Grant Grant the "butcher".

[KansasFreestater]

For me, the article answers the query posited in the first post that I quoted: Whether or not dumping the dead animals was viewed as poisoning. The use of the term "bio-warfare" would imply that dumping the carcasses was indeed viewed -- in Terry's mind -- as poisoning. Just an observation.

But that still doesn't answer the question of whether it was viewed as poisoning -- and therefore a violation of the War Department order -- back at the time.

 

[DanSBHawk]

@Bee, @shermans_march, @contestedground, @cash, @DanSBHawk, @wausaubob:

To get back to you all on the question of did U.S. Grant order the poisoning of Confederate water supplies at Vicksburg:

I did write to Terry Winschel, and did receive from him a gracious reply by email. (I actually heard back from him quite promptly; I'm just late in posting about it here -- apologies!)

Unfortunately, Terry's letter did not settle -- for me, at least -- this nagging question of did Grant, himself, order the dumping of dead animals into Confederate water supplies for the purpose of poisoning the water. Mr. Winschel said that such dumping was "a common practice" by both Union and Confederate forces during the war, "especially the closing years". I highlight this last phrase because the U.S. War Department's General Orders No. 100 was issued in 1863. (The New York Times "Disunion" blog article that mentions that order nails it down to April 24, 1863, but I have not been able to confirm that date from other sources yet. Perhaps someone else here knows.) This order stated: "The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison wells, or food, or arms, is wholly excluded from modern warfare." I wonder if perhaps "poison" was interpreted narrowly by Union commanders to mean chemical poisons such as arsenic and cyanide, and therefore armies felt that they could dump animal carcasses into water supplies without violating the no-poison order. (I'm not saying that that's what they thought; I'm just wondering if they did.)

Interestingly, when I looked up the sources listed at the end of the New York Times "Disunion" blog article, I found that numerous chemical-warfare proposals had been submitted to both the U.S. and the Confederate War Departments during the war -- everything from arsenic and cyanide to sulfuric acid, nitric acid and chlorine gas. (See here, here, and here.) Perhaps this is the context for Stanton's anti-poisoning order, and the order was meant as a rejection of those tactics. (Again, I don't know, I'm just wondering.)

[To do: Find General Orders No. 100 in its entirety and see if that gives us more info about the context and intent.]

Mr. Winschel told me that Grant's intention was to deny water sources to the Confederate army, but that it might have had some "collateral impact" on the civilian population, especially on some of the poorer members of the community who did not have wells or access to springs on private property. He said that thankfully, the majority of Vicksburg civilians had wells or access to springs, and would not have been terribly affected by the poisoning of certain streams.

The problem for us going forward on resolving this question is that, according to Terry, "the park archives have been boxed up and placed in storage, and public access is no longer available--even by appointment." Why that was done, I have no idea, but the upshot is that nobody -- including Terry Winschel himself -- can get access to those primary sources now. (On the Vicksburg Campaign tour I was on last month that was co-led by Terry, he had some dispiriting stories to tell about difficulties with the National Park Service bureaucracy... perhaps this is one more instance of bureaucratic obstructionism?)

Would welcome ideas from anyone here about how to move forward in this investigation.

So Winschel has this story about Grant poisoning the water, but can't give a source on the story when asked? Sounds a bit sketchy.

 

[StephenColbert27]

So far as I am concerned, all this is pointless until Winschel presents a source that backs up his claim. The onus is on him. It is not on us or anyone else to prove that Grant didn't try to poison the water. Rather it is on Winschel. As he has yet to do so, his claim is baseless, so far as I am concerned.

 

[treebie2000]

If your army is outnumbered nearly two to one, you have to fight harder, you are more engaged and exposed. Even if your casualties are far fewer, the percentage is often higher especially if the army is only about half the size of the enemy. Just think if the situation was reversed and Lee had 118,000 men to 60,000 for Grant, given the man for man prowess of the Confederate army, Grant's army would likely have been annihilated.

The Federals were nearly always on the offensive. Their casualties were going to be higher. Surely you can't argue against that statement. Now a question...
Q: Put the Federal soldiers behind entrenchments/stone walls, etc., and the Confederates (even given the man for man prowess) on open ground, attacking in force and what do you get?
A: Pickett's Charge

 

[CSA Today]

The Federals were nearly always on the offensive. Their casualties were going to be higher. Surely you can't argue against that statement. Now a question...
Q: Put the Federal soldiers behind entrenchments/stone walls, etc., and the Confederates (even given the man for man prowess) on open ground, attacking in force and what do you get?
A: Pickett's Charge

Right, the Confederates were as likely to attack as the Federals.

 

[treebie2000]

And when they had to attack, over open ground, they took a severe beating.
Dress right dress over a couple miles of open ground, into the grapeshot, and the canister, and the muzzles of thousands of rifles behind barricades and stone walls.
That is the price one pays when taking the offensive role.
Welcome to Grants world.

 

[rbasin]

K,

I would like to pursue this accounting, immediately. Can you offer me any more information on the dead animals/waterway incident? Who suggested this? One of the guides? Any sources discussed? I am gobsmacked by this allegation. B

Nothing new. all through history, this would have happened.

 

[rbasin]

There's a story somewhere, i think around Shiloh, where Sherman's division finds fresh water with dead horses in it. They took the horses out, waited a bit, then the water was fine. Can't think of where I saw that. Foote maybe?

Note: It does mention something about having to skim the scum off the top

 

[zburkett]

Being a Southern boy I hate to point out anything good about any Yankee General; but, if Grant was such a butcher it is doubtful that men like Mosby would have campaigned for him to become President nor would his own men voted for him.

 

[CSA Today]

Being a Southern boy I hate to point out anything good about any Yankee General; but, if Grant was such a butcher it is doubtful that men like Mosby would have campaigned for him to become President nor would his own men voted for him.

Not John S. Mosby best hour, he was appointed US consul to Hong and got a position at the US Department of Justice as post-war rewards for his collaboration.

 

[zburkett]

OK, being a Southern boy I hate to point out anything good about any Yankee General; but, if Grant was such a butcher it is doubtful that men like General Kemper would have campaigned for him to become President nor would his own men have voted for him.

 

[lelliott19]

Thanks for your response.
So we know it was used in print in 1868.

Have you- or anyone else here- seen any evidence documenting the first use of the term applied to Grant? Was it in a newspaper story? A letter? It seems to have been widespread, but it had to start somewhere....

I apologize in advance if someone else has already provided this information.

I read the first 7 pages of the thread; tired of the monotonous, reciprocal disputation; and lost interest in the entire conversation.....except for your question. Here's what I was able to find.

The earliest relevant newspaper occurrence* of the words "Grant" and "butcher" within proximity appears in an article entitled "Copperhead Calculations of Success" published in the
The Alleghanian (Ebensburg, Pennsylvania,) April 14, 1864, page 2, column 4.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85054845/1864-04-14/ed-1/seq-2/

Chronologically, the next instance is a reprint of the same article published in the
Raftsman's Journal (Clearfield, Pennsylvania), April 27, 1864, page 2, column 6.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85054616/1864-04-27/ed-1/seq-1/

There are 27 additional relevant early instances appearing in newspapers, North and South, dated June 14, 1864 to November 30, 1864.
[*results limited to the newspapers available at LOC's Chronicling America.]

 

[WJC]

I apologize in advance if someone else has already provided this information.

I read the first 7 pages of the thread; tired of the monotonous, reciprocal disputation; and lost interest in the entire conversation.....except for your question. Here's what I was able to find.

The earliest relevant newspaper occurrence* of the words "Grant" and "butcher" within proximity appears in an article entitled "Copperhead Calculations of Success" published in the
The Alleghanian (Ebensburg, Pennsylvania,) April 14, 1864, page 2, column 4.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85054845/1864-04-14/ed-1/seq-2/

Chronologically, the next instance is a reprint of the same article published in the
Raftsman's Journal (Clearfield, Pennsylvania), April 27, 1864, page 2, column 6.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85054616/1864-04-27/ed-1/seq-1/

There are 27 additional relevant early instances appearing in newspapers, North and South, dated June 14, 1864 to November 30, 1864.
[*results limited to the newspapers available at LOC's Chronicling America.]

Thank you for your response and for your persistence in research! Excellent!

 

[treebie2000]

I apologize in advance if someone else has already provided this information.

I read the first 7 pages of the thread; tired of the monotonous, reciprocal disputation; and lost interest in the entire conversation.....except for your question. Here's what I was able to find.

The earliest relevant newspaper occurrence* of the words "Grant" and "butcher" within proximity appears in an article entitled "Copperhead Calculations of Success" published in the
The Alleghanian (Ebensburg, Pennsylvania,) April 14, 1864, page 2, column 4.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85054845/1864-04-14/ed-1/seq-2/

Chronologically, the next instance is a reprint of the same article published in the
Raftsman's Journal (Clearfield, Pennsylvania), April 27, 1864, page 2, column 6.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85054616/1864-04-27/ed-1/seq-1/

There are 27 additional relevant early instances appearing in newspapers, North and South, dated June 14, 1864 to November 30, 1864.
[*results limited to the newspapers available at LOC's Chronicling America.]

Wish I had your savvy in the LOC search. I can't get anywhere there.

I did check out the links you posted above.

Wondered what others might think of the early use of "Grant the Butcher" in the press.
This article was giving the Copperhead view of things leading up to the election of 1864.
The writer had spoken to a Copperhead acquaintance who is actually hoping for HIS COUNTRIES ARMY to take a beating so his party could carry the election in November.

The people in the north who were calling Grant a butcher were also calling for the defeat of the Army of the Potomac in the field.
I particularly liked this part:

Wow.
Talk about butchers.
Talk about political mudslinging.

 

[Lost Cause]

And those names were refuted by people who knew him and in real time. It's a problem when we make judgments based on a selective reading of history.

Conclusion: he had both real-time enemies and friends in the north. Many head figures did. The wheel does not change no matter how many times you spin it.

 

[cash]

Conclusion: he had both real-time enemies and friends in the north. Many head figures did. The wheel does not change no matter how many times you spin it.

Yep. People in charge have some who don't like them and others who like them. Go figure.

 

[wausaubob]

Heard something very disturbing on recent Vicksburg Campaign tour with Ed Bearss and Terry Winschel. One of them said that Grant ordered dead animals to be dumped where they would contaminate/poison the Reb soldiers' water sources. If true, wouldn't that be a war crime?

Ed offered as fact some other things about Grant that I don't believe, such as the discredited "Yazoo bender" myth, but this is a much, much, much more serious charge. If true, it would indeed seem to make Grant a monster.

The animals may have wandered into the water source why they were still alive. Since a similar accusation was leveled by both sides, it was probably due to natural pre death behavior of the animals.

 

[CSA Today]

I may have erred in attributing the claim to Ed. I think it may have been Terry who said it, since I just found this 2004 article in which he said the same thing.

​

[Grant] engaged in an early form of bio-warfare by dumping rotting animal carcasses into a stream that provided the city with drinking water, Winschel said.​

​

Terry Winschel was chief historian at Vicksburg National Military Park for 24 years, has authored half a dozen books on the Vicksburg Campaign, and may be the most expert person on Vicksburg in the country. I have tremendous respect for him, so I'm afraid the ball is in our court to prove him wrong.

Just wanted to get back to you, @Bee, as well as @contestedground, @cash, @shermans_march, @wausaubob and others who have weighed in for Grant on this thread. One of the things that has always made Grant different, in my mind, from so many other commanders in the war has been what I've always seen as his fundamental decency. But perhaps war makes devils of us all.

One of the complaints against Sherman's men when they came through here March 8-9,1865 was digging up the salt laded earthen floors of smokehouses and dumping the contents into wells. Local citizens on hearing Sherman was headed this way hid their foodstuff including cured meat from the smoke house –usually unsuccessfully. If Sherman's men couldn't find the meat or were unable to get the residents to tell them where it was hidden this was the punishment.

 

[Bruce Vail]

A statistical anomaly, Lee had a smaller army (60,000-62,000) so his percentages would be higher. Grant's actual casualties were far greater than Lee's.

"In the whole campaign from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor, the Union's losses were approximately 55,000, nearly as much as Lee's whole army. As a defensive accomplishment in fighting off superior numbers, the campaign stands as a significant chapter in Confederate annals."

Source: J.G. Randall, David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1962) pp.419-420

I have the same book in my home library! Mine is the 1969 edition. It was the principal text for my Civil War & Reconstruction college history class back in '70s.

 

[CSA Today]

I have the same book in my home library! Mine is the 1969 edition. It was the principal text for my Civil War & Reconstruction college history class back in '70s.

My edition was in the mid-1960 to late 1960s at Appalachian State U. I took the course in graduate school.