Abraham Lincoln was frustrated with his generals. They don’t have grit, he lamented. General McClellan was a great organizer who whipped his troops into fantastic fighting shape, but he had a case of the “slows.” He just wouldn’t put those troops into battle. Other Generals were more or less competent but they too failed to pursue the enemy. Too many chances were lost that could have ended the war early.
And then came along Ulysses S. Grant. Rumored to be a hard drinker, Grant was nonetheless a fighter. He had started the war on the western front in Missouri and slowly worked his way toward the Mississippi River. Caught by surprise at the battle of Shiloh in early April (Grant had been unprepared and slow to react), he was chastised for the massive casualties accredited to his bare-knuckle fighting style and alleged drunkenness. When pressed for his removal, Lincoln refused, reportedly saying “I can’t spare this man; he fights!” It was a gamble, but Lincoln had a feeling about this man.
“The great thing about Grant, I take it, is his perfect coolness and persistency of purpose. I judge he is not easily excited, – which is a great element in an officer, – and he has got the grit of a bull-dog! Once let him get his ‘teeth’ in, and nothing can shake him off.”
Lincoln’s faith in Grant paid off. The day after the Union victory at Gettysburg – on July 4th, Independence Day – Grant captured Vicksburg. The Union had cut the South in two, with the states west of the Mississippi River—Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas—now isolated from reinforcements.
Following Vicksburg, Lincoln promoted Grant to Major General and gave him command of a newly formed Division of the Mississippi, where he directed several armies through major battles in the region. His skill and leadership would eventually lead Lincoln to commission him Lieutenant General and command of all Union armies as General-in-Chief, answering only to Lincoln.
On April 9, 1865, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered his army to Union General Ulysses S. Grant, effectively ending the war. Six days later Lincoln was dead. Four years later Grant himself was inaugurated President. Lincoln’s faith in Grant had been warranted. Unfortunately, Lincoln was not around to see Grant rise to take his place.
[The above is adapted from my new book, Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, due in stores July 31.]
Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!
David J. Kent is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores late summer 2017. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity (2013) and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World (2016) and two e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.
Hot White Snow 
Pingback: Entangled Beauty’s Grit – TyroCharm
Interested in Lincoln’s view towards Sherman’s scorched earth policy. Was it similar to other leaders that have had to debate that issue (e.g. Truman)? Would Grant have done differently?
I have not read that much about the two, but any abrupt change rings for a long time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lincoln supported Sherman’s policy, as well as a similar one by Sheridan in the Shenandoah valley of Virginia. Grant was directing both men to do what they did. Lincoln wanted the war to end, and the killing to stop, which would happen sooner if the Confederates didn’t have the resources to continue. This was especially true since the North was well supplied with equipment, clothing, shoes, and food while the South was largely scratching for the same (mainly because they refused to industrialize and states refused to work with each other).
The term “scorched earth” sounds scary, but it’s a bit of a misnomer. Plus, ending the war saved tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting. I’m not familiar with VA. But yes, that is exactly my query. Truman had to deal with the same sort of thing. And then you have to weigh the consequences of action vs. inaction. Tough stuff.
Also, things ring in popular culture regardless of fact, as we well know.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The phrase “war is hell” is originally attributed to Sherman in a commencement speech he gave in the late 1870s to the Michigan Military Academy. Which is why we should try avoiding it much more actively.
And yes, this past election (and the last 30 years) have shown that people believe what they want to believe, even when it is contradicted by fact. The “Lost Cause” of the confederacy still dominates much of southern thinking today even though it is entirely fabricated.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, the Lost Cause thing was standard fare in public education in the South. But then in the early 70’s we had forced integration in the school systems. I think that made a big difference. I don’t think that effort has gone far enough.
As a kid I had to figure out what the teachers were telling me in Alabama and New York and try to reconcile the two. Minor thing for a kid compared to most disruptions, but nonetheless curious and probably representative of most folks’ experiences.
This was part of the conflict in my brain as a child.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Lost Cause hasn’t disappeared. In fact, it still drives much of the Southern mindset today with its reinvention of history (i.e., lying about it), hatred for the federal government, racism, and bigotry. It’s the base of the Republican nowadays. With the recent controversies about the Confederate flag and monuments to Confederate generals (and Davis), the whole Lost Cause mentality has revealed itself for what it is.
Thanks for the article on Stone Mountain. I had wanted to get out there on a trip to Atlanta a few years ago but didn’t have the time. Still would like to see it. While some confederate monuments definitely should be removed (those to Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example), monuments like Stone Mountain have risen to the level of “art” and could be used as an educational tool, depending of course on how they are explained to the public.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My personal experience is that Sherman’s march reverberates a little in the attitudes in North Georgia. Extended family dinners there are sometimes uncomfortable. To me there is a striking contrast with other areas in the mid and deep South. Still just an observation without an explanation though. My parents somehow escaped that mentality, but most folks have had a tough time adjusting.
Anyway that’s what prompted my comment.
Forrest doesn’t bother me so much, but I do think it rather mean to celebrate a slave trader with a comically hideous in-your-face statue along I-65. But then, religious things are also in-your-face as you travel those roads.
http://www.tennessean.com/story/insession/2015/06/22/blockage-sought-of-i-65-nathan-bedford-forrest-statue/29128551/
That statue has been there for twenty years or so, so I reckon some folks have gotten used to it, but it still irks me a bit. ….borders on inciting.
Jackson has had the same kind of fallout in FL.
But it is dumb to try to cleanse history. I think a better approach is to add to it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting about the Forrest statue visible from I-65. Since it’s privately owned it limits what the government can do, yet it screams racism (I’m sure even Georgians know about Fort Pillow and his later Klan activities). The statue begs the question as to how we define “hate speech.”
As for the phrase “cleansing history,” I think that is a misnomer. The removal of confederate monuments isn’t about cleansing history, but getting history right. Celebrating confederate generals and Davis is celebrating people who fought to destroy the United States, preserve and expand enslavement of others, and promote racism. I’m hard pressed to see these as something worth celebrating. It would be like Germany celebrating the Nazis and publicly displaying statues of Hitler and Adolf Eichmann for 150 years after WWII.
Some monuments (like Stone Mountain) that are works of art AND useful for the accurate transmission of history can perhaps be repurposed for educational reasons, but most of the statues of confederate generals don’t teach history, they teach treason. And I can imagine the African-American community find it repressive to be constantly reminded of how hard the ancestors of their fellow citizens worked to oppress them (and continue to do so in a more [or less] subtle manner).
I believe the statues being removed are all being stored while people debate what to do with them. Some could be used in museums with appropriate materials explaining the history leading to the Civil War (the South had been threatening secession for decades and continued to extract “compromises” that enriched slave owners and spread slavery) and the role of the person being displayed. For example, Forrest’s statue could be used to discuss Fort Pillow, where thousands of black Union soldiers were massacred while white Union soldiers were merely captured. Using the statues to present accurate history would do the nation a service, as well as help dispel the false history that is being taught to many southerners.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t mind the odd statue here or there, but when there is a pattern throughout one’s local environment, it can become numbing. I think would be cool to have a statue rotation program somewhere just to try it out. This month one might have George Washington Carver, next month Benjamin Franklin., next month John Dillinger then perhaps Georgia O’Keefe ….and so on. Probably some community has already done that.
I don’t know what you do with Stone Mountain. It is just so huge. But I think building a comprehensive Civil War museum
This was another fixture of my childhood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Cyclorama_%26_Civil_War_Museum
I think I probably last viewed the painting in 1975 or so, but it is huge as well.
Peace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The cost and logistics of moving heavy statues that often would probably make it unfeasible, but perhaps on a yearly or some other basis it would be interesting. Kind of like having limited-time exhibitions at museums.
I was unaware of the Cyclorama. I may just have to make another trip to the Atlanta area.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Choose a cool autumn month for sure. Kennesaw is nice to visit despite the kerfuffle over mandatory gun ownership. Actually it is very nice terrain…pleasantly hilly and a quiet place to walk and contemplate.
LikeLiked by 1 person