Posted on 07/24/2015 2:30:32 PM PDT by the scotsman
'After Ulysses S. Grant, the 18th president of the United States, died 130 years ago today, a million and a half Americans watched his funeral procession. His mausoleum was a popular tourist attraction in New York City for decades. But for most of the 20th Century, historians and non-historians alike believed Grant was corrupt, drunken and incompetent, that he was one of the country's worst presidents, and that as a general, he was more lucky than good.
A generation of historians, led by Columbia's William A. Dunning, criticized Grant for backing Reconstruction, the federal government's attempt to protect the rights of black southerners in the 1860s and early 1870s. Black people, some Dunning school historians suggested, were unsuited for education, the vote, or holding office. Grant's critics were "determined the Civil War would be interpreted from the point of view of the Confederacy," said John F. Marszalek, a historian and executive director of the Ulysses S. Grant Association. "The idea that Grant would do things that would ensure citizenship rights for blacks was just awful and so he had to be knocked down."
Grant's "presidency was basically seen as corrupt, and it took place during Reconstruction, which was seen as basically the lowest point of American history," said Eric Foner, a civil war historian at Columbia University. "Whatever Grant did to protect former slaves was naïveté or worse."
In recent decades, that's all changed. The Grant you learned about in school isn't the one your kids will read about in their textbooks. And that's because historians are in the midst of a broad reassessment of Grant's legacy. In just nine years, between 2000 and 2009, Grant jumped 10 spots in a C-SPAN survey of historians' presidential rankings, from 33rd to 23rd -- a bigger jump than any other president.'
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
;-)
It would have been nice if someone had asked him while he was alive. You've got to hand it to the tiny Morongo band for knowing the proper time and way to use Grant to get what they wanted.
Fortunately, Grant made the politicians abide by the surrender, or else it would have been a real mess.
As for how folks in the South viewed Grant after the war, perhaps there is a clue in the actions of my gggrandfather who belonged to a Mississippi infantry company that was involved in many battles in the Western Theater, including Vicksburg.
After the war he went home to his farm, got married, and raised a rather large family in the midst of reconstruction. He named one of his sons Ulysses S..
It also marched West to Appomattox.
Yes, I saw that after I had posted my comment.
Grant had what many Yankee generals did not have: Honor.
Grant was a lousy president, but I think that’s because he made the fatal mistake of trusting some people he never should have. Had he approached being president with the same mindset and convictions he had conducted the war he would not have been such a failure as president.
I’ve read many accounts of former Reb’s having respect for Grant. Two of the last men to visit him before his death were Simon Bolivar Bucker and Longstreet. Jean Edward Smith: “Of all the visitors Buckner stayed longest. He wanted to assure Grant that the Southern people appreciated his magnanimity at Appomattox, and also thanked Grant for preventing the Johnson administration from violating the terms of surrender.” This was the very same Simon Bolivar Buckner who had surrendered Fort Donelson to Grant. Also, at Grant’s request his pallbearers included an equal number of Southern and Union generals. At Grant’s funeral John Bell Gordon and Fitzhugh Lee led a parade of 60,000 mourners, along with Major General Winfield Scott Hancock. Smith: “ . . . one and a half million spectators lined the route as veterans of the Stonewall Brigade marched in somber unison with the Grand Army of the Republic.” That’s the kind of respect Grant instilled, from friend and former foe alike. Grant hated vindictiveness with all the fiber of his being and most of his former adversaries knew it. The noted historian David Herbert Donald dubbed Grant the most underrated American in history. Kind words indeed from a Mississippian. I’m a Southerner, born and bred, from salt of the earth Alabamans who moved to Texas in the late 1800s. No one will ever convince me that Grant was less than a very great man. And I will echo the words of Jean Edward Smith’s father (a Southerner) when he took his young son to Shiloh: “It was bad for us to have lost, he admitted, but it would have been worse if we had won.”
“As opposed to what the South did, which was to enslave people, beat them and deny them liberty?”
The “South” wished to perpetuate the existing system.
But that’s not the point.
The point is that the “South” is also YOU - assuming you are an American. The “North” is also me, as an American of Southern heritage.
The defeat of the South at the hands of the North is not something that should bring feelings of moral superiority in any American. Sherman’s march should outrage every American - rather than be justified as due punishment of the South.
That’s the fundamental misunderstanding of Americans who declare affinity on either side of the Civil War. It was an American war. Nobody today can claim victory or defeat in any logical sense. Nobody can run away from our history, nor can they claim anything but that the Civil War is part of being an American.
There are great cultural differences that indeed remain and make the South vastly superior and more American than any area of the North in terms of our founding as a God-fearing, liberty-loving republic.
But the Civil War in both “defeat” and “victory” is American.
The South simply has innate superiority that, unfortunately, people like you just resent - and having nothing to contribute yourself, you simply point to “The North defeated the South in the Civil War” when properly translated in todays context should be “Americans defeated Americans in the Civil War” - because there were no victors.
So holster your resentment of the South. You can’t do anything about being bested by your Southern neighbors in understanding America, and being American. That’s why your Northern neighbors move here in vast numbers - because they love America, and choose not to be around resentful hysterical tyrants like you.
You sir, are an ass.
“That’s why your Northern neighbors move here in vast numbers”
Nope....it’s the snow.
All my life I thought that was the trick answer to the question. But it turns out the bodies are above ground in the tomb, so nobody's buried in Grant's Tomb.
They say Groucho Marx made the question famous on his TV quiz show. According to Wikipedia, he accepted pretty much any answer (nobody, Grant, Grant and Mrs. Grant) just to have an excuse to give some money to people who couldn't win it otherwise.
Somebody who calls Grant a monster has already taken the gloves off and invited hostile responses. If somebody maligns the Union side, do you really expect that slavery isn't going to come up at some point in response?
I'd like to say "there was good and bad on both sides, so let's all get along." But looking at all the anger you have underneath that way of thinking and how you can't stop it from coming out doesn't speak well for that approach.
It's not really honest or sensible is it? The whole "How dare you think yourself superior to us! We are superior to you!" approach. Make up your mind. Are you for some kind of reconciliation or are you looking to settle scores? Holster your own %^&*(^ resentment.
“there was good and bad on both sides, so let’s all get along.” But looking at all the anger you have underneath that way of thinking and how you can’t stop it from coming out doesn’t speak well for that approach.”
That’s not what I said. I said that regardless of anyone’s selected affinity today, it was an American war and it belongs to us all. There is no relevant “side” today. So to say “you” or “the South” or “the North” was for or against anything is irrelevant today because we are Americans and we own both sides of that war.
I have no anger. I’m completely objective. The Southern culture of today,for better or worse, stands closer to the America of our founding than any other region in the country. That is to the credit of the South, but more importantly, to the detriment of our fellow Americans who must endure their statist neighbors.
If I offend my geographically-challenged neighbors to the North, I suggest they take offense at the tyrants in their midst that would enslave and deprive them of their God-given liberties enumerated in the Constitution. Don’t waste time getting mad at me. They know I’m right. Their neighbors prove me right every day by voting with their feet.
“The whole “How dare you think yourself superior to us! We are superior to you!” approach. Make up your mind. Are you for some kind of reconciliation or are you looking to settle scores?”
What’s wrong with pointing out the South is better - i.e. more American than any other place in the US? It’s true. We are more individualist, we serve in the military more, we are more patriotic, we trust our citizens to live more unimpeded by government (we’re losing this edge every day, granted). Southern values are just better. It’s not my fault that our poor neighbors to the North willingly put up with losing their freedoms and liberties. We’re better in the South for have preserved more freedoms and liberties. Sorry for not sugar coating that for ya.
As for reconciliation - we need no reconciliation - America was preserved after the Civil War, thank goodness.
THose who try to claim that it’s folks who live in the South today were somehow more responsible for slavery in our Union than any other American living today is the height of stupidity - yet here it is on this thread in all it’s splendor. It’s a North thing.
The poor poster feels morally superior with his lecture about slavery being bad - when he is actually morally inferior, inferior as an American, and all around misguided (and probably has a number of bad habits and poor hygiene) to his Southern neighbors.
It’s not my fault I’m born a Southerner and recognize the superiority of the cultural attributes thereof. You should learn them and emulate them more. You’ll be a better person, a better American.
I agree with some of your post and strongly disagree with the rest. Let’s start with the agreement part.
I applaud you for admitting what few of the neo-confederates at FreeRepublic will - that we are all Americans. By their words most of them seem to despise our nation. I also agree with the statement, “But the Civil War in both “defeat” and “victory” is American.”
I also agree with the statement, “The defeat of the South at the hands of the North is not something that should bring feelings of moral superiority in any American” although possibly for different reasons.
The simple truth is that you will have to look long and hard to find any FReeper lording the union victory over the confederates - except perhaps as a retaliatory post to an equally knot-headed statement by a lost causer. Let’s face it - both sides look for opportunities to goad the other side when in the thick of it when debating the WBTS.
Oh, and one other agreement - you are correct that the south wished to perpetuate slavery - at a time when the rest of the civilized world was rejecting it. That didn’t exactly enthrall other nations to it’s cause or its methodology.
I don’t agree that Sherman’s tactics were meant as a “punishment” of the south - they were intended to expedite the cessation of the conflict. I have no outrage at his actions.
I do believe that there can and is a winner in the conflict. If you believe in the rule of law you have to celebrate the outcome of the war. Whatever problems we have we must find lawful solutions for them or we become nothing more legitimate than outlaws or renegades.
“There are great cultural differences that indeed remain and make the South vastly superior and more American than any area of the North in terms of our founding as a God-fearing, liberty-loving republic.”
That’s just silly.
There is not a single state where the left isn’t on the march. If you read the news you know that we are all afflicted with the corruption of leftism. No one is exempt. And trying to hide behind the pretense of “it’s the outsiders who come down here and bring their liberalism with them” is bullcrap. Whatever state you hail from, I guarantee that you have homegrown lefties agitating for Øbamanism.
I have no issue with you feeling pride for your state but let’s keep it real.
Lastly, I read through ronnie’s posts and don’t see anything disparaging of the south or maligning you or your state. Stating that the confederacy was evil (it was) is not the same as saying southerners are bad (they aren’t).
I think that it is williams, who can’t help but pick at scabs, who is the ass.
“I don’t agree that Sherman’s tactics were meant as a “punishment” of the south - they were intended to expedite the cessation of the conflict. I have no outrage at his actions.”
SHermans tactics were not in alignment with the objective of preserving the Union. That he, as an American, would have to face up to what he did to other Americans was not something he thought through. Not everyone was a Lincoln.
Sherman did what he did because he could, not because he should. His tactics didn’t make it any easier to reconcile in the wake of the Civil War - and made the reconstituted America less prosperous for all Americans.
“That’s just silly”
Well it is silly, but it’s mostly silly because it’s true. Try to buy a gun in NJ. THAT is silly. I feel compassion for our neighbors to the North, and I want the freedoms they’ve lost back - for them, not for me.
“Oh, and one other agreement - you are correct that the south wished to perpetuate slavery - at a time when the rest of the civilized world was rejecting it. That didn’t exactly enthrall other nations to it’s cause or its methodology.”
I don’t think I said that. Slavery was an American thing at the time. To attribute motive of the South of today to wish for slavery is - as you say - silly. I don’t think I commented on the rest of the “civilized” world relative to taking sides in the Civil War.
“Let’s face it - both sides look for opportunities to goad the other side when in the thick of it when debating the WBTS.”
I agree with this, and am guilty as charged! ;^)
“I do believe that there can and is a winner in the conflict.”
You surely cannot look at the cost of the Civil War and think “victory”? The “win” was that it was over, and we had to figure out how to go forward as Americans. So my point is that today the outcome belongs to us as Americans.
“Stating that the confederacy was evil (it was) “
Evil? See, now here is where you go off the rails. Whatever evil you could attribute to the Confederacy you’d have to attribute to pre-civil war America.
Americans decided they could secede (even though a big part of their motivation was wrong). This point was at the very least Constitutionally ambiguous and was decided unambiguously by fighting the Civil War. I still don’t think the 10th Amendment has recovered - and we are a worse America for that.
Evil? Nope. That’s Sherman type thinking.
“There is not a single state where the left isn’t on the march.”
If America is to be saved, it will be saved by the South, and values that are woven into Southern culture more than any other region.
The restoration of the 10th Amendment is likely to be a time of great upheaval - perhaps rivaling the Civil War in effect if not act - because the limits of ever-encroaching Federalism are in sight.
The sanctity of the Union will be challenged more seriously by profligate spending, debt and tyranny the central government than it was by the Confederacy, I think.
There is the “evil” that you seek to find - the ever-expanding freedom-crushing federal government - grown unchecked ever since the end of the Civil War.
Americans face similar problems wherever they live. The South, like the West, escapes some of the problems of the crowded urban Northeast by having developed later and being less thickly settled, but still, there are some quite impoverished areas in the South.
You can make a lot of Southern religion and traditionalism, but still, divorce rates are higher in the South. If you're talking about cultural decline, the South is maybe 10 or 15 years behind the North. Where we are now, you may be later.
I'm not saying that makes the North better, just that different regions are better at some things and worse at others. Different regions do different things better and a country benefits by having citizens with different skill sets.
I don't think you're being entirely honest or keeping up with the debates here -- I don't know which it is. When I came here, I'd have said, "yes, the Civil War belongs to all of us; every American's heritage is both Northern and Southern (and other things beside)." But I've seen so many people taking up the Confederate "side" of the Civil War so passionately that those of us who don't are left to speak up for the Union.
People are so devoted about one side or the other in the conflict that saying "you" and "us" has become a convention here. That's the way things have been on these threads for years. Most of the time it doesn't involve assumptions of superiority or inferiority. It doesn't mean anybody, certainly not the poster you attacked, is blaming present-day Southerners for slavery.
You are so heated in your defense of your region and your abuse of the other that I don't think you can claim to be above all that. And I don't think you can play both the passionate sectionalist card and the "we're all Americans and we own both sides of what happened" card. The two are inconsistent.
If you want to play the sectional uniqueness card, you might not simply assume that Southern uniqueness means superiority, but also specific burdens or failings in the past. If you want to play the "we're all Americans" card, maybe recognize that we share a lot in the present as well as in the past.
“You are so heated in your defense of your region and your abuse of the other”
I’m abusive towards the governmental approach of the North, and I think you’d agree, if you are an American. I’ve been most expressive of welcoming those who come to the South to avoid the things which I abuse.
The North will become more “Southern” if America is to survive.
“Different regions do different things better and a country benefits by having citizens with different skill sets.”
Kumbaya-BS. The North doesn’t suffer having untalented citizens, rather it suffers untalented government - indeed overbearing, enslaving government.
I love my fellow Americans. I pity the ones who do not enjoy the freedoms that I do. Most do not realize or care, unfortunately. I lament the encroaching loss of freedoms for everyone - but I trust that the Federal government will be bankrupt before they can get them all - and then we can seize them back.
“And I don’t think you can play both the passionate sectionalist card and the “we’re all Americans and we own both sides of what happened” card. The two are inconsistent.”
Sure I can, and no they are not. What you fail to grasp is that you need more of what we’ve got in the South. We need more of it here too. It makes us all better Americans. So take THAT, Yankee!
“If you want to play the sectional uniqueness card,”
Uniqueness? I think I said the South is BETTER - which certainly does imply uniqueness from the government attitude of the North (and many citizens). I’ve got Southerners in mind that would be better suited to being your neighbors than mine, but at least they have more of a chance of becoming right-thinking Americans than they do in your neck-of-the-woods.
Excellent summary of Grant’s life by William Federer (www.AmericanMinute.com)
It is pretty much a bottom-feeding POS, isn’t it?
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.