Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Grant Under Fire

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Grant Under Fire

    After taking a look at this volume by Joseph Rose one conclusion that I have arrived at is that it appears that the author came to his conclusion before writing the book and that is how the book came to be written.

    I have no idea if that is an accurate assessment or not since I do not know the author, but that is how it appears to me. There is a near-mania of searching for 'new' information for authors who wish to be published. Too many times this is the reason for writing a book and getting published. It seems to me that writing solid history should be enough.

    For example, Grant's memoirs have been known for quite some time as not being accurate history. That was put in print in 1985 by John Elting in The Superstrategists and is now old hat.

    Other material on Grant's subordinates, good and bad, has also been in print for quite some time and opinions of historians varies depending on the author/historian and what they find in their research.

    That being said, this book should be read by any and all and is recommended for study and I do believe it to be a valuable addition to the literature of the period whether or not you agree with what the author has written.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

  • #2
    I have the book, but I'd have to disagree that it's a valuable addition to the literature of the Civil War. I've never marked up a history book as much as I did this book, for flawed information and distorted history.

    It is obvious that the author worked long and hard on this book. But it is also obvious, as you said, that the author had a predetermined agenda.

    The author did a lot of research and gathered many references, but it seemed to me that his analysis was completely driven by his bias. Many of his arguments are not supported by the references he lists. It seemed to me that he intended the sheer quantity of his references would make up for the sketchy quality of his arguments.

    I found that if you isolate any of his arguments, read what other authors have written, and most importantly read the original primary sources, it becomes pretty obvious that Rose is trying to pull the wool over the readers eyes. He is not concerned with solid history, but with slandering Grant.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by H.Weinheimer View Post
      I have the book, but I'd have to disagree that it's a valuable addition to the literature of the Civil War. I've never marked up a history book as much as I did this book, for flawed information and distorted history.

      It is obvious that the author worked long and hard on this book. But it is also obvious, as you said, that the author had a predetermined agenda.

      The author did a lot of research and gathered many references, but it seemed to me that his analysis was completely driven by his bias. Many of his arguments are not supported by the references he lists. It seemed to me that he intended the sheer quantity of his references would make up for the sketchy quality of his arguments.

      I found that if you isolate any of his arguments, read what other authors have written, and most importantly read the original primary sources, it becomes pretty obvious that Rose is trying to pull the wool over the readers eyes. He is not concerned with solid history, but with slandering Grant.
      I completely concur with this analysis.
      The muffled drums sad roll has beat the soldier's last tatoo. No more on life's parade shall meet that brave and fallen few.

      Comment


      • #4
        As someone who posts a lot about Grant, I'll briefly note that I haven't gotten to this book yet, but I intend to and I do look forward to it, the scholarship if not necessarily the conclusions seems to win high praise from a number of good Civil War historians. I'm sure I'll be scribbling in the margins. I did read the Varney book which had some arguments along the same lines.
        Last edited by Viperlord; 22 Sep 16, 19:17.
        "Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!" -Daniel Webster

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by H.Weinheimer View Post
          I have the book, but I'd have to disagree that it's a valuable addition to the literature of the Civil War. I've never marked up a history book as much as I did this book, for flawed information and distorted history.

          It is obvious that the author worked long and hard on this book. But it is also obvious, as you said, that the author had a predetermined agenda.

          The author did a lot of research and gathered many references, but it seemed to me that his analysis was completely driven by his bias. Many of his arguments are not supported by the references he lists. It seemed to me that he intended the sheer quantity of his references would make up for the sketchy quality of his arguments.

          I found that if you isolate any of his arguments, read what other authors have written, and most importantly read the original primary sources, it becomes pretty obvious that Rose is trying to pull the wool over the readers eyes. He is not concerned with solid history, but with slandering Grant.
          I agree to a point. I like the book because it causes one to follow up on his Generals that the author talks about.
          He is probably lurking and maybe drop in.
          In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.
          Robert E. Lee

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by H.Weinheimer View Post
            I have the book, but I'd have to disagree that it's a valuable addition to the literature of the Civil War. I've never marked up a history book as much as I did this book, for flawed information and distorted history.
            For that reason alone the volume is valuable as it made you look...
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by H.Weinheimer View Post
              I have the book, but I'd have to disagree that it's a valuable addition to the literature of the Civil War. I've never marked up a history book as much as I did this book, for flawed information and distorted history.

              It is obvious that the author worked long and hard on this book. But it is also obvious, as you said, that the author had a predetermined agenda.

              The author did a lot of research and gathered many references, but it seemed to me that his analysis was completely driven by his bias. Many of his arguments are not supported by the references he lists. It seemed to me that he intended the sheer quantity of his references would make up for the sketchy quality of his arguments.

              I found that if you isolate any of his arguments, read what other authors have written, and most importantly read the original primary sources, it becomes pretty obvious that Rose is trying to pull the wool over the readers eyes. He is not concerned with solid history, but with slandering Grant.
              What books have you compared it to? If you are a Grant worshiper, I understand your feelings.

              What exactly did you read you didn't like?
              In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.
              Robert E. Lee

              Comment


              • #8
                Why is anyone who questions a book about Grant that may very well be agenda driven and inaccurate a 'Grant worshipper'?

                Respect for an historic figure does not mean that person 'worships' that historic personage.
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by hellboy30 View Post
                  I completely concur with this analysis.
                  Agree.
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Solid book. Well researched.

                    Grant's eulogists of course hate it.
                    "[T]he worst that could be said of the Peninsula campaign was that thus far it had not been successful. To make it a failure was reserved for the agency of General Halleck." -Emory Upton

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 67th Tigers View Post
                      Solid book. Well researched.

                      Grant's eulogists of course hate it.
                      Why do you insist on labeling people with whom you disagree.

                      I wonder what you would have said if the same author wrote a similarly themed book on McClellan?
                      We are not now that strength which in old days
                      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Massena View Post
                        Why is anyone who questions a book about Grant that may very well be agenda driven and inaccurate a 'Grant worshipper'?

                        Respect for an historic figure does not mean that person 'worships' that historic personage.
                        Grant's negatives hurt him when given a high rating. His accomplishments are many; however, he still had failures and flaws. All things considered he did fairly well.

                        What should be admired about Grant.

                        "Failure can be one more step on your road to success. You just have to turn it around in a positive direction. It can strengthen your determination to overcome obstacles. Failure can make you braver in the face of opposition. It can help you learn what you need to do in order to succeed. Failure can teach you to recognize your limitations and your strengths. It can encourage you to change your strategy."
                        Last edited by 101combatvet; 24 Sep 16, 09:32.
                        My worst jump story:
                        My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                        As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                        No lie.

                        ~
                        "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                        -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Massena View Post
                          I wonder what you would have said if the same author wrote a similarly themed book on McClellan?
                          An honest assessment? Cool.

                          Grant was promoted for a long time by the "American Heritage" school, and of course there will be a correction.
                          "[T]he worst that could be said of the Peninsula campaign was that thus far it had not been successful. To make it a failure was reserved for the agency of General Halleck." -Emory Upton

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just how many more books can be written about Lincoln, Grant, and Lee? There is only so much information out there about them.
                            “When you're in jail, a good friend will be trying to bail you out. A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'.”
                            ― Groucho Marx

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The reaction of Grant "eulogists' is only the second-most predictable reaction to this book I've seen on this forum. Or in this very thread.
                              "Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!" -Daniel Webster

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X