Grant- Examined by a Hostile Author
Agha H. Amin
Before 1861 when US Civil War broke out Grant failed in every business that he undertook and was a failed West Point graduate struggling with harsh material realities of civilian life.
US Civil war became his blessings in disguise.
Harsh adversity and elements of danger that define a war became Grants stepping-stones to glory and success. At least he achieved worldly success.
Grant gained immense fame as the general who led United States of America or the North to a victory against CSA, or the Confederate States of America.
Grant was elected president of USA twice; a singular unique honour in the period of US history between Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson, Grant was the only man to complete two consecutive terms as US President.
In 1879 General William T Sherman who knew Grant well said " to me he is a mystery, and I believe he is a mystery to himself".
Grant died in 1885 and has been an intensely famous and controversial character for US historians ever since.
Harsh adversity and elements of danger that define a war became Grants stepping-stones to glory and success. At least he achieved worldly success.
Grant gained immense fame as the general who led United States of America or the North to a victory against CSA, or the Confederate States of America.
Grant was elected president of USA twice; a singular unique honour in the period of US history between Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson, Grant was the only man to complete two consecutive terms as US President.
In 1879 General William T Sherman who knew Grant well said " to me he is a mystery, and I believe he is a mystery to himself".
Grant died in 1885 and has been an intensely famous and controversial character for US historians ever since.
Great authors like JFC Fuller gauged him as a great military commander while many others condemned him as a drunkard and a butcher who won only because of Brute superior numbers.
The trend in USA till 1960s regarded Grant as a great military commander.
The trend in USA till 1960s regarded Grant as a great military commander.
In 1981 our author under review challenged this assumption in a rather formidable manner.
As they put it in that pre 1981 period, Grant was the American success story. He was an ideal military commander and a successful leader of American armies in war.
Enters Mc Feely who downgrades Grant to Vulgar, callous and Brutish. Historian described him as a despicable man who did not deserve the fame that had been bestowed him after historian.
Our author condemned him with phrases like inept military strategy and a nightmare of inhumanity.
Enters Mc Feely who downgrades Grant to Vulgar, callous and Brutish. Historian described him as a despicable man who did not deserve the fame that had been bestowed him after historian.
Our author condemned him with phrases like inept military strategy and a nightmare of inhumanity.
Some America authors interpret McFeely’s hostility as a post-Vietnam case of cynicism, subjecting every previous hero to extreme skepticism. For the Post Vietnam US historians, Vietnam War produced cynicism in the USA. They challenged and questioned everything whom historians previously respected or worshipped.
McFeely’s book received a positive welcome. The New York Review of books and many other leading US publications reviewing and gauging new books praised and acclaimed it.
On the other hand, the historians criticized McFeely for being weak about Grants military capability and hopelessly bogged down in race relations.
They criticized McFeely for “conjecturing "too much and for being subjective and possibly polemical.
American historian Brooks D Simpson in 1987 analyzed McFeely and proved that Grant was not the butcher that Mc Feely wanted people to believe and US casualties in battles under Grant were lower than many other civil war generals. Above all Simpson held that Grant was a strong believer in maneuver warfare rather than pointless bloody frontal assaults.
James MacPherson in a review published as early as December 1981 found twenty major factual errors in McNealy’s analysis and gauged McNealy’s analysis as that of an ignorant historian not knowing all the facts.
Geoffrey Perret’s biography of Grant published in 1997 challenged McNealy’s analysis. The book received highly positive reviews.
Jean Edward Smiths book on Grant published in 2002 saw Grant as a great general but a reluctant one who was forced to lead US armies in the Civil war but performed outstandingly as a general.
Smith singled out the cardinal theme in Grants life as “strength of character" and his book was most positively acclaimed in US academic circles.
Eminent historian Brooks D Simpson presented a more balanced albeit positive analysis of Grant in his book published in 2000 titled "Ulysses S Grant-Triumph over adversity.
He accused Grant of anti-Semitism and bias against Jews and not learning from his mistakes initially but presented an overall positive picture.
Simpson’s book received a mixed reception from reviewers.
Michael B Ballard’s brief but brilliant book -GRANT-THE MAKING OF A GENERAL-1861-1863, published in 2005 , offers a positive image of a great general. But Ballard also critiqued Grant for making some crucial mistakes in the first two years of US civil war.
We will see many more landmark biographies of General Grant in coming years and above all this highlights the key issue about the intangibles in human character. And how difficult it is to access military personalities even after 150 years or so.
James MacPherson in a review published as early as December 1981 found twenty major factual errors in McNealy’s analysis and gauged McNealy’s analysis as that of an ignorant historian not knowing all the facts.
Geoffrey Perret’s biography of Grant published in 1997 challenged McNealy’s analysis. The book received highly positive reviews.
Jean Edward Smiths book on Grant published in 2002 saw Grant as a great general but a reluctant one who was forced to lead US armies in the Civil war but performed outstandingly as a general.
Smith singled out the cardinal theme in Grants life as “strength of character" and his book was most positively acclaimed in US academic circles.
Eminent historian Brooks D Simpson presented a more balanced albeit positive analysis of Grant in his book published in 2000 titled "Ulysses S Grant-Triumph over adversity.
He accused Grant of anti-Semitism and bias against Jews and not learning from his mistakes initially but presented an overall positive picture.
Simpson’s book received a mixed reception from reviewers.
Michael B Ballard’s brief but brilliant book -GRANT-THE MAKING OF A GENERAL-1861-1863, published in 2005 , offers a positive image of a great general. But Ballard also critiqued Grant for making some crucial mistakes in the first two years of US civil war.
We will see many more landmark biographies of General Grant in coming years and above all this highlights the key issue about the intangibles in human character. And how difficult it is to access military personalities even after 150 years or so.
Note: The views expressed by the author are his own.
No comments:
Post a Comment