Grant About Grant

[Henry Whitworth]

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

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.

 

[67th Tigers]

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.

That was the theory until the 1940's. It started to change with the extremely pro-Grant "Lincoln finds a general" series by Kenneth Williams, and because a staple of what we can call the "American Heritage" version of the ACW espoused by Bruce Catton etc.

Yet the problem is that there was a lot of meat in the old arguments. Most Grant books these days are incredibly unbalanced, and the last major book on Grant to be even moderately critical was McFeeley over three decades ago.

Personally I think Grant has gotten quite out of focus, at least to the more casual reader. 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, even to the point of using his time as General in Chief to edit some of the official documentation.

This is his recent appearance on CWTR: http://cdn.voiceamerica.com/voice/201034/prokopowicz012914.mp3

and here he is on youtube, which I'm about to watch:

 

[OldGreyMare]

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.?

I have found that such people do have a better interaction with animals -- especially horses and the like. Perhaps it has something to do with the animals themselves. As prey animals they aren't wired the way our other animal companions -- dogs and cats -- are; seems as though many aspies, with their different way of swimming around in this thing we call the world don't set off a prey animals' flight/fight response the way normal people do. In return, the animals themselves, with their very different way of swimming about compared to us predators, don't press the stress buttons on aspies as much (who do seem to suffer a great amount of stress in even the most mundane of social interaction -- something that I've often noted in horses; they managed to hide it well, but dealing with human forms of communication causes a fair deal of stress for a horse -- or any prey species really).

Mutual satisfaction through understanding guaranteed for those two it seems, but for the rest it's a case of not really groking each other all that well (admirably illustrated by Twain's frustration at trying to fathom Grant).

 

[OldGreyMare]

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).

 

[wilber6150]

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?

No he said what he offered wasn't proof lol

 

[leftyhunter]

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).

Other posters have pointed out that Grant really was not that bloody or to put it another way other generals in the CW lost more men and accomplished less i.e Lee. Cold Harbor was not even in the top ten bloodies battles of the CW.
Leftyhunter

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Maybe Aspie, maybe another kinda-sorta just plain clueless personality. It's a backwards kind of place we live in, where someone who doesn't see around corners ( or down sewers ) well has something wrong with them rather than the folks who are the charletons, plotters and schemers. I never did as a kid- or a teenager. Genuinely identified with Grant in various bios because I could see what it was in the guy which drove Twain and Sherman crazy. Not sure this type isn't good with animals because horses tend to understand that what's there is just, plain there- no surprises, no unpredictability, implicit trust- conditions horses do extremely well with.

I don't know. Nice guy, adored his wife ( who he thought beautiful- and we've seen Julia, a pleasant, good woman. No beauty so his tendency to be smitten by her beauty makes you like the man even more. ), loathed peacocking evidence of rank, trusting in the extreme but flashes of brilliance. Tolerant, too- other people's egos and pettiness left him outwardly unmoved, witness Pemberton's rudeness after Vicksburg surrendered. Pretty sure it registered- he got a good swipe in on the return terms on surrender. Maybe he's such an enigma because he doesn't seem to have indulged an ego inflated up to the size of his rank and fame- we're not terribly used to that in our celebrities.

 

[frankconrad]

JPK Hudson
Perhaps Grant's Beauty, had that inner beauty that can't be seen in picture. Some of are so lucky to have that kind of woman around. Good looks are a accident true beauty comes from within.

 

[Benjamin Davis]

Was Grant just in tune with animals, or truly someone with A.S.?

Probably the former and not the latter, way too many historical figures have been retroactively "diagnosed" with Asperger's. I'm sure at least a few of these are accurate but I doubt every last "this person had A.S." theory is true.

 

[NedBaldwin]

..... 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.

I have seen this accusation made by Frank Varney in his recent book. The evidence Varney uses is incredibly thin -- the only source appears to be the "apprehensive officer", William Truesdail, [who actually did survive the war, dying of ill health in 1867]

It is is fascinating to me that other historians have written about the incident have described it quite differently - that Truesdail was the one under investigation, the subject of the report was him and the report was shelved because it didn't find anything concrete and Rosecrans wanted to keep Truesdail on.

 

[diane]

Probably the former and not the latter, way too many historical figures have been retroactively "diagnosed" with Asperger's. I'm sure at least a few of these are accurate but I doubt every last "this person had A.S." theory is true.

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!)

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Yes, the retrodiagnosis always bugs me regardless- who is to say what a mental illness IS except some condition of being- unless a person is dangerous, they've been stuck in a book written by humans, about other humans, judging that those displaying XYZ characteristics have something ' wrong' with them. Why? Because they do not fit a mainstream perspective - that massive clump deemed ' Normal'. It's one reason the wind was knocked from my sails going into the field- seemed arrogant and not a little frightening. Genuine mental illness and humans outside some specific, pretty narrow guidelines all clumped in there together.

Mary Lincoln being mentally ill is one of my favorites, then Grant, I think Sherman next- the man sanely had a kind of nervous breakdown at the prospect of more bloodshed than he could fathom. So he was crazy. Victorians were literally taught to contain all emotion, and reaction to emotion. It was tacky, allowing oneself to give in to grief or anger or strong feelings so you did not. Grant had the ability to contain himself plus 2,000, Mary did not even try- so there's something 'wrong' with both of them.

Having said that I'd have an awful lot of respect for someone like Diane who carries a diagnosis, being able to spot characteristics in someone else who may have the same one.

 

[diane]

Yes, the retrodiagnosis always bugs me regardless- who is to say what a mental illness IS except some condition of being- unless a person is dangerous, they've been stuck in a book written by humans, about other humans, judging that those displaying XYZ characteristics have something ' wrong' with them. Why? Because they do not fit a mainstream perspective - that massive clump deemed ' Normal'. It's one reason the wind was knocked from my sails going into the field- seemed arrogant and not a little frightening. Genuine mental illness and humans outside some specific, pretty narrow guidelines all clumped in there together.

Mary Lincoln being mentally ill is one of my favorites, then Grant, I think Sherman next- the man sanely had a kind of nervous breakdown at the prospect of more bloodshed than he could fathom. So he was crazy. Victorians were literally taught to contain all emotion, and reaction to emotion. It was tacky, allowing oneself to give in to grief or anger or strong feelings so you did not. Grant had the ability to contain himself plus 2,000, Mary did not even try- so there's something 'wrong' with both of them.

Having said that I'd have an awful lot of respect for someone like Diane who carries a diagnosis, being able to spot characteristics in someone else who may have the same one.

I have this peculiar idea that being an aspie might be an asset for a general!

 

[Philip Leigh]

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

Correct. I offer evidence that is cause for suspicion, including the participation by Grant's brother in law Casey, Lincoln's comment to Lamond, and the link below

 

[Philip Leigh]

Se

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?

See reply earlier today to wilbur6150

 

[Philip Leigh]

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?

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

Then Bruce Levine, among other Yankees, is not an "actual" historian because he falsely represents as "fact" that Robert E. Lee whipped a slave in an incident that Lee denied and cannot be proven. See "Fall of the House of Dixie."

In the same book Levine also claims that the South controlled all three branches of the federal govt. until the war. In truth, the South virtually never had a majority in the House, while the Senate was at best split 50/50 until 1850 when the North gained a majority and held it.

 

[Philip Leigh]

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.

Perhaps you grew up a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?304375-1/generalship-ulysses-s-grant

 

[Henry Whitworth]

Perhaps you grew up a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?304375-1/generalship-ulysses-s-grant

Well, it wasn't as recently as 2012 anyway. Nor did I grow up in a classroom of the Naval Academy. Not sure what your point is. That I don't remember what I remember?

 

[cash]

Then Bruce Levine, among other Yankees, is not an "actual" historian because he falsely represents as "fact" that Robert E. Lee whipped a slave in an incident that Lee denied and cannot be proven. See "Fall of the House of Dixie."

Untrue. He doesn't say that Lee whipped a slave. Lee had a slave whipped, which is far different from Lee doing the whipping himself. There is corroborating evidence for this from Lee's own account books showing what he paid to Dick Williams, the constable who did the actual whipping.

In the same book Levine also claims that the South controlled all three branches of the federal govt. until the war. In truth, the South virtually never had a majority in the House, while the Senate was at best split 50/50 until 1850 when the North gained a majority and held it.

That's another mischaracterization of Levine. He quoted James Henry Hammond of South Carolina who in 1858 said, " 'We, the slaveholders of the South, took our country in her infancy,' led it to independence, and have since then continued 'ruling her for sixty out of the seventy years of her existence.' " Levine continues, "Since the Revolution, in fact, nearly all the occupants of the White House had either been slave masters (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James Polk, and Zachary Taylor) or the allies and advocates of the masters (Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan). The same kind of men consistently controlled both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court." [p. 8]

As can be plainly seen, he's talking about not only slaveholders but also their allies and supporters, who were Democrats, and he's talking about up through 1858.

So Levine is an outstanding historian. You, however, failed at accurately conveying what he wrote.

 

[Henry Whitworth]

You, however, failed at accurately conveying what he wrote.

This seems very unfair. There was clearly no attempt at accurately conveying what he wrote.