Grant About Grant

[NedBaldwin]

.... The most useful contribution recently I think has been Frank Varneys. He has very effectively shown that Grant had an active hand in distorting our perceptions....

In reading his book, I found so so much wrong with Varney's scholarship that my conclusion is that Varney is actively trying to distort our perceptions. That he has been effective at this is rather sad.

 

[wilber6150]

Se


See reply earlier today to wilbur6150

Which was no evidence at all used as evidence.....

 

[War Horse]

Grant was very brave, an excellent horsemen and his focus is legendary. He was also an excellent strategist (Vicksburg proves this) but a poor tactician. He seemed to be able to envision the end result but tactically only knew one approach to getting there. Headlong into it , straight forward was his one an only tactic. He very well may have been an aspie. Although I think Grant the butcher is unfair. After the first day in the wilderness Grant returned to his tent and suffered some sort of breakdown and was wittnessed sobbing uncontrollable. This only lasted a short time and he recovered his composure quickly, but it did happen. A man who dosen't care about the suffering of his men does not have this type of reaction. Unfortunitly for what ever reason his assault tactics were always the same straight forward (with the exception of Chattanooga) and his casulties were always rather high. Never really thought about the aspie possibility before, interesting. Lastly I agree, had Grant been involved in illegal cotton trading or any other illegal practices he would have lived much better than he did. At one point he was so improverished when he ran into an old friend whom he owed $5.00 Grant insisting on settling the debt. The friend attempted to refuse to accept the money but Grant insisted. Finally his friend accepted the money not wanting to offend Grant. (lets call the old friend Peter)

 

[AndyHall]

Headlong into it , straight forward was his one an only tactic.

He habitually wears an expression as if he had determined to drive his head through a brick wall,
and was about to do it.

-- Col. Theodore Lyman​

 

[diane]

Grant was very brave, an excellent horsemen and his focus is legendary. He was also an excellent strategist (Vicksburg proves this) but a poor tactician. He seemed to be able to envision the end result but tactically only knew one approach to getting there. Headlong into it , straight forward was his one an only tactic. He very well may have been an aspie. Although I think Grant the butcher is unfair. After the first day in the wilderness Grant returned to his tent and suffered some sort of breakdown and was wittnessed sobbing uncontrollable. This only lasted a short time and he recovered his composure quickly, but it did happen. A man who dosen't care about the suffering of his men does not have this type of reaction. Unfortunitly for what ever reason his assault tactics were always the same straight forward (with the exception of Chattanooga) and his casulties were always rather high. Never really thought about the aspie possibility before, interesting. Lastly I agree, had Grant been involved in illegal cotton trading or any other illegal practices he would have lived much better than he did. At one point he was so improverished when he ran into an old friend whom he owed $5.00 Grant insisting on settling the debt. The friend attempted to refuse to accept the money but Grant insisted. Finally his friend accepted the money not wanting to offend Grant. (lets call the old friend Peter)

There was also the story of Grant as a boy being sent by his father to buy a horse. He announced to the seller that his father thought the horse was worth $25 but had only given him $15 and he was supposed to offer just $10! It's kind of hard to say whether Grant was naive or outing his father's somewhat shady ways - that's why some people didn't know whether he was very smart or very stupid.

 

[AndyHall]

Another odd fact about Grant -- his father Jesse, as a young man learning the tanner's trade, lived with John Brown. From Grant's memoir:

[My father] went first, I believe, with his half-brother, Peter Grant, who, though not a tanner himself, owned a tannery in Maysville, Kentucky. Here he learned his trade, and in a few years returned to Deerfield and worked for, and lived in the family of a Mr. Brown, the father of John Brown—"whose body lies mouldering in the grave, while his soul goes marching on." I have often heard my father speak of John Brown, particularly since the events at Harper's Ferry. Brown was a boy when they lived in the same house, but he knew him afterwards, and regarded him as a man of great purity of character, of high moral and physical courage, but a fanatic and extremist in whatever he advocated. It was certainly the act of an insane man to attempt the invasion of the South, and the overthrow of slavery, with less than twenty men.​

 

[Benjamin Davis]

There was also the story of Grant as a boy being sent by his father to buy a horse. He announced to the seller that his father thought the horse was worth $25 but had only given him $15 and he was supposed to offer just $10! It's kind of hard to say whether Grant was naive or outing his father's somewhat shady ways - that's why some people didn't know whether he was very smart or very stupid.

I daresay he was smart enough...though he did make a few poor choices for his presidential cabinet later on.

 

[diane]

I daresay he was smart enough...though he did make a few poor choices for his presidential cabinet later on.

Stupid is something he wasn't, but naive one might make a case for!

 

[War Horse]

It's odd that a man can have the words stupid or even naive apply in a discription of him have become President of the United States. This was truly a remarkable time in our nations history.

 

[KansasFreestater]

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 think you've been suckered. In fact, Grant hated the illegal cotton trade, and exploded when his own father tried to take advantage of Grant's high position to cut some deals. Check this out:
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/gra...ber-17-1862-more-paradoxes.98851/#post-860427

 

[KansasFreestater]

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.

Hmm... interesting theory. But although Grant was very honest, he was also extremely circumspect, very savvy about whom he told what. Most of the autism-spectrum people I've known do not show that ability.

But then again, Grant's famous imperturbability -- sitting there on a stump calmly writing orders while shells exploded over his head and bullets whizzed by missing him by inches, seemingly without his ever even noticing, much less fearing them -- does kind of make you wonder. And he was like that -- unconscious of danger -- ever since infancy. One time when he was just a toddler, someone fired a gun near his head and he never even flinched. And yet, for all his seeming indifference to loud noises, he absolutely hated music -- all music, every genre -- how weird is that? In my whole life, I've known one -- and only one -- person who disliked all music. That's so rare, it's just freaky. Apparently, Grant couldn't even make out a tune. What you or I hear as a melody apparently just sounded like random noise to him. This, despite his very high intelligence in so many other areas.

 

[KansasFreestater]

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.

The PBS "American Experience" DVD on Grant is very well done. In fact, it did such a good job of sparking my interest in the man that it started me down the road that led to my having read over a dozen books about Grant this year, and still counting. Best single-volume biography of Grant: the one by Jean Edward Smith. Released in 2001, it's neither hatchet job nor hagiography, just a very well-researched, beautifully written account.

 

[KansasFreestater]

I get that people who have an emotional thing for Lee might have a gut reaction about Grant. But does it really help one's view of Lee to believe that the general who defeated him was an incompetent buffoon?

All that stuff seems so childish. They're both such fascinating characters who reflect the societies that produced them and the different aspects of what America had been and what it was becoming. And they were both such decent men in their own ways. It's amazing to picture where each was as they marched with Scott in Mexico and the different paths that led them to that table in Appomattox. Getting partisan about them now just clouds one's view of an amazing, meaningful story.

Beautifully stated, Corporal Whitworth!

 

[War Horse]

Best single-volume biography of Grant: the one by Jean Edward Smith.

I now know what to buy. Thank you very much!

 

[KansasFreestater]

I'm also of the opinion that far from Grant being a buffon, he grasped one of the hard realities of warfare that many don't (most may not be capable of fathoming it): victory is often to the person who is most willing to commit to even a faulty plan -- there are no bad decisions, only ones that are not executed fully...if you clog the meatgrinder what happens to it?
Most are not willing to commit to that; Grant was (bloody and brutal though it may appear); it obviously worked (and not for the only time in the history of warfare).

Grant was very conscious of the problem of time: It's always tempting to wait until you can get things just right, but during the time that you are spending planning and preparing, the enemy is also using that time to fortify, to concentrate more forces, and become that much harder to beat. Grant always wanted to act before the enemy could get any stronger than he already was.

 

[KansasFreestater]

Oh, I'm with you on that about retro-diagnosis. But sometimes you sure can't help but wonder, especially with Grant and Jackson. I have it myself and some of their ways sure are close! (By the way, somehow that quote came out as mine - it was someone else's!)

Jackson was definitely a rara avis!

 

[67th Tigers]

In reading his book, I found so so much wrong with Varney's scholarship that my conclusion is that Varney is actively trying to distort our perceptions. That he has been effective at this is rather sad.

I see no evidence to that effect. I see one or two mistakes, and perhaps a slight bias towards Rosecrans but he's no Stephen Sears, and the book seems reasonable.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I see no evidence to that effect. I see one or two mistakes, and perhaps a slight bias towards Rosecrans but he's no Stephen Sears, and the book seems reasonable.

As I said, that Varney has been effective in his distortion is sad.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Apparently, Grant couldn't even make out a tune. What you or I hear as a melody apparently just sounded like random noise to him.

I've adapted his 'I-only-know-two-tunes-one-is-Yankee-Doodle-and-the-other-isn't' quip to other circumstances; most notably, as a city boy, I can't recognize crops very well, which the people in the small town I lived in for a while found hilarious (as with my not knowing the word "silage" when it came up in a crossword puzzle)... so I would say that "I only know two crops. One is corn, and the other isn't."

 

[AndyHall]

This seems like a good place to re-post one of my favorite anecdotes about Grant, from his memoirs. It takes place years before the war, when he and another officer in the Old Army are making a trek across a wide-open and mostly unpopulated stretch of south Texas:

On the evening of the first day out from Goliad we heard the most unearthly howling of wolves, directly in our front. The prairie grass was tall and we could not see the beasts, but the sound indicated that they were near. To my ear it appeared that there must have been enough of them to devour our party, horses and all, at a single meal. The part of Ohio that I hailed from was not thickly settled, but wolves had been driven out long before I left. Benjamin was from Indiana, still less populated, where the wolf yet roamed over the prairies. He understood the nature of the animal and the capacity of a few to make believe there was an unlimited number of them. He kept on towards the noise, unmoved. I followed in his trail, lacking moral courage to turn back and join our sick companion. I have no doubt that if Benjamin had proposed returning to Goliad, I would not only have "seconded the motion" but have suggested that it was very hard-hearted in us to leave Augur sick there in the first place; but Benjamin did not propose turning back. When he did speak it was to ask: "Grant, how many wolves do you think there are in that pack?" Knowing where he was from, and suspecting that he thought I would over-estimate the number, I determined to show my acquaintance with the animal by putting the estimate below what possibly could be correct, and answered: "Oh, about twenty," very indifferently. He smiled and rode on. In a minute we were close upon them, and before they saw us. There were just TWO of them. Seated upon their haunches, with their mouths close together, they had made all the noise we had been hearing for the past ten minutes. I have often thought of this incident since when I have heard the noise of a few disappointed politicians who had deserted their associates. There are always more of them before they are counted.​