Grant Grant: A Lousy General and Not a Nice Person

You know, even the whole ' Grant the commoner V Lee the aristocrat ' has been wildly overdone, seems a little suspect to me. You know how he's portrayed- and no, of course he did not give shiny brass a second thought, hated dress uniforms, dispensed with the trappings a lot of generals trail around. I said a lot- some sterling generals did not and probably for the same reason finding them pointless- this was war- but did not get it in the neck and still do not 150 years later. Buford did not, famously plain of dress. And Grant's family was just fine, too despite revisionist insistence on bringing the guy down a peg or 20. West Point? Must have made it tougher hitting rock bottom, you're right, he got himself out of that one albeit with Julia's faith in him.

There's a lot in this post Dam Yankee, thank you. I've always thought poor Lee is consigned forever riding Traveler, festooned with blooms picked by the hands of Confederate maidens, on a loop between Bull Run and Appomatox despite his excellent work academically and administratively at Washington College post war, despite aspects to his life, family and character which would flesh him out and allow him to be human. So is Grant stuck in that loop only not riding. He's in that tent at Cold Harbor drinking and writing inflammatory orders while somehow the war is won outside the flaps. anyway.

That's a good summary. When it comes down to it, all the posts and threads notwithstanding, Robert E Lee and Ulysses S Grant are forever conjoined twins. They will always be chasing each other between Richmond and Appomattox, Lee a symbol of what the South lost and Grant the symbol of what the North won. Ironically, Lee wanted to just eat his own cornbread in peace and Grant wanted to finally check out California. Neither one saw the war as the end-all and be-all of their lives!
 
That's a good summary. When it comes down to it, all the posts and threads notwithstanding, Robert E Lee and Ulysses S Grant are forever conjoined twins. They will always be chasing each other between Richmond and Appomattox, Lee a symbol of what the South lost and Grant the symbol of what the North won. Ironically, Lee wanted to just eat his own cornbread in peace and Grant wanted to finally check out California. Neither one saw the war as the end-all and be-all of their lives!
I high recommend Gene Smith's book, Lee and Grant, after that read Horace Porters Campaining with Grant.
Then please, do give clarity to your opinions of the men and women and the times they lived, read about life in the US before the war. Why did Grant leave the army? What was life like for men serving on the western frontier ?
Judge these folks as you will, but don't allow some lost cause author fill in the blanks for you then go off on a rant.
 
I high recommend Gene Smith's book, Lee and Grant, after that read Horace Porters Campaining with Grant.
Then please, do give clarity to your opinions of the men and women and the times they lived, read about life in the US before the war. Why did Grant leave the army? What was life like for men serving on the western frontier ?
Judge these folks as you will, but don't allow some lost cause author fill in the blanks for you then go off on a rant.

I went on a rant? :unsure: Well, ok! Thanks for the recommendations.
 
You didn't rant. I'd set aside the Gene Smith recommendation in favor of William C. Davis's book on the two generals. I believe that you would like it.
I'll have to check that out. Have you read Smith's book? It was very complimentary to both men, which may not set well with some who like their history tilted.
 
Gene Smith's book came out in 1984. A number of biographies of Grant and Lee have appeared since then. So we are talking about three decades of writing.
So the truth changes every thirty years? Interesting.
So if I understand the premise, it doesn't matter what happened at any given time, because every thirty years the facts will change,.
That sounds suspiciously like something an insurance salesman would come up with. Pay me for a policy for thirty years and it becomes worthless, which is about the way I view "the latest scholarship " aka the rewriting of history to suit our present predjudice and political leanings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sbc
So the truth changes every thirty years? Interesting.
So if I understand the premise, it doesn't matter what happened at any given time, because every thirty years the facts will change,.
That sounds suspiciously like something an insurance salesman would come up with. Pay me for a policy for thirty years and it becomes worthless, which is about the way I view "the latest scholarship " aka the rewriting of history to suit our present predjudice and political leanings.
You are free to believe what you choose to believe. And if you believe that the last word in biography about Grant in 1984 is McFeely and the last word about Lee is Tom Connelly, that's dandy. If you believe that nothing since then has been worthwhile to read, that's your choice. Someone should have told John Simon to stop editing Grant's papers with 1984, right?

The facts don't change. We learn new facts (as in Simon's uncovering of documents) and new interpretations (Grant's undergone a major reinterpretation). I gave an interested reader a suggestion. Clearly you aren't that interested reader. That you respond with a snide attack and a series of put-downs shows me that you are secure in your knowledge. Fair enough. It is your knowledge, after all.
 
You are free to believe what you choose to believe. And if you believe that the last word in biography about Grant in 1984 is McFeely and the last word about Lee is Tom Connelly, that's dandy. If you believe that nothing since then has been worthwhile to read, that's your choice. Someone should have told John Simon to stop editing Grant's papers with 1984, right?

The facts don't change. We learn new facts (as in Simon's uncovering of documents) and new interpretations (Grant's undergone a major reinterpretation). I gave an interested reader a suggestion. Clearly you aren't that interested reader. That you respond with a snide attack and a series of put-downs shows me that you are secure in your knowledge. Fair enough. It is your knowledge, after all.
I love reading new books, the idea of "modern scholarship" suggest something akin to archeology, the uncovering of new artifacts that change our views and opinions of ancient times.
The Civil War is not a ancient event. What I detest is the rewriting of history, I have no problem with a writer saying he hates Grant, or Davis, or anyone else, but sell it for what it is, opinionated cherry picked or made up new facts based oN fluff.
Perhaps the book you suggested are nothing like that, but the phrase, "modern scholarship" just turns on bright red flashing lights,
 
Last edited:
After reading the entire thread, I keep coming back to a post made early in the thread where Grant would be a war criminal under today's rules. I'm wondering just what crimes those would be.:unsure: The claim was made without any listing of so-called crimes. And how could he be a war criminal under today's rules? If that's the case, then just about every Civil War general would be a war criminal. Seems like a rather nonsensical claim to me.
 
Back
Top