Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

What did Ulysses S. Grant do?

History-American Civil War Ulysses S. Grant 2006

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#21 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 03:16 PM

View PostCrimson Avenger, on Aug 15 2006, 01:34 PM, said:

I would like your opinion on why he is a hero if you think he is a hero.
IMO, you'd have to romanticize Grant and ignore a lot of his personal failings to recast him as a hero. He was a good enough of a general to bring the North's superior manpower and industrial capability to bear against Lee in a decisive way. However, IMO, Grant just wasn't in the same league as Lee and would have been beaten badly had they engaged on equal terms.

You might find this link helpful: http://keirsey.com/grant.html

Edited by Solar Wind, 15 August 2006 - 03:23 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#22 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 03:27 PM

^^^I look at the Vicksburg campaign, and I have a great deal of respect for both men as they had for each other. Since each man could improvise in a tight situation I don’t think that anybody can say who would have won, had the south had a stronger logistics trail?

However ultimately war is not a fair contest, and it does not always go to the best commander, or the best supplied.

Edited by emsparks, 15 August 2006 - 03:29 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#23 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 03:32 PM

^ I admit that I'm biased in favor of Lee's almost artful cleverness over Grant's coldly calculating, single-minded, tenacious approach.

Edited by Solar Wind, 15 August 2006 - 06:18 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#24 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 03:37 PM

Quote

why I think Ulysses S. Grant was a hero
Now that is an interestingly worded question. Grant was a hero because the people of the day (in the North anyway) treated him as one, because he was precieved as winning the war. However, that doesn't mean he was heroic. In other words, your teacher (if the question you wrote is a cut and paste) has left you open to disagreeing.*

















* How to confuse a 10 year old, lesson 1.

#25 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 03:43 PM

I think your question is an interesting one CA, but given the criteria - I can't add much to the discussion. That reason being is that I don't see Grant as a hero or ever having done any thing particularly heroic.

However my perceptions/ feelings aren't germain, and I wish you every suscess on your paper CA!
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#26 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 03:47 PM

There's a certain Grant visual aid to include in your paper if you want to be sure of getting an A - it's his picture on a $50 bill!  I've never included one of those in a paper and didn't get an A... even when I was writing about, say, biology. :)

(This is a only joke, y'know - don't bribe your teachers!)

Good luck on the paper. :)

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#27 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 03:49 PM

View PostSolar Wind, on Aug 15 2006, 04:16 PM, said:

He was a good enough of a general to bring the North's superior manpower and industrial capability to bear against Lee in a decisive way.
Given the North's lackluster performance prior to his involvement and its balancing effect against he North's greater power that made the South's case ultimately hopeless in any event, a quicker, more decisive victory could be seen as heroic by actually reducing the amount of harm the war could have done if it had stretched out more... like with the nukes in WWII, and the decision to spare Qin so he could end the wars by winning and uniting the land in peace in the movie "Hero".

#28 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 03:49 PM

View PostShalamar, on Aug 15 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

I think your question is an interesting one CA, but given the criteria - I can't add much to the discussion. That reason being is that I don't see Grant as a hero or ever having done any thing particularly heroic.

However my perceptions/ feelings aren't germain, and I wish you every suscess on your paper CA!
Ah! But that's my point. Grant was a hero - that's not in dispute. You could write this paper explaining why you think he was treated as a hero - whether you believe he actually was heroic or not.

Edited by Hambil, 15 August 2006 - 03:50 PM.


#29 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 03:52 PM

View Postemsparks, on Aug 15 2006, 03:34 PM, said:

The second thing he did was... he allowed the confederate army to surrender with dignity. In short he finished the war and started the national healing... Read up on the Appomattox Court House surrender, it has to do with how you treat the defeated.
Bad treatment of the defeated after WWI is often given as a reason why WWII happened.

This would be a case of heroism not by what he did, but by how he did it.

#30 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 04:02 PM

Grant invented the concentration camp--uhm, pardon me, reservation--system for Native Americans that's still in place today.  Not a hero.

When you hit a snag with a project like this, the best thing to do may be to change your topic if your instructor will allow you to.  How about someone a little bit easier to deal with--say, Clara Barton, who founded the American Red Cross on the Civil War battlefields, or Walt Whitman, who was an ambulance driver, or--I need to go look up her name--the woman doctor who served as a battle surgeon for the Union?

Edited to add:  Dr. Mary Walker.  She was awarded the Medal of Honor and went on to fight for women's right to vote.

Edited by waterpanther, 15 August 2006 - 04:07 PM.

Posted Image

#31 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 04:07 PM

View PostDelvo, on Aug 15 2006, 02:52 PM, said:

View Postemsparks, on Aug 15 2006, 03:34 PM, said:

The second thing he did was... he allowed the confederate army to surrender with dignity. In short he finished the war and started the national healing... Read up on the Appomattox Court House surrender, it has to do with how you treat the defeated.
Bad treatment of the defeated after WWI is often given as a reason why WWII happened.

This would be a case of heroism not by what he did, but by how he did it.

That's more magnanimity or graciousness in victory than heroicness.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#32 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 04:15 PM

View PostCrimson Avenger, on Aug 15 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

I'm really sorry that I gave you guys the impression that I didn't do any research myself.  I have been doing lots of research on Ulysses Grant.  For example, after he fought in the Mexican War, he tried farming bit failed, so he worked at his brother's shop until the Civil War began.  In the beginning of the War he was the brigader general of volunteers.  

For my project, I have to write a five-paragraph essay about why I think Ulysses S. Grant was a hero.  In my opinion, I think he showed heroism by fighting to keep the nation together.  For, example, he fought in the battle of Shiloh, on of of the bloodiest battles ever.  However, I would like your opinion on why he is a hero if you think he is a hero.

Sorry if I sounded harsh I can only read what you've written. I do enjoy questions that spark discussion but it grinds my gears when last minute students posting these exact sort of posts ("How I do question!??")  when they clearly haven't done any research on the matter and expect other people to do the leg work from them.
Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#33 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 04:18 PM

View Postwaterpanther, on Aug 15 2006, 02:02 PM, said:

Grant invented the concentration camp--uhm, pardon me, reservation--system for Native Americans that's still in place today.  Not a hero.

When you hit a snag with a project like this, the best thing to do may be to change your topic if your instructor will allow you to.  How about someone a little bit easier to deal with--say, Clara Barton, who founded the American Red Cross on the Civil War battlefields, or Walt Whitman, who was an ambulance driver, or--I need to go look up her name--the woman doctor who served as a battle surgeon for the Union?

Edited to add:  Dr. Mary Walker.  She was awarded the Medal of Honor and went on to fight for women's right to vote.

Mary Walker is a hero of mine.  Here's another link.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#34 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 06:43 PM

View Postwaterpanther, on Aug 15 2006, 05:02 PM, said:

Grant invented the concentration camp--uhm, pardon me, reservation--system for Native Americans that's still in place today.  Not a hero.

When you hit a snag with a project like this, the best thing to do may be to change your topic if your instructor will allow you to.  How about someone a little bit easier to deal with--say, Clara Barton, who founded the American Red Cross on the Civil War battlefields, or Walt Whitman, who was an ambulance driver, or--I need to go look up her name--the woman doctor who served as a battle surgeon for the Union?

Edited to add:  Dr. Mary Walker.  She was awarded the Medal of Honor and went on to fight for women's right to vote.

The Indian Appropriations Act of 1851 started the reservations long before Grant entered into politics.

http://en.wikipedia....ropriations_Act
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#35 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 07:13 PM

And before then, there was....

Quote

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a law passed by the Twenty-first United States Congress in order to facilitate the relocation of American Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi River in the United States to lands further west. The Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830.The Removal Act did not actually order the removal of any Native Americans. Rather, it authorized the President to negotiate land-exchange treaties with tribes living within the boundaries of existing U.S. states. In the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the United States had acquired a claim to a vast amount of land west of the Mississippi River. The stated purpose of the Removal Act was to resettle Indian tribes on this land in exchange for their tribal lands in the East. These western lands would eventually become known as "Indian Territory."

http://www.reference...ian_Removal_Act

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#36 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 07:40 PM

Quote

In 1851, the United States Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act, which authorized the creation of Indian reservations in modern day Oklahoma.

The establishment of reservations became prevalent under Presidential administration of Ulysses S. Grant in the late 1860s in response to the perceived "Indian problem" of growing conflicts between U.S. settlers and Native American tribes in the West. Relations between settlers and natives had grown increasingly worse as the settlers encroached on hunting grounds and natural resources in the West.

Grant pursued a stated "Peace Policy" as a possible solution to the conflict. The policy included a reorganization of the Indian Service, with the goal of relocating various tribes from their ancestral homes to parcels of lands established specifically for their inhabitation. The policy called for the replacement of government officials by religious men, nominated by churches, to oversee the Indian agencies on reservations in order to teach Christianity to the native tribes. The Quakers were especially active in this policy on reservations. The "civilization" policy was aimed at eventually preparing the tribes for citizenship.


* * *.As the tribes were no longer allowed to hunt in their accustomed manner, they were to be taught the rudiments of agriculture in order to sustain themselves on their new lands. In many cases, the lands granted to tribes were not ideal for, and in some cases resistant to cultivation, leaving many tribes who accepted the policy in a state bordering on starvation.

Reservation treaties sometimes included stipend agreements, in which the federal government would grant a certain amount of goods to a tribe annually. The implementation of the policy was erratic, however, and in many cases the stipend goods were not delivered.

Controversy
The policy was controversial from the start. Reservations were generally established by executive order. In many cases, white settlers objected to the size of land parcels, which were subsequently reduced. A report submitted to Congress in 1868 found widespread corruption among the federal Indian agencies and generally poor conditions among the relocated tribes.

Reservations

I probably should have said "implemented" rather than "invented."  My bad.   The major culture-breaking features of the system were established under Grant.
Posted Image

#37 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 09:14 PM

View PostDelvo, on Aug 15 2006, 01:52 PM, said:

View Postemsparks, on Aug 15 2006, 03:34 PM, said:

The second thing he did was... he allowed the confederate army to surrender with dignity. In short he finished the war and started the national healing... Read up on the Appomattox Court House surrender, it has to do with how you treat the defeated.
Bad treatment of the defeated after WWI is often given as a reason why WWII happened.

This would be a case of heroism not by what he did, but by how he did it.

Delvo and Sparky have made an excellent point. Grant began, in Lincoln's words, to "bind up the wounds of the nation" when he let the South surrender with dignity. He was a pretty good general and a mediocre to terrible president, but to me that was his shining moment. But then, Robert E. Lee was a great soldier, and it would have taken a petty man indeed to deny him his due.

Edited by Rhea, 15 August 2006 - 09:14 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#38 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 09:47 PM

Don't change the subject matter-stay the course.

You will most likely find pros and cons to just about anyone.  It's the human factor-we are none perfect and those who have notably left a mark on history most assuredly those factors will be found.

Have you discovered that he was the son of a Preacher?  Note:  At least I read that somewhere.  He's noted as being a tanner also.

Edited by Hibblette, 15 August 2006 - 10:00 PM.

"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#39 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 09:55 PM

As a military historian I really can’t agree with the fact that Grant was a brilliant General.  Grant was better than the previous Union Generals because he was competent and he was willing to bring the battle to the enemy.  I’d say at Vicksburg Grant was pretty smart and innovative with some of his tactics.  He did run into several dead ends with them though.  In many cases though his battles against Lee were less about brilliant innovation and more about Grant latching onto Lee’s army and then pounding on each other.  At the end of the day Grant had more men and material than Lee so while Lee would escape away he’d come out of it worse than Grant.  Grant in many ways was a determined commander who was willing to take heavy losses if it meant Lee was getting battered to death.  

Grant in many ways was not an invincible general.  You simply have to look at Cold Harbor where he blundered badly.  Grant attempted frontal assaults against heavily dug in defenders and suffered heavy losses for very little gain in the battle.  If you want to see Grant as a human being rather than a larger than life figure I suggest reading about Cold Harbor, his failures there, and his reaction to them.  The Union suffered horrible one-sided losses in the battle, morale slumped, and Grant was accused of being a blundering butcher in the North.  Though the battle did accomplish the larger objective of pinning down Lee.

In my opinion General Sherman as a general was a far greater general than Grant in ability and talent.  From the his handling of his aspect of the Battle of Shiloh to his later actions he was by far the greatest Union General.  In many ways Sherman’s March to the Sea and his method of warfare made the Civil War the first modern war.  Sherman wasn’t out to destroy the other army in the field of battle.  Sherman was out to destroy the enemy’s ability to fight and will to fight by destroying their infrastructure.  Sherman tore a path across the south destroying the material, the infrastructures, and everything needed to allow a nation to function in a war.  His goal was to destroy the Confederate ability to support an army in the field and destroy their will to fight.    

Also you could attribute more personal heroism to Sherman who at Shiloh had multiple horses shot out from under him and was wounded several times.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#40 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,621 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 10:26 PM

Grant did have a lot of failures before he had successes, so you could say something about perseverance in the face of adversity.

My early opinions of Grant were colored by the fact that he used to assign cool, top-secret missions to Jim West on The Wild, Wild, West television show.  :devil:

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: History-American, Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users