Grant A Pragmatic Interview & Article About U. S. Grant

Bee

Captain
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
I believe that this quote best describes the approach that Brooks D. Simpson used when he undertook his biography of Ulysses S. Grant Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865, which I have read, and it also reflects very strongly in this interview, below. I found that Grant's flaws were dealt with honestly, and with the candor of someone who has found safe distance from a subject that he covers in-depth:

I have no interest in becoming Grant's advocate or antagonist, in either elevation or denigrating him. Like anyone else, Grant had his strengths and weaknesses, his virtues and his vices; if parts of his character and personality are praiseworthy, one must also concede that he was far from flawless. In short, he was human. People who search for perfect heroes reveal much more about themselves than about their subjects; so do those who make scapegoats for an age. Brooks D. Simpson, Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865, Preface xiii​

h/t cash's blog


Another well-known authority on US Grant recently passed away: Michael B. Ballard, author of U.S. Grant: The Making of a General, 1861-1863. In the article below, Michael B. Ballard addressed the myths and facts regarding U. S. Grant's drinking habits. The full text can be found at the interesting and insightful blog of Nick Sacco, Exploring the Past

Michael B. Ballard on General Grant’s Drinking Habits and the “Yazoo Bender”

U.S. Grant’s reputation for drinking too much liquor began with his time spent on the west coast before the Civil War. He missed his wife and children greatly and sought solace in whiskey. His problem was that he had a low tolerance for alcohol. Unfortunately, his reputation for drinking followed him for the rest of his career, both in the military, his presidency, and thereafter. Continues here: https://pastexplore.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/michael-b-ballard-on-general-grants-drinking-habits-and-the-yazoo-bender/
Another noteworthy speech on Grant by Professor Simpson was given at this year's CWI2016 “Grant and the Continuing Civil War,” which you can view here: http://www.c-span.org/video/?410243-5/general-grant-continuing-civil-war
 
Last edited:
It wasn't so much that Grant drank too much, but that his tolerance was close to zero.

You and I and many others can do a couple of shots and move on as if nothing was unusual.

Grant couldn't.

The famous Yazoo toot was one of those.

Now, if anyone can come up- eithm his being drunk on s campaign,























i'd like to hear it.
 
I'm not calling Grant a drunk or anything else.

I did spend an hour and a half with Mr. Simpson in a classroom earlier this year and then listened to him address the general session of a conference. I was frankly not impressed with him. That is my opinion.

He seemed to me very irritated with the notion of General Lee, placed upon a marble pedestal. Fine.

Yet, it sounded to me as though Mr. Simpson felt General Lee should be removed from the pedestal and replaced with General Grant.

U.S. Grant, on a marble pedestal. This is not ever happening, nor should it, in my opinion. Maybe Mr. Simpson will have his way, but I really doubt it. He's preaching partisan history and again, that is my opinion. YMMV.
 
U.S. Grant, on a marble pedestal. This is not ever happening, nor should it, in my opinion

You're too late Drew.:smile: But Lee can keep his as far as I'm concerned.

6346090078_9ef68ac44a_o_d.jpg
 
I'm not calling Grant a drunk or anything else.

I did spend an hour and a half with Mr. Simpson in a classroom earlier this year and then listened to him address the general session of a conference. I was frankly not impressed with him. That is my opinion.

He seemed to me very irritated with the notion of General Lee, placed upon a marble pedestal. Fine.

Yet, it sounded to me as though Mr. Simpson felt General Lee should be removed from the pedestal and replaced with General Grant.

U.S. Grant, on a marble pedestal. This is not ever happening, nor should it, in my opinion. Maybe Mr. Simpson will have his way, but I really doubt it. He's preaching partisan history and again, that is my opinion. YMMV.

I don't see how you could conclude that Dr. Simpson desires to place Grant on a pedestal when you read his words on the topic. It's just not there. I, too, saw the CWI2016 lecture on Grant, read the biography, and watched this video. In fact, towards the end of the video, Dr. Simpson specifically mentions that some of the newer biographies on Grant have been too easy on him.

I have no interest in becoming Grant's advocate or antagonist, in either elevation or denigrating him. Like anyone else, Grant had his strengths and weaknesses, his virtues and his vices; if parts of his character and personality are praiseworthy, one must also concede that he was far from flawless. In short, he was human. People who search for perfect heroes reveal much more about themselves than about their subjects; so do those who make scapegoats for an age. Brooks D. Simpson, Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865, Preface xiii​
 
I don't see how you could conclude that Dr. Simpson desires to place Grant on a pedestal when you read his words on the topic. It's just not there. I, too, saw the CWI2016 lecture on Grant, read the biography, and watched this video. In fact, towards the end of the video, Dr. Simpson specifically mentions that some of the newer biographies on Grant have been too easy on him.

I have no interest in becoming Grant's advocate or antagonist, in either elevation or denigrating him. Like anyone else, Grant had his strengths and weaknesses, his virtues and his vices; if parts of his character and personality are praiseworthy, one must also concede that he was far from flawless. In short, he was human. People who search for perfect heroes reveal much more about themselves than about their subjects; so do those who make scapegoats for an age. Brooks D. Simpson, Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865, Preface xiii​
To be honest, that means actually little. I would rather here that from someone evaluating his work rather than him trying to sell me on him being neutral or unbiased. Everyone wants to sell themselves as unbiased when they publish a work. I haven't read is book or video but his own quote again doesn't hold a great amount of significance.
 
I don't see how you could conclude that Dr. Simpson desires to place Grant on a pedestal when you read his words on the topic. It's just not there. I, too, saw the CWI2016 lecture on Grant, read the biography, and watched this video. In fact, towards the end of the video, Dr. Simpson specifically mentions that some of the newer biographies on Grant have been too easy on him.

I have no interest in becoming Grant's advocate or antagonist, in either elevation or denigrating him. Like anyone else, Grant had his strengths and weaknesses, his virtues and his vices; if parts of his character and personality are praiseworthy, one must also concede that he was far from flawless. In short, he was human. People who search for perfect heroes reveal much more about themselves than about their subjects; so do those who make scapegoats for an age. Brooks D. Simpson, Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865, Preface xiii​

You might post his televised lecture/speech. That would provide full context.
 
To be honest, that means actually little. I would rather here that from someone evaluating his work rather than him trying to sell me on him being neutral or unbiased. Everyone wants to sell themselves as unbiased when they publish a work. I haven't read is book or video but his own quote again doesn't hold a great amount of significance.

I am not a professional book reviewer, but as I said above "it (the quote) also reflects very strongly in this interview, below. I found that Grant's flaws were dealt with honestly, and with the candor of someone who has found safe distance from a subject that he covers in-depth"
 
You might post his televised lecture/speech. That would provide full context.

I have it around here, somewhere -- I will add it to the post.
 
I think both Grant and Lee are fascinating individuals for different reasons. I think history has been unkind to Grant until lately. He probably wasn't well suited to be president, but I don't think he did a horrible job other than being surrounded by corrupt politicians. I find his honest approach to things refreshing compared to some others.
Both were prominent players in our addictive subject.


When we get to chipping off the marble, neither qualifies as perfect.
 
He seemed to me very irritated with the notion of General Lee, placed upon a marble pedestal. Fine.

Yet, it sounded to me as though Mr. Simpson felt General Lee should be removed from the pedestal and replaced with General Grant.

U.S. Grant, on a marble pedestal. This is not ever happening, nor should it, in my opinion. Maybe Mr. Simpson will have his way, but I really doubt it. He's preaching partisan history and again, that is my opinion. YMMV.

Just to follow up: I posted the video from CWI2016, and in the process I read the transcript beginning to finish. I found no reference to Lee, specifically, as the lecture is one that pertains to topic of Reconstruction. Perhaps you could highlight the section where this is discussed?
 
Just to follow up: I posted the video from CWI2016, and in the process I read the transcript beginning to finish. I found no reference to Lee, specifically, as the lecture is one that pertains to topic of Reconstruction. Perhaps you could highlight the section where this is discussed?

I added it at the end of the OP -- there is also a transcript of the lecture on the site.

Thank you, General Bee. I was there and just watched the whole thing again. I'm sticking to my initial reaction, an attempt to elevate President Grant and grind modern swords. That wasn't happening in the 1870s, no matter how badly modern historians wish it to be.

Mr. Simpson does convey some of Grant's consternation at General Lee's reputation, but I will submit this was earned and there's no doubt Grant was annoyed. He never up-ended an Army twice as big as his own and I'm sure that smarted for the rest of his life.
 
I'm sticking to my initial reaction, an attempt to elevate President Grant and grind modern swords. That wasn't happening in the 1870s, no matter how badly modern historians wish it to be.

I am interested in your description "grind modern swords" -- I have never heard of it, and I am not sure what it means.
 
I am interested in your description "grind modern swords" -- I have never heard of it, and I am not sure what it means.

It means he's beating a modern drum and misrepresenting history in ways that comport with his agenda. Not that his agenda is wrong, only that he's (attempting) to use history to support it. I don't cotton to that ****, if you'll excuse the expression.
 
Back
Top