Grant About Grant

[Joe Meyer]

The following is taken from the 1905 book, Echoes of the Civil War As I Hear Them, by Michael H. Fitch, Brevet Colonel of Volunteers, Twenty-first Wisconsin Infantry. For a goodly part of his service in the Civil War Fitch served as a staff officer, occupying a number of various duties. One of these found him as the Inspector General of the First Division, XIV Corps, Army of the Cumberland, commanded by Major General Richard Johnson. Fitch recalled a sight-seeing excursion of which he was a part and in which he noted some interesting items concerning Grant.

"Grant, sometime after the battle of Missionary Ridge, was anxious to ride over the battle-field of Chackamauga. So one morning General Johnson said to me, 'I am going with Generals Grant and Thomas over the Chickamauga battle-field and would like to have you go along.' I was very glad to accept. We rendezvoused at General Thomas' headquarters, and rode via Rossville and through the gap, then down the Lafayette road. This route brought us first to the left of our lines where our division lay on that memorable Sunday. As Grant gazed at the bullet riddled trees in front of that line, the only remark he made on the battle-field which I heard was, 'These trees would make a good lead mine.'

"There were in the party, General Grant, General Thomas, General R. W. Johnson and General W. F. Smith, known as 'Baldy Smith.' There must have been many other general officers and numerous staff officers, but these are all I can remember. Grant rode his cream-colored horse and Smith kept close to his side. Neither had on any sword, but Smith carried a common stick about the size of a small cane. As we crossed a creek before arriving at the battle-field, the horses all stopped to drink. Grant pulled out his match-box and lighted a cigar. While he was doing this, his horse let fly with his hind foot at Smith's horse. Whereupon Smith hit Grant's horse across the rump with his stick and at the same time made some familiar remark to Grant about riding such a vicious horse. I was looking intently at Grant at the time and was struck with his perfect stolid indifference. He never for an instant changed the position of his hand or head in lighting that cigar, nor said a word, nor did he seem conscious of the episode, though his horse moved up suddenly. I thought it very characteristic of his qualities as a soldier."

Fitch returned to the Twenty-first Wisconsin as its Lieutenant-Colonel in February of 1864 and ultimately led the regiment right on through the Atlanta Campaign until the end of the war, seeing his last action at Bentonville and participating with the Twenty-first in the Grand Review in Washington City.

 

[Pvt.Shattuck]

I believe the story because it is in keeping with what we know about his character.

 

[Dave Wilma]

The one thing Lee remembered about Grant from the Old Army was that he was good with horses. He was.

 

[Philip Leigh]

Oh, there are plenty of people falling all over themselves to tell stories about Grant that leave a favorable impression. But stories that reflect poorly on his character get swept under the carpet. He is the 21st century version of the marble man.

For example, there's evidence that he may have been a beneficiary of illegal cotton trade, although most hagiographers (calling themselves biographers) represent him as an opponent of such commerce.

But it has recently been discovered that he sent an officer to collect a report of an investigation in cotton trade in the western theater when he was a top commander there. After Grant's staff officer collected the report it was lost to history. The officer who tuned it over did so with great reluctance because he feared it would get "lost." That apprehensive officer did not survive the war.

Meanwhile, it is known that Grant's brother-in-law traded gold for cotton against regulations and was given a permit by Lincoln. When Grant later asked Lincoln to suspend such trade east of the Appalacians, Lincoln told Lamon that: He (Lincoln) was surprised at Grant's attitude because the general awarded one of earliest such permits, and that to his own father.

Admittedly, none of above is proof that Grant benefitted from cotton trade, but the point is that almost all biographers and civil war commentators ignore it...because he is the marble man.

 

[leftyhunter]

Oh, there are plenty of people falling all over themselves to tell stories about Grant that leave a favorable impression. But stories that reflect poorly on his character get swept under the carpet. He is the 21st century version of the marble man.

For example, there's evidence that he may have been a beneficiary of illegal cotton trade, although most hagiographers (calling themselves biographers) represent him as an opponent of such commerce.

But it has recently been discovered that he sent an officer to collect a report of an investigation in cotton trade in the western theater when he was a top commander there. After Grant's staff officer collected the report it was lost to history. The officer who tuned it over did so with great reluctance because he feared it would get "lost." That apprehensive officer did not survive the war.

Meanwhile, it is known that Grant's brother-in-law traded gold for cotton against regulations and was given a permit by Lincoln. When Grant later asked Lincoln to suspend such trade east of the Appalacians, Lincoln told Lamon that: He (Lincoln) was surprised at Grant's attitude because the general awarded one of earliest such permits, and that to his own father.

Admittedly, none of above is proof that Grant benefitted from cotton trade, but the point is that almost all biographers and civil war commentators ignore it...because he is the marble man.

Who cares? Three CSA field armies surrendered to him. No other general north or south did has well.
Leftyhunter

 

[ole]

Oh, there are plenty of people falling all over themselves to tell stories about Grant that leave a favorable impression. But stories that reflect poorly on his character get swept under the carpet. He is the 21st century version of the marble man.

For example, there's evidence that he may have been a beneficiary of illegal cotton trade, although most hagiographers (calling themselves biographers) represent him as an opponent of such commerce.

But it has recently been discovered that he sent an officer to collect a report of an investigation in cotton trade in the western theater when he was a top commander there. After Grant's staff officer collected the report it was lost to history. The officer who tuned it over did so with great reluctance because he feared it would get "lost." That apprehensive officer did not survive the war.

Meanwhile, it is known that Grant's brother-in-law traded gold for cotton against regulations and was given a permit by Lincoln. When Grant later asked Lincoln to suspend such trade east of the Appalacians, Lincoln told Lamon that: He (Lincoln) was surprised at Grant's attitude because the general awarded one of earliest such permits, and that to his own father.

Admittedly, none of above is proof that Grant benefitted from cotton trade, but the point is that almost all biographers and civil war commentators ignore it...because he is the marble man.

I don't buy this because I believe Grant was disgustingly honest. Of course, I can't prove that. But you can't prove that Grant was, at any time, dishonest. Rumor, and a chance to vilify Grant.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Mark Twain was nobody's fool. He ate people for breakfast- just was more than happy to pull pants down in public if he caught a whiff of dishonesty. It was his stock in trade, hoisting corrupt public figures at the point of his quill. Grant drove him crazy- he thought him a kind of babe in the woods, which he was, far too trusting and honest himself to be out there without a keeper. That same straight forward, goal oriented, unshakable perspective which served the army so well was fatal in the real world of charletons and users.

What's that rule, 7 degrees of separation? Within that you can prove anyone is connected to anything or related to anyone? It also works if you use words like ' may have ' and ' oops, that happened but it was lost '.

 

[67th Tigers]

Oh, there are plenty of people falling all over themselves to tell stories about Grant that leave a favorable impression. But stories that reflect poorly on his character get swept under the carpet. He is the 21st century version of the marble man.

I believe the appellation being thrown around is "The Teflon Man"; nothing sticks....

 

[wilber6150]

Admittedly, none of above is proof that Grant benefitted from cotton trade, but the point is that almost all biographers and civil war commentators ignore it...because he is the marble man.

So you offer something that you admit is not proof as proof ?

 

[Henry Whitworth]

Oh, there are plenty of people falling all over themselves to tell stories about Grant that leave a favorable impression.

Falling all over themselves? Kind of ironic to call a little eyewitness anecdote about the man falling all over oneself and then follow it up with this.

"But it has recently been discovered that he sent an officer to collect a report of an investigation in cotton trade in the western theater when he was a top commander there. After Grant's staff officer collected the report it was lost to history. The officer who tuned it over did so with great reluctance because he feared it would get "lost." That apprehensive officer did not survive the war."

Is there some insinuation that the "apprehensive officer" was sent to sleep with the fishes? Was this "discovered" by Geraldo Rivera? This sounds like a boilerplate political character assassination that has nothing to do with the story here where someone talks about his "qualities as a soldier."

"Admittedly, none of above is proof that Grant benefitted from cotton trade, but the point is that almost all biographers and civil war commentators ignore it"

Most actual historians and biographers do ignore things that have no proof.

 

[diane]

I have a whole bunch of questions about that. If Grant was corrupt - and participating in the black market would certainly be in that category! - why wasn't he rich? He got rich later but it took awhile - he should have been living large during the war as some were. He's not responsible for what his family does unless you can prove somehow he enabled them knowingly. There's no reason to white-wash Grant because he was pretty clean to begin with!

 

[OldGreyMare]

I tend to view Grant's character to be one that is neither "marble man" nor "devil" -- in fact, I've often wondered, given the descriptions given of him, if he wasn't a highly functioning autistic.
He was incredibly capable of focusing on a single pursuit, was not the most socially adept individual to ever come down the pike (and suffered stress from the same), and even the ability with horses (which he did have -- man was a wonderful horseman) kinda makes me wonder.
This is the sort of person that would be incredibly honest yet not question consorting with less than honest people if there was some other tie there, and this is also the sort of person who would have the emotional ability to carry on the campaign that he did (unlike others who would have perhaps not been so focused).
In short, an individual and unique human being -- who was pretty good for the job as history has proven out.

 

[diane]

I tend to view Grant's character to be one that is neither "marble man" nor "devil" -- in fact, I've often wondered, given the descriptions given of him, if he wasn't a highly functioning autistic.
He was incredibly capable of focusing on a single pursuit, was not the most socially adept individual to ever come down the pike (and suffered stress from the same), and even the ability with horses (which he did have -- man was a wonderful horseman) kinda makes me wonder.
This is the sort of person that would be incredibly honest yet not question consorting with less than honest people if there was some other tie there, and this is also the sort of person who would have the emotional ability to carry on the campaign that he did (unlike others who would have perhaps not been so focused).
In short, an individual and unique human being -- who was pretty good for the job as history has proven out.

I've thought that a number of times - that Grant was an aspie!

 

[12th Missouri Yankee]

What is an aspie?

 

[diane]

What is an aspie?

Aspie is short for Asperger's Syndrome. It's a form of high functioning autism.

 

[OldGreyMare]

And they are not as uncommon as some people think -- not as not "normal" either. They do operate in this world a bit differently, but in some applications the way they do can be highly beneficial (in other areas, no -- which is rather a good way to describe Grant).

 

[12th Missouri Yankee]

Thank you both. Had never heard of the term aspie.
It is unfortunate when people who are incredibly good with animal care and not as gifted with human interactions sometimes are wrongfully declared to have Asperger's syndrome. Was Grant just in tune with animals, or truly someone with A.S.?

 

[Henry Whitworth]

I believe the appellation being thrown around is "The Teflon Man"; nothing sticks....

This seems very strange to me that Grant has somehow benefited from the Teflon effect. I grew up hearing about Grant the Drunk and Grant the Butcher. And even such a "friendly" chronicler as Ken Burns portrayed him as a mumbling, dispirited lump who "sat his horse like a sack of meal." He kind of wandered to victory by bleeding his army and nothing else. If there's a reason for people to be publishing positive views of Grant these days it seems like a useful effort at correcting the record after generations of smearing. I found it a revelation to actually start learning about the man and seeing beneath all the layers of gunk that have stuck to him.

 

[cash]

Oh, there are plenty of people falling all over themselves to tell stories about Grant that leave a favorable impression. But stories that reflect poorly on his character get swept under the carpet. He is the 21st century version of the marble man.

For example, there's evidence that he may have been a beneficiary of illegal cotton trade, although most hagiographers (calling themselves biographers) represent him as an opponent of such commerce.

But it has recently been discovered that he sent an officer to collect a report of an investigation in cotton trade in the western theater when he was a top commander there. After Grant's staff officer collected the report it was lost to history. The officer who tuned it over did so with great reluctance because he feared it would get "lost." That apprehensive officer did not survive the war.

Meanwhile, it is known that Grant's brother-in-law traded gold for cotton against regulations and was given a permit by Lincoln. When Grant later asked Lincoln to suspend such trade east of the Appalacians, Lincoln told Lamon that: He (Lincoln) was surprised at Grant's attitude because the general awarded one of earliest such permits, and that to his own father.

Admittedly, none of above is proof that Grant benefitted from cotton trade, but the point is that almost all biographers and civil war commentators ignore it...because he is the marble man.

If there is such evidence that Grant benefited from the illegal cotton trade, then post it, by all means and show exactly where those you claim are "hagiographers" missed the boat. So far all we have is your unsupported claim that such evidence exists. And tell us about your source for this alleged report of investigation that mysteriously went missing. And do we have a source other than Lamon that tells us Grant awarded a cotton trading permit to his father?

 

[diane]

This seems very strange to me that Grant has somehow benefited from the Teflon effect. I grew up hearing about Grant the Drunk and Grant the Butcher. And even such a "friendly" chronicler as Ken Burns portrayed him as a mumbling, dispirited lump who "sat his horse like a sack of meal." He kind of wandered to victory by bleeding his army and nothing else. If there's a reason for people to be publishing positive views of Grant these days it seems like a useful effort at correcting the record after generations of smearing. I found it a revelation to actually start learning about the man and seeing beneath all the layers of gunk that have stuck to him.

It was necessary to step on Grant to elevate Lee - neither general needed anybody's help to be better or worse than they were!