Was Grant a Drunk? (Part 2)

Brooks,
You're right, of course, that the Anaconda Plan was not Grant's. If that's what Petraeus meant, but maybe he just called his plan the Anaconda Strategy as a reference to the CW not specifically Grant.
I don't know enough about Petraeus' Iraq operations to compare them to Grant's stategies in 1864, and this little blurb I quoted obviously filters whatever Petraeus actually said. The real point here is that a current military leader still finds inspiration in Grant rather than say...Lee.

Thanks Kevin I just finished Sarah Morgan's Civil War dairy it was riveting and quite informative.

Well I work in a Rural HS with a less that 1300 vol Library. Now we would not allow a stundent to turn in a paper with just 1 source either.

I have not been back on the Civil War as an area of personal reading for almost 20 years. So 99% of the books you refer too were not out when I was Reading Foote, Cannon and Shelby. So I am playing catch up. I found this site while researching a paper for my town’s namesake Gen P. R. Cleburne of the Army of Tennessee. I found the 2 books you suggested at the Museum here in town so I will be spending some time in their research library as I try to complete the research part of this paper for Cleburne’s Birthday next March 2010.

After reading your articles on the Crater I doubts about Black Confederates in any large numbers has grown tremendously.

Mike,

Good luck with your research on Cleburne. You may want to check out Google Books for access to titles that you come across here and elsewhere.

Mike,

Sorry for sounding like a jerk, but given the amount of serious research that's been done on Grant in the past few years it seems odd to base a judgment on an encyclopedia entry. Do you know who wrote it?

If one of my students handed a paper based on an encyclopedia entry I would immediately hand it back.

Kevin I posted the reference to Encarta because I wanted to show Bob that I was not alone in my assessment of Gen Grant. Beside the fact that Encarta is an accepted reference tool at my ISD. What is odd about giving reference to my opinion? You and Bob questioned my reason and since I have not read much on Grant in past 5 years it was a handy reference that I had bookmarked on my PC. As for General David Petraeus a simple Google search will show he has his owe Distracters and Critics.

Let me add also this from the Washington Times in April regarding recent comments by General David Petraeus:

"Petraeus said each night he would read three to five pages of the book, "Grant Takes Command," by John A. Rawlins [should be Bruce Catton], a history of former president Ulysses S. Grant's time commanding Union forces during the last year and a half of the Civil War. From such studies he gleaned what he called "the Anaconda Strategy," Grant's plan for occupying Richmond, a strategy Petraeus tried to emulate in Baghdad."

Wow, our current miltary leader is trying to emulate an "average general"?

"From such studies he gleaned what he called "the Anaconda Strategy," Grant's plan for occupying Richmond, a strategy Petraeus tried to emulate in Baghdad."

If that's true, that explains much, since the Anaconda Plan was not Grant's plan, and it has very little to do with his 1864 campaign. People who claim that their thinking is based on history should get the history right.

Mike

Of course Grant could not have done what he did without Lincoln’s support and the Industrial and man power of the North. The fact that Grant was able to garner and keep Lincoln's support and Grant's ability to recognize the resources he had available and utilize them effectively is part of what makes Grant one of the best Generals in military history. One reason Lincoln liked him is because he worked with what he had without always asking for more. His campaign against Forts Henry and Donelson was swift and decisive. His campaign against Vicksburg is lauded by most military historians as one of the most brilliant ever conducted. At Chattanooga Grant breaks the Confederate siege and drives Bragg off the heights of Missionary Ridge. Grant is the only general of the war to have three entire armies surrender to him. All he did was win against every Confederate General he faced, including the idol of the Confederacy, Lee.

Have you read "The Generalship of Ulysess S. Grant" by J.F.C. Fuller? Fuller had this to say:

"In this conflict a close examination will show that whilst Lee fought like a paladin, as a general-in-chief he was inferior to Grant. Grant maintained his direction by a most careful adjustment, and constant readjustment, between concentration and distribution of force; he never changed his controlling idea, though he frequently modified his means of action. Lee, I maintain, was an indifferent general-in-chief, not because he failed to win battles, but because his strategy, though it often led to brilliant tactical successes, was not of the type which could win the war. This, then, is their difference: Grant understood the meaning of grand strategy, Lee did not. He never seems to have realised the uselessness of squandering strength in offensive actions as long as the policy of the Richmond Government remained a defensive one. He never seems to have been able to focus the war as a whole, as one picture. He could see bits of it clearly enough, but the whole was beyond his vision; consequently, outside the Army of Northern Virginia, his influence on the grand strategy of the war was negligible."

Then there is Eisenhower (this is from the Grant Association webpage):

General Dwight Eisenhower admitted in 1946 that he had long thought Grant was an alcoholic but after going through WWII he had changed his mind, knowing a drunkard could never have waged and won the Civil War. In 1945, Eisenhower wrote to the author of Grant of Appomattox, William Brooks, commenting on USG’s report to the Secretary of War in 1865:

That report impressed me mightily... ever since I read that report my respect for Grant has been high, in spite of the many bitter criticisms that I have read both of his military ability and his personal habits. With respect to this last item I am delighted that you have handled it so carefully and logically. It never seemed possible to me (and I have thought about it often during the months since December 1941) that a man who so constantly under the influence of liquor could have pursued a single course so steadfastly, could have accepted frequent failures of subordinates without losing his equilibrium, could have made numbers of close decisions which involved a nice balance between risk and advantage, and could have maintained the respect of such men as Sherman, Sheridan, Meade and, above all, President Lincoln.

In July, 1964, General Eisenhower had a long interview with Walter Cronkite on the beaches of Normandy on the 20th anniversary of D-Day. He said then:

I think Ulysses S. Grant is vastly underrated as a man and as a general. I know people think this and that about his drinking habits, which I think have been exaggerated way out of line. The fact is, he never demanded more men or material from the war department, he took over an army that had a long history of retreating and losing. That army had no confidence in their fighting ability and Grant came in as a real outsider. He had so many disadvantages going into the 1864 campaign, now 100 years ago. But he met every test and rose to the occasion unlike I’ve ever seen in American history. He was a very tough yet very fair man and a great soldier. He’s not been given his due.”

Eisenhower continued on to say:

Grant devised a strategy to end the war. He alone had the determination, foresight, and wisdom to do it. It was lucky that President Lincoln didn’t interfere or attempt to control Grant’s strategic line of thinking. Lincoln wisely left the war to Grant, at least in the concluding moves after he came east. Grant is very undervalued today, which is a shame, because he was one of the greatest American generals, if not the greatest.

When Richard Nixon told Eisenhower in 1956 that it was common knowledge Stonewall Jackson was the greatest Civil War general, followed by Lee, Eisenhower interrupted him:

I wouldn’t say that, Dick. In fact I think it’s not a very reasoned opinion. You forget that Grant captured three armies intact, moved and coordinated his forces in a way that baffles military logic yet succeeded and he concluded the war one year after being entrusted with that aim. I’d say that was one hell of a piece of soldiering extending over a period of four years, the same time we were in the last war.”

Dulles, who was present, remarked that Nixon said nothing in response!

General Eisenhower also stated that Grant’s memoirs were the best military memoirs ever written.

Regarding Grant's Presidency this comment is long already, so let me just say there is a reason Grant has risen to 23 on the Presidential Rankings list.

Based on my Miltary Science training and History Degree I see Grant as an Average Gen and all those he replaced a sorry as dirt. Grant could not done what he did without Lincoln's support and the Industrial and man power of the North.

Bob I have read plenty and Grant had one of the most scandle ridden Terms in White House History.

Per Encarta
Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885), 18th president of the United States (1869-1877). Grant was a puzzling figure in American public life. He was a failure in his early ventures into both business and military life. In four years of commanding Union forces he climbed to the highest rank in the U.S. Army and directed the strategy that successfully concluded the Civil War in 1865. His two terms as president of the United States are considered by many historians to be the most corrupt in the country's history. Yet from accounts of Grant's contemporaries, as well as from his own memoirs, there emerges a personality of strong character and considerable dignity.

Mike,

Of course, you are entitled to any view of Grant you prefer, but it doesn't help much if you do not provide reasons for that view. An Online reference to Encarta is very odd.

While never using the word "butcher", Lt. Gen. James Longstreet, Lee's second-in-command, was willing to characterize Lee at Gettysburg in this way:

"That he was excited and off his balance was evident on the afternoon of the 1st, and he labored under that oppression until enough blood was shed to appease him."

Needless to say, this sort of thing didn't go over well with many of Longstreet's old comrades-in-arms and contributed to his being cast in the role of Judas in the Lost Cause mythology. The fact that Longstreet was an old friend of Grant and a post-war Republican didn't help his reputation in the South either.

I always thought it was a true testament to the staying power of the Lost Cause that Grant can still be called a "butcher" for his actions at Cold Harbor. Robert E. Lee, on the other hand, can essentially pull the same kind of moves at Gettysburg: release his men into a frontal assault suicide mission, and go down in history as a noble, valient hero. Certainly, more perceptive scholars would characterize both mens' actions as evidence of the war's realities outpacing the the evolution of battle tactics, but in much of the general culture, Lee is never referred to as a "butcher."

- Jarret

Mike,

May I suggest you expand your reading list? There are numerous studies that would easily refute your contention that Grant was "an Average General with overwhelmimg resources" and that he was far from being a "Sorry President."

IMO, Grant was simply an Average General with overwhelming resources. A Sorry President but seen within the times he lived a drinker but not a DRUNK. Now if the CW Academia wants to grill someone let’s put William T. Sherman on the Pit.

Mike,

With all due respect, suggesting that Grant was "an Average General with overwhelming resources" doesn't tell us much of anything. I don't think "Academia" is "grill"ing anyone. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean or provide a specific example. As for Sherman, he has been the subject of numerous recent biographies and other studies. I would be more than happy to suggest a few if you are interested.

Isn't Al Franken one of the sources Waugh uses? ;-) To people with an entrenched view of the world, even the suggestion of revision is seen as a threat. And, to be honest, recent Civil War scholarship has been hard on many who revere Confederate icons. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with the work, just noting the fact.

Kevin, I think Richard saw your suggestion (via Waugh) that Grant wasn't a drunk as another instance of "modern [liberal] revisionists" changing Civil War history away from what the "true narrative" should be, just as the notion that slavery was at the heart of it all bothers him, the suggestion that Grant wasn't a drunk bothers him.

James,

But I didn't say he was or wasn't a drunk. I stated that I thought the evidence was "weak or inconclusive" which is a far cry from a denial. Leave it to those pesky revisionists to challenge all things sacred, including the "Grant the drunk" mantra. I'm sure Al Franken has something to do with this. :)

Kevin,
If you read my comment on Richard's blog you know how I view Grant's drinking. As a young man I myself drank to excess on a number of occasions for a number of reasons. As I have grown older, I almost never drink and when I do (maybe once a year) It's only a couple drinks. I am not an alcoholic and have no addictions. How we understand the terms is important.

I think you and Richard are saying similar things in regard to the "larger issues." You are just coming at it from different directions. However, I also think you are right that the image of Grant as a drunk extends well beyond the modern defenders of the Confederacy. At U.S. Grant NHS visitors ask about Grant's drinking habits almost every day. I think in some way it fits with Grant's image as an American "every man."
A man who, in contrast to the eastern aristocratic Lee, was an average man of the rough and tumble west. That place where Frederick Jackson Turner said democracy was born and reborn with each new settlement. Eastern intellectuals hated Grant, especially Charles Sumner, and as Frank Scaturro wrote in "President Grant Reconsidered," eastern intellectuals are also the historians of the early twentieth century from whom much of the public perception of Grant comes. How we view Grant influences not only how we view the Civil War (and vice versa), but also how we view Reconstruction and the Gilded Age (and vice versa).

Bob,

I think we are saying sort of the same thing, which is why I find it so strange that he would look upon that particular post with suspicion. I'm not sure I understand what point he is making, though I found his most recent comment re: Grant's drinking and his willingness to sacrifice his men as helping to make one of my points. If Williams were aware of the facts one would have to conclude that alcohol has nothing to do with a willingness to be aggressive. Just ask Robert E. Lee.

Kevin,

I've done a lot of reading on Grant and drinking. The conclusion I've come to is that Grant drank no more than anyone else in the Army at the time, and drank less than a number of others. He got drunk on occasion, like almost every other officer in the Army. He even liked the taste of alcohol, like almost every other officer in the Army. I don't find evidence he was a drunkard as we understand the term. I think Bruce Catton's handling of the issue was an attempt by Catton to deny nearly every incidence of drinking by Grant that was alleged. Brooks Simpson, in my view, has the most balanced view with the best handling of the available evidence. As much as I like Ed Longacre, I disagree with his conclusion about Grant being an alcoholic.

On a separate note, I find it strange that today's neo-Confederates dismiss Grant as nothing more than a drunken butcher. What does that say about Lee that he was beaten by this "drunken butcher?"

Regards,
Cash+

Cash,

To be fair, I think the image of Grant as a drunk extends much further than the neo-Confederate community - whatever that might mean. The interesting point is that it was Lee "the gentleman" who sacrificed many more men in costly attacks compared with Grant "the drunk."

Nineteenth century standards were sometimes looser than those today, at least in regards to how much drinking made a man an alcoholic. I can't find the quote, but a English visitor to Jacksonian America wrote home that in America a man is not considered drunk so long as he can move or make a sound.