The Grant v. Lee Twitter Experiment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From time to time, as Cosmic Americans know, I ask some sort of little question on Twitter to get the ball rolling toward a conversation. Recently I asked the hypothetical: "Who would you rather have on your side, Grant or Lee...and why?" Kind of a silly question of course, since there are so many other factors to consider when it comes to victory and defeat, but my point was to get people talking about the military prowess of each commander. 

The most interesting thing happened. The votes were unanimously cast for Ulysses S. Grant. This surprised me a little - the Twitter universes is a big place, and surely there have to be some Lee fans out there. But not this time.

A number of things could explain this. One, we are naturally looking at these two men retrospectively and well, we know who won. So yes, we all like to pick a winner.

But I think there is more to it than that. Answers indicated that Lee was overrated both in his time and by subsequent generations...that he was too audacious and unnecessarily bled his army to defeat. Grant, on the other hand, masterfully used the resources that those before him did (or could) not. This suggests to me that myths surrounding both men have changed drastically over the last several decades. 

Others suggested that northern leaning sentiment is slowly taking over the Internet - that perhaps a less technologically savvy older generation favors the Lee camp and thus doesn't really use social media platforms to speak their minds. I'm not sure if I agree with this - I have seen plenty of web-based pro-Confederate groups who maintain active forums declaring the many virtues of their beloved Robert E. Lee.

At least one person figured that I might have driven the pro-Lee crew away and they just did not participate. After all, besides being a "Yankee metrosexual wearing purple sunglasses" I am also on record as favoring the Union cause...maybe I was just baiting them. (I wasn't. I am also on record as stating that I think RE Lee was a hell of a soldier) 

I'll give the Lee crew a chance to weigh in here. But as it stands so far - Grant is a clear winner in the "who would you rather have on your side" contest.

And by the way, the winner of last week's "Bibliophiles Unite" contest on Twitter was @WeezieWeaver - she figured out after a few helpful hints that the book in question was Marshall W. Fishwick's Lee After the War published way back in 1963. Well done.

K

Reconciliation in Grant's Memoirs

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

There are a number of ways to define the reconciliationist sentiment of general/president/citizen Ulysses S. Grant. His magnanimity at Appomattox would be a good place to start. Speaking of his Confederate prisoners, he noted: "we did not want to exult over their downfall." And there is evidence suggesting that his generous terms of surrender won him, if not admiration, at least at modicum of respect among defeated Confederates.

His 1868 presidential campaign rested on the cornerstone of reconciliation. the campaign slogan, "Let Us Have Peace," undeniably furthered the desires among many members of the Republican party to extend a hand of friendship across the Potomac. The slogan became so associated with the Grant's campaign, presidency, and life that it found a prominent place on Grant's tomb in New York.

One can find Grant's most clearly articulated vision of reconciliation in his two-volume memoirs. This enormously popular work - that restored his family's fortune after a financial disaster destroyed it - does more to promote friendship between sections than any other work in the reconciliationist literature broadly defined. “I feel that we are on the verge of a new era,” he wrote shortly before his death, “where there is to be great harmony between the Federal and Confederate. I cannot stay to be a living witness to the correctness of this prophecy; but I feel within me that it is to be so.”

But we must be careful not to accept Grant as a reconciliationst and leave it at that. It would be foolish to assume that reconciliation necessarily meant that what men had fought for was simply forgotten. Coupled with Grant’s reconciliationist bent was a steadfast devotion to the Union cause of freedom. Soon after the war, Grant acknowledged in a rousing speech honoring general Daniel Butterfield that Confederates had sowed the “germ of treason, in the vain attempt to overthrow this Government, that slavery, despotism, and sin might thrive upon its ruin.” He later affirmed in his memoirs, “the cause of the Great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery” and reminded Americans that the Confederate cause was “one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”

So was Grant a reconciliationist? Without question. But one who made sure to promote reconciliation on northern terms - acknowledging that former Confederates were countrymen once again, but that they had fought with brutal determination for disunion and the preservation of slavery.

Peace,

Keith

PS - if you haven't already, be sure to check out the Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.

Surrender - Entr'acte

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So, what did Lee and Grant talk about before they got down to the business at hand? I mean...it must have been uncomfortable, to say the least - maybe the exchange of a few pleasantries? Sort of along the lines of..."So, Lee - long time! How have things been since Mexico? Not so well....I guess. Sorry about the whole independence thing."

Well, it did not go exactly like that, but the two generals did have something of a chat before the official surrender proceeded. Below is an excerpt from Ulysses S. Grant's Personal Memoirs - he provides a wonderfully detailed description of the goings on before the two men sat down and signed the necessary paperwork - complete with a clearly articulated understanding of the Confederate cause.

I had known General Lee in the old army, and had served with him in the Mexican War; but did not suppose, owing to the difference in our age and rank, that he would remember me; while I would more naturally remember him distinctly, because he was the chief of staff of General Scott in the Mexican War.



When I had left camp that morning I had not expected so soon the result that was then taking place, and consequently was in rough garb.  I was without a sword, as I usually was when on horseback on the field, and wore a soldier's blouse for a coat, with the shoulder straps of my rank to indicate to the army who I was.  When I went into the house I found General Lee. We greeted each other, and after shaking hands took our seats.  I had my staff with me, a good portion of whom were in the room during the whole of the interview.



What General Lee's feelings were I do not know.  As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassable face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it.  Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter [proposing negotiations], were sad and depressed.  I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.  I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us.



General Lee was dressed in a full uniform which was entirely new, and was wearing a sword of considerable value, very likely the sword which had been presented by the State of Virginia; at all events, it was an entirely different sword from the one that would ordinarily be worn in the field.  In my rough traveling suit, the uniform of a private with the straps of a lieutenant-general, I must have contrasted very strangely with a man so handsomely dressed, six feet high and of faultless form.  But this was not a matter that I thought of until afterwards.



We soon fell into a conversation about old army times.  He remarked that he remembered me very well in the old army; and I told him that as a matter of course I remembered him perfectly, but from the difference in our rank and years (there being about sixteen years' difference in our ages), I had thought it very likely that I had not attracted his attention sufficiently to be remembered by him after such a long interval.  Our conversation grew so pleasant that I almost forgot the object of our meeting.  After the conversation had run on in this style for some time, General Lee called my attention to the object of our meeting, and said that he had asked for this interview for the purpose of getting from me the terms I proposed to give his army.  I said I meant merely that his army should lay down their arms, not to take them up again during the continuance of the war unless duly and properly exchanged.  He said that he had so understood my letter.

Then we gradually fell off again into conversation about matters foreign to the subject which had brought us together.  This continued for some little time, when General Lee again interrupted the course of the conversation by suggesting that the terms I proposed to give his army ought to be written out.  I called to General [Ely S.] Parker, secretary on my staff, for writing materials, and commenced writing out the terms...

Tomorrow (or maybe later today - I am home ill) we will put an end to the Appomattox story - as told by the participants. So stay tuned.

Peace,

Keith

A Prelude to Surrender

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

The scene - the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox on April 9, 1865 - we know it well. But what exactly did it take for Lee to finally agree to meet Grant and surrender his army...after four years of brutal war and the understanding that his army was clearly defeated? What happened as the clock inexorably wound down on this Rebel army?

The exchange of correspondence between the two generals over the proceeding two days shows the degree of formality undertaken in such a circumstance. For those of you who are unfamiliar with how this procedure takes place, take note - it is remarkable civil. Below is the verbatim correspondence closing one chapter of an epic struggle between nations. Not the end of the war, mind you...there were still Confederate armies in the field after April 9. Still - in terms of symbolic "ends" of things, most folks see this surrender as the Confederate finale.

(Grant to Lee) 5 P.M., April 7th, 1865.
The results of the last week must convince you of the hopelessness of further resistance on the part of the Army of Northern Virginia in this struggle. I feel that it is so, and regard it as my duty to shift from myself the responsibility of any further effusion of blood by asking of you the surrender of that portion of the Confederate States army known as the Army of Northern Virginia.
U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General

(Lee to Grant) April 7th, 1865.
General: I have received your note of this date. Though not entertaining the opinion you express of the hopelessness of further resistance on the part of the Army of Northern Virginia, I reciprocate your desire to avoid useless effusion of blood, and therefore, before considering your proposition, ask the terms you will offer on condition of its surrender.
R.E. Lee, General.

(Grant to Lee) April 8th, 1865.
General R.E. Lee, Commanding C.S.A.:
Your note of last evening in reply to mine of the same date, asking the conditions on which I will accept the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, is just received. In reply I would say that, peace being my great desire, there is but one condition I would insist upon,--namely, that the men and officers surrendered shall be disqualified for taking up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged. I will meet you, or will designate officers to meet any officers you may name for the same purpose, at any point agreeable to you, for the purpose of arranging definitely the terms upon which the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia will be received.
U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General

(Lee to Grant) April 8th, 1865.
General: I received at a late hour your note of to-day. In mine of yesterday I did not intend to propose the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, but to ask the terms of your proposition. To be frank, I do not think the emergency has arisen to call for the surrender of this army, but, as the restoration of peace should be the sole object of all, I desired to know whether your proposals would lead to that end. I cannot, therefore, meet you with a view to surrender the Army of Northern Virginia; but as far as your proposal may affect the Confederate States forces under my command, and tend to the restoration of peace, I should be pleased to meet you at 10 A.M. to-morrow on the old state road to Richmond, between the picket-lines of the two armies.
R.E. Lee, General.

(Grant to Lee) April 9th, 1865.
General: Your note of yesterday is received. I have not authority to treat on the subject of peace. The meeting proposed for 10 A.M. to-day could lead to no good. I will state, however, that I am equally desirous for peace with yourself, and the whole North entertains the same feeling. The terms upon which peace can be had are well understood. By the South laying down their arms, they would hasten that most desirable event, save thousands of human lives, and hundreds of millions of property not yet destroyed. Seriously hoping that all our difficulties may be settled without the loss of another life, I subscribe myself, etc.,
U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General

(Lee to Grant) April 9th, 1865.
General: I received your note of this morning on the picket-line, whither I had come to meet you and ascertain definitely what terms were embraced in your proposal of yesterday with reference to the surrender of this army. I now ask an interview, in accordance with the offer contained in your letter of yesterday, for that purpose.
R.E. Lee, General.

(Grant to Lee) April 9th, 1865.
General R. E. Lee Commanding C. S. Army:
Your note of this date is but this moment (11:50 A.M.) received, in consequence of my having passed from the Richmond and Lynchburg road to the Farmville and Lynchburg road. I am at this writing about four miles west of Walker's Church, and will push forward to the front for the purpose of meeting you. Notice sent to me on this road where you wish the interview to take place will meet me.
U. S. Grant, Lieutenant-General

The two generals went on to meet at the house of Wilmer McLean. General Lee was the first to arrive. There he waited in the sitting room where he soon met General Grant, who entered the room as his staff politely waited outside for a few moments. Stay tuned - Grant wrote a wonderful description of what followed in his memoirs. But that's for tomorrow.

Peace,

Keith

Introducing U. S. Grant - February 1862

[caption id="attachment_2055" align="alignleft" width="290" caption="Map of Fort Donelson - New York Tribune, February 18, 1862"][/caption]

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

We all know Grant - of course we do. Whether you think of him as an unimaginative butcher or a determined fighter who out-generaled Robert E. Lee one thing is for sure. He did more to crush the Confederacy than any other Union commander. (Go ahead....just try to think of someone else.)

But in February 1862 he was relatively unknown. Not until the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson (the anniversary of the fall of the latter is tomorrow) did the contending parties get to know the Union hero (or adversary...if you like).

The New York Tribune managed to offer a few biographical notes about the man who would become, in very short order, a pretty heavy hitter:

Brig-Gen Ulysses S. Grant, the hero of Fort Donelson, is a man of about 40 years of age. He is a native of Ohio and a graduate of West Point. He was twice brevetted for gallantry and meritorious conduct in the Mexican War and was in every principal battle in which it was possible for any one man to be. He was in the 4th Infantry, he resigned in 1855, and went in to business in St. Louis. He subsequently moved to Galena Ill, where he now resides, and became interested in a large leather establishment.

At the breaking out of the rebellion he immediately offered his services to the Government, and was soon put in command of an Illinois regiment. He participated actively in a campaign in Missouri and obtained great credit. At the extra session his name was brought forward for a Brigadier- Generalship by Mr. Washburne of Illinios, of the House of Representatives, and the entire delegation joined in the recommendation, and he was appointed. He soon after went into command of the military district of Cairo.

And that is it - no one yet knew to what heights Grant would rise. Shiloh was on the horizon, as were the the great battles around and the siege of Vicksburg. But with these first reports of "Unconditional Surrender" Grant's handiwork we begin to get a glimpse of the man who would soon occupy the minds of citizens and soldiers North and South. Stay tuned - I'll be providing several of the many (and much more illustrious) reports on down the line. Learning about Grant as the people did. Bit by bit.

Peace,

Keith

It Helps to Have a Colorful Nickname

[caption id="attachment_1950" align="alignleft" width="202" caption="Unconditional Surrender Grant"][/caption]

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Today is the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Fort Henry, which coupled with the Battle of Fort Donelson (the anniversary for this one is the next week), adds up to a slam dunk when it comes to great Civil War nicknames. On February 15th, after Confederate generals John Floyd and Gideon Pillow skedaddled and turned over their command of Fort Donelson to Simon Buckner (Grant's old pal, as it turned out), Buckner - the hapless fellow that he was - asked Grant for the terms of surrender. Grant's reply? “No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.”

Well now - isn't it interesting that Grant's initials were U. S. anyway? They weren't really...but that is a story for a different day. Still, the whole U. S. thing sure does make the "Unconditional Surrender" nickname sound all the more clever. It helps in terms of popular memory too. While it is hard to imagine Grant fading from the landscape of Civil War remembrance (although a lot of people tried to usher him out) what is for certain is that we will remember him as a resolute and determined fighter.

Nicknames tell us a lot about the subjects we study and about how individuals felt about their leaders both during and after the war. Folks in the Confederacy once called Robert E. Lee "Granny" and "King of Spades." Neither were complimentary - and these names were soon dropped after Lee proved to be an aggressive and audacious fighter in the Seven Days battles around Richmond in 1862.

Of course there is "Stonewall." Who will ever forget him? (No one in Virginia will any time soon). And there are lots of others too - William "Little Billy" Mahone, Richard "Old Bald Head" Ewell, Edward "Allegheny" Johnson, William "Grumble" Jones, John "Prince John" Magruder, George "Old Snapping Turtle" Meade, George "Slow Trot" Sykes, George "Rock of Chickamauga" Thomas, Henry "Old Brains" Halleck, Winfield "Old Fuss and Feathers" Scott, and the list goes on and on. Many of these names denote well-deserved accolades, many do not, and some just seem like good-natured ribbing. Either way, they give modern students a good insight into contemporary impressions of military leadership.

What are some of your favorites?

Peace,

Keith

Reconciliation at Grant's Tomb

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Wrap your head around this - Ulysses S. Grant shaking hands with that rebel Robert E. Lee enshrined forever at his own tomb!!

And why not? The whole point of the war was to bring the country back together - why not show a little spirit of reconciliation? After all, Grant's campaign slogan (or rather, the Republican Party's slogan) for the election of 1868 was "Let Us Have Peace." So there you have it...peace.

But remember, Union veterans had a very clear vision of what peace and reconciliation would look like. Don't forget that. When Americans would learn the history of their greatest conflict, former Union soldiers were determined that they would learn what the war had been about. The Confederacy had fought to destroy the nation and perpetuate the institution of slavery. Period.

Sure, they would say, let us have peace...let us promote reconciliation. But don't forget what happened. Even Grant himself wrote in his memoirs: "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

(Let Us Have) Peace,
Keith

Joan Waugh on Grant the Drunk

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

And Happy Sunday morning to you all. And since it is Sunday morning, I presume that many of you joined friends and/or family last night to partake in an adult beverage or two. Yours truly is indeed a fan of revelry - that which includes an occasional cocktail con mis amigos. If you should ever find yourself at a place called Mercantile on Sunset Blvd in Hollywood, try "El Diablo." This is one mighty fine drink.

As usual, pretty much everything I do gets me thinking about some sort of Civil War subject. And this morning I am thinking about the rumors of Ulysses S. Grant's excessive drinking. Accusations of drunkenness dogged Grant throughout his military and political career. Popular culture has not let him off the hook either - today, alongside his even less flattering sobriquet "the Butcher," he is still referred to by some disdainfully as Grant the Drunk.

Well then...it is true that Grant took a taste from time to time? It is true that he may have fallen on his ass more than once? Without question. But a drunk? Dare we judge him in such callously simplistic terms? I mean "drunk" just plain lacks complexity - and Grant was a complex fellow...with flaws (just like you and me compadres....so quit judging and get used to it).

Thanks to the conveniences of modern technology and Youtube, I am going to turn to the expert on the subject. UCLA professor Joan Waugh knows the story on Grant so I will let her do the talking.

Peace,

Keith

Reconciliation at Grant's Tomb

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Wrap your head around this - Ulysses S. Grant shaking hands with that rebel Robert E. Lee enshrined forever at his own tomb!!

And why not? The whole point of the war was to bring the country back together - why not show a little spirit of reconciliation? After all, Grant's campaign slogan (or rather, the Republican Party's slogan) for the election of 1868 was "Let Us Have Peace." So there you have it...peace.

But remember, Union veterans had a very clear vision of what peace and reconciliation would look like. Don't forget that. When Americans would learn the history of their greatest conflict, former Union soldiers were determined that they would learn what the war had been about. The Confederacy had fought to destroy the nation and perpetuate the institution of slavery. Period.

Sure, they would say, let us have peace...let us promote reconciliation. But don't forget what happened. Even Grant himself wrote in his memoirs: "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

(Let Us Have) Peace,
Keith