What do you think?
Rate this book
General Grant and the Verdict of History: Memoir, Memory, and the Civil War
General Ulysses S. Grant is best remembered today as a war-winning general, and he certainly deserves credit for his efforts on behalf of the Union. But has he received too much credit at the expense of other men? Have others who fought the war with him suffered unfairly at his hands? General Grant and the Verdict of Memoir, Memory, and the Civil War
explores these issues.
Professor Frank P. Varney examines Grant’s relationship with three noted Civil War the brash and uncompromising “Fighting Joe” Hooker; George H. Thomas, the stellar commander who earned the sobriquet “Rock of Chickamauga”; and Gouverneur Kemble Warren, who served honorably and well in every major action of the Army of the Potomac before being relieved less than two weeks before Appomattox, and only after he had played a prominent part in the major Union victory at Five Forks.
In his earlier book General Grant and the Rewriting of History , Dr. Varney studied the tempestuous relationship between Grant and Union General William S. Rosecrans. During the war, Rosecrans was considered by many of his contemporaries to be on par with Grant himself; today, he is largely forgotten. Rosecrans’s star dimmed, argues Varney, because Grant orchestrated the effort. Unbeknownst to most students of the war, Grant used his official reports, interviews with the press, and his memoirs to influence how future generations would remember the war and his part in it. Aided greatly by his two terms as president, by the clarity and eloquence of his memoirs, and in particular by the dramatic backdrop against which those memoirs were written, our historical memory has been influenced to a degree greater than many realize.
It is beyond time to return to the original sources—the letters, journals, reports, and memoirs of other witnesses and the transcripts of courts-martial— to examine Grant’s story from a fresh perspective. The results are enlightening and more than a little disturbing.
explores these issues.
Professor Frank P. Varney examines Grant’s relationship with three noted Civil War the brash and uncompromising “Fighting Joe” Hooker; George H. Thomas, the stellar commander who earned the sobriquet “Rock of Chickamauga”; and Gouverneur Kemble Warren, who served honorably and well in every major action of the Army of the Potomac before being relieved less than two weeks before Appomattox, and only after he had played a prominent part in the major Union victory at Five Forks.
In his earlier book General Grant and the Rewriting of History , Dr. Varney studied the tempestuous relationship between Grant and Union General William S. Rosecrans. During the war, Rosecrans was considered by many of his contemporaries to be on par with Grant himself; today, he is largely forgotten. Rosecrans’s star dimmed, argues Varney, because Grant orchestrated the effort. Unbeknownst to most students of the war, Grant used his official reports, interviews with the press, and his memoirs to influence how future generations would remember the war and his part in it. Aided greatly by his two terms as president, by the clarity and eloquence of his memoirs, and in particular by the dramatic backdrop against which those memoirs were written, our historical memory has been influenced to a degree greater than many realize.
It is beyond time to return to the original sources—the letters, journals, reports, and memoirs of other witnesses and the transcripts of courts-martial— to examine Grant’s story from a fresh perspective. The results are enlightening and more than a little disturbing.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
March 19, 2026
The last few decades have seen a re-emergence of Ulysses S. Grant as American hero. Books like Ron Chernow’s massive biography Grant have served as a corrective to the decades-long false, Lost Cause narrative that Grant was just a drunken butcher of a general, and a corrupt and ineffective president. That was always an unfair and biased assessment, and recent studies of the man have emphasized his strengths as a Union general and overall commander, as well as giving him credit for supporting Reconstruction efforts as president by vigorously combating the terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan.
Frank Varney’s General Grant and the Verdict of History: Memoir, Memory, and the Civil War isn’t exactly a corrective of the corrective. It doesn’t seek to dispute or discredit Grant’s role in saving the Union and defeating the slavocracy of the South. But it does fill in some dark details that illustrate an ambition every bit as aggressive and brutal as his Overland Campaign, fueled by a vindictiveness that destroyed several good men who Grant perceived as standing in his path to glory. In other words, the material in this book short circuits any Grant hagiography by illustrating serious flaws co-existing with his considerable skills.
This book’s premise is that Grant was both ambitious for power and glory, and a first class hater. It posits, and goes a long way toward proving that he and a cabal of his chosen subordinates actively worked to discredit and undermine other capable commanders who might receive credit for victories, and share post-war glories that Grant wanted to accrue all to himself and his hand picked favorites. The officers he set about to ruin or to marginalize include General William Rosecrans, General George Thomas, General Joseph Hooker, and General G.K. Warren.
Varney only touches on Grant’s undermining of Rosecrans, having already dedicated an earlier book to that subject (General Grant and the Rewriting of History: How the Destruction of General William S. Rosecrans Influenced Our Understanding of the Civil War). He spends the first half of of this book detailing Grant’s attacks and undermining of General Thomas and General Hooker, with emphasis on the battles of Chattanooga, Franklin, Nashville, and the Atlanta Campaign. He then spends the entire second half of the volume examining what can only be described as a vicious vendetta against General Warren, a hero of Gettysburg and one of the Union’s more capable General officers. Varney makes a strong case in each instance that no one but a complete sycophant of Grant as hero can ignore.
I had only one issue with this book that made me dock a star from my review. Varney strongly implies that the information in this book is new or novel. He definitely states that Civil War historians have taken Grant’s memoirs at face value and that the picture Grant painted of these officers has been blindly accepted. He repeatedly references only one Civil War historian, Steven Woodworth, to make this case.
The problem is that much of this material is not unique to this book, and quite a few historians have used the same evidence to reach the same conclusions. In Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas, Benson Brobrick spends roughly half the book talking about Grant and Sherman’s unfair campaign to lessen and marginalize General Thomas’s reputation. Thomas B. Buell builds a case in The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War that Thomas was among the top rank of Union generals, using much of the same evidence. In Decision in the West: The Atlanta Campaign of 1864, Albert E. Castel makes the same points about the effectiveness of both Thomas and Hooker in the Atlanta Campaign, even going so far as to indicate that Thomas would have been better suited to lead that campaign, and notes how the animosity of Grant and Sherman towards those generals not only hurt them personally, but was detrimental to the campaign. Wiley Sword draws the same conclusions about the contributions of Thomas and Hooker in both Mountain Touched with Fire: Chattanooga Besieged 1863, and The Confederacy’s Last Hurrah: Spring Hill, Franklin, and Nashville. And finally, Peter Cozzens uses the same evidence to paint similar profiles of Thomas and Hooker and their problematic relationship with Grant in The Shipwreck of Their Hopes: The Battle for Chattanooga.
So the evidence used and conclusions reached by Varney in this book are neither unique nor new, and I was bothered that he strongly implied that they were. Still, he puts it all nicely into a compact package, and reinforces the information already available across multiple sources. Also, his longest section, his case on Grant’s years long campaign of personal destruction against General Warren is impressive, a true vindication of Warren’s reputation, and a significant black mark on Grant’s honor and integrity, and I know of no other source which takes on Warren’s case in such exhaustive detail. Even if you are already familiar with all the sources I listed above, Varney’s book is still worthwhile for this material alone.
Frank Varney’s General Grant and the Verdict of History: Memoir, Memory, and the Civil War isn’t exactly a corrective of the corrective. It doesn’t seek to dispute or discredit Grant’s role in saving the Union and defeating the slavocracy of the South. But it does fill in some dark details that illustrate an ambition every bit as aggressive and brutal as his Overland Campaign, fueled by a vindictiveness that destroyed several good men who Grant perceived as standing in his path to glory. In other words, the material in this book short circuits any Grant hagiography by illustrating serious flaws co-existing with his considerable skills.
This book’s premise is that Grant was both ambitious for power and glory, and a first class hater. It posits, and goes a long way toward proving that he and a cabal of his chosen subordinates actively worked to discredit and undermine other capable commanders who might receive credit for victories, and share post-war glories that Grant wanted to accrue all to himself and his hand picked favorites. The officers he set about to ruin or to marginalize include General William Rosecrans, General George Thomas, General Joseph Hooker, and General G.K. Warren.
Varney only touches on Grant’s undermining of Rosecrans, having already dedicated an earlier book to that subject (General Grant and the Rewriting of History: How the Destruction of General William S. Rosecrans Influenced Our Understanding of the Civil War). He spends the first half of of this book detailing Grant’s attacks and undermining of General Thomas and General Hooker, with emphasis on the battles of Chattanooga, Franklin, Nashville, and the Atlanta Campaign. He then spends the entire second half of the volume examining what can only be described as a vicious vendetta against General Warren, a hero of Gettysburg and one of the Union’s more capable General officers. Varney makes a strong case in each instance that no one but a complete sycophant of Grant as hero can ignore.
I had only one issue with this book that made me dock a star from my review. Varney strongly implies that the information in this book is new or novel. He definitely states that Civil War historians have taken Grant’s memoirs at face value and that the picture Grant painted of these officers has been blindly accepted. He repeatedly references only one Civil War historian, Steven Woodworth, to make this case.
The problem is that much of this material is not unique to this book, and quite a few historians have used the same evidence to reach the same conclusions. In Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas, Benson Brobrick spends roughly half the book talking about Grant and Sherman’s unfair campaign to lessen and marginalize General Thomas’s reputation. Thomas B. Buell builds a case in The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War that Thomas was among the top rank of Union generals, using much of the same evidence. In Decision in the West: The Atlanta Campaign of 1864, Albert E. Castel makes the same points about the effectiveness of both Thomas and Hooker in the Atlanta Campaign, even going so far as to indicate that Thomas would have been better suited to lead that campaign, and notes how the animosity of Grant and Sherman towards those generals not only hurt them personally, but was detrimental to the campaign. Wiley Sword draws the same conclusions about the contributions of Thomas and Hooker in both Mountain Touched with Fire: Chattanooga Besieged 1863, and The Confederacy’s Last Hurrah: Spring Hill, Franklin, and Nashville. And finally, Peter Cozzens uses the same evidence to paint similar profiles of Thomas and Hooker and their problematic relationship with Grant in The Shipwreck of Their Hopes: The Battle for Chattanooga.
So the evidence used and conclusions reached by Varney in this book are neither unique nor new, and I was bothered that he strongly implied that they were. Still, he puts it all nicely into a compact package, and reinforces the information already available across multiple sources. Also, his longest section, his case on Grant’s years long campaign of personal destruction against General Warren is impressive, a true vindication of Warren’s reputation, and a significant black mark on Grant’s honor and integrity, and I know of no other source which takes on Warren’s case in such exhaustive detail. Even if you are already familiar with all the sources I listed above, Varney’s book is still worthwhile for this material alone.
September 17, 2024
Exceptional research and incredible account to understand why Grant sabotaged the reputation of not one, but many subordinates of the Union. Utilizing primary sources instead of “historians agree”, Varney determines why Grant wanted to remove or replace Thomas, Warren and Hooker and Resecrans. What other soldier testimony, writing, telegraph or God forbid re-writing of reports in the War Department following the war provides reason for Grant’s action?
If you like Civil War and you revere TRUTH, I recommend to read this new book. Dr. Varney lays it out. I appreciate most his welcome to criticism and being challenged. It’s not about what “historians agree”, it’s about what IS and what IS NOT. This was a great book.
If you like Civil War and you revere TRUTH, I recommend to read this new book. Dr. Varney lays it out. I appreciate most his welcome to criticism and being challenged. It’s not about what “historians agree”, it’s about what IS and what IS NOT. This was a great book.
April 7, 2023
Following up his earlier book which documented Grant’s vindictive destruction of William Rosecrans, Varney turns his analytical brilliance to Grant’s deliberate discrediting of Joe Hooker, George Thomas and Gouverneur Warren. His arguments are clear and compelling, as is the conclusion: Grant was a first rate hater, who despised any general who dared criticize him or rival him. Varney spends most of the book on a detailed dissection of the Warren case, proving from the official inquiry (which Grant had obstructed for 14 years) that it was not Sheridan who chose to remove Warren from command, but Grant who intended from even before the battle to use it as a pretext to remove Warren.
Given all the recent efforts to reintroduce Grant hagiography, this is essential reading to remind us of the ugly truth about Grant’s deceptions, personal jealousies and vanity.
Given all the recent efforts to reintroduce Grant hagiography, this is essential reading to remind us of the ugly truth about Grant’s deceptions, personal jealousies and vanity.
April 13, 2024
A good read and a great sequel
I’ve been waiting years for this book to come out. I thoroughly enjoyed the first volume of this set, and was not disappointed when I finally got to read this one. He mostly picks up where he left off, at Chattanooga after Grant has taken over. He goes into great detail about Grant’s attempt to undue Joe Hooker, and Thomas. The final part about his ruination of Warren is very well written and researched. There’s no way I can ever see Grant the same way again. A must read.
I’ve been waiting years for this book to come out. I thoroughly enjoyed the first volume of this set, and was not disappointed when I finally got to read this one. He mostly picks up where he left off, at Chattanooga after Grant has taken over. He goes into great detail about Grant’s attempt to undue Joe Hooker, and Thomas. The final part about his ruination of Warren is very well written and researched. There’s no way I can ever see Grant the same way again. A must read.
August 31, 2023
Different Perspective
Well documented information, somewhat interesting, if I was a scholar writing about one of the individuals mentioned it may have value. My perspective is that the information is one-sided to reinforce the authors point of view.
Well documented information, somewhat interesting, if I was a scholar writing about one of the individuals mentioned it may have value. My perspective is that the information is one-sided to reinforce the authors point of view.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews