Grant Grant needed the money.

[wausaubob]

Henry Halleck was married into the political elite of New York and he made a lot of money in California real estate. He knew the title workings of real estate in California. He had legitimate ambitions to become a candidate for the Presidency. George McClellan was the son of a prosperous Philadelphia physician. With his good looks and academic accomplishments, he made a logical Presidential candidate. He just got connected to the wrong party at the wrong time. But Grant needed permanent rank in the regulars to escape poverty and his father. When he achieved Major General of Regulars in August of 1863 he was set for life. He just had the unpleasant experience that with rank came obligations. Stanton and Lincoln were going to expect further accomplishments from Grant once they promoted him.

 

[uaskme]

Well he had a Wast Point education. Shame he didn't do more with it. Other West Pointers left the Army during peace times and excelled in the private sector. Had tendencies to be lazy. Had people who tried to help him. None of it worked. Hard to pitch him as someone with limited resources when a West Point education would have put him in a position more favorable than the vast majority. Sure people in the Upper Classes have advantages. Grant didn't use the advantages he had, so hard to make the argument that if he had more advantage he would of used it.

Civil War wasn't a normal event.

 

[Joseph A. Rose]

Grant's family was upper middle class and he married into a land-owning, slave-holding family, yet he was nearing poverty despite these advantages and the free college education. I think that this experience had a great effect on his relations with others later in life.

 

[jackt62]

Grant seemed to have a long history of mishandling or mismanaging money. Even after he left the Presidency he made poor investments that brought him to the brink of poverty. That led in fact to the last major chapter of his life, writing his memoirs, which was a final attempt to secure financial stability for his family.

 

[tony_gunter]

Grant had everything he wanted in life, he married the love of his life and had a house full of kids he could dote on. Everything else was just gravy.

He reminds me of Ferdinand the Bull. All the other bulls were in it for fame, Ferdinand just wanted to daydream with his beautiful flower Julia. But God help you if he got a bee under his saddle.

 

[uaskme]

But! But! But!. If only his in-laws had of had more slaves. Or his father had of been more successful? Grant would have done better in life. OPs argument?

Grant is gifted to have a large part of the population apologizing for him.

 

[Lubliner]

Grant suffered from the lack of self-esteem especially in the interim years between the wars. I would call his attitude morose, possibly bitter. He masked his real feelings very well, even in his memoir days when his military reputation was solid. He was not a political humbug with a super-ego ever, and none of the charm that outgoing personalities hold. Every one of his peers write of a man with immense internal thoughts, and reserved.
Lubiner.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Grant is gifted to have a large part of the population apologizing for him.

And a small part who spitefully attack him.

 

[Lubliner]

And a small part who spitefully attack him.

Individual opinions sometimes change for specific reasons. For instance, growing up in the '60's I first read about the California goldrush, that introduced me to General Fremont, the great pathfinder. This promoted him to 'favorite character' status. Though raised along the lower Peninsula of Newport News, I remained relatively unbiased in view of race or North/South recognition. By my high school years, I respected all sides of biased equations. Later on, my 'favorite characters' strayed toward the Yanks up north. Lincoln became important to me, so much so, that when I read about his argument with General Fremont, and worse his wife, my opinion totally blacklisted him. The same goes toward McClellan and Lincoln. Initiated into the praiseworthy side of this general, he also remained so until conflict with Lincoln. Southerners too. Beauregard was held in good esteem until I read bios and put him in context with other elite generals of the south.

I just thought I should share my belief of how we become opiniated, and how it is apt to change over the years.
Thanks,
Lubliner.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Individual opinions sometimes change for specific reasons. For instance, growing up in the '60's I first read about the California goldrush, that introduced me to General Fremont, the great pathfinder. This promoted him to 'favorite character' status. Though raised along the lower Peninsula of Newport News, I remained relatively unbiased in view of race or North/South recognition. By my high school years, I respected all sides of biased equations. Later on, my 'favorite characters' strayed toward the Yanks up north. Lincoln became important to me, so much so, that when I read about his argument with General Fremont, and worse his wife, my opinion totally blacklisted him. The same goes toward McClellan and Lincoln. Initiated into the praiseworthy side of this general, he also remained so until conflict with Lincoln. Southerners too. Beauregard was held in good esteem until I read bios and put him in context with other elite generals of the south.

I just thought I should share my belief of how we become opiniated, and how it is apt to change over the years.
Thanks,
Lubliner.

I understand what you're saying. We drift towards new and different perspectives of these historical personages.

Sometimes I look further into a historical person and evaluate him for no reason other than so many people have a negative opinion of him. My opinion of Schofield went way up after reading his biography.

 

[Lubliner]

so many people have a negative opinion of him.

Some are driven to defend an underdog by the heart, some believe it to be an honorable crusade just for the gusto. Some say 'might makes right' and some say, 'whoever gets there first with the mostest'. And then there are foolhardy times where someone gets duped into believing the wrong story or reason. Even here, it makes a difference as to when a person is male or female. It is much easier seeing eye to eye with another man, than any woman (forgive me). And please don't go crossing the Mississippi like a catholic Nun wearing a Maidenform bra. I say. 'If you ain't a bro', you can't be 'sis neither'.
Lubliner.

 

[tony_gunter]

Individual opinions sometimes change for specific reasons. For instance, growing up in the '60's I first read about the California goldrush, that introduced me to General Fremont, the great pathfinder. This promoted him to 'favorite character' status. Though raised along the lower Peninsula of Newport News, I remained relatively unbiased in view of race or North/South recognition. By my high school years, I respected all sides of biased equations. Later on, my 'favorite characters' strayed toward the Yanks up north. Lincoln became important to me, so much so, that when I read about his argument with General Fremont, and worse his wife, my opinion totally blacklisted him. The same goes toward McClellan and Lincoln. Initiated into the praiseworthy side of this general, he also remained so until conflict with Lincoln. Southerners too. Beauregard was held in good esteem until I read bios and put him in context with other elite generals of the south.

I just thought I should share my belief of how we become opiniated, and how it is apt to change over the years.
Thanks,
Lubliner.

It's unclear who you blacklisted in the Fremont / Lincoln kerfluffle. Whom did you blacklist and why?

 

[Lubliner]

It's unclear who you blacklisted in the Fremont / Lincoln kerfluffle. Whom did you blacklist and why?

Fremont fell from grace with Lincoln's opinion made about him, and the private interview he had with Fremont's wife caused his mantle to fall from my favorite list. The same occurred with McClellan, so I now find my own opinions being shaped by none other than President Lincoln against those I held in better esteem. To me, this is a bit if a setback once I realized the reason I put more weight upon one opinion over another. Or is it this way with everyone else that forms opinions? Do others really reach their own by factoring others' in and out of some equation whether it be an historian or a contemporary? My favorite trilogy on the war is by Ben Lossing, who was given the pen Lincoln signed the 13th amendment with. And much of my mindset for identifying with authors or peers seems northern as I find the southern writers to be very stilted and stiff in regard to style and verbiage. Just saying....
Lubliner.