The Real Truth

[Rsmyth]

A friend was reading a book that said when Gen. Lee entered the McLean House in Appomattox he handed Grant his sword because he thought Grant was the butler.

[Gene C]

I can easily see how someone wearing the uniform of a Union officer could be mistakenly taken as a "butler"

while digging through the archives of youtube, I was able to find this little known video of the actual surrender (of coarse I'm sure you anti-conspiracy theorist won't believe it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OqhVZsN08Q

[L Verge]

Well, it's been a particularly bad day at work; and Rich's friend and Gene just managed to make it worse!

Would love to know the title of the book with that little tidbit of poor history in it. Lee must have asked for his sword back because there is a description of Lee sitting with the sword suspended in perfect alignment and of its pristeen condition with jewels gleaming in the handle. There is also a description of how Lee and his general staff came to be so well-attired. It had something to do with the news that the supply trains would soon be overwhelmed by the Union forces. Lee and the others took it upon themselves to remove their best uniforms before they were confiscated.

[LincolnMan]

That sure was goofy, Gene.

[L Verge]

On a more serious question about the real truth: I just read about Harvard University's Wall of Honor on which the names of all Harvard graduates who served their nation in war are inscribed. There is even one Nazi included on the wall - but none of the 164 Harvard graduates who served the Confederacy is listed. Is this true?

[Hess1865]

That Nazi would be Ernst 'Putzi' Hanfstaengl (1887-1975)
Putzi was born in Germany, his dad was German while his mother was American. Interestingly enough his mother was related to Union Civil War General John Sedgwick.

Hanfstaengl graduated from Harvard in 1909.
Going back to Germany, he fell in with Hitler and his crowd in the early days of Nazism. After a few years there was friction between him and Josef Goebbals, Hitler's propaganda minister.
Seeing the writing on the wall, Hanfstaengl defected to England, where he was held as a prisoner. Later in the war he came to the US and worked for FDR.

So that's probably how he came to get his name on the wall at Harvard

[J. Beckert]

Did Gen. Lee offer Gen. Grant his sword as a symbol of surrender but Grant refused to accept it?

---

Ive just found several sources that say its a myth.
https://historymyths.wordpress.com/2011/...efused-it/

[Jim Garrett]

Lee arrived at the McLean house before Grant. Grant's staff was already there, but the General had not arrived. Lee came with Col. Charles Marshall, his military secretary. Sgt. Beverly Tucker also came to hold the horses outside, he did not go in the house. Lee was immaculately dressed for the surrender. Earlier in the day, Lee was in his rough field uniform and did not want to go to meet General Grant in that uniform. The uniform that he wanted to wear was in the baggage train (line of wagons) that had been captured. The only uniform he had other than the one he was wearing was his full dress uniform. That was the reason he was in the full dress uniform.

---

(01-07-2015 02:44 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I can easily see how someone wearing the uniform of a Union officer could be mistakenly taken as a "butler"

while digging through the archives of youtube, I was able to find this little known video of the actual surrender (of coarse I'm sure you anti-conspiracy theorist won't believe it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OqhVZsN08Q

A butler would have been better dressed than Grant that day.

[Rsmyth]

and there would not be as many whiskey bottles laying around!

[Jim Garrett]

Grant's chief of staff was John Rawlins. His principal duty was keeping an eye on Grant's drinking.

[L Verge]

I don't follow military history, but has there ever been any accusations made about Grant's drinking having affected his military leadership - especially on the battlefield?

[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.

[Hess1865]

As a major Grant fan, I agree 100%!!

[L Verge]

Thank you, Scott, for putting into words my opinion of the Grant is a Drunkard story. I remember the debate in college over how to take Cadawallader's memoirs -- and the supposed response by Lincoln (when told of Grant's drinking) to find out the brand of whiskey he used because the North needed more winning generals.

I, too, am a fan of U.S. Grant - and have just been put on the hit list by Will Bill and Rick Smith!

[Wild Bill]

What hit list, Laurie? I do not discount the story of Grant being drunk, particularly at Sartaria up the Yazoo during the siege at Vicksburg, which I assume is different from the Cadwallader affair. But I do not recall a single instance where Grant was drunk on the field or that any battle or campaign was adversely affected by him being drunk.

I think that Grant had an addictive personality and booze and tobacco played a part. He died from throat cancer, did he not? This came from the notion that the public got early in the war that he liked cigars. He was sent hundreds by the public and Grant was too embarrassed not to smoke them, or so the story goes.

But his Chief of Staff Rawlins kept him sober by keeping an eye on him and keeping Mrs Grant as near as possible to the general during any lulls in campaigns because she above all knew how to counter his alcohol problem with her TLC. So long as campaigns keep moving and battle occurred Grant never missed a beat. He made battlefield mistakes but these are attributable to the back and forth of war.

As president I think that he was too willing to defer to congress, but he of all others did his best to destroy the KKK and pacify the South--until congress stopped his necessary funds by cutting the army appropriations and the numbers of soldiers in the field during his second term.

So while I do not give Grant a pass on his human frailties, I have no problem honoring him as a general or a president. If Nathan Bedford Forrest could honor Grant as victor, how can we do less? But he had his foibles, just like his predecessors, Lincoln and Johnson. I am just sorry so many of us fail to see those as well as his good points.