Grant Debunking/debating Ulysses S. Grant

Canadian

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
Ulysses S. Grant seems to stir up more debate than almost any other historical figure. (I'm prepared to have a medieval historian disprove this regarding Atilla the Hun or Ghengis Khan.) Any time one starts to read a thread on any USG topic, cue the attacks, shore up the defence, and the original topic of discussion gets completely lost. I propose a thread to which all these debates can be redirected:

Grant: Better or worse than Rosecrans, George Thomas, or William Tecumseh Sherman? Fair to Rawlins or not? Created by Washburn or not? Corrupt or not? Drunk/alcoholic or not? Butcher? Failure? Politically astute or lucky imbecile?
 
The questions are not historical.
They are existential.
Freedom = slavery?
Loyalty = rebellion?
Foregiveness = retribution?

If everything is morally equivalent, and everything expedient is acceptable, then its very sad.
 
Better or worse than Rosecrans, George Thomas, or William Tecumseh Sherman

Better -- only Sherman was in the same class, but Sherman was a weak tactician

Fair to Rawlins or not

He promoted Rawlins who had no formal military training to a staff position. He stood up for Rawlins when it was time to make him a Major General. Sounds fair to me

Created by Washburn or not?

Recognized and promoted by Washburne

Corrupt or not? Drunk/alcoholic or not?

Neither personally corrupt nor an alcoholic in the "diagnosed" sense. There was corruption around him & there are documented instances of his drinking during the war (four documented cases that I have discussed previously)


A failure at some things, and success at others -- particularly being a Lt. General.

Politically astute or lucky imbecile?

Grant was politically shrewd when dealing with civilian superiors during the Civil War.
 
Ulysses S. Grant seems to stir up more debate than almost any other historical figure. (I'm prepared to have a medieval historian disprove this regarding Atilla the Hun or Ghengis Khan.) Any time one starts to read a thread on any USG topic, cue the attacks, shore up the defence, and the original topic of discussion gets completely lost. I propose a thread to which all these debates can be redirected:

Grant: Better or worse than Rosecrans, George Thomas, or William Tecumseh Sherman? Fair to Rawlins or not? Created by Washburn or not? Corrupt or not? Drunk/alcoholic or not? Butcher? Failure? Politically astute or lucky imbecile?
To be fair different generals had different circumstances and challenges.
Yes Thomas had great success at the battle of Nashville but Hood made it easy to do so.
Not that it's a weakness on Thomas's part to not take advantage of his strengths. It is not the job of any general to offer his opponent a fair fight.
Sherman during his March through Georgia was greatly assisted by General Hood's decision to attack Tennessee instead of trying to block Sherman from going wast from Atlanta to Savannah.
Rosecrans did fine up until Chickumungua. Was that Rosecrans fault has been debated quite a bit.
One can certainly make a strong argument that McCellen had a better CEV ratio then Grant under more difficult circumstances.
On the other hand has it has been pointed out three Confederate field armies surrendered to Grant .No other general comes even close.
Leftyhunter
 
Grant was very popular during the latter part of his life, but by no means universally loved. He was a well-meaning person, but a weak judge of character (namely, too trusting). He was not corrupt but mistakenly trusted people who were.

He couldn't handle liquor very well, but that doesn't make him a drunk, just a proverbial lightweight who at one point in his life made the mistake of self-medicated.

He was very good with strategy and logistics, with a great deal of determination which was sorely needed. He was only an average tactician and sometimes not as careful as he should have been.

He was not really cut out to be president and certainly was not a great president, but he also wasn't the worst.

Good but flawed person who accomplished some great things. He has been praised too much by some, but criticized far too much by most in the century after his death.
 
Grant was very popular during the latter part of his life, but by no means universally loved. He was a well-meaning person, but a weak judge of character (namely, too trusting). He was not corrupt but mistakenly trusted people who were.

He couldn't handle liquor very well, but that doesn't make him a drunk, just a proverbial lightweight who at one point in his life made the mistake of self-medicated.

He was very good with strategy and logistics, with a great deal of determination which was sorely needed. He was only an average tactician and sometimes not as careful as he should have been.

He was not really cut out to be president and certainly was not a great president, but he also wasn't the worst.

Good but flawed person who accomplished some great things. He has been praised too much by some, but criticized far too much by most in the century after his death.
I will throw out another concept; in winning wars generals are indeed one factor but arguably not the most important factor. Each war is unique but generals are just one component of victory not necessarily the most important.
Leftyhunter
 
That is a lot of questions! My nutshell idea of Grant as a general is he was the one Lee feared Lincoln would find, with all his general shifting - the one who could beat him. I don't think he was that much of a failure in life, he was just doing things he had no talent for or interest in - farming, clerking, tanning hides, whatever it was he was failing at. Fighting - that was his niche! He wasn't a failure as a husband and family man - the wife and kids didn't go without the necessities as long as he could pull in a breath. That meant right down to his last breath - he wouldn't die until he finished his memoirs, which meant Julia wouldn't be in the poor house after he passed. He wouldn't be the first military man who had a hard time making it in civilian life - that was most of what his failure was about, getting work after being a career soldier. His presidency - well, he couldn't resist running for that office and he didn't do that badly...but the people around him were a pack of hyenas! Not that he hadn't had that problem in the army but these were a whole different breed. Sherman said he'd rather do four years in Sing-Sing than four years in the White House, and figured he'd come out a better man! Grant might have got to agreeing with him after a while.
 
Back
Top