The Ulysses S. Grant Thread

[samgrant]

I was inspired to start this thread apart from those threads and discussions strictly relating to the General Grant of the war.

After all, he was not just the war general, but also the president at crucial times of reconstruction and for a time the most popular person of his era, so this thread is meant to be open to any and all facets of Hiram Ulysses Grant.

What spurred me was the following post which I thought did not belong in the "Recruits Meet and Greet" area:



"I revere General Grant for his generalship.

In other areas - business and politics - his judgment was notoriously faulty. He was a failure at business and an even worse failure as a president, trusting any thieving scoundrel with the assets of a nation. I hope you understand if I don't think much of his opinions off the battlefield."



Well, as to the initial point that Grant was an utter failure in the world outside of the (wartime) army, I just had happened to reflect on that earlier today as I was starting to read the book "Grant's Secret Service".

Why should this guy who failed at business ventures, farming, bill collecting, real estate, etc., be such a success at war?

Even in his early years, he was not particularly good at anything other than drawing and riding horses.

I think his heart was just not into those mundane pursuits, but when something he thought important, he devoted his whole being to it. And apparently what was important to Grant was being a good soldier (initially).

He had distinguished service in the Mexican War including some daring-do riding and imaginative initiative.
(Read about it else where)

Then as far as the Civil War, I think he was primarily inspired by his patriotism and allegiance to the concept of Union.

He did not aspire to high office or rank, but earned it by hard work and example.

Most folks think of Grant (during the war) as a person always out there commanding his troops, and that much of that is true, but in reality Grant spent most of his time during the war over a desk (regular or improvised) analyzing Information, issuing orders, etc.

More must follow.

---

As to his presidency, well we will get to that.

----------------

So that's enough for me now. Hope any and all will contribute.


I might add that "open to any and all facets" includes whether you like him or don't, if he was a drunk or a butcher, overrated underrated, whether you think
"He's a poet, he's a picker, he's a prophet, he's a pusher
He's a pilgrim and a preacher and a problem when he's stoned
He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction" whatever.

[suwannee]

Grant was the Perfect Maverick.

A pariah to the Clausewitz types, he was that creature most despised by the professional military - an unconventional thinker, of the stripe that got Billy Mitchell courtmartialed.

Where the Clausewitz herd were attempting to fight the Napoleonic Wars over again (fighting the last war is all their overregulated minds are capable of), Grant adapted new tactics and strategy to a new war. The confidence of the president was critical, otherwise the mediocrities of the military establishment would have defeated him even more thoroughly than the CSA could have.

The key to Grant's success in war? He tossed the book, and had the support of his commander in chief. Like Patton he sought the plan that would work now and put it into action, rather than wait for a perfect (by the book) plan to come along.

For instance his handling of the Sutler Order banning Jews from serving as sutlers to the Union Army. This was straight from the Clausewitz camp, and he disarmed it with brilliant simplicity. He simply enforced the order to the max, knowing that the ensuing uproar would quickly rid him of this silly order. Where acolytes would have been cowed by this rear echelon meddling, he gave it a quick coup de grace.

In short, not being one of the sahibs of the regular Army establishment, he refused to be hobbled by them. Where Lee had to deal with the vagaries of Jeff Davis and cranks like Alexander Stevens, Grant had a get out of jail free pass from his boss to win by any means necessary.

Grant's victory was inevitable.

(I often have to resubmit posts too Sam - some glitch with the server)

[suwannee]

As regards the Late Unpleasantness and its cause;

I am firmly of the heretical cant that its cause was unresolved animosity from the English Civil War - in fact I consider it the final episode of that war.

Critical to understanding this is the realization that the equation had changed considerably over the years - but it was in fact Royalists vs. Roundhead Republicans - ECWIII.

The Royalists had become the Rebels; Scots, Irish, and English adherents of the Stuart Cause. Fredericksburg and Gettysburg were in fact echoes of Culloden and the Boyne.
New England Puritan Republican against Southern Scots-Irish/Cavaliers. The old hatred from Edgehill and Marston Moor were still very much alive, and both sides were the result of exile during the changing fortunes of that long death struggle for the crown of Britain.

Witness that North and South were allied against the Hanover kings, which both camps despised. New England by their hatred of English monarchy, the South by their hatred of the Hanoverian usurpers of the Stuart kingship.

This united them in ECWII, the American Revolution, which was clearly an extenuation of Roundhead vs. Royalist. The Scots-Irish and Southern Stuart royalists also viewed the Hanover kings as a common enemy.

After that the old hatred resumed, New England contempt for Scots-Irish "ghillies" and drawling cavaliers with their estates resurfaced and resumed after the brief honeymoon of the Revolution was over.

Slavery was the result of an unholy alliance between northern industry and southern agriculture. Both plantation owner and factory owner were dependant on each other for the booming prosperity they enjoyed. It was however a marriage made in hell, doomed to failure.

The hatred was already there, and ancient - slavery was a new element, and wouldn't have mattered had north and south shared the same interests.

The booming mills of the north, built for accomodating the plantation-factory alliance in advancing America on the world market, are what gave the Union the logistical strength to outlast the CSA. However the elimination of slave labor in the South dealt a crippling blow to that northern industry, making it uncompetitive on the world market due to higher labor costs.

Without cheap cotton, molasses, and turpentine coming from the South, the northern industries reliant on them went into decline - especially in New England. Witness that one of the main aims of Reconstruction was the rapid resumption of Southern agriculture supplying these staples. Plantations that had been cavalier estates were taken over by northern entrepreneurs - freedmen began an exodus to the north to escape Union troop detachments that were rounding up "vagrant" ex-slaves and forcing them to return to work (for wages) on plantations - at the behest of their new northern owners.

This was an effort that failed, causing an industrial depression in the north after the war - that led to the westward expansion.

The cause of the war was an ancient hatred from Old England - abolition of slavery was merely one of its side effects.

[OpnDownfall]

Grant seems to had the sort of mind who saw the big picture, not letting details deter or sidetrack his efforts in attaining the goal (he didn't sweat the small stuff).
He had a 'great' reluctance to retrace his steps, which he avoided doing, as much as he could. Such a quirk, allowed Grant to plan as carefully as possible and once the decision was made, not to worry overmuch about the myriad of 'What If's' that usually surround all important decisions.
He fought the way circumstances seemed to require. Terrain on the Mississippi River, dictated a war of maneuver. Detailed planning and maticulous preparation for a set piece battle at Chattanooga and the rolling, continuous battle of attrition against Lee and the AoNV, that seemed to be required because of the imperfections of the AoP.
At heart Grant was a simple man, not in the prejorative sense of being foolish, but in being plain and natural. Probably why it was so easy for supposed friends to deceive him.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by suwannee

As regards the Late Unpleasantness and its cause;

I am firmly of the heretical cant that its cause was unresolved animosity from the English Civil War - in fact I consider it the final episode of that war.

Critical to understanding this is the realization that the equation had changed considerably over the years - but it was in fact Royalists vs. Roundhead Republicans - ECWIII.

The Royalists had become the Rebels; Scots, Irish, and English adherents of the Stuart Cause. Fredericksburg and Gettysburg were in fact echoes of Culloden and the Boyne.
New England Puritan Republican against Southern Scots-Irish/Cavaliers. The old hatred from Edgehill and Marston Moor were still very much alive, and both sides were the result of exile during the changing fortunes of that long death struggle for the crown of Britain.

Witness that North and South were allied against the Hanover kings, which both camps despised. New England by their hatred of English monarchy, the South by their hatred of the Hanoverian usurpers of the Stuart kingship.

This united them in ECWII, the American Revolution, which was clearly an extenuation of Roundhead vs. Royalist. The Scots-Irish and Southern Stuart royalists also viewed the Hanover kings as a common enemy.

After that the old hatred resumed, New England contempt for Scots-Irish "ghillies" and drawling cavaliers with their estates resurfaced and resumed after the brief honeymoon of the Revolution was over.

Slavery was the result of an unholy alliance between northern industry and southern agriculture. Both plantation owner and factory owner were dependant on each other for the booming prosperity they enjoyed. It was however a marriage made in hell, doomed to failure.

The hatred was already there, and ancient - slavery was a new element, and wouldn't have mattered had north and south shared the same interests.

The booming mills of the north, built for accomodating the plantation-factory alliance in advancing America on the world market, are what gave the Union the logistical strength to outlast the CSA. However the elimination of slave labor in the South dealt a crippling blow to that northern industry, making it uncompetitive on the world market due to higher labor costs.

Without cheap cotton, molasses, and turpentine coming from the South, the northern industries reliant on them went into decline - especially in New England. Witness that one of the main aims of Reconstruction was the rapid resumption of Southern agriculture supplying these staples. Plantations that had been cavalier estates were taken over by northern entrepreneurs - freedmen began an exodus to the north to escape Union troop detachments that were rounding up "vagrant" ex-slaves and forcing them to return to work (for wages) on plantations - at the behest of their new northern owners.

This was an effort that failed, causing an industrial depression in the north after the war - that led to the westward expansion.

The cause of the war was an ancient hatred from Old England - abolition of slavery was merely one of its side effects.

And just how does Grant figure into this theory?

[ole]

A pariah to the Clausewitz types,

Interesting observations on Grant, but do recognize that Clausewitz wasn't in use before the CW. I think my recollection is not too far off in that Clausewitz wasn't translated into English until late in the war. Losing the reference does not detract from your observation.

I think you're saying that Grant thought outside the box. He wasn't alone in that; Lee, Jackson, and many others played fast and loose with the "rules." Grant had more than that. He had vision, purpose, trustworthy lieutenants and a way of issuing clear orders. And, more than all that, he didn't quit.
Ole

[suwannee]

Originally Posted by ole

Interesting observations on Grant, but do recognize that Clausewitz wasn't in use before the CW. I think my recollection is not too far off in that Clausewitz wasn't translated into English until late in the war. Losing the reference does not detract from your observation.

I think you're saying that Grant thought outside the box. He wasn't alone in that; Lee, Jackson, and many others played fast and loose with the "rules." Grant had more than that. He had vision, purpose, trustworthy lieutenants and a way of issuing clear orders. And, more than all that, he didn't quit.
Ole

Grant certainly didn't invent the technique - Xenophon, Leonidas, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Arthur Wellesley, (Mitchell, Rommel, Patton).

Neither can Clausewitz claim the honors; where the above were tactical thinkers, those they defeated were following a script - the Book.
It might be gospel at West Point and Sandhurst, but it's a recipe for disaster when facing an innovative commander. These are rare, but the Clausewitz you have with you always.

There must be a misunderstanding - it was my impression I was invited to this thread to comment on the cause of the Civil War.

Santayana is apropos; Americans have forgotten this country's roots in the English Civil War, and have relived it in this country as a result. ECW remains a skeleton in our closet and the rattle of its bones (and bloody shirt) still raise the stink of hatred from a long forgotten war in a foreign country.
No sooner had the Revolution ended but the arch Roundhead Adams and the Cavalier Jefferson were at drawn daggers over the old hatred, and it influenced our national psyche from the start.

Our history didn't begin in 1776. It merely took a new direction from the old. Americans have forgotten that history and run afoul of Santayana's injunction. Truly apt was the playing of "The World Turned Upside Down" at the Yorktown surrender, because we are still playing Tory and Whig in a supposedly new country. Except that the cat has become the mouse, and rainwater flows up the spout.

It is plain to see if you look - but Ignorance rules.

[OpnDownfall]

a minimalist argument can be made comparing the North to the Roundheads of Parliament and Royalist Cavaliers. That the 'reason' for the establishment of the Original 13 Colonies, did have an effect (how much or little is debatable) on what kind societier developed in them.
Interestingly, it would appear that the Original Southern Colonies were mainly established for economic reasons as opposed to the those in the North which seemed to have mainly been philosophical reasons. This, of course, cannot be stretched too far, much like Santayana's thesis.

[ole]

English sectionalism transferred to these shores in an interesting angle -- especially in support of the sectionalism-caused-the-war argument. It's been brought up before but never satisfactorily discussed because (apparently) we've not until now had anyone aboard with any demonstrated conviction either way.

I see merit in suwanee's observation -- there were at least two highly-different cultures of the same ethnic origin involved in establishing the colonies. However, I would think the influx of immigrants with different ethnic origins, plus the passage of some more than 100 years would have moderated the original differences.

I lean toward an idea that the cavalier/roundhead separation devolved into one of aristocrat/peasant. And the aristocrats planned a second American Revolution.
Ole

[suwannee]

My hijack of this thread was unintended, apologies to SG - perhaps these posts can be shifted to a relevant topic.

It's plain as a checkered flag.
America was part of Britain, lock, stock and barrel - there was no difference. In fact it was a stretch to call America a colony it being more of an English shire.

New England/Massachusetts was the Puritan stronghold of English Republican sentiment, founded as such; that was the only philosophical element in the equation. No King but Christ.

Georgia, Carolina, Virginia - the indentured/convict states, the Botany Bay of North America; Jacobin, Irish, Scots rebels - recipients of the fury of Jeffries et al - those fleeing the wrath of Cromwell, and later those fleeing the Restoration - Covenanters, Highlanders, Jews, Catholics, either transported as convicts (like my forbears) or fleeing the on again off again republic/monarchy.

The first baby steps may have been for tobacco, but the great impetus was almost totally that "war of the English Succession" - royalists and republicans alternately fleeing or exiling. First the Puritans from James and Charles Stuart, then royalists fleeing the Lord Protector of the English Republic, then Republicans from Charles II and James II, finally both from the Orangemen and the Hanovers.

The pressure cooker finally blew with the Revolution and was resolved regarding the Hanoverians, but the catalyst of America was the English Civil War.

Why didn't the Emancipation Proclaimation cover all states? Obviously Lincoln wasn't interested in the total eradication of slavery; he could easily have done so.

There was animosity between north and south even when slavery was acceptable in the northern states - this came straight from the English Civil War. Many feel that the invention of the cotton gin was the impetus for african slavery, giving the north in particular the chance to dominate the world textile markets with cheap, plentiful cotton - as indeed happened.

The abolition issue gained steam with England's abolition of slavery, and was a fringe issue before that.

Why does it matter? Ignorance of history and the simmering hatred of a foreign war - which we should have put aside - caused the most bloody and vicious war we have ever been in.

That ignorance and simmering hatred is still with us - it is time to resolve it before it destroys America.