The Real Truth

[STS Lincolnite]

(01-10-2015 06:08 PM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  Grant's chief of staff was John Rawlins. His principal duty was keeping an eye on Grant's drinking.

I don't think I would say Rawlins' main duty was keeping an eye on Grant's drinking. Rawlins "came from a family in which alcoholism was a problem so he took it upon himself to keep a tight reign on Grant's drinking." This according to Michael B. Ballard in his book Grant at Vicksburg: The General and the Siege.

Grant's reputation as a drunk or drunkard has been blown far out of proportion. There is no doubt that Grant enjoyed his drink but that was certainly not uncommon, and almost expected, of men in the mid 19th century. He may also have had some familial pre-disposition to alcoholism. Charles Dana who was an investigating agent for the War Department was with Grant during the Vicksburg Campaign (no doubt part of his duties were to keep tabs on Grant's drinking due to the persistent rumors even then). He later wrote that Grant's "seasons of intoxication were not frequent but occurring once in 3 or 4 months." He further wrote that Grant's drinking never affected his generalship. Sherman also said that Grant did occasionally drink too much but when he did drink, "he could with an hours sleep wake up perfectly sober and bright and when anything was pending he was invariably abstinent from drink." Part of Grant's problem was that he was a relatively small man and with only a very few drinks would begin to manifest the signs/symptoms of being drunk - what we would have called a "lightweight" when I was in college.
Secondly, as Dana's comments illustrate, he was kind of a binge drinker. There were credible reports of incidents early in his military career (pre-Civil War) where he did turn to drink in times of loneliness - particularly when he had been away from his wife Julia for long stretches.
Thirdly, it is known that Grant suffered from headaches (possibly migraines?). Those who suffer these kind of severe headaches can clinically present with slurring of speech, fatigue, sensitivity to light and vomiting among other symptoms (sound familiar?).

The thing that seems to have cemented, to some, the image of Grant as a drunk was an incident related in a memoir by Sylvanus Cadwallader written 30+ years after the fact in 1896 (when he was age 70). This memoir was not published until 1955. The validity of this account was questioned by some historians including Bruce Catton as early as 1956. Unfortunately, others simply took it as fact with out any real investigation. Brooks Simpson further investigated and, through critical appraisal did quite a thorough job of debunking this story in the introduction to a 1996 edition of Cadawallader's memoir (entitled Three years with Grant). In 2005, Brian Murphy wrote an article in America's Civil War that again pointed out all the flaws in Cadwallader's account.

Sorry to go on sort of a diatribe - as you might guess I am an admirer of General Grant. But I am an admirer warts and all. Without a doubt, Grant certainly battled certain demons with regard to alcohol use (as many during war time unfortunately do), but an ongoing characterization of him as some kind of a stumbling, bumbling, barely functioning drunk is absolutely unwarranted when examined through the lens of actual evidence. Much like the story of Stanton being involved in Lincoln's assassination, it is a story that just won't die in spite of a lack of credible evidence to support the premise.