Grant About Grant

[KansasFreestater]

On a semi-related note it's always struck me as me odd that at least some high up in the confederacy saw Grant as a threat very early on, while the union was still openly dismissing him. It's like the official records weren't complete enough, so personal experience filled in the gaps in the war's early stages. Maybe no one in union high command had any personal experiences with Grant from Mexico. Did the men who actually fought alongside him in Mexico go south in greater numbers than north? Either way, it seems that the union's intelligence gathering about their own potential officer pool was lacking.

Had never thought about it that way. Thank you for a very insightful comment.

 

[War Horse]

I have a weird memory for quotes and facts--if I've read it, I remember it. (I'm scary good at trivia night), so I think I saw it here at some point.

I googled the verbatim quote and found a few references, but not the original source. I'm still digging, but here are some references:

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs013/1102264498897/archive/1105502866327.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=LflbjPyOXVIC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=There is one West Pointer, I think in Missouri, little known, and whom I hope the northern people will not find out&source=bl&ots=POdqdm0Rp5&sig=FUcl4HYtYPo6SZCGT2qZCrireVc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e5iMVOzuLePLsAS67oH4CA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwCQ

Also, the quote is a little longer and is so on point it makes me wonder why the confederates didn't try to neutralize Grant early on. Here's the full quote:

"There is one West Pointer, I think in Missouri, little known, and whom I hope the northern people will not find out. I mean Sam Grant. I knew him well at the Academy and in Mexico. I should fear him more than any of their officers I have yet heard of. He is not a man of genius, but he is clear-headed, quick and daring."

As to the original source it was either in conversation about potential adversaries (man, to be a fly on the wall in that conversation!) or in a letter to Lee himself. The quote language is so consistent that it makes me think it was a letter. It's consistently dated as being from May 1861, and the mistake about Grant being in Missouri backs up the date (that is, this wasn't written in hindsight, tho is likely so well remembered due to hindsight)

On a semi-related note it's always struck me as odd that at least some high up in the confederacy saw Grant as a threat very early on, while the union was still openly dismissing him. It's like the official records weren't complete enough, so personal experience filled in the gaps in the war's early stages. Maybe no one in union high command had any personal experiences with Grant from Mexico. Did the men who actually fought alongside him in Mexico go south in greater numbers than north? Either way, it seems that the union's intelligence gathering about their own potential officer pool was lacking.

Thank you very much. It seems the ones that knew him held predidious against him. The Union army seemed to be frought with political aspirations. Officers always positioning. This seems to have existed on a much smaller scale in the confederacy. That is unless Davis was involved. Lincoln actually inquired of Grant how he felt about coming east just after Gettysburg and Grants response was he would prefer to remain where he was because he knew the land, the generals and how they fought. So at the time Lincoln did not press the issue. Meade was permitted to continue his command. Lincoln made the statement he was not inclined the discard a firearm because it miss fired once. He was referring to Meade not pressing Lee's retreat from Gettysbug. Lincoln was very upset about that feeling the union missed an opportunity to end the war right then and there. Again thank you very much.

 

[Philip Leigh]

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

Well, as Frank Varney puts it "Ther are lies, **** lies, and Grant's memoirs."

 

[War Horse]

Well, as Frank Varney puts it "Ther are lies, **** lies, and Grant's memoirs."

Really

 

[FarawayFriend]

Just reading Grant's memoirs

 

[Rebforever]

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

He was? Got his *** busted up pretty good once. Dang near killed him!

 

[Rebforever]

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

Wonder if that is what made him whittle with thousands dying around him?

 

[diane]

He was? Got his *** busted up pretty good once. Dang near killed him!

Well, gee, he was drunk, you know! Actually, as you know, it's not too hard for a horse to bust you up even you are a good horseman. At Belmont, when the Federals were rapidly loading up a boat in the rain, Grant's horse slipped in the mud and went clean down to the river on its rump! Grant not only stayed in the saddle but managed to control the slide so neither he or the horse was hurt. The men watching the accident unfold were convinced they'd be getting a new general!

Wonder if that is what made him whittle with thousands dying around him?

Could be, actually. Doing something simple and repetitious often causes the focus to be on that activity. Grant had a way of detaching for a time - necessary for the accomplishment of his objective.

 

[Rebforever]

Could be, actually. Doing something simple and repetitious often causes the focus to be on that activity. Grant had a way of detaching for a time - necessary for the accomplishment of his objective.

Well I never heard that cover story before?

 

[diane]

Well I never heard that cover story before?

Jackson did it, too - distraction. It's just a commander can't think too much about that aspect of what he's required to do or he'll start whittling on his own throat...! Lee did it, too - all of them did. One thing about most generals and guys who are good at making war - they'd sure rather not be that good at it. Lee loved the game, the challenge but the human results always upset him. Grant, too.

 

[KansasFreestater]

Just reading Grant's memoirs

Are you reading them in German or the original English?

 

[Dave Wilma]

It would be interesting to know how the constant flow of nicotine from the cigars might have influenced Grant's decisions. Someone with a better understanding of pharmacology would have to comment. Much is made about Grant and alcohol and not enough about Grant and nicotine.

 

[James N.]

Wonder if that is what made him whittle with thousands dying around him?

Grant in the Wilderness wasn't all that oblivious to what was going around him: He was irritated when he heard Gen. Charles Griffin ride up and complain to either Meade or Warren, asking "Who is this General Gregg?" ( Grant understood the name wrong. ) Later, when he learned his friend from the Old Army Gen. Alex. Hayes ( the one with Grant in the famous photo showing them standing beside their horses during the Mexican War ) had been killed while leading one of Hancock's divisions he was visibly upset. DURING the battle, there was actually very little for Grant to do, owing to the command structure which we have already discussed. Meade commanded the AOP and was therefore responsible for tactical control of the army and the battle; about the only decisions for Grant to make were to order up Burnside's IX Corps in support ( since it wasn't under Meade's control ) and to decide after two days' bloodletting to sidle to Spotsylvania. Lee tended to operate in exactly the same way, leaving tactical operation to his corps commanders whenever possible. As we know, this tended to work out well with Jackson and Longstreet; not always as well with Ewell, Hill, and Anderson.

 

[FarawayFriend]

Are you reading them in German or the original English?

Original English. Good practice, lol!

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Original English. Good practice, lol!

How difficult does it seem to you? To me, Grant's writing seems relatively plain and not overly complicated, especially for the time period.

 

[Elennsar]

Something that I'd like to comment as someone diagnosed with Asperger's as far as Grant being an Aspie or not:
http://www.autism-help.org/behavior-compulsions-routines-rituals.htm

Where and how do we see this in Grant? Grant doesn't seem to have this holding him down, really.

 

[diane]

Something that I'd like to comment as someone diagnosed with Asperger's as far as Grant being an Aspie or not:
http://www.autism-help.org/behavior-compulsions-routines-rituals.htm

Where and how do we see this in Grant? Grant doesn't seem to have this holding him down, really.

I have it, too. I see it very clearly in Stonewall Jackson, but I think Grant might well have been one, too. Not every aspie has the compulsions, rituals, narrow interests. Not everyone who can focus intensely is an aspie, either. The reasons I think Grant was one was his veins seemed to run ice water. You couldn't even startle this guy! Sober-sided, for the most part - made about as many funnies as Jackson. Fixed on a purpose without deviation, which may or may not be a symptom. 20-24 cigars a day really does indicate a compulsion. That's a LOT of tobacco. Naive, too trusting, not able to see through a skunk. But, you're right - maybe not! (His mom might be another case, however...)

 

[Specster]

Being a good General is a tough job. A don't like Patton and Mcauthor (to a lesser extent) because they ares accused, as is Grant, as being butchers for their own glorification (I think Patton was worse, not in raw numbers but in percentages, but I may be wrong there as well). Patton and Mcauthor got the job done, and so did Grant. For some reason I feel Grant was more justified in his tactics than Patton. It is a difficult call. The war was shortened - fewer soldiers were killed North and South - ultimately because Grant was so willing to sacrifice lives.

At the end of the day I think they all could have spilled less blood and still reached there objectives. Then again they were all dealing with radical, highly motivated enemies.

 

[Pvt.Shattuck]

Apparently at one point prior to the war a desperate Grant took a job as a debt collector. It's hard to imagine someone more ill suited to the job and it didn't last long. He was reported to be a sucker for a hard luck story who was more likely to lend the deadbeat a few bucks than collect what was owed. This sounds like what we know about Grant and doesn't fit at all with the image of a cold hearted butcher.

 

[Elennsar]

I have it, too. I see it very clearly in Stonewall Jackson, but I think Grant might well have been one, too. Not every aspie has the compulsions, rituals, narrow interests. Not everyone who can focus intensely is an aspie, either. The reasons I think Grant was one was his veins seemed to run ice water. You couldn't even startle this guy! Sober-sided, for the most part - made about as many funnies as Jackson. Fixed on a purpose without deviation, which may or may not be a symptom. 20-24 cigars a day really does indicate a compulsion. That's a LOT of tobacco. Naive, too trusting, not able to see through a skunk. But, you're right - maybe not! (His mom might be another case, however...)

I'm not sure on the underlined part, but I agree on the ice water. Grant had a lot of the protagonist of "The Story of the Youth Who Went Forth to Learn What Fear Was"
in him. Not just brave but "What is this fear? Is it tingly? Because I don't get tingly. Maybe its something else."

Jackson is pretty obviously the bundle of quirkiness, Grant seems more . . . he was something, but I don't think it was awkward for him in the ways Asperger's is challenging.

Hard to say though - Grant's steady failure in civilian life sure indicates something not working out, because the guy clearly had the brains and focus to succeed when he was in the zone.

Whether that's Asperger's or not, it isn't the normal mold.