Grant "Thoughts on the Greatness of Ulysses S. Grant" by Josh Marshall

Bruce Vail

Captain
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Influential editor/publisher Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo had this short essay yesterday on U.S. Grant and his rising reputation in the public mind, as symbolized by Ron Chernow's new book:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/thoughts-on-the-greatness-of-ulysses-s-grant

His conclusions won't be surprising to most of the readers here but the arguments behind them might be.

Any thoughts?

Bruce,

Thank you for taking the time and effort to post this article, which I found to be very illuminating. I feel Grant is finally be given his just due and that finally, from a distance, we can fully appreciate a man who was remembered for helping save the Union.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Just read the article, and thought it was right on target in assessing Grant's military performance. The course correction that is happening these last few years, in which more objective standards are being applied to the legacy of Confederate and Union generals and leaders is long overdue.
 
'But do not miss the Memoirs. They are for the ages.'

Have to say I agree. They are concise, as the author of the article indicates, and directly from 'the horse's mouth'...I think Grant would like that. He makes no bones, doesn't try to elevate himself...in fact is quite humble about some of his shortcomings...and shares with us his perspective on the conflict. I can't imagine an understanding more valuable to have, at least from a Union point of view.
 
It is a very interesting reflection on General Grant, in which he is examined on his own merits rather than in comparison with those against whom he fought . Thanks for posting.
 
Last edited:
Finally, an author who hits the nail on the head with respect to U. S. Grant. This article is the first exposition on Grant I have read that stresses the clarity of Grant's mind and the creativity of his tactics and strategy. The author also points out that, unlike most generals in that war, Grant was perfectly aware of the connection between the military and the political consequences of his actions. Second, he points how Grant was able to learn on the job and, more importantly, how to implement those lessons learned. Thanks for posting this article, Bruce.
 
Excellent article and I thank the OP for posting it. I have not read the new Ron Chernow book but I recently finished the Ronald C. White book which spends a good deal of time on Grant's role in Reconstruction and on his presidency. That book, and this article, have only confirmed what my thoughts on Grant have evolved into over the years. I think that the people who lived during and after the war appreciated the terrible task that Grant had to undertake to win this war for the Union and I think the people knew that it was Grant who made possible the goal of Lincoln to preserve it. I used to think, many years ago, that it was simply the manpower and logistical abundance that enabled Grant to win over Southern armies. I know, now, far more than that was involved in the Union prevailing. My feeling is that Grant's deserved fame was diminished by 20th Century authors and professors who eschewed the well organized violence necessary to win the war and preferred to concentrate on the political and social aspects rather than the seamier sides of the conflict. I do not think they have much studied his presidency nor his role in protecting the Freedman after the war. Could the Union have won the war without Grant? In another context, Flexner called Washington the "Indispensable Man" in his biography and suggested that without his leadership the American Revolution would have failed. I think it might be fair to apply the indispensable title to Grant in our Civil War. Maybe Northern public opinion would have supported a longer war and other generals like George Thomas or Meade or Sherman might have ultimately ground the Confederacy into dust, but in a longer war Northern public opinion just might have wavered and forced the Lincoln Administration into letting the South go. Thanks to US Grant that scenario never had to be ventured.
 
Marshall's commentary stands on its own merits.
Grant is praised for his personal modesty, his clarity of expression and a consistent patriotism.
This use of the Grant example has been noticeable in a number of the book reviews and commentaries that have been published on Chernow's new book.
Edited by Moderator.
 
Influential editor/publisher Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo had this short essay yesterday on U.S. Grant and his rising reputation in the public mind, as symbolized by Ron Chernow's new book:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/thoughts-on-the-greatness-of-ulysses-s-grant

His conclusions won't be surprising to most of the readers here but the arguments behind them might be.

Any thoughts?

He makes some interesting points, but I think he dismisses Lee a bit too quickly.

He claims Lee was not innovative, but my study of Lee contradicts this claim. Lee split his army not once but twice at Chancellorsville, something unheard of in military doctrine at the time. While Sherman normally gets the credit for being the first to target civilian morale, it was actually Lee who did that first. His strategy from the beginning was to target either decision makers' viewpoints or the morale of the populace of the loyal states. While the article focused on Grant, I think he could have done a better job of bringing out Grant's qualities with a real Lee opposed to him rather than a dismissed caricature of Lee. It makes Grant's victory that much better if it's against the real man he opposed.

I think the point of Grant's clarity in writing reflecting a clarity of thought was very sagacious. In order to write clearly we have to have a clear picture in our mind of what we want to accomplish, what we want to say, and how we want to say it. Grant did this in his orders without writing a first draft, and he did it in his magazine articles and in his memoirs. Another good collection may be his presidential papers including any speeches he made as president. They are probably part of the Papers of US Grant and we may find them to be excellent reading as well.

The people of the 19th Century knew Grant's worth, as is testified by Grant's Tomb in New York City. He strode as a giant among the memory of the people who lived in his time. It was only after those people who knew him died off in sufficient numbers that the lost cause version of Grant finally took hold and his reputation plummeted. It's high time we recovered the memory of his greatness. This is not to say he had no faults and no human frailties. He was a good hater. He could settle scores with the best of them. He made mistakes. But he succeeded in spite of his shortcomings.
 
Here is an expanded view on the article, Grant, and yes -- Lee, too :smile:

The Civil War Generalship Coin

attachment.jpg
17700_Ulysses-S.-Grant-Bronze-Presidential-Medal_1.jpg


I’ve been thinking about how we view Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, and I’ve hit upon the idea that the two men are two sides of a single coin. Just about any quality one can identify in one leader that makes that man a superlative general can be found in the other leader.

I came across this interesting article on Grant, contemplating his greatness as a general using his Memoirs as a departure point. The author makes an error, in my view, in dismissing Lee early in the article as not being innovative. Anyone who’s looked at the Battle of Chancellorsville and Lee’s multiple divisions of his army can tell you he was an innovative general. He went against the prevalent military doctrine of the time in order to do what was necessary to win. Additionally, while William T. Sherman often gets credit for being the first to target civilian morale, we have to recognize Lee early on saw that civilian morale was his true target, which explains why he always took the offensive. He saw the need to knock civilian morale down in order to remove support for the war in the loyal states before the United States’ superior manpower and manufacturing capability could be brought to bear against the confederacy. He also recognized piling up a record of success would sustain civilian morale within the confederacy, especially in the face of losses in the western theater. Grant’s Vicksburg campaign as well as his initial ideas, rejected by Lincoln and Halleck, for a campaign against Lee show an innovative mind willing to break free of convention.

Much is made of Grant’s clarity in writing, and that is rightly so. But Lee didn’t leave any memoirs and he didn’t write any magazine articles, so we’re stuck with the orders and reports he wrote in the Official Records and his surviving letters to judge his writing, and if we read those we can see a similar clarity of expression. Lee was a terrific letter writer, and in his letters we can see the real man and not the marble model popular view of him has become.

Both men were military geniuses. Both were aggressive generals, both preferred maneuver, both were willing to do what was needed to be done to win, both hated to admit losing, and both made mistakes along the way. Both set traps for the other that the other was able to avoid. Grant recognized the trap Lee set for him at the North Anna, but only after he had marched into it. Fortunately, Lee was ill at the time and couldn’t take advantage, and Grant extricated his army. Grant set the Second Corps out as bait for Lee to attack, and Lee refused to take the bait.

Both men projected humility. Grant’s humility was evident to all, and Lee made a number of self-deprecating statements throughout the war. Grant famously wore a private’s uniform during the war, while Lee wore a colonel’s rank. Yet both men were still proud. They abhorred admitting defeat. Grant’s not meeting the accepted protocol for requesting a truce to bury dead and rescue wounded between the lines at Cold Harbor, along with Lee’s punctilious insistence that Grant scrupulously follow that protocol, led to much unnecessary suffering and even death among wounded Union soldiers lying between the lines awaiting help. Lee was finally compelled to surrender to Grant, and as he put it, he would have rather died “a thousand deaths.” More here https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2018/01/16/the-civil-war-generalship-coin/
 
Here is an expanded view on the article, Grant, and yes -- Lee, too :smile:

The Civil War Generalship Coin

attachment.jpg
17700_Ulysses-S.-Grant-Bronze-Presidential-Medal_1.jpg


I’ve been thinking about how we view Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, and I’ve hit upon the idea that the two men are two sides of a single coin. Just about any quality one can identify in one leader that makes that man a superlative general can be found in the other leader.

I came across this interesting article on Grant, contemplating his greatness as a general using his Memoirs as a departure point. The author makes an error, in my view, in dismissing Lee early in the article as not being innovative. Anyone who’s looked at the Battle of Chancellorsville and Lee’s multiple divisions of his army can tell you he was an innovative general. He went against the prevalent military doctrine of the time in order to do what was necessary to win. Additionally, while William T. Sherman often gets credit for being the first to target civilian morale, we have to recognize Lee early on saw that civilian morale was his true target, which explains why he always took the offensive. He saw the need to knock civilian morale down in order to remove support for the war in the loyal states before the United States’ superior manpower and manufacturing capability could be brought to bear against the confederacy. He also recognized piling up a record of success would sustain civilian morale within the confederacy, especially in the face of losses in the western theater. Grant’s Vicksburg campaign as well as his initial ideas, rejected by Lincoln and Halleck, for a campaign against Lee show an innovative mind willing to break free of convention.

Much is made of Grant’s clarity in writing, and that is rightly so. But Lee didn’t leave any memoirs and he didn’t write any magazine articles, so we’re stuck with the orders and reports he wrote in the Official Records and his surviving letters to judge his writing, and if we read those we can see a similar clarity of expression. Lee was a terrific letter writer, and in his letters we can see the real man and not the marble model popular view of him has become.

Both men were military geniuses. Both were aggressive generals, both preferred maneuver, both were willing to do what was needed to be done to win, both hated to admit losing, and both made mistakes along the way. Both set traps for the other that the other was able to avoid. Grant recognized the trap Lee set for him at the North Anna, but only after he had marched into it. Fortunately, Lee was ill at the time and couldn’t take advantage, and Grant extricated his army. Grant set the Second Corps out as bait for Lee to attack, and Lee refused to take the bait.

Both men projected humility. Grant’s humility was evident to all, and Lee made a number of self-deprecating statements throughout the war. Grant famously wore a private’s uniform during the war, while Lee wore a colonel’s rank. Yet both men were still proud. They abhorred admitting defeat. Grant’s not meeting the accepted protocol for requesting a truce to bury dead and rescue wounded between the lines at Cold Harbor, along with Lee’s punctilious insistence that Grant scrupulously follow that protocol, led to much unnecessary suffering and even death among wounded Union soldiers lying between the lines awaiting help. Lee was finally compelled to surrender to Grant, and as he put it, he would have rather died “a thousand deaths.” More here https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2018/01/16/the-civil-war-generalship-coin/
Just got to wondering. Post war, did Lee and Grant ever say what they thought of each other and their abilities and flaws?
 
It as if there were two Ulysses S. Grants, the soldier and the politician “...and never the twain shall meet,” ala Kipling

Grant never received the praise he deserved in his life time for the remarkable leadership and laser like focus on defeating the Army of Northern Virginia and Lee. Being compared to the "Marble Man" myth of Lee was unfair to anyone especially "---a dust-covered man on a dust-covered horse---" as written by Shelby Foote.

He was a plain man with plain simple plans who possessed the ability to select qualified and willing subordinates who would implement his plans and prosecute the war till it ended. He was called a “butcher” and accused of not caring about the horrendous casualties which came with his Overland Campaign. When it reality he was deeply affected by the sufferings of his men and kept in because he knew Lee and his army had to be defeated to win the war.

When it came to politics and the selection of staff, cabinet members or trusting members of congress and business associates, Grant was out of his depth. Being an honest man he was not able to see or mayhaps he could not discern the morals and honesty, or lack of, of his associates including his brother-in-law. The stench of corruption, cronyism along with the scandals of Black Gold, Whiskey Ring and Belknap along with others overwhelmed his administration and stained his name and administration.
Regards
David
 
Just got to wondering. Post war, did Lee and Grant ever say what they thought of each other and their abilities and flaws?

Lee is quoted as saying McClellan was the best Union general.
Grant is quoted as saying he was never more concerned than when Joe Johnston was in his front.

The two men would not give each other an inch. Two sides of the same coin.
 
It is important to realize that Grant was in fact severely criticized in the 19th century.
I very recently discovered the existence of this pamphlet: http://www.railsplitter.com/sale10/images/1152.jpg
A description of it says: A scathing attack upon the Grant administration, belittling his political supporters as "wild-cat bankers, gold-gamblers, stock-jobbers, and some of the large importers and commercial dealers... These men were desirous, after the war closed, to continue their war-plunder under the special guidance and protection of the government, and they selected General Grant as a fit instrument for that purpose..."
The pamphlet and other criticisms of President Grant in Frank Leslie"s Newspaper are mentioned in this book. Page 179 should be accessible on line:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6...t government, a cage of unclean birds&f=false

One can dispute the validity of these and other criticisms of Grant but one can't deny they exist.

In the 20th Century Grant actually received better treatment. I know of only two major books published in that century-
McFeeley's and Woodward's- that are critical of him. Maybe the negative opinion of Grant is a residue of widespread
19th century beliefs.
More recent 21st century criticism of Grant perhaps is not revisionism but rather a rediscovery of earlier opinions.
 
It is important to realize that Grant was in fact severely criticized in the 19th century.
I very recently discovered the existence of this pamphlet: http://www.railsplitter.com/sale10/images/1152.jpg
A description of it says: A scathing attack upon the Grant administration, belittling his political supporters as "wild-cat bankers, gold-gamblers, stock-jobbers, and some of the large importers and commercial dealers... These men were desirous, after the war closed, to continue their war-plunder under the special guidance and protection of the government, and they selected General Grant as a fit instrument for that purpose..."
The pamphlet and other criticisms of President Grant in Frank Leslie"s Newspaper are mentioned in this book. Page 179 should be accessible on line:
https://books.google.com/books?id=61MBDLKSOm8C&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=The+Grant+government,+a+cage+of+unclean+birds&source=bl&ots=qPDrCjo388&sig=z_cw-b9tDs2tpiJNaWehBLMwVqI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH1OOvstrYAhUhZN8KHWBKAW4Q6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=The Grant government, a cage of unclean birds&f=false

One can dispute the validity of these and other criticisms of Grant but one can't deny they exist.

In the 20th Century Grant actually received better treatment. I know of only two major books published in that century-
McFeeley's and Woodward's- that are critical of him. Maybe the negative opinion of Grant is a residue of widespread
19th century beliefs.
More recent 21st century criticism of Grant perhaps is not revisionism but rather a rediscovery of earlier opinions.

Yeah, this is what they build for people who are unpopular targets of scathing attacks and criticisms:

grant-grantstomb.jpg


Please stop cherrypicking and taking things out of context.
 
Back
Top