Posted on 04/06/2017 4:51:47 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Confederate General Albert S. Johnson's 40,000 man Army of Mississippi attacked General Ulysses S. Grant's 45,000 man Army of the Tennessee camped at Pittsburg Landing, MS near a small church called Shilo. The attack that morning was successful, Grant's forces were driven back three miles all the way to the Mississippi River.
the good old days. At least we had a shot
It wasn’t the Mississippi River, it was the Tennessee River.
If Grant had been sober he’d have waited a day before crossing the river.
Grant:"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."
A man of his word
My bad, thanks for the correction.
Yes, the Confederacy had a shot at it.
Is there a worse person on one of the common denominations of money than this guy? He's frequently on historians' top worst Presidents lists.
The “historians” that compile this list are leftist creeps. Generally they list FDR and Washington as number one, and Reagan way down the list.
Well, he can thank God for Carter, Clinton and now...Obama.
Thought so because. I’ve been all over the Shiloh battlefield. I think my great, great grandpa, his brother and his brothers son fought there.
Battle of Shiloh:
https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tn003.htm
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/shiloh.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shiloh
And then he kicked their asses on the way to Vicksburg.
Quite a history lesson there Bull-snipe.
“Shiloh. Pittsburg Landing. April 6 - 7, 1862. Hardin County, Tennessee.”
and a pretty far piece from the Mississippi River.
Those lists of the best/worst presidents are almost always crap.
That said, while it was true that Grant was not a great President, he was not the worst, and beyond that, he is not the corrupted man that history has portrayed him as.
He is guilty of trusting people he should not have, and remaining loyal to people long after they had shown they did not deserve his loyalty. I chalk this up to his military career and the inclination of good general officers to listen to the advice of his subordinates, which does not always translate to civilian service. In the military, subordinates are often trying to achieve a common goal with their superior, that of winning a battle or war, since they both have “skin in the game”.
In the civilian world, that is an assumption that can get a chief executive in trouble, in our out of public service, because subordinates may often have wildly different goals, often centered around personal income.
Just my opinion.
I think highly of General Grant. Robert E. Lee apparently did too, after Appomattox. He was a gracious victor.
His memoirs are fascinating to read. Difficult time to be a General, and difficult time to be a President.
I’ll have to admit that that cigar chewing wino butcher was a good writer.
I would vote Andrew Jackson is far, FAR worse to have on our money.
I admit I enjoy Andrew Jackson as an interesting historic figure, and it is hard not to admire his focused determination, relentnessness, and fearlessness as a President, a military man, and as a person. He was a man to be feared, and a wiry wisp of a man at that.
But I don’t admire his politics nor his service as President. It is said that his Presidency was the forerunner of the completely corrupted politics we have honed to a fine edge since then.
He knew how to fight as well. He had the resources and manpower to defeat his foes, but as we saw early in that war, it was not enough. I know you are a man of the South and I respect that, but that doesn’t change the fact the Grant was indeed the man for that time on the Union side.
It is true Grant made plenty of mistakes, but so too did famous generals such as Patton and others in various wars, who made up for those mistakes with brilliance, persistence, aggressiveness, and relentlessness.
I don’t place much stock in the negative aspects of Grant’s drinking, though. One has only to look at men such as Winston Churchill (and for me, my father) to realize that daily consumption of alcohol does not incapacitate or significantly diminish the capability of all men. (While not denying that there are plenty of men who do become both incapacitated and diminished)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.