The History Book Club discussion
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
1. GRANT ~ PREFACE AND CHAPTERS 1-2 (13 - 69) (10/04/10 - 10/10/10) ~ No spoilers, please
We begin the life of U.S. Grant. I'm excited to have all of you on this journey in history!We cover three chapters, so here we go...
In the Preface, we get a little background on how Grant was not seen in great light in American history. To Smith, he was an enigma, a paradox. Yes, he beat Robert E. Lee, but he was also condemned by Americans for standing up for what he believed in (rights for African Americans). His actions during the Civil War was seen as a determent by historians practicing during the Vietnam War during a time that generals were suspect. However, Jean comes to appreciate his subject. He was a successful president, although he had trouble firing loyal people around his administration. He had a strong sense of character and saw the goal and stayed on course.
Chapter One covers his early life. He was born in southern Ohio (his real name was Hiram Ulysses Grant) to a tanner. Grant was an average student, but was especially gifted with horses. This was an important skill to have and for Grant it came naturally.
His father wanted his son to have a free education, so he suggested West Point. It was a good engineering school and it was not uncommon for officers to drop out of the service to start another career. At first Grant did not want to go. We don't know why, but his father talked to him and Grant changed his mind. He got in with the help of a family friend, Congressman Thomas Hamer, who mistakenly put down Ulysses S. Grant and the name stuck.
At this time, West Point was filled with future Civil War leaders such as Jackson, Sherman, McClellan, Longstreet, and Pope. Grant became friendly with Longstreet. The two of them tended to buck authority. Grant we learn was not a fan of army life and authority. As Smith states, he "tolerated military life but never embraced it." (p. 26) He graduated 21 out of a class of 39.
He did not get into the cavalry where he would have excelled, because his class rank was low, so he went into the 4th Infantry Division in Missouri. In Missouri, he meets Julia Dent, a sister of his West Point roommate. He respected his commanding officer, Col. Stephen Watts Kearny who ran a tight ship, but was not nit picky. Things drastically changed as the 4th was ordered to Louisiana near the Texas border as the Mexican War begins to heat up. He got permission from his superior to go leave the base to propose to Julia before he left.
Chapter Two focuses on the Mexican War. The 4th sat and waited at Camp Salubrity, 30 miles from Texas. General Zachary Taylor slowly built up a reserve of men. Taylor was impressed by Grant and promoted him to full 2nd Lt. While waiting, Grant explored the countryside and broke in horses. Polk ordered Taylor further into Texas near the Rio Grande, then crossed the Arroyo Colorado River to face the Mexican army. Grant fought in a series of battles at Palo Alto and Rasaca De La Palma pushing the Mexicans south. After camping at Matamoros, they struck Monterrey. On route, Grant became quartermaster working with mules trains as part of a supply system devised by Taylor. They struck Monterrey with heavy causalities. Grant experienced house to house fighting and a cease fire was signed.
Grant was transferred to General Winfield Scott's army heading to Veracruz. In a political maneuver, President Polk put Taylor on hold and gave support to Scott's plans to take Mexico City. Grant (in the same division as Thomas Jackson and D.H. Hill) was part of the siege of Veracruz, then after its capture, the battle at Cerro Gordo. Scott cut his supply line from Veracruz and lived off the land. Grant was part of getting those supplies and learned first-hand an important strategy he would later implement in the Civil War. Grant fought to capture Mexico City, a tough battle with high casualties.
First of all, I am pleasantly surprised by Smith's writing style. He packs a lot in, but it seems effortless.There is a lot going on, but one theme jumps out right away for me.
Grant was not a fan of army life and authority, but he seems to get things done. Longstreet writes, "a hesitancy in presenting his own claims; a taciturnity born of his modesty; but a thoroughness in the accomplishment of whatever task was assigned to him." (p. 26) Not sure why though? What do you make of his aversion of turning back and retrace his steps? A waste of time in his completing his goal?
Here are some links from the Ohio Historical Society that runs his birthplace, school-house, and boyhood home. Not a lot of information, but if you are ever in Southern Ohio...http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/places/...
http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/places/...
http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/places/...
Mod
Bentley wrote: "One of the stories that I loved in the book was the one when the community members were concerned about little Hiram because he used to pull the horses' tails, climb underneath them and probably ma..."He is a "horse-whisperer."
Mod
There is a lot going on, but one theme jumps out right away for me.
Grant was not a ..."
Possibly he felt down deep that you cannot make any progress unless you are moving forward. I guess Patton later said: "Go forward until the last round is fired and the last drop of gas is expended...then go forward on foot!"
- General George Patton
So true, Bentley; Patton and Grant seem alike in that tenacity. You have to keep driving, moving forward, don't look back. I wonder if his family taught him that or it was a personality trait or both.
I got my book too soon and have to return it to the library today. Someone put it on hold! Grrr! But I've put it back on hold I'm number 5 on three copies, so I should be able to pick up again by November.
Shannon wrote: "I got my book too soon and have to return it to the library today. Someone put it on hold! Grrr! But I've put it back on hold I'm number 5 on three copies, so I should be able to pick up again b..."Sorry to hear that, Shannon. It sounds like you will be back in swing soon enough. In the meantime, still feel free to post.
Mod
I am sure that will be the case...sorry about the delay.
Any comments on the abilities of Scott in the approach to Mexico City. I had read some negative comments about him in the biography of Poke. I need to go back and review that section. In this book Grant is said to be very positive about both Generals even though they had very different personalities.
Jim
Bryan wrote: "So true, Bentley; Patton and Grant seem alike in that tenacity. You have to keep driving, moving forward, don't look back. I wonder if his family taught him that or it was a personality trait or ..."I think it is more of a personality trait. I have seen it in those who were unlikely to have learned it from a parent. You can look at it two ways; either as a trait of the "driven" man or the "lazy" man. Keep on driving because nothing is going to retard your progress or keep on driving because you are too lazy to ensure you are laying the proper foundation for your effort.
I'm really enjoying this book. This is already challenging most of the pre-conceived notions that I had about Grant.Also, I agree with Bryan -- I'm finding Smith's writing style to be very engaging and readable.
One of what I assume will be one of the key themes of the book was summarized in the following quote from the introduction:"Back and forth, he careened from poverty to riches, from triumph to failure, from humiliation to glorification."
Grant's ability to completely recover from failure reminds me of both Winston Churchill and Harry Truman.
This strikes me as true of many presidents. Successful presidents seem to veer between mad success when they have something to do and disolution when they have nothing to do.Some examples:
John Adams while he waited for the Dutch bankers to approve a loan for the revolutionary army was terribly sick, but when the loan came through his health improved. When he ws president, or representative, or ambassador, or lawyer he did very well. When he was waiting, not so well. He dreamed of retiring to be a gentleman scholar, but really conldn't sit that still!
Teddy Roosevelt makes it hard to prove since he seems to have feared inactivity. His life was one of continuing nervous energy. McCullough captures it in his childhood. And Douglas Brinkley and Edmound Morris when he's an adult.
FDR continues the nervous energy of the Roosevelt family.
Clinton stayed busy with national and international crises and when there wasn't any crisis to solve seemes to engage in a little career stopping falatio.
Clinton and Carter are both examples of what presidents do when they "retire". I guess that you can put Bush I in that category too. The three of them are all serving as a sort of uber-president, with missions of state and also each with their own charity.
So, I would say that presidents seem to have a nervous energy, or just high energy and ambition and president is a good place for them to put it to use. In the case of Grant, Eisenhower, Tyler, and Washington you can add the other great position of ambition: general. They seem to do better when they have something to occupy their time and become lost when they need to wait for others.
Maybe a study of presidents would help people with ADD learn to focus their energy on something positive?
Mod
You are making me laugh already Bryan.
I loved this book so much that I read it through completely so I have to watch myself for spoilers. If I make any errors in discussing this book; just move me to the Book As a Whole thread or glossary thread which I will set up for you.
This book is great.
Jimwenz wrote: "Any comments on the abilities of Scott in the approach to Mexico City. I had read some negative comments about him in the biography of Poke. I need to go back and review that section. In this boo..."
Jimwenz, it is interesting how politics get involved in war. We know Scott was Polk's man because in part Taylor was gearing up for the presidency. You have to knock out your rivals, right?
I agree that Grant seems to appreciate both commanders. He says they won the war. Taylor focused on results, got in there to see things for himself, little formality, and respected the locals. Grant seemed to appreciate Scott's professionalism and planning. Am I missing anything?
Shannon wrote: "This strikes me as true of many presidents. Successful presidents seem to veer between mad success when they have something to do and disolution when they have nothing to do.Some examples:
..."
A very interesting perspective, Shannon. I think to be president, you have to have the ambition and energy. They are probably "A" personality types who do not like to slow down and can overcome those horrible lows Chris rightly mentions. It is go, go, go. Nixon comes to mind, too, for that list.
Another interesting aspect I didn't know much about is Grant's position on slavery.He felt the Mexican War was a tool to get Texas to be a slave state, and he did not like the soldiers from Texas who complained about the work, because slaves did it for them.
Smith does not mention the root of his beliefs. He came from Ohio, but southern Ohio, near Cincinnati.
Anyone else have some thoughts?
Mod
David McCulloughDouglas Brinkley
Edmund MorrisThe other presidents you noted were also authors of much material and in some cases books and you could have cited them as well for their author role; but I can see that you were discussing these folks as presidents.
And I also agree with you that most folks who become presidents as well seem to have that "unbridled energy" and "ambition" that they can't just seem to saddle themselves.
Here is Scott's report on Mexico City:http://www.dmwv.org/mexwar/documents/...
Here is a synopsis:
Along the road to Mexico city, Scott encountered no further significant resistance. Santa Ana however was relying on the powerful fortification of the city to defeat Scott. President Polk wanted one last chance to reach a peace agreement with the Mexicans, but his overture was turned down. Santa Ana however claimed that if he received $10,000 now and $1,000,000 after the surrender he would do so. He was given the $10,000, but that was the last heard from him on the subject.
The way to Mexico City was through a group of causeways through marches to the east of the city. Santa Ana had heavily fortified these approaches. Once again Captain Lee’s reconnaissance was invaluable. He found an unguarded way through the marches which was partially under water, and the American army made its way through there. The Americans thus moved closer to the city. Santa Ana shorter lines of communication allowed Santa Ana to move men to block the American advance. General Valencia without orders from Santa Ana decided not to wait for the Americans and instead moved out with a force of 4,000 men to outflank the American forces. American forces then moved up on Valencia forces once again on a path discovered by Lee. The American engaged Valencia forces who fought fiercely. Santa Ana then appeared with 9,000 men. The Americans feared they would be attacked on two sides, but a sudden downpour convinced Santa Ana to withdraw. That night the American forces made their way towards Valencia’s lines at Conreras. In the morning they had reached the rear of his lines and assaulted there. The Americans routed the Mexicans. Those who were not killed or wounded withdrew quickly. The American followed the Mexicans to the next fortress- Churubusco, which they attacked without proper reconnaissance. The American forces made three costly and unsuccessful assaults on the fortress. Finally, American reinforcements arrived, and in a final assault managed to carry to fortifications. American forces followed the Mexican withdrawal to the wall of Mexico City itself. In two days of fighting Americans lost 139 dead and 876 wounded. The Mexican lost 4,000 killed and wounded plus 3,000 captured.
There were two more Mexican fortresses, The first Molino del Rey and it was quickly taken. The final fortress was Chapultepec. It was a well defended castle with outlying fortifications. The Americans made an all out assault on the fortress. Despite heavy losses the Americans carried the fortress. The next day the city surrendered.
(http://www.historycentral.com/mexican...)
Bentley wrote: "Shannon, your post was great but you must cite the authors and books that you mentioned. In this post you did not cite books but these authors:[author:David Mc..."Thanks, Bentley, good catch.
I thought I would include a image of the Battle of Monterrey as well. Grant was in Garland's command.
(Source: Wikipedia, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...)
Bryan wrote: "Jimwenz wrote: "Any comments on the abilities of Scott in the approach to Mexico City. I had read some negative comments about him in the biography of Poke. I need to go back and review that sectio..."I'm reading Grants Memoirs
Ulysses S. Grant. In it he says that Scott too was a Whig with presidential ambitions. Polk tried several ways to get a Democrat in charge of the invasion but Congress wouldn't go along. He finally sent Scott as a way to create a rival for Taylor within the Whig party. It is interesting that Grant says when Scott got the nomination in 1852 his campaign destroyed the Whig party.
Mod
Patricrk wrote: "Bryan wrote: "Jimwenz wrote: "Any comments on the abilities of Scott in the approach to Mexico City. I had read some negative comments about him in the biography of Poke. I need to go back and revi..."Quite right, Polk was indeed clever, and you get a sense from Smith that Grant was not a fan of Polk, at least because he started this war.
Bryan wrote: "Another interesting aspect I didn't know much about is Grant's position on slavery.He felt the Mexican War was a tool to get Texas to be a slave state, and he did not like the soldiers from Texas..."
A kind of addition to my comment on the slave issues is Grant's view of the Mexican War. He considers it a war of conquest and actually is impressed by the Mexican people. He also felt the Mexican army was demoralized and unprofessional.
I think these ideas will play a role in his service in the Union Army.
Do you get a sense why he felt so attached to the Mexican people?
I find it interesting that Taylor is identified as being so influential on Grant, providing a model that he emulated.
Garret wrote: "I find it interesting that Taylor is identified as being so influential on Grant, providing a model that he emulated."Me too, Garret. Evidently Taylor issued orders to his men to respect the rights of the locals and do not loot. After Monterrey he issues cease-fire conditions that are remarkably similar to Grant's orders at Appomattox almost 20 years later.
I've read a number of Grant-biographies, and I am invariably left with the strong feeling that I still know little or nothing about the "real man." It may only be a happy bit of self-delusion, but I fancy I "know" the basic personality structures of Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Benjamin Franklin, even Richard M. Nixon fairly well -- at any rate they are complete personae in my mind -- but Grant simply eludes me. I was hoping Jean Edward Smith would be able to give me some further understanding of Grant, perhaps a fulsome discussion of Ulysses' early development would do the trick, something on which to hang a sort of "Freudian analysis" -- but, alas, Smith covers "The Early Years" in a scant 12 pages, just enough space for a few anecdotes about his "common-man" origins, lack of academic brilliance, his "enduring affinity with horses," and (largely from Longstreet's cogent appraisal) the helpful information that Grant possessed a great amount of modesty, and self-effacement, while demonstrating "a thoroughness in the accomplishment of whatever task was assigned to him." (Smith, 26)
So, Grant was modest, diffident, and could be obsessive at work... hmmm, still leaves me wondering "why," what caused him to be the way he was? Were all his siblings similar in their observable behaviors/ personality traits, were they likewise good with horses? Did the apparently strong, "success-oriented" character of his father Jesse (a self-made man who, at six feet of height, must have seemed a gigantic figure to the slightly built Ulysses) dominate and crush the boy's self-confidence? From Smith's account, alas, I'm left with nothing more than my own amateurish speculations, and could have used his professional biographer's assistance here.
Then there are some apparent contradictions in Grant's life that I hoped Smith might untangle: if Grant was able to bring "a thoroughness in the accomplishment" of the tasks he faced, why then was he so beset with failure, and why did he eventually seek solace from the deleterious chemistries of the bottle? Again, Smith reports the bare facts, but offers little or no explanation. Are we simply to accept this as a paradox, and move along quietly? At this point, inadequately informed, are we to let it go that there were two Grants, Grant the "failed-man" with no adequate explanation for his failures, and, after 1861, Grant the brilliant warrior, who seemingly leaps out of nowhere?
As T. Harry Williams put it: "His career, before the war [Civil War] is a complete failure."
Here, I think Williams overstates the situation, as Grant did have a brief "shining period" during the actual combat phase of the U.S./ Mexican War which seems to prefigure his stellar battlefield successes in 1861-65. But, are we then to understand that without the stimulation of warfare, Grant was simply a "failed-man," doomed to a constant round of disappointments and "hard luck?"
In these introductory chapters, Smith is not helpful, so I dashed over to Grant's Memoirs, where I got a bit more information including the statement that Grant may not have been adverse to attending West Point (as Smith leaves us thinking with his partial quote, wherein Jesse seems to have simply ordered the passive Ulysses to go, period). What Grant revealed is that he did have a perfectly understandable reason for not wishing to matriculate at the academy: "I really had no objection to going to West Point, except that I had a very exalted idea of the acquirements necessary to get through. I did not believe I possessed them, and could not bear the idea of failing." (Grant Personal Memoirs, p. 24) Here, I think Grant does a good deal better than Smith in giving us "personality related" explanations. Grant had a strong sense of personal failure, even at this early time. The boy lacked self-confidence.
Here my frustration with the narratives concerning Grant's formative years becomes acute. Biography after biography treats Grant's first 17 years with just a page or three of sketchy material. Surely Grant must have had a number of "personal failures" in his experience before 1839 so that at age 17 he was already greatly worried about his ability to succeed in life? But I looked in vain for any further examples. Even his Personal Memoirs are vague, Grant covers his own early years up to the deployment to Mexico in a scant 12 pages, with few hints as to his character formation...
In some ways, I see this as an exoneration for Smith's brief treatment of this period, apparently we just do not have the in-depth source material for Grant's life that would allow us to form a fuller "understanding" of the man?
Searching a bit further afield I did find a somewhat deeper treatment of the young Grant in Joan Waugh's "U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth." Perhaps other books also contain this material, but my first acquaintance with it comes from Waugh. Apparently grandfather Noah Grant shared some of the most remarked upon traits of Ulysses --outside of warfare both were considered dismal failures: "... Noah, a captain in the Revolutionary War, was neither ambitious nor hard working. Instead he had a reputation for drifting and drinking." (Waugh, 12) Apparently, Noah's wife Rachel was the real glue of the family and she was able to bring some stability into the former captain's life. With her premature death the family simply disintegrated and the children were parceled out to neighbors and relatives. Now, in my amateurish way, this seems a precedent, and I start (rightly or wrongly) seeing a family condition of depression/ obsession passing down to Ulysses. Hard-fast-dangerous activities seem often to force the brain into the production of extra amounts of GABA (a primary personalty-mood chemical) and the entire suite of dopamines-endorphines. So, in the trying circumstances of battle, Noah was successful enough to serve in a responsible position, and compiled a good service record -- but he tended to fall apart when its stimulations were removed. A good woman with a strong character helped him to "get by" for a while, but with her loss, the game was over. I am provisionally seeing this sort of pattern in Ulysses own life, though the "mood disorder" I am postulating seems to have skipped Jesse's generation.
Now THIS gives ME a handle on understanding Ulysses Grant -- possibly an incorrect one, but it does at least make Grant a bit less inexplicable, and leaves me wondering why I have not come across such a mode of interpretation before? I'll have to see how Waugh's approach has been received in the peer-reviewed journals, maybe there are good reasons for eschewing the mechanism of such a "psychological" analysis?
I found it very interesting that even his close companion Sherman, with no understanding of the brain's psycho-active chemistries, finally had to give up trying to understand his friend: "Grant's whole character was a mystery, even to himself." (Waugh, p. 10)Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. GrantUlysses S. Grant
Some great observations and background, Prunesquallor. You gave us a lot to think about and I hope others chime in.Just some house-keeping. don't forget to cite the other books you mention:
Ulysses S. Grant
Joan WaughWhich T. Harry Williams book do you refer, too?
I've seen this quick treatment before in large one volume biographies. And it is usually the early years that suffers. I also wonder if we have a lack of documentary evidence for his early years. I'm not sure if a lot of family correspondence survived, and if so, would it talk about these issues? With that said, I, too, look for the why and wonder. It looks like you have provided us with some good leads. His grandfather does sound a lot like Grant, doesn't it? You wonder too if Grant was not a big talker; he was a quiet guy, which leads to mystery.
Prunesquallor wrote: "I've read a number of Grant-biographies, and I am invariably left with the strong feeling that I still know little or nothing about the "real man." It may only be a happy bit of self-delusion, but ..."I am enjoying this book so far. It is an easy read.
I was also a bit disappointed that his childhood quickly dispensed. Also there is little sense of place given to where he was born and grew up to help put his upbringing into context.
I just started this book today, & I am very impressed! I really enjoy Smith's writing style - it is easy to follow & understand. Not being a regular non-fiction/history reader, I found this really exciting - I've always been intimidated by biographies, but genuinely look forward to this one.
Liz wrote: "I just started this book today, & I am very impressed! I really enjoy Smith's writing style - it is easy to follow & understand. Not being a regular non-fiction/history reader, I found this really ..."I'm glad you like it so far Liz. Sometimes long, one- volume bios can be a problem to get through, and this one is not like that!
I also wish there was more about his childhood years. But I do see his father was a hard worker, and ambitious, and I think this was passed down to his oldest child and son, as was usual in those years. The fact that Grant was a slight person physically while his father was a big man, along with Grant's temperament, would also be possible as the foundation of Grant's own forward-moving philosophy. I also sensed that where his refusal to repeat any steps was mentioned, there was fear of failure along with a good touch of superstition mixed in.
Virginia wrote: "I also wish there was more about his childhood years. But I do see his father was a hard worker, and ambitious, and I think this was passed down to his oldest child and son, as was usual in those ..."Interesting, Virginia. I did not pick up on the superstition, and you raise a good point. It good be part of the reason not retracing his steps.
Regarding his size, I wonder even if he was not 6ft. his strong, but quiet presence made him feel taller.
Thanks so much Liz for that. I'm from Northern Ohio which was anti-slavery, and we still consider Cincinnati having a "southern feel." I type corrected.Wonderful, so from this, we can understand Grant's community a bit better.
I do agree with Bryan and others who commented on the writing style. Bryan wrote: "I am pleasantly surprised by Smith's writing style." I have also enjoy the pace of the book and the flow of the writing. It has been a very enjoyable and easy to read book. I am looking forward to reading more.Jim
I'm glad you are enjoying the book, Jimwenz
I was skimming through my copy of "The Civil War, Fort Sumter to Perryville" by Shelby Foote. Here is how Mr. Foote describes Grant's personality: "He was quiet, not from secretiveness (he was not really closemouthed) but simply because that was his manner, much as another's might be loud. In an army boasting the country's ablest cursers, his strongest expletives were 'doggone it' and 'by lightning' and even these were sparingly employed. Regarding Grant's way with horses, Mr. Foote has this to say, "There was an unbuttoned informality about him and the way he did things; but it involved a good deal more of reticence than congeniality, as if his trust and understanding stopped at horses."
The Civil War: A Narrative, Vol 1: Fort Sumter to PerryvilleShelby FooteShelby Foote
Interesting, Brian, thanks for the quotes. I'm not so sure if Foote's last part of the second quote matches up with Smith. Keep it in mind as we move to the next chapter.
It's interesting that Bryan (message 8) would find Grant similar to Patton. I totally see the similarity in tenacity. That was a very good observation.I thought of Patton while reading the chapter on Mexico too. However, it was General Taylor that made me think of Patton.
In Partners in Command: George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace,* Mark Perry (also a Grant biographer of sorts)** describes the young officers Eisenhower and Patton, who uncommonly intuitive about the future of tank warfare, took a tank apart and reassembled it to thoroughly understand the machine. They knew the era of the horse and caisson was fading and optimal use of tanks would likely win the next major land war. The idea was considered so unorthodox (and possibly heretical), that the young officers were the butt of jokes from their peers and mentors alike.
Patton, of course, utilized tanks in new ways to capture Sicily and Italy. Not to give a long recap of WWII, but Patton had no way of knowing how effectively Germany would utilize its tanks. If Patton had not innovated and revolutionized American utilization of armored cavalry, American generals may have been unequal to meeting the challenge of well organized Panzer divisions in central Europe.
Taylor might not have taken a howitzer apart, but his study of Napoleon's use of field artillery gave him the advantage over the Mexican army, whose lack of innovation locked them into a vulnerable, 18th century mode. By using his field pieces strategically and with real precision, he severely truncated the length of infantry engagements and minimized his troop losses while inflicting maximum damage on his enemy. In effect, his aptitude to innovate gave him the advantages that permitted him to advance a smaller force against an entrenched enemy in defensive postures. Had Taylor fought like the Mexicans, Palo Alto and Monterrey would have been failures (or at the least, taken a much longer time to capture).
Continuing with my impression of Taylor, I was very taken by his attitude toward captured Mexican armies. Taylor's attitude was almost Christlike in its forgiveness. While officers followed a sort of chivalric code regarding each other, 18th and 19th century warfare (up to the surrender of Lee and Johnston) isn't exactly known for its consideration for the common soldier. In an era where enlistees were considered food for the gun (and for the decimating diseases at camp), Taylor gave the soldier humanity. This attitude was consistent across the full spectrum of his leadership:
"Before setting out, Taylor instructed his troops to avoid plundering and 'to observe, with the most scrupulous regard, the rights of all persons who may be found in the peaceful pursuit of their respective avocations. No person, under any pretense whatsoever, will interfere in any manner with the civil rights or religious privileges of the people, but will pay the utmost to respect both.'" p. 37
I think this is an amazing synthesis of American values and martial tradition. Washington himself was very adamant that the Continental Army would not ravage the countryside - and was especially aware of the temptation to punish loyalists. However, General Washington was not yet the benefactor of the full slate of republican values. The idea of civil rights and religious freedom was coalescing in Congress and in the various state constitutions. That Taylor was attentive to all these attributes suggests that he was the consummate American, a true benefactor of the full slate of both military and republican wisdom.
For years, I've been meaning to read more about Taylor. James McPherson, in his Pulitzer Prize winning history of the Civil War era, Battle Cry of Freedom ,*** suggests President Taylor may have been willing to break the cycle of Southern appeasement begun with Tyler. If Taylor was the beneficiary of both Washingtonian and Jeffersonian wisdom, his potential as president is pretty tantalizing. Alas, his presidency was cut tragically short.
At the risk of sounding like an eccentric, I tentatively consider Taylor one of the greatest "what if" quandaries of the 19th century. "What if" Taylor had survived?
...................
I think Grant promises to be the best book I've read with the group so far. Thanks, Bryan and Bentley, for giving me this opportunity!
...................
*
Mark Perry**
Mark Perry - essentially a "buddy" book. Light reading. Good for the beach. However, a lot of people have referenced Grant's memoirs. Grant and Twain is partially the tale of how Grant was convinced to write his memoirs. May be of note to some of the more thorough members of the group.***
James M. McPherson
Thanks Patrick for some very interesting comments. I was also impressed by how Taylor managed the battles and the cease fire. The terms were pretty amazing.I see Grant being very observant of his commanding officers. You know he is a career army man, so he is looking for role models. Also, being young, I think it is natural to find people to look up to.
I remember Grant stating one of the reasons the U.S. won was that the Mexican army was so un-professional.
Regarding Grant...One of the most important parts of the chapter on Mexico is its least glamorous. Grant was made quartermaster, because Taylor obviously studied history and understood the importance of reliable supplies.
Grant wasn't the first talented American officer conscripted for the unflattering post. Nathanael Greene was also tapped to "fix" the Continental Army's pathological supply crises by General Washington. Greene was, by all accounts, one of Washington's best assets in the field. Certainly, Greene felt he was best suited to a field command. Nevertheless, Washington appreciated the importance of the "company work" or organizing an army and considered the existing crises grave enough to temporarily divert a key piece from the field of battle.
It seems Taylor's thinking was much in line with Washington's on this. It also looks like Grant's reaction was much in line with Greene's.*
Grant sailed out of Mexico with three great lessons learned:
1. The opiate of the fight enervated Grant with his future, trademark tenacity.
2. Taylor would be Grant's lifelong model for behavior and philosophy.
3. Quartermastering gave him discipline and a practical appreciation for the real, logistic problems and a perspective/confidence to solve them preemtively.
*
Terry Golway
Well said, Patrick, his Mexican War experience was a huge help, especially doing the quartermaster work. And Grant can adapt, too. His job changed a little with Scott. Grant now had to explore the country side and get enough food once Scott cut himself off from Veracruz. It is a bit different than moving supplies from A to B.
I've just taken a dive into the book today - very interesting discussion so far, and I do find the author's style extremely readable.Bryan and Liz, I live in NE Ohio. Thanks for the links to the historical sites - I will definitely check them all out in 2011.
Great Kay, I wish I hit Grant's places while I lived there myself.
I meant to add to my earlier post that there were so many things about Grant that I found interesting in the first couple of chapters - His horsemanship. I find this interesting because the ability to train horses as quickly as he did is so rare. But I believe it was a REAL thing about the man, vs. a legend. Sometimes, animals just take to a person for reasons that are hard to define. For my son, cats and horses both seem to have an attraction to him. It must be something about his voice, or mannerisms, or even scent - who knows? It is real and palpable. My farm experiences tell me that horses are skittish things and very difficult to train. I believe that Grant must have exuded an inner confidence coupled with a true respect for these animals to be able to train them so quickly.
His realization that sometimes, all you have to do is come to the fight. It was interesting to see how, early on, he learned that sometimes when you just "show up", the opposing force will quietly retreat. I believe from the earliest times in his career that this gave him a sense of potential victory any time he advanced toward the enemy.
His ability to treat the enemy with respect. Grant was not out to annihilate anyone. He was out to win. He must again have had unusual confidence in himself to realize that he could win a battle and still leave the opposing side with some dignity, and the means to support themselves in peaceful pursuits.
So far, I am finding Grant (whom I have read very little about previously) to be entirely intriguing. Looking forward to moving on to the next couple of chapters this evening.
Great comments, Kay. It is interesting to learn about Grant and horses. In some way, I do think animals can read people pretty well. I get the impression Grant treats his enemies with respect. Maybe seeing how horrible war is?? People definitely say Grant had a quiet confidence.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant Part Two (other topics)Washington's General: Nathanael Greene and the Triumph of the American Revolution (other topics)
Grant and Twain: The Story of an American Friendship (other topics)
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (other topics)
Partners in Command: George Marshall & Dwight Eisenhower in War & Peace (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ulysses S. Grant (other topics)Terry Golway (other topics)
Mark Perry (other topics)
James M. McPherson (other topics)
Shelby Foote (other topics)
More...
Hello Everyone,
October 4, 2010 is the first day in the kickoff week for Grant by Jean Edward Smith.
This begins the first week's reading in our new Presidential Series group discussion.
The complete table of contents is as follows:
Table of Contents
Preface p.13
ONE: The Early Years p.21
TWO: Mexico p.34
THREE: Resignation p.70
FOUR: War p.98
FIVE: "Unconditional Surrender" p.133
SIX: Shiloh p.167
SEVEN: Vicksburg p.206
EIGHT: Chattanooga p. 258
NINE: General in Chief p. 284
TEN: The Wilderness p. 313
ELEVEN: Grant and Lee p. 340
TWELVE: Appomattox p. 369
THIRTEEN: Reconstruction p. 408
FOURTEEN: Let Us Have Peace p. 431
FIFTEEN: Grant in the White House p. 458
SIXTEEN: Diplomacy p. 491
SEVENTEEN: Great White Father p. 516
EIGHTEEN: Reconstruction Revisited p. 542
NINETEEN: The Gilded Age p. 573
TWENTY: Taps p. 606
Notes p. 629
Bibliography p. 707
Acknowledgments p. 747
Index p. 427
Syllabus
Week One - October 4th - October 10th -> Preface, Chapter ONE, and Chapter TWO p. 13 - 69
PREFACE, ONE - The Early Years, and TWO - Mexico
Week Two - October 11th - October 17th -> Chapter THREE and FOUR. p. 70 -132
THREE - Resignation and FOUR - War
Week Three - October 18th - October 24th -> Chapter FIVE and SIX p. 133 - 205
FIVE - "Unconditional Surrender" and SIX - Shiloh
Week Four - October 25th - October 31st -> Chapter SEVEN p. 206 - 257
Chapter SEVEN - Vicksburg
Week Five - November 1st - November 7th -> Chapters EIGHT and NINE p. 258 - 312
EIGHT - Chattanooga and NINE - General in Chief
Week Six - November 8th - November 14th -> Chapters TEN and ELEVEN p. 313 - 368
TEN - The Wilderness and ELEVEN - Grant and Lee
Week Seven - November 15th - November 21st -> Chapter TWELVE p. 369 - 407
TWELVE - Appomattox
Week Eight - November 22nd - November 28th ->
Chapter THIRTEEN and FOURTEEN p. 408 - 457
THIRTEEN - Reconstruction and FOURTEEN - Les Us Have Peace
Week Nine - November 29th - December 5th ->
FIFTEEN - Grant in the White House and SIXTEEN - Diplomacy p. 458 - 515
Week Ten - December 6th - December 12th - > Chapter SEVENTEEN and EIGHTEEN p. 516 - 572
SEVENTEEN - Great White Father and EIGHTEEN - Reconstruction Revisited
Week Eleven - December 13th - December 19th - > Chapter NINETEEN and TWENTY p. 573 - 628
NINETEEN -The Gilded Age and TWENTY - Taps
The assignment for this week includes the following segments/pages:
Week One - October 4th - October 10th -> Preface, Chapter ONE, and Chapter TWO p. 13 - 69
PREFACE, ONE - The Early Years, and TWO - Mexico
We look forward to your participation; but remember this is a non spoiler thread.
We will open up threads for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers.
This book is being kicked off on October 4th. This will be the first week's assignment for this book.
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.
A special welcome to those who will be newcomers to this discussion and thank you to those who have actively contributed on the previous Presidential Series selection. We are glad to have you all.
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL