5 ms·

One of Grant's failings was trusting too easily. He was broke because he was taken in by a con artist, then developed throat cancer before he could get his fee

by enkid 4y ago

One of Grant's failings was trusting too easily. He was broke because he was taken in by a con artist, then developed throat cancer before he could get his feet back under him, and spent his dying months writing out the manuscript by hand because he couldn't do tate to a secretary any more.

drewcoo 3y ago
> One of Grant's failings was trusting too easily. And a general who trusts too easily, just might possibly trust too readily, sir. He was no Sherman, but his "governance" of the south led to carpetbaggers and "south shall rise again" BS that remains to this day. If Lee had won the war or McClellan . . . we would have very different, much stronger ideas of republic today.
- themitigating 3y ago
  "and "south shall rise again" Are you sure this can't be explained much more easily as pride?
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  I mean the whole being strict on the south was not just Grant's view, there were lots of people who wanted it. Johnson evidently wanted to be more lenient but was forced by the Congress to be hard. As far as McClellan winning the war!! That really moves the alternate history from the realm of Science Fiction to one of Fantasy.
- sonofthesouf 3y ago
  You have "South Shall Rise Again," at least these days, because folks have disdain towards the Federal apparatus and so the Confederacy makes for an easy monument around which to gather. Arguably, the reason "the South" is a contentious topic as it stands presently - is a lack of folks being touched by the better angels of our nature. Grant wisely understood that in order to rebuild the nation, one couldn't become punitive towards his erstwhile and future countrymen.
- yardie 3y ago
  The south had “carpetbaggers” because they were traitors. The federal government sent bureaucrats they could trust to run the government in the south.
  - BrotherBisquick 3y ago
    Exactly. Just like how I'm committing treason against my house by leaving it every morning.
    - yardie 3y ago
      The house is still there. You're just no longer part of it.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > He [Grant] was no Sherman, but his "governance" of the south led to carpetbaggers and "south shall rise again" BS that remains to this day. A while back I read a tweet from an anonymous Army officer: "Sherman should've mowed the deep south like a lawn, making multiple passes" https://twitter.com/pptsapper/status/1313470161974947843 https://twitter.com/pptsapper/status/1313470161974947843
DoreenMichele 3y ago
From what I have read, Grant is why the US has had only one civil war. In most countries, civil war begets civil war and each one sows new seeds for the next one.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  We only had one civil war because after Lincoln was assassinated, reconstruction was basically scrapped and we openly ignored what happened while letting prominent Confederate politicians and sympathizers get into power and twist reality into their "Lost Cause" myth. To this day, some American students are still taught that the Civil War was started and caused by "Northern Aggression" and that slavery wasn't important. Would a marshal plan style rebuild/de-confederation of the south caused a second civil war? Most likely not? Would it have helped black people not be screwed over for the next hundred years? I sure hope so.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    Some things I have read suggest the civil war didn't start per se over slavery. The decision to emancipate the slaves occurred sometime during the war and was sort of made on the local level when some commanding officer chose to give asylum to two Black men, escaped slaves iirc. And then it became official policy at some point and after the fact we remember it as having been the reason for the war from the start. My general understanding is the South wished to secede. There were many differences between that region and the rest of the country, slavery being only one difference. The Deep South continues to be a distinctive region and is more religious than most of the rest of the country. I read a compelling account of how Grant was an alcoholic and ne'er-do-well for much of his life and attributes that fact as the cause of Grant's decision to be unexpectedly compassionate when he set terms of surrender. Lee was reluctant to surrender. Surrendering was typically a bad thing. Grant laid out only three conditions, one of which was "You must let us help you rebuild." This is why there were carpet baggers. I'm not going to argue this further. As stated above, "from what I have read....etc." You aren't required to agree with me.
    - 3y ago

by enkid 4y ago

drewcoo 3y ago

> One of Grant's failings was trusting too easily. And a general who trusts too easily, just might possibly trust too readily, sir. He was no Sherman, but his "governance" of the south led to carpetbaggers and "south shall rise again" BS that remains to this day. If Lee had won the war or McClellan . . . we would have very different, much stronger ideas of republic today.

themitigating 3y ago
"and "south shall rise again" Are you sure this can't be explained much more easily as pride?
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
I mean the whole being strict on the south was not just Grant's view, there were lots of people who wanted it. Johnson evidently wanted to be more lenient but was forced by the Congress to be hard. As far as McClellan winning the war!! That really moves the alternate history from the realm of Science Fiction to one of Fantasy.
sonofthesouf 3y ago
You have "South Shall Rise Again," at least these days, because folks have disdain towards the Federal apparatus and so the Confederacy makes for an easy monument around which to gather. Arguably, the reason "the South" is a contentious topic as it stands presently - is a lack of folks being touched by the better angels of our nature. Grant wisely understood that in order to rebuild the nation, one couldn't become punitive towards his erstwhile and future countrymen.
yardie 3y ago
The south had “carpetbaggers” because they were traitors. The federal government sent bureaucrats they could trust to run the government in the south.
- BrotherBisquick 3y ago
  Exactly. Just like how I'm committing treason against my house by leaving it every morning.
  - yardie 3y ago
    The house is still there. You're just no longer part of it.
dctoedt 3y ago
> He [Grant] was no Sherman, but his "governance" of the south led to carpetbaggers and "south shall rise again" BS that remains to this day. A while back I read a tweet from an anonymous Army officer: "Sherman should've mowed the deep south like a lawn, making multiple passes" https://twitter.com/pptsapper/status/1313470161974947843 https://twitter.com/pptsapper/status/1313470161974947843

DoreenMichele 3y ago

From what I have read, Grant is why the US has had only one civil war. In most countries, civil war begets civil war and each one sows new seeds for the next one.

mrguyorama 3y ago
We only had one civil war because after Lincoln was assassinated, reconstruction was basically scrapped and we openly ignored what happened while letting prominent Confederate politicians and sympathizers get into power and twist reality into their "Lost Cause" myth. To this day, some American students are still taught that the Civil War was started and caused by "Northern Aggression" and that slavery wasn't important. Would a marshal plan style rebuild/de-confederation of the south caused a second civil war? Most likely not? Would it have helped black people not be screwed over for the next hundred years? I sure hope so.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  Some things I have read suggest the civil war didn't start per se over slavery. The decision to emancipate the slaves occurred sometime during the war and was sort of made on the local level when some commanding officer chose to give asylum to two Black men, escaped slaves iirc. And then it became official policy at some point and after the fact we remember it as having been the reason for the war from the start. My general understanding is the South wished to secede. There were many differences between that region and the rest of the country, slavery being only one difference. The Deep South continues to be a distinctive region and is more religious than most of the rest of the country. I read a compelling account of how Grant was an alcoholic and ne'er-do-well for much of his life and attributes that fact as the cause of Grant's decision to be unexpectedly compassionate when he set terms of surrender. Lee was reluctant to surrender. Surrendering was typically a bad thing. Grant laid out only three conditions, one of which was "You must let us help you rebuild." This is why there were carpet baggers. I'm not going to argue this further. As stated above, "from what I have read....etc." You aren't required to agree with me.
  - 3y ago