Chattanooga Union Army Politics at the Battle for Chattanooga

Yeah. Read this site before. Very pro-Thomas, Rosecrans, et al. Big conspiracy how Halleck, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Schofield sought to push Rosecrans then Thomas out of army command. While admittedly not the biggest fan of Grant the person, I can't imagine the conspiracy as large as what the author would like it to have been. Was Grant an awful backstabber? Absolutely. Did he play favorites? Yes.

An interesting website developed from a pre-determined position.
 
I remember coming across this before. I had read Thomas Buell's The Warrior Generals so I was already appreciative of the merits of General Thomas - and already skeptical of the 'tear down Grant to make him look better' approach. Have to agree with rbasin overall: interesting in a premise-before-evidence kind of way.

But this does bring up an interesting tangent. Can anyone recommend a balanced general overview of the politics of army command? On either side, it had to be a royal pain in the you-know-what trying to fight the war while dealing with the... people... in authority behind you.
 
I remember coming across this before. I had read Thomas Buell's The Warrior Generals so I was already appreciative of the merits of General Thomas - and already skeptical of the 'tear down Grant to make him look better' approach. Have to agree with rbasin overall: interesting in a premise-before-evidence kind of way.

But this does bring up an interesting tangent. Can anyone recommend a balanced general overview of the politics of army command? On either side, it had to be a royal pain in the you-know-what trying to fight the war while dealing with the... people... in authority behind you.
I believe there was more political hogwash within the officer corps of the confederates.i have just started reading Frank P.Varney's book "General Grant and the Rewriting of History" and his premise appears to be that history has taken Grant's word as the gospel truth, without checking other sources of what he wrote primarily in his memoirs.it just goes to show that there has really been no recent studies into Thomas and Rosecrans.
 
I remember coming across this before. I had read Thomas Buell's The Warrior Generals so I was already appreciative of the merits of General Thomas - and already skeptical of the 'tear down Grant to make him look better' approach. Have to agree with rbasin overall: interesting in a premise-before-evidence kind of way.

But this does bring up an interesting tangent. Can anyone recommend a balanced general overview of the politics of army command? On either side, it had to be a royal pain in the you-know-what trying to fight the war while dealing with the... people... in authority behind you.

I would imagine you'd have to go through hundreds of books and take bits and pieces. A lot of O.R. research. Maybe I'd start from the end and go backwards.
 
I believe there was more political hogwash within the officer corps of the confederates.

It would be interesting to know if or to what extent this is true overall. Whatever was going on at Chattanooga on the Union side certainly couldn't have trumped the dysfunction in Bragg's army though, that's for sure.
 
I believe there was more political hogwash within the officer corps of the confederates.i have just started reading Frank P.Varney's book "General Grant and the Rewriting of History" and his premise appears to be that history has taken Grant's word as the gospel truth, without checking other sources of what he wrote primarily in his memoirs.it just goes to show that there has really been no recent studies into Thomas and Rosecrans.

Look at the attacks based on Grant's writings of Halleck.
 
There was some bad blood between Grant and Hallock going back to 1861 in Mississippi and tennessee.

Not really. Halleck listened to some bad rumors about Grant drinking again, reported it to McClellan, then withdrew his report when no evidence was found. Halleck did remove Grant from command of the Army of the Tennessee and made him second in command of Halleck's command in and around Corinth, but there was communication and rumors that Halleck would be sent to D.C.

The bad blood Grant would write about after the war, IMO, was all in Grant's melon-head.

Don't get me started
 
Halleck did not like Grant getting a the glory for himself since he was a subordnate.just plain old 19th century jealousy.he needed to get all the credit since it was his department.
 
"Jealous Halleck" is one I have seen described several times in books. Is it based solely on Grant's interpretation in his memoirs?
 
Back
Top