Grant Recent Scholarship on US Grant

[Philip Leigh]

Was Ulysses S. Grant a brilliant and unparalleled general who won the American Civil War, a magnanimous and incorruptible man, and an honest and accurate chronicler of history? Or was he remarkably untruthful, careless, persistent, indolent, aggressive, unjust, biased, impetuous, and lucky?

A stringent and detailed examination of Grant's generalship and character in the war has long been necessary. Standard histories and biographies, founded on a lengthy succession of biased and erroneous writings, have much of it wrong. Many of these inaccuracies originated with the General himself, in his official reports, in his Personal Memoirs, and in his other writings. While Grant possessed many positive attributes and achieved valuable objectives, his reputation as a military mastermind with a virtuous character is hopelessly exaggerated. Grant Under Fire: An Exposé of Generalship & Character in the American Civil War, thoroughly establishes this.

Below are corrections to just a few of the commonly accepted narratives:

• Contrary to his later assertion in his Personal Memoirs, Grant did receive John Frémont's orders to occupy Paducah (if possible) before he departed Cairo.
• In a report revised years after the battle of Belmont—but falsified to look as if written just ten days later—Grant fabricated communications to cover up his insubordination in attacking. And he scapegoated Colonel Napoleon Buford, who had avoided the ensuing rout of the federal expedition by taking a separate route to the riverbank. Yet, he had written a day after the battle that, "I can say with gratification that every Colonel without a single exception, set an example to their commands that inspired a confidence that will always insure victory when there is the slightest possibility of gaining one."
• Grant drank—and got drunk—with the enemy on flag-of-truce boats after the battle.

Continued a the link below.

http://www.grantunderfire.com

 

[wilber6150]

And despite all these "flaws" he beat the best the South could throw at him and captured three Confederate armies

 

[brass napoleon]

Thank God a healthcare professional finally got around to self-publishing the true, untold story of Grant, so we no longer have to listen to professional historians!

 

[diane]

None of the authors of this viewpoint have yet presented an explanation for why such a lousy drunken rat like Grant was able to rise to the highest military post in the land and trounce an upright, sober paragon of virtue like Lee. Neither depiction is true of either man.

 

[Philip Leigh]

Thank God a healthcare professional finally got around to self-publishing the true, untold story of Grant, so we no longer have to listen to professional historians!

Among the historians who apparently are listening and providing promotional quotes for Rose's book are:

Gordon Rhea
Wiley Sword
William Glenn Robertson
Frank Varney
Lawrence Hewitt
David Cleutz
John Horn
Robert Girardi

 

[dlofting]

Gordon Rhea wrote:

Joseph Rose presents an engaging critical assessment of Grant's generalship that is destined to provoke lively debate among students of America's bloodiest conflict. One might disagree with Rose's conclusions, but his careful scholarship demands that they receive serious consideration.

Sounds like I'll have to read the book and see if I agree or disagree with Rose's conclusions.

 

[E_just_E]

I guess my answer to all of this, is:

Who Cares?

This does not change History and/or facts that happened. I really don't care whether Grant drunk and smoked. History does not either. Biography might. But that is another subject (matter.)

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

So you're a saying he was a human being who made mistakes? Lee could be seen as a religious nut who supported slavery, made a ton of mistakes in battle and didn't see the big picture in the confederacy outside of Virginia.

 

[jackt62]

Well, I guess I'm not surprised that the revisionist historians have gotten around to trashing Grant's military reputation. Personally, as others have posted, the proof of Grant's military brilliance was the fact that he conceived the strategy and led the armies that successfully defeated the confederate enemy. Whether or not Grant blundered at Belmont is irrelevant. That was one of his earliest battles and he was still undergoing his learning curve. As far as the tales of drunkeness are concerned, I believe that the general consensus is that while there may have been at most, one or two such incidents during the war that John Rawlins couldn't prevent, the claim of drunkenness was generally a false one alleged by Grant's political enemies.

 

[Dave Wilma]

Sounds like I'll have to read the book and see if I agree or disagree with Rose's conclusions.

That is what Rose wants us to do and that's fair.

I am interested to know if Rose discovered some new evidence or is reinterpreting existing evidence. Reasonable students can read the same stuff and reach different conclusions. The book would be a reflection on Rose's scholarship rather than some conclusive verdict on Grant. I've always said that people are never all one thing or all the other.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Was Ulysses S. Grant a brilliant and unparalleled general who won the American Civil War, a magnanimous and incorruptible man, and an honest and accurate chronicler of history? Or was he remarkably untruthful, careless, persistent, indolent, aggressive, unjust, biased, impetuous, and lucky?
A stringent and detailed examination of Grant's generalship and character in the war has long been necessary. Standard histories and biographies, founded on a lengthy succession of biased and erroneous writings, have much of it wrong. Many of these inaccuracies originated with the General himself, in his official reports, in his Personal Memoirs, and in his other writings. While Grant possessed many positive attributes and achieved valuable objectives, his reputation as a military mastermind with a virtuous character is hopelessly exaggerated. Grant Under Fire: An Exposé of Generalship & Character in the American Civil War, thoroughly establishes this.

The Hagiography of Grant is no more blatant(or inaccurate) than that of Lee as the Marble Man.. They both have through the years, been reevaluated and revised and, IMO, have been established fairly accurate in most serious modern historical studies.
In ref. to this particular board, concerning the Civil War, I, myself, believe that Grant's superior generalship, speaks for itself from the historical record.

 

[kevikens]

Trying to ferret out Grant's personality traits and concluding how these fostered or hindered his military career have never been of much interest to me, though obviously matter a great deal to others. In evaluating his military talents I have always wondered how good a commander he would have been had he not the vast resources the Union provided him. In other words, I have concluded that Grant could do a great deal, with a great deal. The hallmark, however, of what a great commander is, is what that commander can do with what he has when he has very limited resources. I think all of us can think of commanders who were able to do great things, win battles, campaigns, with resources less than that of their enemy. I do not think Grant fits into that category of the great commanders of history.

 

[Pat Young]

Was Ulysses S. Grant a brilliant and unparalleled general who won the American Civil War, a magnanimous and incorruptible man, and an honest and accurate chronicler of history? Or was he remarkably untruthful, careless, persistent, indolent, aggressive, unjust, biased, impetuous, and lucky?

A stringent and detailed examination of Grant's generalship and character in the war has long been necessary. Standard histories and biographies, founded on a lengthy succession of biased and erroneous writings, have much of it wrong. Many of these inaccuracies originated with the General himself, in his official reports, in his Personal Memoirs, and in his other writings. While Grant possessed many positive attributes and achieved valuable objectives, his reputation as a military mastermind with a virtuous character is hopelessly exaggerated. Grant Under Fire: An Exposé of Generalship & Character in the American Civil War, thoroughly establishes this.

Below are corrections to just a few of the commonly accepted narratives:

• Contrary to his later assertion in his Personal Memoirs, Grant did receive John Frémont's orders to occupy Paducah (if possible) before he departed Cairo.
• In a report revised years after the battle of Belmont—but falsified to look as if written just ten days later—Grant fabricated communications to cover up his insubordination in attacking. And he scapegoated Colonel Napoleon Buford, who had avoided the ensuing rout of the federal expedition by taking a separate route to the riverbank. Yet, he had written a day after the battle that, "I can say with gratification that every Colonel without a single exception, set an example to their commands that inspired a confidence that will always insure victory when there is the slightest possibility of gaining one."
• Grant drank—and got drunk—with the enemy on flag-of-truce boats after the battle.

Continued a the link below.

http://www.grantunderfire.com

I read Frank Varney's book on Grant and the Rewriting of History. That focused on problems Varney has with the portrayal of Rosecrans in Grant's memoirs as well as his treatment of that General.

I think reexamination is important and it can be fun for me as a reader. Sometimes though, the revisionist over-sells his or her thesis. Varney did a good job of pointing out Grant's inaccuracies as well as ways modern historians have recited them. But he was less convincing in rehabbing Rosie. Personally, I am inclined to like Rosie, but it is tough to put a good face on his performance at Chickamauga. Mistakes were made.

 

[David Moore]

I guess my answer to all of this, is:

Who Cares?

This does not change History and/or facts that happened. I really don't care whether Grant drunk and smoked. History does not either. Biography might. But that is another subject (matter.)

A lot of soldiers died unnecessarily (but they'd be dead by new anyhow.)

 

[rpkennedy]

A lot of soldiers died unnecessarily (but they'd be dead by new anyhow.)

That criticism can be levelled at every general during the war.

R

 

[David Moore]

I read Frank Varney's book on Grant and the Rewriting of History. That focused on problems Varney has with the portrayal of Rosecrans in Grant's memoirs as well as his treatment of that General.

I think reexamination is important and it can be fun for me as a reader. Sometimes though, the revisionist over-sells his or her thesis. Varney did a good job of pointing out Grant's inaccuracies as well as ways modern historians have recited them. But he was less convincing in rehabbing Rosie. Personally, I am inclined to like Rosie, but it is tough to put a good face on his performance at Chickamauga. Mistakes were made.

Biggest mistake at Chickamauga was made by the War Dept in not reinforcing Rosecrans before Chickamauga. Conceivably had some of Grant's and Sherman's troops been sent towards Chattanooga in late August or early September the war could have ended in 1864. Perhaps Grant would have been sent to Virginia and Rosecrans kept in command in Georgia. Albert Castel thought anyone could have done the Atlanta campaign better than Sherman so Rosecrans probably, with an army the size Sherman was given, takes Atlanta in July or early August. What becomes of Sherman? What becomes of Grant if by August he has not taken Richmond? Does Rosecrans replace him in Virginia? Then who would have been the great hero of the war and the next president? All of this was discussed quite openly in the years after the War. These ideas are either not discussed or dismissed as not worth of discussion today. I discuss the role of presidential politics in the war in chapters 14 and 15 of my book
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0786476249/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

 

[brass napoleon]

Well, I guess I'm not surprised that the revisionist historians have gotten around to trashing Grant's military reputation.

Indeed. Character assassination, particularly of long-since dead people, is the sleaziest and cheapest way to sell books, tabloids, etc. It doesn't matter whether the subject is Grant, Lee, Washington, Jefferson, or Mother Theresa, any 2-bit shmuck can take and twist quotes out of context to make them look like the devil incarnate. I personally won't waste my time on any of them, unless written by a professional historian with a rock-solid reputation for honest, objective scholarship.

 

[diane]

It's valid to wonder how Grant would have done with less resources but I always maintain that a general can have every material advantage and all the men in the country, and still blow it! There are many surprising similarities between Lee and Grant that don't appear on the surface - on the surface they seem different as night and day. So, using those similarities one might conjecture that Grant in Lee's place would have done about the same as Lee - the best he could with what he had. Lee was amazing, Grant likely would have been as well. But, when one suggests Grant won only because of numbers and resources, one has to agree with Lee: "That is not much of a compliment to me!"

I've been following this new interest in Grant. For decades he was the most deliberately buried and forgotten president in US history, perhaps because of his administrations moral challenges. There was the need for Confederate generals to be elevated, like Lee was. A lot of things contributed to the really bizarre trading of places - the general who lost the war was raised to saintly heights while the general who won the war was dumped in the dustbin of history. Historians finally dragged him out and started discussing why someone would throw away a perfectly good general. Now, with the ruckus over the CBF and Confederate monuments, there seems to be a need to take Grant down a peg...again!

 

[David Moore]

That criticism can be levelled at every general during the war.

R

But many thought then that the war should have ended in 1864. If Rosecrans had been given only some of Grant and Sherman's idle troops in late August Atlanta would have fallen by early 1864 at the latest and possibly late 1863. Chattanooga was taken without them in September 1863. Then a massive force is sent to Richmond and the war ends by Fall of 1864. Who would command that massive force and emerge as the "great hero" of the war is an an interesting question. A question too important to be decided on the battlefield.

 

[David Moore]

It's valid to wonder how Grant would have done with less resources but I always maintain that a general can have every material advantage and all the men in the country, and still blow it! There are many surprising similarities between Lee and Grant that don't appear on the surface - on the surface they seem different as night and day. So, using those similarities one might conjecture that Grant in Lee's place would have done about the same as Lee - the best he could with what he had. Lee was amazing, Grant likely would have been as well. But, when one suggests Grant won only because of numbers and resources, one has to agree with Lee: "That is not much of a compliment to me!"

I've been following this new interest in Grant. For decades he was the most deliberately buried and forgotten president in US history, perhaps because of his administrations moral challenges. There was the need for Confederate generals to be elevated, like Lee was. A lot of things contributed to the really bizarre trading of places - the general who lost the war was raised to saintly heights while the general who won the war was dumped in the dustbin of history. Historians finally dragged him out and started discussing why someone would throw away a perfectly good general. Now, with the ruckus over the CBF and Confederate monuments, there seems to be a need to take Grant down a peg...again!

Grant is greatly boosted by academic historians today.