When it comes to horrific casualties, it always strikes me as absurd to label Grant as a butcher and give everyone else a pass. Was Grant sending troops to attack a pacifist Lee's defenseless army, while Lincoln urged him to stop? Hardly. He had his part in the carnage but by no means acted alone. I don't think the others are regularly described as butchers.
Grant was a failure at everything he tried in life except soldiering it seems.How is it not genuine history? Most presidential historians put Grant in the worst 10 we have had......Its odd some Civil War historians tend to disagree..….as he wasnt president during the civil war. When your ranked in bottom 10 of a field of over 40, thats generally not considered "better then most"
Reckon presidential and civil war historians are both historians......just as a proctologist and a cardiologist are both doctors.....still take the word of the cardiologist for my heart though. Both technically could offer a medical opinion, one has tended to focus on what's relevant to that focus though
I'm interested in this post because it seems to be a common impression that Grant was a failure at everything except soldiering, and in that context we have him categorized as a 'butcher', 'drunk', etc. There seems to be very little leeway to regard Grant in a positive light according to popular notions, and that is in spite of his positive results in helping to save the Union. Lincoln's untimely death may have contributed to his near mythical status in the circumstances, whereas Grant was in part left to help pick up the pieces. This was never going to be an easy task. I often wonder if we add context to these things whether it can make a difference as to how we view them.Grant was a failure at everything he tried in life except soldiering it seems.
And unfortunately, he will be remembered even for his every action on the battlefield (Grant the Butcherer, excessive drinking, etc.)
That's kinda the way it is with every well known historical figure.
it seems to be a common impression that Grant was a failure at everything except soldiering, and in that context we have him categorized as a 'butcher', 'drunk', etc.
He seems to have strung the Scythian bow of unity and shot straight through the 11 axe heads of the Confederacy. But he did not slaughter the southern Acheans, he let them live to grouse about his victories.The real Ulysses confronted the ogre of unfair criticism, evaded the siren song of narcissism, and gave up the Calypso dream of boozy retirement, and strove to create a free and united US, until the final dragon of financial corruption whipped him. Epic in any telling.
See, to me there are two things there which are good and one thing which is really not.If you don't like the end of slavery, and blacks voting, or think that unassimulated Indians, who did not vote and did not pay taxes, should control vast areas of the west, I can understand your unhappiness.
I think this hits the nail on the head.If you don't like the end of slavery, and blacks voting...
Well, someone could like the idea of the Indians keeping their sovereign territory.I think this hits the nail on the head.
The problem was that the Indian tribes were suffering tremendous losses to disease. The unmitigated racial violence visited on them by white settlers only made the situation worse. Some type of separation system was required and Congress was too cheap to create an army capable of protecting such a system. There American population was expanding at an incredible rate and there was not time for a better, more colonial solution. But better solutions were available. They would cost more.See, to me there are two things there which are good and one thing which is really not.
The Indians were, after all, there first - it was their land before Europeans arrived, and on at least one occasion they got promised that European settlement would go no further west than a line (which was then promptly violated).
The reason why I'm pointing this out is that I think it significantly hurts your case to include it!
I don't want to get too side tracked here, but I just thought I'd highlight that the solution you're proposing to racial violence by settlers against the native Indian population is to dispossess the Indians of their land, and you were comparing opposition to that to opposition to universal male suffrage.The problem was that the Indian tribes were suffering tremendous losses to disease. The unmitigated racial violence visited on them by white settlers only made the situation worse. Some type of separation system was required and Congress was too cheap to create an army capable of protecting such a system. There American population was expanding at an incredible rate and there was not time for a better, more colonial solution. But better solutions were available. They would cost more.
There were technical solutions available to the US, given its superiority in artillery. The geometry of bombardment and infiltration could have been worked out. But Grant was not interested. He was building smaller and more mobile forces because he intended to destroy the Confederate subsistence economy.Well, someone could like the idea of the Indians keeping their sovereign territory.
Of course, it's silly to roll all criticism of Grant into neo-Confederatism - one could quite easily say he should have won the war quicker and with less bloodshed, and more importantly it's an argument intended to shut down criticism instead of answering it properly.
I certainly agree that some people dislike Grant because he was the one who led the Union to victory. But one would hardly say thay any criticism of Bernard Montgomery (or indeed Stalin!) was just because the person liked Nazism; the argument should be considered but not used as a substitute for proper analysis of the criticism.
My idea is that a stronger army could have kept the settlers out of the reservations. There was room for some larger game enclaves, if the settlers could have been satisfied. But there would have to have been some type of joint training and joint units. Some Indian units with white advisors did exist, so they were closer than thought.I don't want to get too side tracked here, but I just thought I'd highlight that the solution you're proposing to racial violence by settlers against the native Indian population is to dispossess the Indians of their land, and you were comparing opposition to that to opposition to universal male suffrage.