I’m just observing the truth, Grant was a drunk. Obviously a high-functioning one, but still a drunk. So was Winston Churchill. Does that factual observation send you into a tizzy of defensive rationalization? If not, why not?
Probably because it's wrong. Grant was no more of a drunk than Churchill was. As anyone who has read up on either man knows. Both men drank. Both occasionally drank to excess. But alcohol did not keep either man from functioning at a high level. In Grant's case, a higher level than his Southern opponents.