Grant About Grant

[cash]

All very good points. I can say that I was fortunate enough to take the Petersburg battlefield tour. I can say the breastworks were the most elaborate and well constructed fortifications I have ever seen. The tour ended at City Point. Very impressive. I have photo's of the cabin Grant used as his headquarters. A very good book on the subject is "No Turning Back" by Robert M. Dunkerly, Donald C. Pfanz and David R. Ruth. It takes you step by step through the campaign. Consequently I believe Donald C. Pfanz is the son of Harry W. Pfanz who just passed away. A great historian.

No Turning Back is a good book to prepare for and bring with you if you're planning to visit the Overland Campaign battlefields. Mark Grimsley's And Keep Moving On is a better book if you're just interested in learning about the Overland Campaign and want a single-volume treatment. The very best books on the Overland Campaign are Gordon Rhea's series.

 

[Rebforever]

If we could have only seen how Lincoln would have guided the country through reconstruction. IMO he seemed to have a plan that was not followed (as M.E Wolf points out). Grant held no predidious toward the South or for that matter the southern soldiers.

Johnson had the same plans as Lincoln. The problem to me is Johnson was a Democrat and the republicans reversed those goals of Johnson - Lincoln.

 

[Rebforever]

In late 1863, Lincoln announced a formal plan for reconstruction:

1. A general amnesty would be granted to all who would take an oath of loyalty to the United States and pledge to obey all federal laws pertaining to slavery
2. High Confederate officials and military leaders were to be temporarily excluded from the process
3. When one tenth of the number of voters who had participated in the 1860 election had taken the oath within a particular state, then that state could launch a new government and elect representatives to Congress.
   
   

Andrew Johnson Reconstruction Plan

Expired Image Removed​

The looming showdown between Lincoln and the Congress over competing reconstruction plans never occurred. The president was assassinated on April 14, 1865. His successor, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, lacked his predecessor's skills in handling people; those skills would be badly missed. Johnson's plan envisioned the following:

• Pardons would be granted to those taking a loyalty oath
• No pardons would be available to high Confederate officials and persons owning property valued in excess of $20,000
• A state needed to abolish slavery before being readmitted
• A state was required to repeal its secession ordinance before being readmitted.

Most of the seceded states began compliance with the president's program. Congress was not in session, so there was no immediate objection from that quarter. However, Congress reconvened in December and refused to seat the Southern representatives.
Reconstruction had produced another deadlock between the president and Congress.


http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h179.html

 

[Rebforever]

I have looked at these 2 goals for years and studying them, to me, would never been put to work even for Lincoln noting the hate that was still abound in both sections which can be seen throughout the Union occupation of reconstruction.

 

[Joe Meyer]

Wow! All of this just because of a horse story!

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

That's hysterical. I wish I hadn't clicked on this while drinking coffee, though.

 

[Norm53]

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 '.

Grant drove him [Mark Twain] 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 charlatans and users.

This seems to be an accurate summary of Grant's character, but I'm still reading. Thank you, JPK Huson.

 

[Norm53]

MODERATOR'S CAUTION:

It would be a case of 'what if' when using various lables, e.g. Asperger's Syndrome, etc., as do attempt to describe the current/modern explaination of the traits that General U. S. Grant possessed.

With the climate of civilization's judgment on mental and or emotional fitness in the day being extremely harsh, to have been accepted and graduated from West Point, have been promoted through the ranks on their merits, it would be folly to attempt to pin down any mental/emotional flaw on General Grant or any other soldier, sailor and Marine; as to answer the question(s) of why this or that happens.

Since there are no medical records to concrete these diagnosis, it seems most unfair to the memory and the record of any of these military figures past. It would not be fair equally to any military personnel present.

The statements made in posts as if they are facts should be edited and in the future added that they are an assumption, an opinion and or such where the medical/emotional judgments cannot be proven by history, by personal memoirs` and or by medical doctors at the time of General U.S. Grant's life and or of any military personnel during the American Civil War.

Please use the standard of evidence demanded by the U.S. Courts of Law -- can these posted comments stand up in a court of law, in front of a jury, in front of a grand-jury? What proof does one have to prove these thoughts/opinions are true facts?

Again - this is just a Moderator's Caution. Members are permitted to post their opinions and assumptions yet, when they are done as to present it as if facts or a truth; please make sure that it can hold on its own to be a fact or truth. It is possible for a relative to challenge and claim deformation of character.

M. E. Wolf
POSTED IN THE CAPACITY OF MODERATOR
Dec. 29, 2014 2:38 p.m.

Please use the standard of evidence demanded by the U.S. Courts of Law -- can these posted comments stand up in a court of law, in front of a jury, in front of a grand-jury? What proof does one have to prove these thoughts/opinions are true facts?

A pretty high bar for us ordinary folks at CWT.

 

[Specster]

This seems to be an accurate summary of Grant's character, but I'm still reading. Thank you, JPK Huson.

Are you saying that is why Clemens took him under his wing? Just want to understand you...they liked each other emmensely. When Grant was broke and dieing from cancer Clemens helped him finish his autobiography and took little credit for his efforts...but I do believe his company published the book and he profited thereby.....and I see nothing wrong with that

 

[damYankee]

Lee and Grant by Gene Smith is a very well written book that presents an in-depth study of the lives of both of these incredibly complex individuals who lived extraordinary lives .
I have to concur with the mods here, psychoanalysis of someone who lived a century ago, or someone you have never met is at best nothing more than speculation and never carried out without a predefined bias

 

[Norm53]

Are you saying that is why Clemens took him under his wing? Just want to understand you...they liked each other immensely. When Grant was broke and dying from cancer Clemens helped him finish his autobiography and took little credit for his efforts...but I do believe his company published the book and he profited thereby.....and I see nothing wrong with that

"Grant drove him [Mark Twain] 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 charlatans and users."
What I am saying is that I liked Huson's quoted summary of Grant: Naive when it came to dealing with men and situations outside of military pursuits; sophisticated when it came to fighting. Obviously, mutual friendship motivated Clemens to help Grant when he was in need of funds. I see nothing wrong with that too.