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

[MattL]

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.

You might post his televised lecture/speech. That would provide full context.

To be fair Drew didn't cite any content or sources for his claim that he was heavily pro-Grant, Bee's one example was more.

 

[huskerblitz]

To be fair Drew didn't cite any content or sources for his claim that he was heavily pro-Grant, Bee's one example was more.

Was more what? My point is using someone's own quote to determine if they think they are biased or not is not a great source to base it on. Hardly anyone trying to peddle a book is going to admit they are biased.

 

[StephenColbert27]

Drew asked General Bee to post the source. She did so (adding it to the OP) and Drew is entitled to his opinion.

You are entitled to yours.

In what particular parts of his speech do you feel that Mr. Simpson is distorting history to support his modern politics? Are you saying that Grant did not say the things that Mr. Simpson cited? Or that he is taking those quotes out of context?

 

[MattL]

Was more what? My point is using someone's own quote to determine if they think they are biased or not is not a great source to base it on. Hardly anyone trying to peddle a book is going to admit they are biased.

Drew asked General Bee to post the source. She did so (adding it to the OP) and Drew is entitled to his opinion.

You are entitled to yours.

I don't disagree with either of your statements. My point challenges neither, all I said was

"To be fair Drew didn't cite any content or sources for his claim that he was heavily pro-Grant, Bee's one example was more."

Simply giving context that she was responding to a point by Drew purely on his own opinion and Bee gave a defense by the author on the same topic. Quite simply though your challenging of Bee's reference as convincing should be in context to what she responded to as less convincing.

There was absolutely no offense intended and none directed in my words, I simply gave some very basic context, nothing more, nothing less.

People need to relax I fully respect that you have your own opinion Drew and I never suggested you explained it as anything other than that. I levied no critique on you giving your opinion or your opinion, simply on the context of your statement and the one by Bee and how convincing they are to the argument given and challenged.

Please take my words literally, no more and no less.

 

[Drew]

In what particular parts of his speech do you feel that Mr. Simpson is distorting history to support his modern politics? Are you saying that Grant did not say the things that Mr. Simpson cited? Or that he is taking those quotes out of context?

Emphasis on black rights, for starters. That's ridiculous within the context of the time, like it or not (we are talking about history here, remember).

Also, Colfax, Louisiana. That was a disaster that IMO was not honestly brought forth by the speaker. It's probably worthy of its own thread.

 

[MattL]

Emphasis on black rights, for starters. That's ridiculous within the context of the time, like it or not (we are talking about history here, remember).

Also, Colfax, Louisiana. That was a disaster that IMO was not honestly brought forth by the speaker. It's probably worthy of its own thread.

What specifically about black rights do you feel Mr Simpson distort? I genuinely mean this with no offense but as a tip, take it or leave it, though you might find people ask far fewer questions of you elaborate on your expression just a bit more. In this case it's very hard to know what you are talking about and what your specific issue is, I could go on a long winded agreement or disagreement and waste both of our time if I assume wrong about what you intended.

 

[StephenColbert27]

Emphasis on black rights, for starters. That's ridiculous within the context of the time, like it or not (we are talking about history here, remember).

The talk was about Grant, Reconstruction, and Civil Rights. I fail to see a problem here. Unless you are claiming that the quotes cited by Simpson are incorrect or taken out of context.

Also, Colfax, Louisiana. That was a disaster that IMO was not honestly brought forth by the speaker. It's probably worthy of its own thread.

The Colfax Massacre, from what I have read, certainly is a complex event. However, I do not see how what he said about it was fundamentally incorrect.

 

[cash]

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 was there during his presentation. You are remembering something that never happened.

 

[Drew]

The Colfax Massacre, from what I have read, certainly is a complex event. However, I do not see how what he said about it was fundamentally incorrect.

I didn't say it was "fundamentally incorrect". It was in fact a complex event, dismissed by the speaker as a clearly pro-white event. That's the problem I've got with this stuff. Can we for the love of God have an honest discussion and not need to win an argument?

 

[MattL]

I didn't say it was "fundamentally incorrect". It was in fact a complex event, dismissed by the speaker as a clearly pro-white event. That's the problem I've got with this stuff. Can we for the love of God have an honest discussion and not need to win an argument?

I don't think anyone here has a problem either being honest or discussing. Honestly discuss away!

A start would be to explain what specifically you mean by "dismissed by the speaker as a clearly pro-white event", what he said that you deem was wrong, what you instead suggest the reality was, etc. Please discuss.

 

[Drew]

I was there during his presentation. You are remembering something that never happened.

You were. I am entitled to my own perception as you are to your own. General Bee posted the whole thing - others may watch and make up their own minds.

U.S. Grant, Civil Rights hero. Good luck with that. We're talking 1870s here.

 

[StephenColbert27]

I didn't say it was "fundamentally incorrect". It was in fact a complex event, dismissed by the speaker as a clearly pro-white event. That's the problem I've got with this stuff. Can we for the love of God have an honest discussion and not need to win an argument?

Well, he was probably focusing on the fact that the end result of the Colfax Massacre was...you know, a massacre of mostly Black Republicans. And no one was ever convicted of the crime. I think it's fair to say that this was a travesty of justice.

You were. I am entitled to my own perception as you are to your own. General Bee posted the whole thing - others may watch and make up their own minds.

U.S. Grant, Civil Rights hero. Good luck with that. We're talking 1870s here.

Simpson argues, with support of quotes from Grant, that the man supported Black suffrage and fought for it using the resources at hand for as long as he could have. Is this wrong? Were the quotes misused, out of context, or flat-out wrong?

Edit: I would also third the assertion that Simpson never bashes Lee. He notes that Grant took a different tone to addressing him, and was not as oozing with praise as some of his contemporaries, but Simpson certainly does not criticize Lee.

 

[cash]

You were. I am entitled to my own perception as you are to your own. General Bee posted the whole thing - others may watch and make up their own minds.

U.S. Grant, Civil Rights hero. Good luck with that. We're talking 1870s here.

I invite everyone to watch the video, including you. You're mischaracterizing it completely.

 

[cash]

Well, he was probably focusing on the fact that the end result of the Colfax Massacre was...you know, a massacre of mostly Black Republicans. And no one was ever convicted of the crime. I think it's fair to say that this was a travesty of justice.

Simpson argues, with support of quotes from Grant, that the man supported Black suffrage and fought for it using the resources at hand for as long as he could have. Is this wrong? Were the quotes misused, out of context, or flat-out wrong?

Edit: I would also third the assertion that Simpson never bashes Lee. He notes that Grant took a different tone to addressing him, and was not as oozing with praise as some of his contemporaries, but Simpson certainly does not criticize Lee.

Exactly. Professor Simpson is very clear that he is talking about how Grant viewed Lee.

 

[ole]

Both were prominent players in our addictive subject.


When we get to chipping off the marble, neither qualifies as perfect.

When you sift through the debris, it comes down to resources. The South lost because it didn't have the resources for a protracted war. The North won because it did.

Reminds me of a cat fight .... The cat attacked will roll on its back and claw the holy Hell out of its attacker before squaring off and maneuvering. Sometimes, that works: Sometimes, it doesn't.

I am becoming convinced that the conflict was due more to sectionalism than Slavery.

As humans we naturally consider ourselves to , but it has be superior to them, but it does, too often, have to be proven. In short, I see the USCW as a massive Gang war

 

[ole]

Brooks Simpson is among the giants of CW historians and writers but, in this crowd, there is plenty of room to disagree and discuss and grow.We're all here for the same reason: To irritate our significant others with the time we spend on line and the money we spend on books.

Hey! I don't remember the last time I stopped off for a beer.on the way back from wherever.

 

[ole]

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.

I've long thought thab Grant's less-than superlative performance as president was because he trusted people he shouldn't

 

[huskerblitz]

I've long thought thab Grant's less-than superlative performance as president was because he trusted people he shouldn't

Agreed. But his reliance on those untrustworthy people indicate that Grant probably wasn't suited to be president, that the job was too big for him. I don't think this diminishes from Grant's reputation, just the hard truth about his limits. Grant detested politicians and I think that made him a bad one himself.

 

[contestedground]

This is all sort of interesting. Drew has an opinion. It appears he's mischaracterized parts of the talk, but he's entitled to have an opinion. Everyone else is entitled to value it for what it is worth. EDITED BY MATTHEW MCKEON

Will there be a discussion of the content of the presentation?

 

[Bee]

Will there be a discussion of the content of the presentation?

That is the purpose of the thread, so feel free to examine the contents of either video and the article.