West Point dedicates statue of Ulysses S. Grant as his presidential stature increases


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

James N.

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
11,176
Location
East Texas
#7
Not surprising that West Point has had issues with the legacy of Grant. Most of the enemy soldiers he killed were Americans.
He's politically correct, though because he was one of the tiny minority to write against our participation in the Mexican War for any other reason than terms of the expansion of slavery.
 

Cavalry Charger

Captain
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
5,983
#8
Last edited:

Cavalry Charger

Captain
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
5,983
#9
I am disappointed to see this bit of 'political speak' in relation to the dedication of this monument:

'White, author of “American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant,” writes in a Washington Post op-ed piece this week that the new statue is going up for the right reasons as other monuments of Confederate figures are being removed.'

Although White may have a point in continuing his train of thought:

“A chief insight in the reappraisal of Grant is the recognition that, at the beginning of the post-Civil War period of oppression, he acted courageously to protect the rights of freed men and women,” White writes. “Grant’s fall from American grace largely coincided with the rise of white supremacy in the early 20th century. During that period, leaders who stood up for the rights of African-Americans were not often lionized.”

he is forgetting that many of the monuments being removed are also those of Graduates of West Point admired as military/fighting men.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
642
Location
Pittsburgh
#12
I am disappointed to see this bit of 'political speak' in relation to the dedication of this monument:

'White, author of “American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant,” writes in a Washington Post op-ed piece this week that the new statue is going up for the right reasons as other monuments of Confederate figures are being removed.'

Although White may have a point in continuing his train of thought:

“A chief insight in the reappraisal of Grant is the recognition that, at the beginning of the post-Civil War period of oppression, he acted courageously to protect the rights of freed men and women,” White writes. “Grant’s fall from American grace largely coincided with the rise of white supremacy in the early 20th century. During that period, leaders who stood up for the rights of African-Americans were not often lionized.”

he is forgetting that many of the monuments being removed are also those of Graduates of West Point admired as military/fighting men.
I don’t find the quote inaccurate. Grant was a friend of the freedmen, as much as he politically could be. Also, as I understand it, much of the character attacks on Grant find their roots in the early Lost Cause writings at the same time many of the Confederate monuments were being erected for the reasons White cites.
 

Cavalry Charger

Captain
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
5,983
#13
I don’t find the quote inaccurate. Grant was a friend of the freedmen, as much as he politically could be. Also, as I understand it, much of the character attacks on Grant find their roots in the early Lost Cause writings at the same time many of the Confederate monuments were being erected for the reasons White cites.
I didn't say the quote was 'inaccurate'. I said I was disappointed at the political nature of the comment. And I stated the reason as being many of the Confederate monuments mentioned, and which are now being removed, were also of former West Point graduates renowned for their military capabilities. The focus is on West Point as much as it is on Grant if we take into account where the statue is being unveiled.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
131
Location
Adirondacks-New York
#14
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
131
Location
Adirondacks-New York
#15
58376998_2659139424114971_7537409957981847552_n.jpg
Perhaps I'm mistaken but they apparently chose to simplify his highest military rank on the monument by stating "General-in-Chief Army of the United States 1864-1869". Most will note Grant was promoted to 3-star Lieutenant General in 1864 and 4-star General of the Army in 1866. He then of course became President, therefore, Commander-in-Chief. It could be I'm just not well schooled in the nuances of rank vs. command etc. etc.
 

Cavalry Charger

Captain
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
5,983
#18

Cavalry Charger

Captain
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
5,983
#19
Perhaps I'm mistaken but they apparently chose to simplify his highest military rank on the monument by stating "General-in-Chief Army of the United States 1864-1869". Most will note Grant was promoted to 3-star Lieutenant General in 1864 and 4-star General of the Army in 1866. He then of course became President, therefore, Commander-in-Chief.
I wonder if they're trying to cover them all by using the term General-in-Chief, at least for the military aspect of his career.

How many people would know the nuance of Lieutenant General in comparison, and the honor that went with that in the circumstances during the CW? I'd like to think a few, but just so glad he's gained this well deserved recognition at last. Huzzah Ulysses! :dance:
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
642
Location
Pittsburgh
#20
According to wiki, Grant is the third highest rank US officer and 5th in seniority. List by Seniority:

1) Seniority: 1, Rank: 1 - Washington, General of the Armies (posthumous, so that Washington would be the highest rank)

2) Seniority: 2, Rank: 1 - Pershing, General of the Armies (only one to hold Rank on active duty)

3) Seniority: 3, Rank: 1 - Dewey, Admiral of the Navy

4) Seniority: 4, Rank: 4 - Scott, Lieutenant General

5) Seniority: 5, Rank: 3 - Grant, General of the Army

 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top