From Nathan Newman:
What we should honor and remember by honoring Ulysses Grant is that his vision of racial justice was the will of the American people-- all its people -- and that the following hundred years of segregation was an illegitimate betrayal of that democratic will. In that, Grant was the true founder and implementor of the modern American nation of equal rights and if the flowering of that nation was delayed for a century with his departure from office, that's all the more reason to remember his original vision and courage-- and defy those who try to bury that memory.
It's hard - and bitter - to read of such an opportunity missed, after the Civil War and the spectacularly useless Andew Johnston. Grant is pretty universally dismissed as an idle, corrupt (and drunken) President, on fairly much no evidence at all: whereas, he truly took up the murdered Lincoln's cause and ideals, and strove hard to put them into effect.
Instead, his acts and laws were overthrown, ignored, or judicially murdered, and in their stead an enormous artifice of support for the Robber Barons that still rule this country was constructed.
Militarily, I'd always considered Grant as a fairly 2nd rate general compared to the bold and dazzling Lee (or the demented Jackson), whose primary virtue was sheer bloody determination. After reading the article above, I put myself in his shoes and had to re-evaluate: if all I had was a shaky militia-quality army of enormous size and resource, but little resilience or skill, against a smaller, more agile and motivated opponent, then ... well all of a sudden, the idea of a war of manouevre seems ludicrous, playing directly into the enemy hands.
Given the Union limitations, of course Grant resorted to massive sledge-hammer attacks, brutal unrelenting pressure and a total absence of subtlety. To do otherwise was to invite defeat, whereas this approach, however expensive in lives it might seems, actually gets the war finished and won.
Plus, of course, the whole (flank) March through Georgia thing was his idea, even if executed by Slender Billy Sherman: made easier to be sure by Jeff Davis' command blunders, but still, essentially irresistible.
2 comments:
I always thought Grant's greatness skills as a general were an understanding of logistics and most critically, an ability to get him troops to fight when others might have given up.
Examples include Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing, when many thought the battle lost at the end of the first day, but Grant persevered and won the second day.
Again, he kept the army fighting through the Overland Campaign, even after taking losses that earlier Union commanders would have used as excuses to withdraw.
As for his political successes or failure, I must admit I had never paid much attention, but it does seem the Supreme Court was wilfully wicked in blocking the intent of the 14th Amendment (especially the "power to enforce" provision).
I totally agree about the logistical & inspirational/determination of Grant, it was just a dawning realisation that ... well, he may well have had considerably more tactical and strategic skill than I (or many) had assumed, but was constrained by his circumstances. His strategic vision certainly seems to have been outstanding.
And reading about his actual Presidency, as opposed to the dismissive overviews that are all I'd read til now, is certainly an eye opener
Post a Comment