Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RegulatorCountry
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.

334 posted on 04/03/2018 7:57:36 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg

He was nearly court-martialed for drunkenness, his commanders had a major problem with Grant’s drinking throughout his career and it didn’t stop during the Civil War. Grant was a drunk. You have difficulty with that because you’re afraid it’s some sort of admission of inferiority. The Union won the Civil War under the command of a drunk. I have no problem with the unvarnished truth.


337 posted on 04/03/2018 8:01:44 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies ]

To: DoodleDawg

“Grant was no more of a drunk than Churchill was. “

Or just about anyone else who has been through college, a blue collar/tradesman career, military experience etc.


455 posted on 04/03/2018 5:50:45 PM PDT by Bonemaker (invictus maneo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson