|
|
|
|
|
|
Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865
written by Brooks D. Simpson
Studio : Houghton Mifflin
by Houghton Mifflin
Publisher : Houghton Mifflin
Released : 2000-02-21
Availability : Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Number of Items : 1
EAN : 9780395659946
UPC : 046442659949
Avg. Customer Rating: (based on 38 reviews)
List Price : $35.00
Our Price : $18.00
|
|
| |
|
Product Description |
|
Washington, Lincoln, Grant--these were once the triumvirate of American nationalism. But, like his tomb on the Hudson, Grant's reputation has fallen into disrepair. The image many Americans hold of him is a caricature: someone "uniquely stupid," an insensitive butcher as a general, an incompetent mediocrity as president, and a drunk. Several efforts to counter this stereotype have often gone too far in the other direction, resulting in an equally distorted laudatory portrait of near-perfection. In reading the original sources, Brooks D. Simpson became convinced that Grant was neither a bumbling idiot who was the darling of fortune nor a flawless general who could do no wrong. Rather, he was a tangle of opposing qualities--a relentless warrior but a generous victor, a commander who drew upon uncommon common sense in drafting campaign plans and in winning battles, a soldier so sensitive to suffering that he could not stand to see the bloody hides at his father's tannery, a man who made mistakes and sometimes learned from them. Even as he waged war, he realized the broader political implications of the struggle; he came to believe that the preservation of the Union depended upon the destruction of slavery. Equally compelling is Grant's personal story--one of a man who struggled against great odds, bad luck, and personal humiliation, who sought joy and love in the arms of his wife and his children, and who was determined to overcome adversity and prevail over his detractors. "None of our public men have a story so strange as this," Owen Wister once observed; agreeing, William T. Sherman remarked that Grant remained a mystery even to himself. In the first of two volumes, Brooks Simpson brings Grant's story to life in an account that is readable, balanced, compelling, and definitive. |
| |
|
| |
|
Great book from an excellent professor |
|
Simpson brings to life a man who should be recognized as one of the greatest men in American history, both in his accomplishments and in his character. As a side note, but Brooks Simpson is an excellent lecturing professor. Take a class from him, and you will be inspired. |
| |
|
Another Look at U.S. Grant |
U.S Grant's life and military career have been explored by any number of historians over the years. Brooks Simpson's well-written biography is noteworthy for providing a nicely synthesized account based on the existing sources and some nuanced insight into Grant's military career.
Simpson passes lightly and quickly over Grant's formative years. The narrative picks up steam when Grant returns to military service at the start of the Civil War. Simpson traces Grant's growth as a military leader as he progresses in rank and responsibility from Belmont to Forts Henry and Donelson to Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, the Wilderness, Petersburg, and ultimately Appomattox
If Simpson's narrative contains relatively few new facts, he deserves credit for not taking older accounts at face value. By careful analysis, he calls into question the longstanding tale of Grant's drunken binge during the Siege of Vicksburg. Simpson also devotes some useful attention to Grant's attitudes about slavery, which were undoubtedly complicated by his marriage and by evolving policy over the course of the Civil War.
Simpson's account of Vicksburg brings out for the reader Grant's constant need to juggle his almost insurmountable military requirements with the daunting challenge of leading a volunteer army officered in part by well-connected politicians who were sometimes less than able commanders. For example, Grant was compelled to make accomodation for the ambitious Illinois politician John McClernand during the Vicksburg campaign and for the uncooperative Ben Butler of Massachusetts during the siege of Petersburg.
Simpson does an especially good job in detailing Grant's struggle to command the whole of Union forces from a field headquarters traveling with the Army of the Potomac from 1864 to 1865. Desirous of staying away from politics in Washington, Grant strove to coordinate the movement of the Union's field forces by corresponding both directly with their commanders and through defacto Army chief of staff Henry Halleck in Washington. At the same time, Grant groped for the proper level of supervision over George Meade's long-suffering Army of the Potomac. The result is a painful but ultimately successful learning curve for Grant, who combined great persistence with great common sense and an often remarkably deft political touch in finally organizing the defeat of the Confederate armed forces.
Simpson provides a useful insight into the last year of the war in describing the deadlock at Petersburg as a result of opportunities missed by an Army of the Potomac exhausted after five months of continuous combat.
Simpson's final chapter attempts to make sense of Grant's stunning leap from store front clerk in 1861 to General of the Union armies and victor of the Civil War by 1865. Complete understanding of Grant as a person continues to elude historians; Grant's success as a leader Simpson puts down to his strengths as a person and to his character. Grant was possessed of an keenly analytical mind whose workings were often hidden by his considerable reserve. At the same time, he was keenly observant, listened well, and had the great gift of being able to simplify problems down to their essence. Grant consistently achieved success by applying practical logic, common sense and determination to his military challenges. Grant's lack of political ambition and willingness to take responsibility earned him the leeway from Lincoln to carry out his military plans.
Simpson does not spare Grant his shortcomings as a leader. Grant was desperately ambitious to redeem his military career, sensitive to criticism, often unwilling to admit mistakes, and sometimes a poor judge of character. Grant seems also to have been emotionally dependent on his wife and family and to have had issues handling alcohol.
This book is highly recommended to fans of the Civil War era looking for a fascinating and nuanced portrait of U.S. Grant.
|
| |
|
Balanced and Thoughtful |
|
This volume, the first of a planned two-volume biography of Grant, covers Grant's life from birth to the end of the Civil War. It is meticulously researched and well balanced. Prof. Simpson doesn't shirk from examining charges of Grant's drinking and he doesn't hesitate to show where such charges cannot be sustained and where they can be sustained. He also doesn't hesitate to criticize Grant's performance on the battlefield where necessary. This is a necessary antidote to the biased, though beautifully written, biography of Grant by William S. McFeely. Unlike McFeely, Simpson displays an understanding of the military aspects of Grant's life and dispells the myths surrounding Grant--some of them, notably Grant's views toward blacks and slavery, perpetuated by McFeely. Anyone seeking to understand Ulysses S. Grant the man and the general will find this book to be essential. One can only hope the second volume is as good as this one. |
| |
|
Best, most scholarly biography of Grant |
|
This is a terrific biography of Grant. It is thoroughly researched, and meticulously documented. Professor Simpson uses his sources with refreshing transparency, and debunks many myths surrounding Grant. |
| |
|
Fawning hyperbole |
Having read numerous books on Grant, I agree with those numerous reviewers, that the author, [Simpson], idolizes Grant. Had Simpson titled the book a "Narrative", or a "Novel", it would rate 5 stars. Attempting to pass this off as FACTUAL, and THE ONLY TRUE SOURCE is disingenuous, to say the Least. Books on Grant by Catton, John Simon or McFeeley are the standard. This book may be a fun book to read, but It lacks credibility. Below is just one example of Simpsons Hyperbole on Grant:
This is from the book, "Triumph Over Adversity". I've captioned the questionable (IMO) words/phrases in parenthesis. I explained those on the bottom. (IMHO), the author [Simpson] spins the history, to create an imaginary Grant. [the footnotes in the 'quote' are mine. I explain the flaws pertaining to this at the bottom]
[Quote]
-On the morning of June 6, he [Grant] boarded a steamer headed north along the Yazoo for Satartia. With him was Charles Dana.
It was a sick man who left headquarters that morning, although it is unclear exactly what was the problem. Perhaps (1) it was a migraine brought on by stress (2). Others,( 3) looking to offer him some relief, had proffered a glass or two of liquor. It was bad enough that Sherman's doctor had proposed wine as a remedy, but Rawlins exploded when he encountered Grant on the evening of June 5, chatting with several staff officers who were sipping wine and asking him to join them. Rawlins retreated to his tent to prepare yet another temperance lecture in the form of a lengthy letter (4). "The great solicitude I feel for the safety of this army leads me to mention what I had hoped never again to do--the subject of your drinking," he began. Perhaps (5) his suspicions were "unfounded," but when the general, "because of the condition of your health if nothing else, have been in bed." chose instead to chat away while alcohol circulated, it was time to worry. Moreover, the chief of staff believed that "the lack of your usual promptness decision and clearness in expressing yourself in writing tended to confirm my suspicions." Rawlins admitted he might be wrong, but he wanted to make sure that Grant adhered to his March pledge of total abstinence. (6) According to one account, Rawlins gave Grant the letter the next morning, just before Grant's departure; although there is no record of Grant's response, Rawlins must have been reassured, for he did not accompany the general aboard the steamer.
What happened next has become the source of great discussion and even greater mythmaking. In all probability, (7) Grant sought relief from his pain by downing a glass of liquor; when that, far from doing the trick, made him feel worse, even woozy, (8) he retreated to his cabin. As the steamer approached Satartia, two gunboats hailed it, reporting that Union forces had abandoned Satartia and it was no longer secure. Dana notified Grant of this still reeling from his headache, Grant left it up to Dana what to do next. (9) Dana decided to return Hayes' Bluff. The next morning, Grant arose, discovered where they were (10), and ordered a cavalry detachment to ride over to Mechanicsburg to see what was going on. Dana, satisfied that Grant was better, accompanied the detachment; Grant returned to Vicksburg.
In years to come, this was not what people read and repeated. What emerged instead was a story charging that Grant got drunk on a joyride up the river. Dana himself gave credence to this story, writing in 1887 that Grant was merely on an "an excursion" on the Yazoo "during a dull period in the campaign," which allowed him to get "as stupidly drunk as the immortal nature of man would allow." Even richer was the story of newspaperman Sylvanus Cadwallader, who concocted an account featuring his heaving bottles out of the steamer's stateroom before locking the intoxicated general up--followed the next day by yet another Grant spree, capped by a wild horseback ride through the woods in which he was saved from certain disaster by a combination of luck, fate, and Cadwallader. That Dana, who surely would have heard the ruckus on the steamer described by the reporter, denied that Cadwallader was present (11) was only the most serious of several contradictions between the two accounts, which they and James H. Wilson tried to reconcile in 1890 by concluding that there must have been two trips. By that time, both Cadwallader and Wilson agreed that Grant was highly overrated (and their own contribution to his success, as well as that of Rawlins, was underrated); Dana had become disillusioned with the General.
Key components of the tale woven by this trio unravel in the face of careful reading of the evidence; nevertheless, many fine scholars, always on the lookout for a colorful story or two to enliven their narratives, and desperate for a good account of Grant actually drinking, (12) have embraced it without batting an eyelash. They have even cited Rawlin's letter in confirmation of the story (13) although it was prepared before Grant left; they ignore the endorsement appended by Rawlins; "Its admonitions were heeded, and all went well." How could that Rawlins have said that if Cadwallader's report is accurate? (14) To accept this fable, one would have to believe that an ailing Grant, alarmed as he was about the security of his lines, nevertheless decided to board a steamer headed for the threatened area just to get away from Rawlins so he could drink in private (15)--and that he knowingly invited along for the ride a representative from the War Department whose assignment was to report on his private habits and fitness for command. (16) Tucked away in a draft of his biography of Rawlins was Wilson's admission of what really happened--Grant "fell sick, and thinking a drink of spirits would do him good, took one with the usual unhappy results. (17)
Source-"Triumph Over Adversity"-Brooks D. Simpson-copyright-2000-p.206-8
1.) "Perhaps it was a migraine"--(a) the word perhaps is an elusive word, used to create doubt.
(b) Where is the source for this migraine? Since the author used no quotation marks, I assume the author used poetic license.
2.) "Stress"-No quotations on the word "stress"--did Grant have a history of stress related migraines during the war?
3.) "Others"-no quotations here either, where is the source? The author uses quotations for his sources, why none here?
4.) Rawlins seen Grant around officers drinking and went to write a letter. (This point is mentioned in the last paragraph)
5.) "Perhaps-another use of this word to create doubt
6.)"make sure that Grant adhered to his March pledge of total abstinence. "--Grant drank throughout the war, according to several sources.
7.) "In all probability, "--again, no quotations marks, and an elusive word to create doubt.
8.) "made him feel worse, even woozy"-no quotation marks, where is the source for this? How does the author know? Does feeling `woozy' mean `drunk'?
9.) "Grant left it up to Dana what to do next. "-This is what Dana wrote! Grant allowing a Dana to assume command and issue orders seems a bit of a stretch.
10.) "...Grant arose, discovered where they were..."--Why did he just `discover' this? Dana told him immediately!
11.) "denied that Cadwallader was present -Dana does not say this in his `Recollections'. (notice no quotation marks on this allegation by the author).
12.) "desperate for a good account of Grant actually drinking"--Other sources mention Grant drinking at other times. Grant did in fact, `Drink'.
13.) "They have even cited Rawlin's letter in confirmation of the story -See number four; Rawlins wrote `the subject of your drinking...", not the Yazoo trip. (it seems the author is spinning a story)
14.) "How could Rawlins have said that if Cadwallader's report is accurate? "-Rawlins wrote about a different event, not the Yazoo trip.
15.) "To accept this fable, ....so he could drink in private"-The author uses no source that is a fable, no quotation marks, his conclusion is questionable,
16.) "he knowingly invited along for the ride a representative from the War Department whose assignment was to report on his private habits and fitness for command. "--That was Rawlins job. Rawlins was placed in the position for that very thing, by Sec. Of War, Edward M. Stanton. Rawlins was not asked to come along!!!
17.) "Wilson's admission of what really happened--Grant "fell sick, and thinking a drink of spirits would do him good, took one with the usual unhappy results. "--'The usual results when Grant drank, was that he got drunk'.
|
| |
|
|
|
