Grant About Grant

[frankconrad]

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.

Grant respected his Men Patton respected Patton. Patton was a egotist

 

[War Horse]

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.

He also tried his hand at selling real estate (unsuccessfully) and finally firewood.

 

[Specster]

Grant respected his Men Patton respected Patton. Patton was a egotist

You are right, even though the "butchers bill" was high with Grant, people in power always saw the purpose behind it and felt it necessary. Patton, on the other hand, saw the war dwindling away before he could achieve his "Glory". I think he had no problem achieving some modicum of glory at the expense of foot soldiers that need not necessarily have died and still could have fulfilled the objective.

 

[KansasFreestater]

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.

Great comment. Just one little quibble -- I think that photo of young Grant and young Hays was from their cadet days at West Point.

 

[KansasFreestater]

Original English. Good practice, lol!

Beautifully written, don't you think? Grant was a very gifted writer.

 

[War Horse]

Beautifully written, don't you think? Grant was a very gifted writer.

Yes and having a coach like Mark Twain did not hurt. His memoirs are excellent. Although I've only just started reading them thanks to a friend.

 

[KansasFreestater]

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.

A couple of his failures came from going in with business partners who ended up either absconding with Grant's money or just dragging him down with them when they went under. A couple other failures were nothing more than sheer bad luck -- for example, he started out farming, and then a big bust hit the agricultural market. (This happened to Grant both in California and Missouri. And as a farmowner myself, I can tell you that there are a lot of things that, no matter how good a manager you are, you just flat have no control over -- from droughts to floods to commodity prices.) At least one year in Missouri, Grant was out of commission for a good chunk of the year because he got a very hard-to-kick case of malaria. Finally, there were the last-resort efforts such as the debt collector job, for which he was indeed terribly ill-suited.

In all these efforts, there was no doubt of Grant's integrity nor of his hard work -- he just happened to experience a long string of misfortunes. Could have happened to anyone.

 

[War Horse]

A couple of his failures came from going in with business partners who ended up either absconding with Grant's money or just dragging him down with them when they went under. A couple other failures were nothing more than sheer bad luck -- for example, he started out farming, and then a big bust hit the agricultural market. (This happened to Grant both in California and Missouri. And as a farmowner myself, I can tell you that there are a lot of things that, no matter how good a manager you are, you just flat have no control over -- from droughts to floods to commodity prices.) At least one year in Missouri, Grant was out of commission for a good chunk of the year because he got a very hard-to-kick case of malaria. Finally, there were the last-resort efforts such as the debt collector job, for which he was indeed terribly ill-suited.

In all these efforts, there was no doubt of Grant's integrity nor of his hard work -- he just happened to experience a long string of misfortunes. Could have happened to anyone.

You could not be more right.

 

[Elennsar]

A couple of his failures came from going in with business partners who ended up either absconding with Grant's money or just dragging him down with them when they went under. A couple other failures were nothing more than sheer bad luck -- for example, he started out farming, and then a big bust hit the agricultural market. (This happened to Grant both in California and Missouri. And as a farmowner myself, I can tell you that there are a lot of things that, no matter how good a manager you are, you just flat have no control over -- from droughts to floods to commodity prices.) At least one year in Missouri, Grant was out of commission for a good chunk of the year because he got a very hard-to-kick case of malaria. Finally, there were the last-resort efforts such as the debt collector job, for which he was indeed terribly ill-suited.

In all these efforts, there was no doubt of Grant's integrity nor of his hard work -- he just happened to experience a long string of misfortunes. Could have happened to anyone.

Oh definitely. But he seems to have had more than just "sheer bad luck" - I don't mean to imply Grant was lazy or otherwise a failure in that sense - just it seems he was terribly ill suited to the things he tried to pick up in this period.

Which makes that he handled the intense workload he did as a general as well as he did indicate that he was more in his element there, less in civilian life, IMO.

As you know better than I, he had the qualities that if it was just about being a person of positive traits would be a success no matter what. But the weaknesses and misfortunes cluster around his civilian activities, not so much around either being a father (and husband) or a general. Its weird.

 

[diane]

Oh definitely. But he seems to have had more than just "sheer bad luck" - I don't mean to imply Grant was lazy or otherwise a failure in that sense - just it seems he was terribly ill suited to the things he tried to pick up in this period.

Which makes that he handled the intense workload he did as a general as well as he did indicate that he was more in his element there, less in civilian life, IMO.

As you know better than I, he had the qualities that if it was just about being a person of positive traits would be a success no matter what. But the weaknesses and misfortunes cluster around his civilian activities, not so much around either being a father (and husband) or a general. Its weird.

You know, you can say that about almost all of the luminaries of the war. As Harry Heth snapped to Sherman, who was ribbing him hard about his side losing the war, "Now see here, Sherman! If there are two men on this green earth who should get down on their knees and thank God for raising up the rebels, it is Grant and Sherman. If not for the war, Grant would be tanning bad leather in Galena and you would be teaching in a Louisiana swamp!" Replied Sherman, "That is true, old chap, that is true!" Robert E Lee would have continued building forts and levees and diverting rivers until he retired to the life of a quiet aristocrat at Arlington; Forrest would have been a planter and businessman of no more than local note; Sheridan would have been a career soldier keeping Indians in line... Nothing special about any of them! Napoleon said success required three elements - talent, intelligence and opportunity. When all three come together you have Ulysses S Grant. Any one of those missing, and you have a tanner in Galena.

 

[Elennsar]

I think guys like Lee would still count as successes by the standard of success that calls Grant a failure. But its still interesting.

 

[War Horse]

And he would have failed again. Some people were ment for war. Plain and simple talent is not what we invision.

 

[War Horse]

I think guys like Lee would still count as successes by the standard of success that calls Grant a failure. But its still interesting.

How can Grant be a failure in any way you must admit he was the difference.Lincoln knew it and so did everyone else who followed his career.

 

[Elennsar]

How can Grant be a failure in any way you must admit he was the difference.Lincoln knew it and so did everyone else who followed his career.

But that career is his ACW career. The six years between resigning his commission and re-eentering the army is more like Charlie Brown of Peanuts.

 

[frankconrad]

The man who has not had
, Bad luck Failure or what has never done anything. It may not be publick knowlage. but he knows.

 

[Elennsar]

A very apt saying when judging Grant, including during the war.

He might have failed in the sense of not making a living, but he deserves to be remembered as the man who would not let failure to succeed lead to failure to try.

 

[War Horse]

A very apt saying when judging Grant, including during the war.

He might have failed in the sense of not making a living, but he deserves to be remembered as the man who would not let failure to succeed lead to failure to try.

Awesome. He was good at what he was good at.

 

[Elennsar]

Fall down six times.
Get up seven.

 

[M E Wolf]

Harvey Johnson,

Unfortunately, I have found that there are plenty of 'detractors' no matter who was General.

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.

Unfortunately, the same can be said when General Lee's name and or qualities are mentioned.

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.4

I would be very interested in the evidence that you claim, as I am a fan of evidence based on actual facts and could withstand the review of the legal system. I admit though, my personal caution about this above paragraph as the word 'may' is something that is not a solid factor of proof. It is much like, I 'may' walk to the store rather than I will walk to the store and or, have walked to the store. May have benefit has to reach a much higher level of substantiation to sustain the allegation that General Grant benefited from an illegal cotton trade. If it cannot be solidly proven that General Grant himself benefits from that cotton trade, it is not something that can be used--especially if this charge/allegation would come to the court system. It is much like the thought of "a crime may be committed." It doesn't mean that it has happened, just that the circumstances were good for such--does not mean a person will be tempted and yet, the temptation exists and a person with weaker character would act upon it.

We do know that the enemy's cotton was seized and benefits the U.S. Treasury and the expense of war. If it is seized on General Grant's order, that does not mean he benefits--but, acting as a representative of the U.S. Government, et.al., seizes it and collection of moneys, property, etc., is sent to Washington, to which in any given direction the Treasury redeems the property into financial, to benefit the Government, et.al.

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 would be most interested in this discovery. May I please ask you to furnish the link, the source of this 'new discovery that 'he' (which I assume you mean General Grant), sent an officer to collect a report of an investigation in cotton trade in the western theater when he was the 'top commander' there. This alleged staff officer collecting the report is alleged to have lost this report according to how I am reading your post.

Further, I would be most interested on how this reporting officer's emotions, his great reluctance is documented as well as how this officer felt this report would become 'lost.' It would be interesting to know these officers names and more corroboration that this ever took place and, the source(s). Was this from a diary, was this from a handed down story, is it in a report, etc.

Since it was military practice to make copies of the report, frequently officers filing reports keeping a copy for their own records, a copy for the Regiment/Headquarters and a copy to be sent to Washington, e.g. Stanton and General Halleck; what may be considered lost may be a case of not making it into the file.

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.

May I please ask for your source as to Grant's brother-in-law involvement in violation of permit and regulations? It would be equally helpful to add the sources from which you have in reference to the Lincoln-Lamon conversation.

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 agree that all of the above, as you admitted, is not proof that General Grant gained from the cotton trade. I part ways when you state that almost all biographers and Civil War commentators ignore it. Again, when such has to pass the standards of solid evidence, proof and independently can stand on its own, if it cannot--it has to be abandoned as not to add to the existing sea of 'myths and efforts to discredit' any individual of any consequence and or fame in relation to the American Civil War. When in doubt -leave it out.

Just some personal observations, comments and opinions,
M. E. Wolf

 

[M E Wolf]

Henry Whitworth,

You wrote:

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.

Being brought up in Virginia and in the area where Lee and family lived and grew up around, if any clutch in history was taught it was all the mean and nasty Yankees were and did and the Confederates could do no wrong. Poor Grant, he wasn't deserving of such rotten treatment, as I found after becoming an adult and reading for myself.

There was a lot of respect from both Confederate and Union Army for Grant, the same for Lee. Both armies and these veterans saw what they saw as far as qualities of a soldier and of a General. His surrender terms elevated his reputation with those present. Colonel Marshall, Lee's Aide-de-Camp spoke two hour eulogy at General Grant's funeral [Under Both Flags].

General Johnston, a revered Confederate General, uncovered his head at his funeral and soon after became ill and died himself yet, upon the caution against bare head during bad weather, General Johnston said that in summary, General Grant would do the same at his (Johnston's) funeral.

I am of the opinion, that those to whom fought with and against General U. S. Grant, are the best judge of character as they had the closest physical relationship.

M. E. Wolf