I would, however, make an exception and promote General Halftrack to major general. That guy put up with a lot of grief over the years.
Posted on 04/27/2022 6:57:48 AM PDT by Vermont Lt
Will his heirs get back pension - plus interest?
Basically trying to pat him on the head because he played a role in freeing the slaves. All politics in the US is ultimately racial at this point.
Grant was America’s greatest General.
A similar joint resolution on Grant’s behalf was introduced last fall with bipartisan support. Two sponsors in the House are infrequent allies: Rep. Adriano Espaillat, a Democrat from Harlem who voted for former President Donald Trump’s impeachment in 2019 and 2021, and Rep. Elise Stefanik, who voted against impeachment both times and became the No. 3 Republican in the House with Trump’s endorsement.
For me a posthumous promotion of anyone, unless there is some direct benefit to the widow or his kids, is just silly. You can’t add to his reputation by this.
Either way, he wasn't general of the armies of the United States.
There is no way Grant could have pulled off organizing the invasion of Europe in WW2.
His initials were interpreted as “Unconditional Surrender” but in a good way
Meaningless promotions and salutations for the dead are government activities to pursue during "good times". We are nowhere near good times. Also, military ranks for officers should be directly connected to the number of forces under their command and only effective during their time of service, not a title of nobility. Used to be that three and four stars would return to two star rank upon retirement for pay and benefit purposes. Given that most general officers walk right out of uniform into a boardroom and a big paycheck, that policy should be updated and retirement bennies probably should be bumped down a few more ranks and capped at O-6.
Why not?
Grant didn’t have the political skill to coordinate a multi-national military.
Grants political skill is what helped him win the war.
Just finished it last month - he's actually a pretty-good writer, too. And a damned nice guy (you can tell by the way he talks about others, even guys he didn't like).
Because he would have prevailed against Lee if he had had Lee’s manpower and resources, and Lee had had Grant’s?
His original name was Hiram Ulysses Grant, but he didn’t want to be known as HUG, so he changed it.
I would, however, make an exception and promote General Halftrack to major general. That guy put up with a lot of grief over the years.
Maybe not, but Eisenhower would not qualify as general of the United States Armies since the duty was split with Ike in the European theater and MacArthur in the Pacific. "Supreme Allied Commander" is still a pretty bad assed title.
Grant used what he had to his best advantage. He certainly didn’t have a massive advantage in manpower while fighting in the west. He also never made the same mistake twice - he learned. Lee repeated made the same mistakes. Further, Grant had a solid strategic vision while Lee had none. You can argue that Lee was a great tactician but Grant’s Vicksburg campaign was the greatest tactical campaign of the war.
Grant’s memoirs are easily the best book written by any American president.
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.