Ulysses S. Grant

In addition to being the greatest general of the Civil War, Grant was also a sincere abolitionist. He was a superb soldier and a fine man. His Vicksburg campaign was the preeminent masterpiece of the war.

 

Grant's understanding of strategy, tactics & logistics puts him in the front rank of US Generals. His ability to practically implement Winfield Scott's strategy negated Lee's tactical ability and the ANV's undoubted skill by playing to the North's advantages. Grant also had a good record with subordinates, most notbaly Sherman, but also some of the AOP Generals.

It is unfortunate that internal politics slowed Grant's rise after Shiloh. Had he been sufficiently high profile to be transferred East & put in charge of the AOP a year or more earlier I firmly believe the war could have ended a year earlier.

I don't know as much about his Presidency. It has a poor reputation, but I'm unsure how much of this is true & how much of it is the success of Lost Cause lies.

 

Amending the constitution is not an overnight activity.

 

@Tejas is also just completely wrong on the historical facts here. Not only was the Emancipation Proclamation more than a tactic (in fact, Lincoln's reservations about it were mostly tactical ones), and not only did it actually free many slaves, but slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, not the 14th. It was ratified a few months after the war ended, not several years.

 

The Lost Cause mythicists have a few tricks up their sleeve to try to weasel out of that one. They'll claim that, well, he was only one person; he didn't speak for everybody. Next they'll claim that this was only "after the the fact." The problems (well, some of them) about these two claims is that he definitely wasn't the only person saying this and that sources both before and during secession prove that slavery was the primary consideration. Sometimes they'll get clever enough to cite quotes from Stephens after the war (you know . . . ACTUALLY well after the fact") saying that he was misquoted and that secession wasn't about slavery. The problem with that one is that, not only had Stephens made it clear in OTHER speeches that slavery was the primary motivation, even when acting as a secession commissioner and convincing other states to secede, but this wasn't even the first speech when he had specifically referred to slavery as the "cornerstone."

The problem is that, while Lost Causers like to complain that history is "being destroyed" when statues are taken down, no single movement in the US has done more to successfully destroy history than they have. @Farnsworth wants us to believe that his words and the words of Charles Dickens are a better historical source for the motivations of southern secession than the voices of those in the south who actually made the decision to secede, as they were making that decision. Notice that none of his sources cite a single southerner saying that they seceded over tariffs. Not one -- no, not even quoting Lincoln saying that he cares about tariffs shows that the south seceded over tariffs. And when confronted by several sources from the southerners that made the decision to seceded, as they were making that decision, saying that they seceded over slavery, he either ignores them completely, complains that they are being repeated too often, or falsely claims that they came well "after the fact" (yet another timeline mistake, as the ones I corrected about his tariff/blockade/order of seceding states timeline).

The Cornerstone Speech is probably the most verbose, explicit statement we have of the motivations here, and it's typically the one I like to start with when talking to Lost Cause mythicists, but there are also the Declarations of Secession, the debates that happened among legislatures while deciding secession, and the words of the delegates sent as secession commissioners in order to try to convince other states to secede. There's also the Crittenden Compromise and the Peace Summit of 1861, both showing that the primary concern of the southern states that remained, some of which would go on to secede, was slavery, and that additional protections for slavery were vital to preventing further secession. There's also the simple fact that slavery was the primary debate every time a new state was added, culminating in blood being spilled over the topic in a precursor to the Civil War in Kansas. And the fact that these states used slavery as their primary identifier, calling themselves the slaveholding states, not the anti-tariff states. When they copied the US Constitution nearly word-for-word, the biggest change they made were additional protections for slavery . . . which eerily mirrored the earlier Crittenden Compromise. And even before then there was the outrage in the south in articles and sermons about the rise of the Republican party as an anti-slavery party and about Lincoln's opposition to slavery in particular, especially after the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

As for tariffs, I've already proven that they had the votes to defeat the Morrill tariff, they south had written the tariffs currently in effect, none of the seceding states mentioned tariffs in their Declarations, etc.

The best they have is the argument that Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery, and he definitely wasn't going to through direct Executive decree. He made that clear many, many times. He also made it clear, however, that he would use tools like pushing for compensated emancipation (which he succeeded in doing in DC), and that he, like many Republicans at the time, was willing to play the long game. The ultimate goal was slavery's extinction, but the immediate goal was simply to stop the spread of slavery to new states and territories. If they could succeed in doing that, they could, in the words of Lincoln, set slavery on the course for its ultimate extinction . . . a suggestion the first seceding state explicitly called out as a reason for seceding.

 

Former Confederate states had to ratify the related 13th and 14th amendments before being readmitted into the USA.

Texas ratified the 13th and 14th amendments February 1870 and rejoined the Union March 1970.

.

 

. . . they didn't need EVERY state to ratify these amendments. Surely you know this. Every junior high civics class covers this . . . anyone who has even attempted to read the Constitution knows this.

Congress passed the 13th amendment in January of 1865.
The CSA surrendered in April of 1865.
The 13th Amendment was ratified by the required number of states in January of 1865.

Please do more homework. I realize that you can't do so without abandoning the whole Lost Cause lie, but the truth is the truth. The truth doesn't care about your feelings.

 

*Correction, just noticed the typo: it was ratified in December of 1865

 

This is incorrect.

Former Confederate states had to vote to either ratify or reject the 14th and 15th amendments, formulate a new state constitution before readmittance to the Union and elect 2 Senators in preparation for seating them in the US Senate as soon as the state would be readmitted.

The 13th amendment was already ratified, so a later referendum would have been nonsense.

Narrative History of Texas Secession and Readmission to the Union | TSLAC

 

Texas did not formally ratify the 13th Amendment until February 18, 1870.

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/cons/features/0206_01/slide3.html


Texas had rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866, but later ratified it – along with the 13th and 15th Amendments – on February 18, 1870 to satisfy the requirements to rejoin the Union.

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/cons/features/0206_01/slide4.html

.

 

The 13th Amendment was already ratified by the necessary number of states. It had already passed.

 

Texas did not, however, need to ratify the 13th amendment - it had already passed and was already law. What part of that do you not understand? Again, Texas passed the 14th and 15th amendments in order to regain statehood, not the 13th.

 

I'm s huge fan of Grant and his pal, Sherman. What would have happened if Sherman hadn't taken Atlanta when he did?

Grant recounting accepting Lee's surrender at Appomattox:

"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/26/what-trump-gets-wrong-about-robert-e-lee/

 

What about...?

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."​

 

Like all other lost causers and Confederate apologists, his claims are completely unhinged from anything resembling actual history.

 

We haven't paid enough in taxes for services we think we should have.

Are you talking about the decision to use atomic weapons? We made it clear we would drop atomic bombs on Japan rather than oblige Japan by invading, and probably have dropped at least a half-dozen nuclear bombs on them in 1945. Why do you think it was a hard choice for Truman?

 

The problem is the "we should have." Perhaps we "want." Wanting it from federal government is a mistake. As always you view federal government as a solution to problems and I view it mostly as the cause of problems.

We only had two and we dropped both of them. I don't think we warned Japan that we would drop A bombs or that we even had them. The hard choice involves massive loss of civilian lives. Despite the massive life loss I think the bombs saved many more as it motivated the surrender.

 

Killing several hundred thousand people is never easy.

 

You people know that Grants alleged alcoholism was pretty much a myth. He didn't have a very strong stomach and it was said almost the barest smell of alcohol would make him sick.

 

Ah, you seem to have missed it: "... we think we should have..." If we really think we should have a government service, we should consider paying for it.

Not necessarily. We want public health, national defense... only the feds can deliver on some items.

"Mostly?" Maybe. People look to the feds in some cases because some states don't have the economic capacity to provide services. We could get away from relying on the feds if we had a system of equalization grants for poorer states.

We had a third bomb on the way in the Pacific when the war ended, and the capacity to produce something like ten more by year end.

Truman snapped his fingers when he explained how long it took him to decide to drop atomic bombs on Japan.

 

Perhaps, but Truman said it didn't take him long to decide.

 

As you know he has another side:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ulysses-grant-launched-illegal-war-plains-indians-180960787/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/29/1964904/-Ulysses-Grant-Memorials-and-The-End-of-Myths

One thing I would say is its very complex when going through his tenure. He did both good and bad things. His government was riddled with corruption. He drank himself to death He was many things but for myself I read his history with great interest. The very things that made him a great general also made him a bad President.

Was he reallhy a bigot as some say? I would argue no. There are its true bad events associated with him and the violation of specific Indian treaties. On the other hand in other incidents he combatted directly anti Indian measures and laws.

He met the KKK head on. In regards to the Jews in the US he did something that made him appear to be anti-semitic but it was actually not if you ask me a Jew, intended to be anti-semitic. It was an ordinance that in the long run protected the Jewish community at that time from the behaviour of about 100 Jews breaking the law:

https://reformjudaism.org/redemption-ulysses-s-grant

This is a man history loves because you can not call him evil or good, just a flawed human who did good things and failed at others because he was human and had weaknesses.

Myself I am a huge US history buff and he is one of my favourites to read about and I can see why he would be yours. The sheer intensity of the decisions he was faced with are hard to explain. I put him in a category of a few leaders like Truman who were forced to make decisions knowing what ever they decided people would die. I think it could be argued he drank himself to death because although he appeared as tough as they get deep inside, the man bled and felt great pain for some of the decisions he made. I know some consider him a cold blooded killer. Others a brilliant tactician on the field of battle, others a befuddled drunk with no time for details of office once elected.

His story is as complex as it gets.

 

All fair enough, I suppose, but not really of interest. We established the US the same way every other country in the world was established: by taking it from other people. I do not regard that universal process as criminal. Grant was a man of his time. I grant our ancestors the courtesy of being judged by their standards rather than ours.

 

Why? The government is willing to borrow the money or dilute the value of our dollar to pay for it. Why should we pay for it. We want, want, want. Government needs to say No, No, No.

Yes and we have those things. The things we think we want are beyond the appropriate role of federal government. Again my opinion is that federal government should, defent the nation, deal and treat with other nations, maintain a stable currency and resolve interstate disputes. It is failing miserably in the stable currency responsibility by the way.

God forbid. I think it should be illegal for federal government to send money to state governments. It is the way federal government takes states powers. I think the states should fund the federal government. By having that funding based on tax revenues, it would accomplish what you want. It would put taxation closer to the taxpayers which I view as a positive thing. I would return to the state legislatures naming senators and leave the voters to elect congressmen and presidents. I would like us to return to a union of states.

I didn't say he made a slow decision. I said he made a difficult one. I guess you aren't a fan of Truman but he ranks high on my list. The historical readings I have done said we had two bombs. They could have been wrong. I don't argue the point.

 

It's not going to get rid of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, national defense, etc. and I think we should pay for these programs. You don't?

No, it isn't failing to provide a stable currency or to hold down inflation.

And you wonder why people look to the feds when you don't want to transfer money to states? Do you know that nearly half of Medicare goes to indigent old folks? How would poor states ever afford to care for their elderly?

Your ship sailed long ago.

Actually, I am a fan and think he made the right choice to drop the bomb on them.

You might be interested...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182

"There was also a confirmation of the production of some 12 other atomic bombs being prepared for a barrage of nuclear strikes on selected sites.

The third bombing raid was meant to occur on August 19th, with the rest of the nuclear strikes running through September and October.

However, the Japanese government officially capitulated on the 15th, saving Japan from utter destruction."​

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/dropping-12-nuclear-bombs.html