Grant Grant as a Soldier - 1887

[67th Tigers]

An interesting book from 1887 examining Grant's abilities as a soldier:

https://archive.org/stream/grantassoldier00alex#page/n7

 

[67th Tigers]

An interesting book from 1887 examining Grant's abilities as a soldier:

https://archive.org/stream/grantassoldier00alex#page/n7

It does seem to be not quite as pro-Grant as later works...

 

[Canadian]

I guess this 1887 book settles it. No further discussion needed.

 

[contestedground]

https://www.gettysburg.edu/dotAsset/9738c686-73c7-458a-bcd8-5d31d9a87eb0.pdf

 

[contestedground]

I guess this 1887 book settles it. No further discussion needed.

The last chapter is a hoot.

 

[David Moore]

Has anyone actually read the Gettysburg College document?
How old is it?
It is according to the description incomplete and handwritten. Doesn't appear to be a "scholarly" work.
Augustus Alexander was an accomplished and prominent citizen of St Louis.
I would think his book would be considered more reliable than an anonymous, incomplete essay.
For the record Alexander is somewhat critical of Rosecrans in his book.
At the very least it is evidence of 19th century criticism of USG.

 

[David Moore]

Alexander's death was front page news in St Louis. He was a founder of the StL Library. Surely we can all respect him for that.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84020274/1905-02-02/ed-1/seq-1.pdf

 

[67th Tigers]

https://www.gettysburg.edu/dotAsset/9738c686-73c7-458a-bcd8-5d31d9a87eb0.pdf

Attacking the messenger?

 

[contestedground]

Alexander's death was front page news in St Louis. He was a founder of the StL Library. Surely we can all respect him for that.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84020274/1905-02-02/ed-1/seq-1.pdf

Are his arguments above criticism?

After all, I believe Grant's death was front page news on a few more newspapers, but that's never stopped you from criticizing him, has it?

 

[RobertP]

It does seem to be not quite as pro-Grant as later works...

Interesting reading. The description of the elaborate trap Lee set at North Anna was spot on, it really shows that much of what we read from modern historians is just rehash and embellishment of was very clear less than 25 years after the war. Nobody is re-inventing the wheel, most people had Grant pretty well pegged by the time this book was written.

 

[Jimklag]

Alexander's death was front page news in St Louis. He was a founder of the StL Library. Surely we can all respect him for that.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84020274/1905-02-02/ed-1/seq-1.pdf

Well, I guess that means we're required to believe every word he says! Good enough for me! The succeeding 130 years of scholarship have been rendered moot by a book three people have read.

 

[Jimklag]

Augustus Alexander was an accomplished and prominent citizen of St Louis.

And what specific expertise did he have to render military judgment on Grant?

 

[Canadian]

The last chapter is a hoot.

Worth reading?

 

[Canadian]

I was hoping all the uh, material for recycling would be put here.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/debunking-debating-ulysses-s-grant.148094/

 

[Canadian]

Worth reading?

"Interesting." I find it sad that people are still circulating this.

 

[67th Tigers]

Interesting reading. The description of the elaborate trap Lee set at North Anna was spot on, it really shows that much of what we read from modern historians is just rehash and embellishment of was very clear less than 25 years after the war. Nobody is re-inventing the wheel, most people had Grant pretty well pegged by the time this book was written.

I was surprised. I used to have a fairly "standard" interpretation of Grant, but it slowly got chipped away. Every time I looked at one of his actions closely I found him an inefficient commander. I slowly altered my understanding over time. Then I found this work which is fairly close to what it took me years of scrutiny to come to.

 

[Bee]

Pending book:

US Grant: The Failure Who Won the Civil War

 

[DanSBHawk]

Dr. Brooks Simpson is a Professor of History and writer of history of impeccable credentials - Alexander was a lawyer and a rebel. The only thing I have been able to find of Alexander in a web search is in Findagrave and a copy of the loyalty oath he was required to swear to at the end of the Civil War. That's why I asked what were his credentials other than that he was a Grant-hater, which seems to be his draw for the member who originated this thread and others extolling his virtues- not any specific scholarship or expertise.

I don't think Alexander was a confederate. This source says that he campaigned as a democrat to be a circuit judge, and was forced by the republican party to take the oath. He lost the election.

Although he was in his late twenties at the start of the war, it appears that this self-imagined military expert never bothered to serve.

According to this source, he became an invalid in 1880 due to an "attack of paresis," which was often associated with untreated syphilis.

He is definitely a fan of McClernand, which might explain his extreme hatred of Grant.

 

[Jimklag]

I don't think Alexander was a confederate. This source says that he campaigned as a democrat to be a circuit judge, and was forced by the republican party to take the oath. He lost the election.

Although he was in his late twenties at the start of the war, it appears that this self-imagined military expert never bothered to serve.

According to this source, he became an invalid in 1880 due to an "attack of paresis," which was often associated with untreated syphilis.

He is definitely a fan of McClernand, which might explain his extreme hatred of Grant.

Though it can be associated with the end-stages of syphilis, paresis is most commonly muscular weakness caused by nerve damage. I think it's a safe bet that Alexander had the same motives as the members here who tout his "book" - an attempt to aggrandize a lesser general by tearing down Grant.

 

[Jimklag]

Alexander's paresis was almost certainly not syphilis-related. The first onset of the paresis was in 1880 and he lived an invalid's life until 1905. End stage syphilis doesn't take 25 years to kill.

Secondly, I just finished reading all I could stomach of his book and found that his "facts" as to Grant's personal life are those insinuated by Halleck in 1862 and long since put to bed as the back-biting bogus claims of Halleck and not true. As for military "facts" Alexander follows exactly the McClernand line of thought and takes every word of McClernand's as gospel. 'nough said.