Military Service

[Zipper730]

By today's standards Grant would most likely be termed an alcoholic BUT... Once again applying today's standards to the 1800s is not valid. It is VERY important to understand that throughout history water was invariably contaminated and unsafe to drink. The way to make it safe was to add alcohol in the form of wine or just to drink fermented beverages. In America beer, wine, whiskey, rum, and hard ciders were a mainstay.

Also, ethanol has served a benefit to many of us -- because it caused people to have sex with those they normally wouldn't -- many of us would not be here had it not been for this fascinating compound (and some probably would if it weren't for it )

In 1787, two days before they signed off on the Constitution, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention partied at a tavern. According to the bill preserved from that evening, they drank 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, eight of whiskey, 22 of porter, eight of hard cider, 12 of beer and seven bowls of alcoholic punch.

And the Constitution turned out pretty good

 

[parsifal]

There were several key moments that grant was unable to act because he was drunk. that is alcoholism in its classic form. If you cant do your job because you have been drinking you have a problem.


that standard hasn't changed in 1000 years, let alone 150.

 

[parsifal]

There is no doubt that the allegations made against grant and alcoholism are exaggerated. But in my opinion they nevertheless hold some water. He is certainly a polarizing force in both the military and political sense, and that has led to exaggerations both in the affirmative and also the negative about his drinking problem.

Historian Jean Edward Smith maintains, "The evidence is overwhelming that during the Vicksburg campaign he occasionally fell off the wagon". It is claimed that whilst Grant took to drink, he only did so in private and when his command was not on the line. I don't buy that justification. A man in his position is never "in private" whilst on active deployment, and especially in the midst of a pitched battle. A commander in those circumstances, then and now has to be ready to make decisions on the spot and immediately, as Napoleon so often stressed. During the Vicksburg ordeal there were occasions when he simply was not up to the task. Some observers have said that only in a clinical sense, he may have been an "alcoholic", but overall he refrained from drink, protected from alcohol by his adjutant, Colonel John Rawlins, and especially by his wife Julia", maintaining that he drank when it "would not interfere with any important matter". It is defensible only in the sense that he only occasionally faltered, but he nevertheless did falter on occasions because of his drinking.

Having said that, it can be said that generally (but not always) he was sober and ready for command. He also certainly was probably one of the best field commanders put into the field by the Union, along with his colleague, Sherman. But I still think the Lee/Jackson combination was far superior in performance, given the material limitations they were operating under, to that of Grant/Sherman.

 

[soulezoo]

Also, ethanol has served a benefit to many of us -- because it caused people to have sex with those they normally wouldn't -- many of us would not be here had it not been for this fascinating compound (and some probably would if it weren't for it )
And the Constitution turned out pretty good

I'm glad my forebear (Caleb Strong) wasn't there! He was a delegate from Massachusetts, but returned just before the signing due to a family illness.

 

[special ed]

This has been an informative thread on Vietnam. Although I have read and have many friends who were there, mikewint and wes have given me a good strategic view and confirmed my opinion of Westmoreland. I already knew of McNamara's and Johnson's incompetence. I lay the 58 thousand dead at McNamara's feet. I remember Johnson's comment "They can't even bomb an outhouse without my sayso". Many friends told me of situations advantages to us but by the time approval from D.C. was received the situation changed and couldn't be pursued. Thanks again wes and mikewint.

 

[mikewint]

I can only speak for myself and the very tiny piece of the war that I saw/participated in. I'm not a military strategist by any means but it always seemed to me that short of genocide "body counts" (though I never heard that term until I returned to the world)(After Action Reports...yes) are not going to make a people in their own country quit. Would you if Vietnam had invaded the US?
I don't think a win-solution is/was possible, at best a Korean-type armistice and a Hadrian's Wall along the Laos/Cambodia border

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... But I still think the Lee/Jackson combination was far superior in performance, given the material limitations they were operating under, to that of Grant/Sherman."
Disagree, Parsifal, I believe Jackson and Lee were outstanding leaders and generals but they did not have an achievable plan for defeat of the north .... they didn't have it because the government they served didn't have any such plan; whereas Grant and Sherman had such a plan, the President complely endorsd it, and they executed their plan mercilessly.
Grant had his demons, with reason no doubt, but never lost a battle notwithstanding cruel butcher bills, he deeply believed that the CW was God's punishment on the nation for a major war, an unjust war, on Mexico.

You are too critical, IMHO , on Grant's drink ..... I will wager a $1.00 to a doughnut that when Grant and Sherman hunkered down in that Cincinnati hotel and thrashed out the strategy and the division of responsibilities for the winning campaigns that followed, (besiege Richmond and cut the south in two with the march to the sea) I'll wager there was a bottle on the table between them.
Grant and Sherman in Cincinnati or The Strategy to End the War - ...

Much of my perspective on Grant is from Shelby Foote's 4 volume Narrative History of the Civil War
Grant was very skilled at reading and using terrain. Having read copiously on the EF and then reading John Mosier's Grant: Great Generals I was struck by a sense that in a different incarnation Grant would have made a superb Eastern Front general with the Heer. In 1914 or 1941.
Cheers
M