books that are being written are praising Grant the general and the president? If there is a true bio. please to inform me .There was a bio. the title was "Bloody Grant" but I can not remember the author.Then there was on on comparing he and Lee as who was sacrificed the most men in obtaining victory.

A "true bio" eh? Does a 'true bio" need to include unsubstantiated claims in order to meet your standards? If so, I am not going waste my time on suggested materials. I am sure that Mike can pony up with an expose or two.

 

[contestedground]

Why as this not been written abou ?The books that are being written are praising Grant the general and the president? If there is a true bio. please to inform me .There was a bio. the title was "Bloody Grant" but I can not remember the author.Then there was on on comparing he and Lee as who was sacrificed the most men in obtaining victory.

To what are you referring?

You can't complain that people haven't been writing about something when you confess that your reading's limited.

A search of Amazon does not reveal the title you mention.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords="Bloody+Grant"

 

[DanSBHawk]

Additional sources on Grant's drinking problem:

http://www.grantunderfire.com/539/an-alcoholic-ulysses-s-grant-resigns-his-commission/

As someone who has read the "Grant Under Fire" book, I can say that the author is not an accurate source.

 

[cash]

No, they don't. You guys just take each other's word that this or that book is flawed. Bobrick's book is a perfect example of this. Among professional historians, Bobrick's book has been very well received.

Zero examples of this.

Even those scholars who have a few critical things to say about it also state that overall Bobrick's book is a serious work of scholarship and contains persuasive arguments.

Zero examples of this.

Bobrick's documentation speaks for itself. Go read the book yourself and make up your own mind. If you find evidence that Bobrick is demonstrably wrong on something, I'd like to see it.

He's demonstrably wrong about Rawle at West Point, as has been demonstrated.