Grant Grant the demigod

[mike1w]

Why do we give superhuman attributes to people like Grant, Lee, and Lincoln. I know they were great men, but they were only human. Likewise for any famous women of the civil war. Admin, please move this thread if needed.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Why do we give superhuman attributes to people like Grant, Lee, and Lincoln. I know they were great men, but they were only human.

It would probably be good to define 'superhuman', and I think describing Grant as a 'demigod' is probably going a little too far. In fact, we've seen a lot of his humanity come out in recent threads. I don't really want to speak to Lee or Lincoln as you have placed this in the Grant forum, but both have their admirers as well. They were all significant players at a pivotal moment in history, so no doubt that raises their profile. Plus, all of these men had admirable qualities, and were leaders in their own right as Generals and President. It's a fact myth grows around such men, but I have to say of the three mentioned, Grant is probably the least likely to fit into the category you mention.

 

[jackt62]

Many of the recent biographies and studies of these three men in particular, have taken a more objective look at their subjects, and tend to display their flaws as well as their strengths. There have been a number of new biographies about Grant (e.g., "Grant" by Ron Chernow) that do not hide his failings. Previous books about Lee ("Lee Reconsidered") have also taken a more realistic, balanced approach to the subject.

 

[JOHN42768]

I would not refer to any as superhuman. They were all people who had the right attributes and in the right place/position at those moments in History to effect how things would play out. No leaping tall building or stopping locomotives, just their God give skills.

 

[John Hartwell]

I suppose it depends upon who "we" is. Some people are excessive in their praise, others are not. Grant, in particular, while admired for his military achievements has also, right from the start, been rather savagely criticized for his shortcomings. In both cases, the positives and the negatives, judgments have been both fair and unfair. I know of no one who has made Grant a "demigod."

Lincoln and Lee have been the subject of a great deal of adulation, it's true. But, there also those who have a rather more cynical view of each.

 

[byron ed]

Among those who actually study the ACW there is no "we" in this regard.

Typically that kind of supposition comes from an "I" with some sort of personal need that contemporary history can't fulfill.

 

[Irishtom29]

I think the OP's very premise is faulty.

 

[mike1w]

Ok thanks. Just wanted to see opinions.

 

[wausaubob]

As commanding general in the Civil War, he had defeated secession and destroyed slavery, secession's cause. As President during Reconstruction he had guided the South back into the Union. By the end of his public life the Union was more secure than at any previous time in the history of the nation. And no one had done more to produce the result than he.

• Henry William Brands, as quoted in The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses S. Grant in War and Peace (2012), New York: Doubleday, p. 636.

Grant was an ordinary man. He drank too much as a young adult. Was an over indulgent parent. He was a typical anti-Semite who had to consciously act to counter his instinct.
He evaded the ogre of unjust criticism, hardened his heart against the siren song of false praise, subdued the anarchic spirit of rebellion, only to be slain himself by the dragon of financial fraud. And died quietly surrounded by his loved ones.
Epic in any telling. He played his part well.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

I suppose it depends upon who "we" is. Some people are excessive in their praise, others are not.

Very good point.

Unfortunately, it seems like each time there's a new scholarly study of each 'larger than life' historical figure published, said
figure's worshipers do all they can to mock such new findings.

The 'other side' does the same.

It's my experience that such actions apply to all United States Historical figures starting during the year 1492.

General/President Grant included.

 

[Forks of the Ohio]

Everything that I read about Grant on my own and learned about him in high school history class emphasized all of the times that he hit brick walls and kept on trying.

 

[jackt62]

Why do we give superhuman attributes to people

Every society and nation needs its "super heros" and certainly the United States is no different. Look for example, at the mythology that grew up around George Washington, in part to foster a national identity for the new nation. No surprise that many of these "super heros" have arisen during times of war and extreme political/economic distress.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

the mythology that grew up around George Washington, in part to foster a national identity for the new nation.

Yes, mythology is common to all human groups.

And throughout the history of mankind, 'fostering an identity' was always one of the goals of each group.

Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and every one of our presidents during the 19th/20th & 21st Centuries did the same.

Like him or not, Grant is part of our United States identity.

 

[GrantCottage1885]

Grant due to his fame is bound to be looked at through a lens of mythology and legend. Famous people throughout history, whether deserving or not, are typically placed into a larger saga as a "larger than life" character. Cultures have always mythologized and aggrandized these individuals. One of my main objectives as an educator at a historic site is to give people a more intimate view of the individual, to cut through the mythology and legend to expose the man himself. We can appreciate what someone has accomplished without having to engage in hero-worship. We can take lessons from their life and even try to emulate the aspects of their character we deem worthy but if we don't truly see the humanity in them, we will never truly be able to relate properly to them. Grant would be the first to tell you he did not win the Civil War but the soldiers who fought for him did. Grant would be the first to discount his mythological status and display humbleness. It is this enduring virtue of humility that impresses me, especially given the amount of hero-worship he received during his lifetime.

Grant Cottage Historic Site hosted a panel discussion on Grant: Mythical Hero or Mere Mortal this past season that some may find interesting in light of the OP: (Notice: The program runs 1.5 hours)

 

[Will Carry]

It would have been impossible to be super human back then....No phone booths. (May be the worst joke I have ever told)

 

[bankerpapaw]

Why do we give superhuman attributes to people like Grant, Lee, and Lincoln. I know they were great men, but they were only human. Likewise for any famous women of the civil war. Admin, please move this thread if needed.

As we look back on history, historical figures' reputations from Washington to Nimitz seem to grow after their deaths. We all love our heros.

 

[datterbury]

Why do we give superhuman attributes to people like Grant, Lee, and Lincoln. I know they were great men, but they were only human. Likewise for any famous women of the civil war. Admin, please move this thread if needed.

Super human?? Let me just say this. Sometimes the truth can be elusive. When studying a famous person in history, let's say Lincoln, we need to read as many historical books as possible just to get a little bit of knowledge on the man. Still, we will not have a complete picture of him. Every book I've read on Lincoln and I think I've read them all, gives me a little more insight on the man. Which is what makes it so enjoyable. In the end, I don't find a man that's super human? I find a man doing what he felt was best for his country, his god and his conscience. He made many mistakes, but in the end felt good about the things he got done.

 

[mike1w]

I didn't mean dc comics superhero. I meant that their reputation tends to elevate them beyond mortal men, so that their mistakes are interpreted as a product of the situation and not a flaw in themselves personally. I perhaps should have used more applicable words in the OP.

 

[ErnieMac]

IMO it's human nature to elevate the good qualities of our heroes and ignore their faults. Doesn't matter whether it's the founding fathers or more recent historic figures. I can remember hearing or reading somewhere that it takes about 50 years after an event before one can begin to see true history written. Even after that period of time an author's personal biases color the work.

 

[byron ed]

...I can remember hearing or reading somewhere that it takes about 50 years after an event before one can begin to see true history written...

Or not. Lost Cause was just approaching its zenith by that point.