Grant About Grant

[M E Wolf]

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)

Indeed - Grant repaid Pete Longstreet to whom loaned the money.

In U.S.Grant's youth, he had been brought up around his father's tannery, where many a horse was slaughtered as to harvest their hides. Grant was extremely sensitive and hated this business. He had a way with horses and they responded to him. Perhaps survival at youth to be a 'poker face' was a means to hide the internal emotions from a father who saw horses as 'just a horse' whereas, I am of the opinion --that to young U.S. Grant--they were individuals in a horse's body. The many stories of difficult horses that Grant would train for their owners, as to become extremely safe and gentle. Some are gifted in animal communication. "Horse Whisperer" comes to mind. I too have had horses that were difficult, abused from being difficult and I took them on and became an observer to their behavior--at times it was medical--such as an impacted tooth. Once removed all things became calm.

This world is made up with all kinds of folks, some don't make great businessmen, but great farmers; some men are awful as farmers but, great at music and it can go on and on, in every direction.

Just my thoughts and opinions,
M. E. Wolf

 

[diane]

Think it was Julia joked that Grant must have been a horse in a previous life! If he had been a horseman all his life, breeding and training and caring for them as well as enjoying their abilities, he would have been a very happy man.

I'm not so sure still that I buy Grant's failures as evidence he wasn't a capable businessman or couldn't manage it. He seemed to fail when dealing with his family's businesses! He took up the bakery business while at Ft Humboldt and sold bread by the bushels to the soldiers there. His wheat field didn't do so well but that area is definitely not the place to try to grow wheat. He didn't make much of a farmer in Missouri, either, but his family didn't starve - they weren't there long anyway. Julia never liked the cabin Grant made and they rather quickly moved back to her father's place. Seems to me about there Grant hit a rough patch kind of hard but we'll never know if that was only temporary (I suspect so) or the shape of the future - the war broke out and he went to his true calling.

 

[Specster]

I had read a CW book some time ago, which I borrowed from the library and it had the story of how Grant had come across a teamster who was beating his horse with the butt end of the whip (Oach!!). Upon seeing this Grant told the man to lay off and, the teamster, not recognizing Grant, told him to mind his business. From what I recall Grant was pretty upset. He had the man lashed to a tree for many hours. More curious, as I recall, was that he went into battle shortly thereafter and many men - more men then in most battles (Union) man lost their lives. It seemed as if the event unleashed an unbridled anger in him perhaps resulting in the loss of an unusual quantum of death.

Does anyone recall the battle after this event with the Teamster? I believe the event is pretty well known. What happened after I believe, is open to speculation.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

I had read a CW book some time ago, which I borrowed from the library and it had the story of how Grant had come across a teamster who was beating his horse with the butt end of the whip (Oach!!). Upon seeing this Grant told the man to lay off and, the teamster, not recognizing Grant, told him to mind his business. From what I recall Grant was pretty upset. He had the man lashed to a tree for many hours. More curious, as I recall, was that he went into battle shortly thereafter and many men - more men then in most battles (Union) man lost their lives. It seemed as if the event unleashed an unbridled anger in him perhaps resulting in the loss of an unusual quantum of death.

Does anyone recall the battle after this event with the Teamster? I believe the event is pretty well known. What happened after I believe, is open to speculation.

I believe it was during the Wilderness--late May 1864. Grant was known to have lost his anger twice were he went off on a soldier during the War. Both incidents were recalled by Horace Porter in a post war article:

"Rawlins rode with general at the head of his staff. As the party turned a bend in the road near the crossing of the Totopotomoy, the general came in sight of a teamster whose wagon was stalled in a place where it was somewhat swampy, and who was standing beside his team beating his horses brutally in the face with the butt-end of his whip, and swearing with a volubility calculated to give a sulphurous odor to all the surrounding atmosphere, Grant's aversion to profanity and his love of horses caused all the ire in his nature to be aroused by the sight presented. Putting both spurs into Egypt's flanks, he dashed toward the teamster, and raising his clenched fist, called out to him:'What does this conduct mean, you scoundrel? Stop beating those horses!' The teamster looked at him, and said coolly, as he delivered another blow aimed at the face of the wheel-horse: 'Well, who's drivin' this team anyhow - you or me?' The general was now thoroughly angered, and his manner was by no means as angelic as that of the celestial being who called a halt when Baalem was disciplining his donkey. 'I'll show you, you infernal villan!' he cried, shaking his fist in the man's face. Then calling to an officer of the escort, he said:'Take this man in charge, and have him tied to a tree for six hours as a punishment for his brutality.' The man slunk off sullenly in charge of the escort to receive his punishment, without showing any penitence for his conduct. He was evidently a hardened case. Of course he was not aware that the officer addressing him was the general-in-chief, but he evidently knew that he was an officer of high rank, as he was accompanied by a staff and escort, so that there was no excuse for the insubordinate and insolent remark. During the stirring scenes of that day's battle the general twice referred to the incident in vehement language, showing that the recollection of it was still rankling in his mind. This was the one exhibition of temper manifested by him during the entire campaign, and the only one I ever witnessed during my many years of service with him. I remarked that night to Colonel Bowers, who had served with the chief since the Fort Donelson campaign:'The general today gave us his first exhibition of anger. Did you ever see him fire up in that way in his earlier campaigns?' 'Never but once,' said Bowers; 'and that was in the Iuka campaign. One day on the march he came across a straggler who had stopped at a house and assaulted a woman. The general sprang from his horse, seized a musket from the hands of a soldier, and struck the culprit over the head with it, sending him sprawling to the ground.' He always had a peculiar horror of such crimes. They were very rare in our war, but when brought to his attention the General showed no mercy to the culprit."
Campaigning with Grant, by Horace Porter, The Century Magazine, Vol. 53, Issue 5 (March 1897), pg. 717 ______________________________________________

 

[Specster]

I believe it was during the Wilderness--late May 1864. Grant was known to have lost his anger twice were he went off on a soldier during the War. Both incidents were recalled by Horace Porter in a post war article:

"Rawlins rode with general at the head of his staff. As the party turned a bend in the road near the crossing of the Totopotomoy, the general came in sight of a teamster whose wagon was stalled in a place where it was somewhat swampy, and who was standing beside his team beating his horses brutally in the face with the butt-end of his whip, and swearing with a volubility calculated to give a sulphurous odor to all the surrounding atmosphere, Grant's aversion to profanity and his love of horses caused all the ire in his nature to be aroused by the sight presented. Putting both spurs into Egypt's flanks, he dashed toward the teamster, and raising his clenched fist, called out to him:'What does this conduct mean, you scoundrel? Stop beating those horses!' The teamster looked at him, and said coolly, as he delivered another blow aimed at the face of the wheel-horse: 'Well, who's drivin' this team anyhow - you or me?' The general was now thoroughly angered, and his manner was by no means as angelic as that of the celestial being who called a halt when Baalem was disciplining his donkey. 'I'll show you, you infernal villan!' he cried, shaking his fist in the man's face. Then calling to an officer of the escort, he said:'Take this man in charge, and have him tied to a tree for six hours as a punishment for his brutality.' The man slunk off sullenly in charge of the escort to receive his punishment, without showing any penitence for his conduct. He was evidently a hardened case. Of course he was not aware that the officer addressing him was the general-in-chief, but he evidently knew that he was an officer of high rank, as he was accompanied by a staff and escort, so that there was no excuse for the insubordinate and insolent remark. During the stirring scenes of that day's battle the general twice referred to the incident in vehement language, showing that the recollection of it was still rankling in his mind. This was the one exhibition of temper manifested by him during the entire campaign, and the only one I ever witnessed during my many years of service with him. I remarked that night to Colonel Bowers, who had served with the chief since the Fort Donelson campaign:'The general today gave us his first exhibition of anger. Did you ever see him fire up in that way in his earlier campaigns?' 'Never but once,' said Bowers; 'and that was in the Iuka campaign. One day on the march he came across a straggler who had stopped at a house and assaulted a woman. The general sprang from his horse, seized a musket from the hands of a soldier, and struck the culprit over the head with it, sending him sprawling to the ground.' He always had a peculiar horror of such crimes. They were very rare in our war, but when brought to his attention the General showed no mercy to the culprit."

Nice additional information. Was there a battle, shortly thereafter, resulting in great loss of life?



Campaigning with Grant, by Horace Porter, The Century Magazine, Vol. 53, Issue 5 (March 1897), pg. 717 ______________________________________________

 

[Specster]

Specster Corporal
Joined:
Sep 19, 2014
Messages:
262
Location:
Mass.
Also, I found this amusing:

I was listening to Shelbe Footes book on the civil war and came across a section, I believe it was mid May 1863, on the Mississippi, and the initial force of gunboats and troop transports had "run the gauntlet" which Vicksburg and associated forts imposed (being at a great height and teaming with cannon). Shortly thereafter, a second flotilla was launched, part of which was a raft or such sailing several (I believe 4) reporters. They ran at night so the Vicksburg artillerymen would have a harder time seeing them. The following morning one of Grants subordinates informed him that, the previous night, losses were light (comparatively speaking). Yet, the vessel carrying the reporters had been hit. Foote, by the best of my recollection, did not say if they were swamped or killed but what I know he did say that, upon news of this, he was (Grant), at a minimum, entertained. When I heard this, I had a very good laugh - Grant being oft described as stoic.

Has anyone else heard the same story? Prior to the siege of Vicksburg? I know in all likelihood Grants best male friends was Sherman and Sherman had an ongoing feud with the newspapers (they kept calling him crazy), even after his confidence problems.

I only bring it up because I found it fairly entertaining (no disrespect intended if the reporter died).

 

[War Horse]

I also read it in Foote. As I recall Sherman was delighted upon hearing of the reporters loss. Foote later says all four made it to safety and were recovered. Much to Sherman's sugrin.

 

[JKG3117]

I have often wondered why Grant did train horses before the war. I wonder if there was no money in it, or there was some other reason. Seems like it would have been right up his alley! I have never heard the horse or the assault story. Paints a clear picture of a man who would stand up for the defenseless.

Jim

 

[cash]

I believe it was during the Wilderness--late May 1864. Grant was known to have lost his anger twice were he went off on a soldier during the War. Both incidents were recalled by Horace Porter in a post war article:

"Rawlins rode with general at the head of his staff. As the party turned a bend in the road near the crossing of the Totopotomoy, the general came in sight of a teamster whose wagon was stalled in a place where it was somewhat swampy, and who was standing beside his team beating his horses brutally in the face with the butt-end of his whip, and swearing with a volubility calculated to give a sulphurous odor to all the surrounding atmosphere, Grant's aversion to profanity and his love of horses caused all the ire in his nature to be aroused by the sight presented. Putting both spurs into Egypt's flanks, he dashed toward the teamster, and raising his clenched fist, called out to him:'What does this conduct mean, you scoundrel? Stop beating those horses!' The teamster looked at him, and said coolly, as he delivered another blow aimed at the face of the wheel-horse: 'Well, who's drivin' this team anyhow - you or me?' The general was now thoroughly angered, and his manner was by no means as angelic as that of the celestial being who called a halt when Baalem was disciplining his donkey. 'I'll show you, you infernal villan!' he cried, shaking his fist in the man's face. Then calling to an officer of the escort, he said:'Take this man in charge, and have him tied to a tree for six hours as a punishment for his brutality.' The man slunk off sullenly in charge of the escort to receive his punishment, without showing any penitence for his conduct. He was evidently a hardened case. Of course he was not aware that the officer addressing him was the general-in-chief, but he evidently knew that he was an officer of high rank, as he was accompanied by a staff and escort, so that there was no excuse for the insubordinate and insolent remark. During the stirring scenes of that day's battle the general twice referred to the incident in vehement language, showing that the recollection of it was still rankling in his mind. This was the one exhibition of temper manifested by him during the entire campaign, and the only one I ever witnessed during my many years of service with him. I remarked that night to Colonel Bowers, who had served with the chief since the Fort Donelson campaign:'The general today gave us his first exhibition of anger. Did you ever see him fire up in that way in his earlier campaigns?' 'Never but once,' said Bowers; 'and that was in the Iuka campaign. One day on the march he came across a straggler who had stopped at a house and assaulted a woman. The general sprang from his horse, seized a musket from the hands of a soldier, and struck the culprit over the head with it, sending him sprawling to the ground.' He always had a peculiar horror of such crimes. They were very rare in our war, but when brought to his attention the General showed no mercy to the culprit."
Campaigning with Grant, by Horace Porter, The Century Magazine, Vol. 53, Issue 5 (March 1897), pg. 717 ______________________________________________

It was on June 1. Grant was on his way to Bethesda Church and later to Cold Harbor.

 

[War Horse]

There is also a story about Grant at West Point. He took a horse that was claimed to be untrainable and He trained it. I think he even set a high jumping record on the untrainable horse. He definitely set the record which stood for 25 years but I'm not sure if the horse I am talking about is the horse he set it on.

 

[diane]

Specster Corporal
Joined:
Sep 19, 2014
Messages:
262
Location:
Mass.
Also, I found this amusing:

I was listening to Shelbe Footes book on the civil war and came across a section, I believe it was mid May 1863, on the Mississippi, and the initial force of gunboats and troop transports had "run the gauntlet" which Vicksburg and associated forts imposed (being at a great height and teaming with cannon). Shortly thereafter, a second flotilla was launched, part of which was a raft or such sailing several (I believe 4) reporters. They ran at night so the Vicksburg artillerymen would have a harder time seeing them. The following morning one of Grants subordinates informed him that, the previous night, losses were light (comparatively speaking). Yet, the vessel carrying the reporters had been hit. Foote, by the best of my recollection, did not say if they were swamped or killed but what I know he did say that, upon news of this, he was (Grant), at a minimum, entertained. When I heard this, I had a very good laugh - Grant being oft described as stoic.

Has anyone else heard the same story? Prior to the siege of Vicksburg? I know in all likelihood Grants best male friends was Sherman and Sherman had an ongoing feud with the newspapers (they kept calling him crazy), even after his confidence problems.

I only bring it up because I found it fairly entertaining (no disrespect intended if the reporter died).

That incident was actually about Sherman - he had a rare dislike for reporters! He always said if he killed them all there would be news from hell before breakfast. Yes, indeed a boat carrying three reporters went down in the Mississippi. When informed of the loss and the fact that three reporters had gone with it, Sherman chortled, "Well, they must have sunk fast with all that weighty information in their heads!" The three found their way ashore somehow - now that news spoiled Sherman's day! These newsmen were not kindly disposed toward him.

 

[War Horse]

That incident was actually about Sherman - he had a rare dislike for reporters! He always said if he killed them all there would be news from hell before breakfast. Yes, indeed a boat carrying three reporters went down in the Mississippi. When informed of the loss and the fact that three reporters had gone with it, Sherman chortled, "Well, they must have sunk fast with all that weighty information in their heads!" The three found their way ashore somehow - now that news spoiled Sherman's day! These newsmen were not kindly disposed toward him.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you

 

[Henry Whitworth]

Specster Corporal
Joined:
Sep 19, 2014
Messages:
262
Location:
Mass.
Also, I found this amusing:

I was listening to Shelbe Footes book on the civil war and came across a section, I believe it was mid May 1863, on the Mississippi, and the initial force of gunboats and troop transports had "run the gauntlet" which Vicksburg and associated forts imposed (being at a great height and teaming with cannon). Shortly thereafter, a second flotilla was launched, part of which was a raft or such sailing several (I believe 4) reporters. They ran at night so the Vicksburg artillerymen would have a harder time seeing them. The following morning one of Grants subordinates informed him that, the previous night, losses were light (comparatively speaking). Yet, the vessel carrying the reporters had been hit. Foote, by the best of my recollection, did not say if they were swamped or killed but what I know he did say that, upon news of this, he was (Grant), at a minimum, entertained. When I heard this, I had a very good laugh - Grant being oft described as stoic.

Has anyone else heard the same story? Prior to the siege of Vicksburg? I know in all likelihood Grants best male friends was Sherman and Sherman had an ongoing feud with the newspapers (they kept calling him crazy), even after his confidence problems.

I only bring it up because I found it fairly entertaining (no disrespect intended if the reporter died).

The story of those reporters is told here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1610393791/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

Remarkable story. They were captured at Vicksburg, supposed to be paroled but then the officer in charge of paroles made it a personal mission to hold the two reporters from the hated, abolitionist, New York Tribune. They wound up spending much of the rest of the war in prisons, including Libby and the hellish Salisbury, from which they eventually made a dramatic escape all the way back to Union lines.

 

[diane]

I believe it was during the Wilderness--late May 1864. Grant was known to have lost his anger twice were he went off on a soldier during the War. Both incidents were recalled by Horace Porter in a post war article:

"Rawlins rode with general at the head of his staff. As the party turned a bend in the road near the crossing of the Totopotomoy, the general came in sight of a teamster whose wagon was stalled in a place where it was somewhat swampy, and who was standing beside his team beating his horses brutally in the face with the butt-end of his whip, and swearing with a volubility calculated to give a sulphurous odor to all the surrounding atmosphere, Grant's aversion to profanity and his love of horses caused all the ire in his nature to be aroused by the sight presented. Putting both spurs into Egypt's flanks, he dashed toward the teamster, and raising his clenched fist, called out to him:'What does this conduct mean, you scoundrel? Stop beating those horses!' The teamster looked at him, and said coolly, as he delivered another blow aimed at the face of the wheel-horse: 'Well, who's drivin' this team anyhow - you or me?' The general was now thoroughly angered, and his manner was by no means as angelic as that of the celestial being who called a halt when Baalem was disciplining his donkey. 'I'll show you, you infernal villan!' he cried, shaking his fist in the man's face. Then calling to an officer of the escort, he said:'Take this man in charge, and have him tied to a tree for six hours as a punishment for his brutality.' The man slunk off sullenly in charge of the escort to receive his punishment, without showing any penitence for his conduct. He was evidently a hardened case. Of course he was not aware that the officer addressing him was the general-in-chief, but he evidently knew that he was an officer of high rank, as he was accompanied by a staff and escort, so that there was no excuse for the insubordinate and insolent remark. During the stirring scenes of that day's battle the general twice referred to the incident in vehement language, showing that the recollection of it was still rankling in his mind. This was the one exhibition of temper manifested by him during the entire campaign, and the only one I ever witnessed during my many years of service with him. I remarked that night to Colonel Bowers, who had served with the chief since the Fort Donelson campaign:'The general today gave us his first exhibition of anger. Did you ever see him fire up in that way in his earlier campaigns?' 'Never but once,' said Bowers; 'and that was in the Iuka campaign. One day on the march he came across a straggler who had stopped at a house and assaulted a woman. The general sprang from his horse, seized a musket from the hands of a soldier, and struck the culprit over the head with it, sending him sprawling to the ground.' He always had a peculiar horror of such crimes. They were very rare in our war, but when brought to his attention the General showed no mercy to the culprit."
Campaigning with Grant, by Horace Porter, The Century Magazine, Vol. 53, Issue 5 (March 1897), pg. 717 ______________________________________________

That's the first time I've seen that story about whacking the perp's melon with a musket. Can't say Grant was any sort of a coward. I'd seen one about Custer, who came upon a pair of his men attempting the same thing. He laid a roundhouse clout on the jaw of the one he met on the walkway and the other fled out the back door - Custer picked up the hatchet by the fireplace and slung it toward the running target. Good shot - bounced it right off his brainpan!

 

[War Horse]

That's the first time I've seen that story about whacking the perp's melon with a musket. Can't say Grant was any sort of a coward. I'd seen one about Custer, who came upon a pair of his men attempting the same thing. He laid a roundhouse clout on the jaw of the one he met on the walkway and the other fled out the back door - Custer picked up the hatchet by the fireplace and slung it toward the running target. Good shot - bounced it right off his brainpan!

I have read of it. But not of the Hatchet throwing incident. Thank you

 

[War Horse]

That incident was actually about Sherman - he had a rare dislike for reporters! He always said if he killed them all there would be news from hell before breakfast. Yes, indeed a boat carrying three reporters went down in the Mississippi. When informed of the loss and the fact that three reporters had gone with it, Sherman chortled, "Well, they must have sunk fast with all that weighty information in their heads!" The three found their way ashore somehow - now that news spoiled Sherman's day! These newsmen were not kindly disposed toward him.

I don't recall them spending time in prison camps. I thought they were recovered by friendlies.

 

[Henry Whitworth]

I don't recall them spending time in prison camps. I thought they were recovered by friendlies.

Check out the link I posted. I'm pretty sure it's the same story. Two of the three, Junius Browne and Albert Richardson wrote books about their imprisonment and escape. Their story of being blasted out of the river matches with this story of reporters.

 

[diane]

The story of those reporters is told here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1610393791/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

Remarkable story. They were captured at Vicksburg, supposed to be paroled but then the officer in charge of paroles made it a personal mission to hold the two reporters from the hated, abolitionist, New York Tribune. They wound up spending much of the rest of the war in prisons, including Libby and the hellish Salisbury, from which they eventually made a dramatic escape all the way back to Union lines.

Richardson, Browne and Colburn were the guys tried to run Vicksburg's batteries and they are interesting in the Sherman/Grant saga! Lew Wallace, military governor in Memphis, had taken over the Confederate tainted Avalanche and Appeal, putting them under the editor of the New York Herald - Thomas Knox, and the editor of the New York Tribune - Richardson. Sherman had banished Knox and there was a nasty court-martial ensued. Freedom of the press! Sherman thought not... Sherman warred with the press as heartily as ever he warred with the rebels. Not only had they called him crazy in Kentucky, but they had dog piled on Grant about Shiloh. And...a good deal of that was coming from McClernand. Grant had an increasingly difficult time with reporters as well when his enemies started circulating rumors and innuendos.

 

[Rebforever]

I wonder if General Lee ****** off General Grant to cause him to order the attack at Cold Harbor that caused 7000 casualties?

 

[diane]

I wonder if General Lee ****** off General Grant to cause him to order the attack at Cold Harbor that caused 7000 casualties?

I thought we decided to blame Meade for that? Could be Longstreet ticked off Lee and caused Pickett's Charge! Those charges were not the best decisions either general made but there it is.