Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Forcing the Exchanges of Attrition seem to be at the very top of his mathematical skills
Beowulf
Wow.. once again you show your complete lack of knowledge in the area. Grant was a very good mathematician, bordering on almost brilliant. At the top of his class in West Point and considered for an assistant professor of mathematics at West Point.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
All of the conspiracy theories that have been thrown around over these years, such as Stanton was behind it, or Johnson was involved, etc., etc., are complete and total bunk.
I suggest that you go and pick up the scholarly works on the assassination, not rely on internet sites and what you have heard. These are patently misleading, and, as I know has been stated on his site before, you can find anything online. Go and pick up Blood on the Moon or American Brutus and you will get a good understanding of the true events. These men do not rely on conspiracy theories to prove their points, but research that was done over several years.
If one looks at the entire story of Booth in his machinations to kidnap and then assassinate the president, one will see that he was a consumate player. He did his best to implicate people that were not even a part of the plan. He was able to implicate Louis Weichmann, and Samuel Mudd just by having been seen with them or, in the case of Weichmann, confiding certain things to them to make it look as if he was part of the plot. The note left for Johnson was done for one of two logical reasons: 1) to ascertain if the Vice President was in his rooms or 2) to attempt to implicate Johnson. Booth wove a very tangled web of deception in the hopes that he could escape and that if he was captured, it would be very difficult to tell fact from fiction. He was an actor, after all, and a very good one when it came to this particular play.
Go pick up Michael Kaufmann's American Brutus and you will see what is probably about as close to the truth as will ever be gotten, and debunks the various conspiracy theories out there quite well.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Wow.. once again you show your complete lack of knowledge in the area. Grant was a very good mathematician, bordering on almost brilliant. At the top of his class in West Point and considered for an assistant professor of mathematics at West Point.
Forcing the Exchanges of Attrition would be at the top of any mathematician's skills... It is the main concept in Chess.
But clearly his abacus did not include Conspiracy... this requires a depth of thought beyond mathematics... or Chess.
As Kirk said to Spock once, on Star Trek, "Not Chess, Mr. Spock! Poker!"
Chess is a game of combinations which must be calculated mathematically, but there are no surprises in Chess, unless you miscalculate...
Conspiracy, however, requires much more than simple figures.... Conspiracy requires a knowledge of Calculus, and Topology, which use imaginary numbers, and forms, and thus leave the linear mathematicians in the counting houses. Conspiracy requires doing two or more things at once... and not getting them confused with each other. Thinking outside the box.
As does being a general in battle. Grant knew his math, but he was no Stonewall Jackson, and lacked this man's
brilliance in that arena.
As Grant obviously did have the 'blood for felony' to do the work of attrition with real soldiers... he also lacked the brilliance for conservative strategy, leading Her Satanic Majesty to refer to him as The Butcher for his massive losses.
(What a lovely group!)
And lacking the brilliance for conservative strategy, he also lacked the
level of stealth necessary for conspiracy, as well...
Starting to get warm in here. Please dial it back a notch or two.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
And lacking the brilliance for conservative strategy, he also lacked the level of stealth necessary for conspiracy, as well...
I'm impressed with your ability to poke the line without actually crossing it. The quoted statement assumes that you are right about Grant "lacking the brilliance," is challengeable, but not worth the time and effort it would take to make you take it back.
Show us, please, why you think that Grant "lacked the brilliance for conservative strategy." Although I firmly believe that silence is not definitive evidence of approval, in this case silence will be indicative. One point. One answer.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The main point I would like here addressed is Grant's role in this, his strange absence from Ford's theatre, and
his emotional well-being later on...
Do his memoirs give any indication of anything out of the way during the time of April 14, 1865?
Was he dealing with either earned or unearned guilt during this time period? Had he been 'warned' to stay away? Did he not speak about it, until he could not physically speak about it, and then, do his writings give any indication that he KNEW something that might have changed the course of history?
True, no one (not even Lincoln) could stand Mary Todd for very long... and Julia was glad to be out of that obligation for the evening... but this was five days after Appomattox and Grant is very conspicuous by his absence.
What did Grant know, and when?
------------------------------------------------------
Beowulf:
To my way of thinking this suggests that Grant had something to do with the Lincoln assassination.
I don't know the answers to most of the questions you ask in your response to my post.
I've struggled to understand the position of the South in the Civil War. After all, I do have Southern ancestors and I want to understand their part in secession and their attitudes. However, as hard as I've tried, I've failed to find any excuse in their attempt to break up the United States. States rights just doesn't fly with me. I see it as an excuse to expand slavery into the territories, and the North was simply not going to accept that. The South had their side of it, whether I understand or approve of it or not, and I would never deny that they fought like tigers and their defeat was tragic for them, as was the destruction of their property.
But they made their choices, and as Grant said in his Personal Memoirs, "When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, of they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror must be the result."
I've posted my thoughts on the matter of Grant and Lincoln's assassination, and I respectfully decline the option of arguing the matter. In my short time on this forum I've recognized that things often become a bit too intense for me.
Jules
__________________ "In leaving this unpretentious record, therefore, I seek to do simply what I would have had my fathers do for me.
KINSMEN OF THE COMING CENTURIES, I BID YOU HAIL AND GODSPEED!"
[From his Introduction to "Memoirs of a Volunteer," by John Beatty - published in 1879
Show us, please, why you think that Grant "lacked the brilliance for conservative strategy." Although I firmly believe that silence is not definitive evidence of approval, in this case silence will be indicative. One point. One answer.
ole
Ole,
Pardon my intrusion, but your post brought something to mind that you've probably read for yourself, but might be worth quoting here. From the first chapter, first page of Catton's "Grant Moves South," we are told:
"The Governor of Illinois remembered that 'he was plain, very plain,' and men said that he usually went about camp in a short blue coat and an old slouch hat, wearing nothing that indicated his rank, nothing indeed that even proved he was in the army. The men of his regiment spoke of him as 'the quiet man,' and afterward they admitted that they never exactly understood him.....
"....There was nothing about Ulysses S. Grant that struck the eye, and this puzzled people, after it was all over, because it seemed reasonable that greatness, somewhere along the line, should look like greatness. Grant could never look like anything, and he could never make things he did look very special; and afterward men could remember nothing more than the fact that when he came around things seemed to happen. The most they could say, usually, was that U.S. Grant had a good deal of common sense."
That's good enough for me.
Most of the actual brilliance in the North came from Abraham Lincoln, although we see a spark of it here and there in men like Sherman, Chamberlain and a few others. I recall reading that Sherman, after his first meeting with Lincoln, remarked to someone that he had come away knowing that there had been "one genius in that room, and it wasn't me."
Grant did what he did, and he did it well. While McClellan bragged about being called upon to save the country, Grant actually did it. How deeply he thought, we'll never know, but we do know that this man, suffering the ravages of throat cancer, near death before he finished it, wrote an extensive autobiography that stands today as one of the most coherent manuscripts to come out of the Civil War.
__________________ "In leaving this unpretentious record, therefore, I seek to do simply what I would have had my fathers do for me.
KINSMEN OF THE COMING CENTURIES, I BID YOU HAIL AND GODSPEED!"
[From his Introduction to "Memoirs of a Volunteer," by John Beatty - published in 1879
I will restrain myself to keep from highjacking this thread further on Grant's military prowess. Suffice it to say those who say that his strategy and tactics were merely overwhelming numbers and attrition are woefully short of the mark and I will defend my man Grant's military prowess in the appropriate thread, if necessary, but not here.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
There will always be open holes that will exist with any high profile assassinations. In keeping with the original intent of President Lincoln's assassination; it should be established that there was no established 'Secret Service' per se; other than Pinkerton's service; to which was suplimented by US Army 'Home Guards.'
I would invite thought back, to the company in the President's box at Ford's Theater; to which Major Rathbone and his fiance` were in the box with the Lincolns. He did struggle with Booth and was that 'personal body guard,' but--he wasn't carrying his revolver--which was a hind-sight error but, the arguement could be he was guest-not protection; yet--I think even an unarmed off duty police officer-even out of jurisdiction; would do his duty in protecting the President--even giving up his live in doing so. I would.
There was only one police officer on duty to act as protection/guard. Even then, with such duty-there should have been military details for the escort of the President; to which--I would have hoped an officer armed with pistols and the escort detail with rifles would have been somewhere nearby. Again, all hind sight. I find such information missing from the reports striking. However, I admit I have not finished entirely the official records of the assassination. But, these come from the military slant.
For me, with the luxury of being from these times -- I would have had two police officers, as to permit one to go do his business and be relieved. I would have had military surround the block, which would have included the rear of the theater and the 'then' three alley ways leading to the streets - F. Street and E. Street, NW, on 9th Street.
I would also think, that Mrs. Grant would have told her husband what all she had experienced and witnessed; to which photographs would have been made of the suspects to which she could have identified as to whom made calls on her.
It is very possible, that the assassination of both Grant and Lincoln was afoot. To carry on with just Lincoln and the other officers of Lincoln's cabniet was to far along as to not be bothered with the absence of Grant. But, information would have been easy to gain-knowing Grant was out of town as not to interfere with the assassination plot and getaway.
There is also the missing comments; that Lincoln had a dream that he would not have long to live; before his trip to Ford's Theater.
It would have been an interesting development, if Mrs. Grant's encounters lead to an investigation and or to the change of plans--such as more soldiers and police on the detail; more soldiers at the doorway. Women's intuition should never be ignored. In those days though--women especially had to be careful as not to be labeled 'crazy' or 'witch.'
Another interesting bit, was in reading the Official Records of the Rebellion in relation to the hunt for John W. Booth; Mr. Ford who owned the theater was South when the assassination took place. He was arrested and held until the investigation concluded he was not part of the plot.
Further--it is recognized that the conspiracy involved the planned assassination of Vice-President Johnson. It could be likely that the visit by Booth to Johnson would have been gleening information as to knit up the details of the combined and mulitple attack at once. Strip the entire US Government of it's Administration. It would be no different then the visitors to Mrs. Grant--gosh knows if other 'calls' were made. Yet, the founders had also put in safeguards as to have a sequential line of successors to the office of President, e.g. Speaker of the House --which, curiously has not been looked into as being a possible victim or the needed puppet for the "Lost Cause." IF all of the intended victims had died from their wounds; the US Government would still function--something that terrorists then and now fail to understand; and perhaps would fall on a person that would be their worst nightmare as well as to inflame patriotic duty.
Now, this also can lead into a different vein--should this total wipeout of the Lincoln Administration; put in motion the quicker joining of Confederate and Union military forces into one joint cause, as it wasn't authorized by the Confederacy; as to catch those that terrorized the Nation, no matter how fragile it had been restarted as "The United States?" --Just food for thought that could be another 'What if.'
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
