President Trump Presents American Civil War History Lesson

[David Lockmiller]

Donald Trump presented his ‘revisionist American Civil War history’ lesson to a political rally in Lebanon, Ohio on Friday, October 12, 2018. The Washington Post reported on this phenomena in its October 13, 2018 edition in a story titled “Trump calls on blacks to ‘honor’ Republicans with votes, then praises Confederate general Robert E. Lee.”

A video of his American history lesson accompanied the story. It’s well worth watching. President Trump corrected so many commonly-believed “fake facts” regarding the relationship between President Lincoln and General Grant and American Civil War history in general.

The Washington Post reporter wrote: President Trump praised the Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee while asking African American voters to “honor us” by voting Republican at an Ohio rally that featured an unexpected and provocative monologue on America’s Civil War history.

Addressing an open-air rally of around 4,000 supporters, Trump appeared buoyant as he declared that Lee was a “true great fighter” and “great general.” He also said President Abraham Lincoln once had a “phobia” of the Southern general, whose support of slavery has made his legacy a heavily contested and divisive issue.

The provocative comments came during President Trump’s recitation of an anecdote about Ohio-born President Ulysses S. Grant’s alleged drinking problems. “So Robert E. Lee was a great general. And Abraham Lincoln developed a phobia. He couldn’t beat Robert E. Lee,” Trump said. “Robert E. Lee was winning battle after battle after battle.”

President Trump began his history lesson with these words: “I don’t know if you know this story.”

“Abraham Lincoln came home and he said ‘I can’t beat Robert E. Lee.’ And, he had all of these generals. They looked great. They were the top of their class at West Point. They were the greatest people. There was only one problem. They didn’t know how-to-hell to win. They didn’t know how to fight. They didn’t know how.

One day, it was looking really bad. And, Lincoln said: “You,” (with President Trump pointing his right hand index finger out to the audience.) [President Lincoln] hardly knew his name. And, they said “don’t take him; he has got a drinking problem. [Laughter from the audience] And, Lincoln said: “I don’t care what problem he has; you guys aren’t winning. And, his name was Grant . . . General Grant. [Extended cheers and applause from the audience.] And, he went in and knocked the hell out of everyone. . . . He’s finally being recognized as a great general.”

Apparently, according to President Trump, I was under the erroneous impression that Ulysses S. Grant had been elected President of the United States because long ago he had been recognized as a great general in the American Civil War.

And, as I recall American Civil War history, it was General McClellan who defeated General Lee at Antietam, Maryland in 1862 and it was this event that permitted President Lincoln to issue his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. And, I believe that it was General Meade who commanded the Union forces that defeated General Lee’s forces at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in the most important, pivotal battle of the American Civil War on July 1, 2, and 3 of 1863. Five months later, on November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln made a short, famous speech at this same location – the Gettysburg Address. Both of these important battles took place before President Lincoln appointed Lieutenant General U. S. Grant in command of all Union armies.

[AussieMick]

Hi David,
President Trump certainly does have his own way with words. Just like Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush jnr.
I always think it strange that people refer to one General defeating another (example, Duke of Waterloo and Blucher defeated Napoleon at Waterloo). Maybe I’m being picky when you write “ it was General McClellan who defeated General Lee at Antietam”. I know that you are writing in the accepted format used by historians. In my opinion its rare that a battle is won as a result of the actions or decisions of a general. There just so many factors involved (subordinates, quality and experience of the soldiers, resources, location) and not the least of which is luck (according to Napoleon).
And I’d say that it was a strategic victory which was won at Antietam by the Union side (which had considerably more soldiers and had acquired the Confederate battle plans). And apparently McClellan's refusal to pursue Lee's army led to his removal from command by President.
Similarly Meade I think failed to make full use of the victory at Gettysburg.
Meanwhile, I dont think that Grant was sitting on his backside twiddling thumbs. He led forces at Shiloh and Vicksburg and divided the Confederate Force into two. It seems credible that Lincoln did indeed say when being challenged to remove Grant, “ I can’t spare this man … he fights.”

I’d say that none of the Union Generals up until Grant had the determination and courage (and to use modern parlance, the risk management skills) to use all the resources available in the best way possible. So I reckon Trump (in his very unique way) has a point.

[David Lockmiller]

(10-14-2018 05:24 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  I’d say that none of the Union Generals up until Grant had the determination and courage (and to use modern parlance, the risk management skills) to use all the resources available in the best way possible. So I reckon Trump (in his very unique way) has a point.

My point was in reference to Trump's statement recorded on video:

“Abraham Lincoln came home and he said ‘I can’t beat Robert E. Lee.’ And, he had all of these generals. They looked great. They were the top of their class at West Point. They were the greatest people. There was only one problem. They didn’t know how-to-hell to win. They didn’t know how to fight. They didn’t know how."

General Grant was not at either Antietam or Gettysburg when General Lee was clearly defeated and these battles were very important Union wins.

Do you agree with the following statement made by President Trump at the 1:36 mark of the video of his speech?

"Grant really did. He had a serious problem - a serious drinking problem. But, man, he was a really good general. And, he's finally being recognized as a great general."

Do you agree with President Trump and believe that General Grant had an uncontrolled drinking problem during the American Civil War?

[LincolnMan]

No, double no. That is a shame to Grant’s legacy that the “drinking problem” myth be carried on- by a modern day President no less.

[L Verge]

Even with my southern roots, I happen to admire Ulysses S. Grant. And, I do not feel that Trump was way off mark with his comments. IMO, Grant had the proclivity for drink in his genetic background, and it didn't help the situation that he lived during a time when the majority of Americans drank - male, female, and youths. He certainly was placed in situations that would cause anyone to drink, and I feel that he was a functioning alcoholic by modern standards.

From the military standpoint, leadership of the Union forces was offered to Robert E. Lee first! To me, that means that Lincoln and others knew what a great military (and human) man Lee was. When he turned it down, Lincoln went through quite a list of generals trying to find one who could consistently win battles. Grant may look like the hero of Shiloh now, but he came so close to losing that one that he was castigated in some of the press of the day. I just did an article for the Surratt Courier on the Lincoln family's visit to Hooker's headquarters in Falmouth, Virginia, in April of 1863. I wrote on an amusing anecdote there, but I also cited a conversation that Lincoln had with Noah Brooks as the family was departing after several days. He basically was worried about Hooker's ability to make vital military plans.

Grant's strategy, to me, was very basic -- hit the enemy long and hard with everything 'ya got! And, by the time he took over the leadership role, the Confederacy was greatly weakened and easier to defeat.

[LincolnMan]

And yes Lee was an absolutely brilliant General. That fact isn’t changed by the winds of political correctness.

[AussieMick]

David,
I havent watched the video of Pres Trump's speech/talk ... I havent time and I have to admit to finding his style awkward ... but then I'm not the audience he's speaking to. I rely on news reports and people like you to give an accurate assessment of his actions and comments. ( Yes, I know ... that can lead to problems but thats how it is)

You write : "General Grant was not at either Antietam or Gettysburg when General Lee was clearly defeated and these battles were very important Union wins."

Antietam was 'not an overwhelming success' according to David Donald. Outnumbered two-to-one, Lee committed his entire force, while McClellan sent in less than three-quarters of his army, enabling Lee to fight the Federals to a standstill. The North lost more men than the South. It could be argued that McClellan's caution again allowed the Confederates to continue the war longer than it would otherwise have done.

The work done by Grant's forces along the Mississippi in dividing the Confederate forces was enormously influential.

David, you also ask ...
"Do you agree with the following statement made by President Trump at the 1:36 mark of the video of his speech?
... 'Grant really did. He had a serious problem - a serious drinking problem. But, man, he was a really good general. And, he's finally being recognized as a great general.'

I agree with that. 100%. Grant was indeed a great general. Drinking problem? According to what I read, he was sometimes a very heavy drinker. So was Winston Churchill ( There's an anecdotal story that one of Churchill's famous speeches to Parliament 'We shall never sh-urrender' was given when affected by alcohol ... and that an impersonator gave the speech over the radio)

But Grant appear's have been able to function very well as general. If he'd made poor decisions due to his drinking I am sure that there would be documentation from his various enemies.

You also ask ...
"Do you agree with President Trump and believe that General Grant had an uncontrolled drinking problem during the American Civil War?"

Did Trump say "uncontrolled" ? If he did, then I'd say he is wrong. My understanding is that Grant had his drinking under control. He could certainly function in his role ... which suggests that it wasnt full scale addiction. Binge-drinking probably.

---

As far as comparing Winston Churchill (war time leader) to Grant (war general) ... Churchill's drinking IMO was more of an addiction than Grant's. Churchill's drinking was continuous, every day, strong spirits from when he woke up until he went to bed. I cannot point to any instance where his decisions were affected by alcohol ... but I think they must have been to at least to some extent if he was continuously drinking.
So was Churchill addicted to alcohol? IMO , yes. Was Grant an alcoholic (or had an uncontrolled drinking problem)? IMO ... no.

[David Lockmiller]

(10-14-2018 04:37 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Antietam was 'not an overwhelming success' according to David Donald.

Antietam was an invasion by General Lee of northern soil. General Lee was stopped and forced to retreat to southern soil. And, as I wrote in my original post to this thread: "it was this event that permitted President Lincoln to issue his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation."

Please recall the point made by Secretary Seward when President Lincoln first introduced his proposed Emancipation Proclamation, as stated by President Lincoln directly to Francis B. Carpenter and published in his book "Six Months at the White House" (pages 21-22):

"Nothing, however, was offered that I had not already fully anticipated and settled in my own mind, until Secretary Seward spoke. He said in substance: 'Mr. President, I approve of the proclamation, but I question the expediency of its issue at this juncture. The depression of the public mind, consequent upon our repeated reverses, is so great that I fear the effect of so important a step. It may be viewed as the last measure of an exhausted government, a cry for help; the government stretching forth its hands to Ethiopia, instead of Ethiopia stretching forth her hands to the government.' His idea," said the President, "was that it would be considered our last shriek, on the retreat. (This was his precise expression.) "'Now, continued Mr. Seward, 'while I approve the measure, I suggest, sir, that you postpone its issue, until you can give it to the country supported by military success, instead of issuing it, as would be the case now, upon the greatest disasters of the war!'" Mr. Lincoln continued: "The wisdom of the view of the Secretary of State struck me with very great force. It was an aspect of the case that, in all my thought upon the subject, I had entirely overlooked. The result was that I put the draft of the proclamation aside, as you do your sketch for a picture, waiting for a victory. From time to time I added or changed a line, touching it up here and there, anxiously watching the progress of events. . . . Finally, came the week of the battle of Antietam. I determined to wait no longer. The news came, I think, on Wednesday, that the advantage was on our side. I was then staying at the Soldiers' Home. Here I finished writing the second draft of the preliminary proclamation; came up on Saturday; called the Cabinet together to hear it, and it was published the following Monday."

As to Grant's alleged "drinking problem," I agree entirely with the statement made here previously by LincolnMan: "No, double no. That is a shame to Grant’s legacy that the “drinking problem” myth be carried on- by a modern day President no less."

[AussieMick]

My dad used to say to me, when I was annoying him, "Keep it up ... you'll get tired before I do."
(Whether you're my dad or I am ... depends on your point of view)

... I'm going to be repeating myself, but you are ignoring my points and I'm retired so I have time on my hands and I can keep this up as long as you like ...

I notice you ignore my point that the number of losses at Antietam was higher for Union forces than Lee's.
The failure by McClennan to pursue Lee was seen (by every writer and commentator I've read) as being a major error. It led to the war's end being delayed ... and to Lincoln dismissing McClennan. I'd suggest that if you reckon Antietam was anything more than a strategic victory for the North ... then you want your head read.

I'd better deal with your points ... Lincoln obviously wanted to get the Proclamation out of the way. He was indeed desperate for a victory, not just for the war, but to have it as a precursor for the Proclamation. I suggest he grabbed the idea of Antietam as being 'victory' with both hands ... not surprising. It has happened in other wars that a close finish battle is publicised as a victory.

With all due respect to LincolnMan (he, like you or me, just might wrong) I think Grant sometimes drank to excess. He wouldnt be Robinson Crusoe if he did. I dont think that it affected his decisions. Indeed the fact that he led a such a successful life is an enormous credit to him. Ok, I cant prove any of that but its what I deduce from the books I've read.

[David Lockmiller]

(10-15-2018 04:43 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  I notice you ignore my point that the number of losses at Antietam was higher for Union forces than Lee's.

The failure by McClennan to pursue Lee was seen (by every writer and commentator I've read) as being a major error. It led to the war's end being delayed ... and to Lincoln dismissing McClennan. I'd suggest that if you reckon Antietam was anything more than a strategic victory for the North ... then you want your head read.

The following is from my post of July 21, 2018 on the thread titled “RE: The Importance of Numbers”:

Cordelia A.P. Harvey, the wife of the governor of Wisconsin, who, after her husband's death in 1862, persuaded Lincoln to endorse the establishment of a hospital in Madison for Wisconsin soldiers. The source reference that I used is the "Collected Words of Abraham Lincoln," compiled and edited by Don and Virginia Fehrenbacher, at pages 200-201.

At one point in their discussions, Lincoln spoke of the number of men available for the battle of Antietam:

"This war might have been finished at that time if every man had been in his place that was able to be there, but they were scattered hither and thither over the North, some on furloughs, and in one way and another, gone; so that out of 170,000 that the government was paying, only 83,000 could be got for action. The consequence, you know, proved nearly disastrous."

In your considered judgment, AussieMick, would it be possible that President Lincoln was right? If you think that President Lincoln was wrong, maybe you should have “your head read.”

As regards President Trump’s assertions that General Grant had a “drinking problem,” you wrote:

“With all due respect to LincolnMan, [] I think Grant sometimes drank to excess. He wouldn’t be Robinson Crusoe if he did. I don’t think that it affected his decisions. Indeed the fact that he led such a successful life is an enormous credit to him. Ok, I can’t prove any of that but it’s what I deduce from the books I've read.”

Can you name a single noted historian who has written that Grant had a “drinking problem” when he served in the Union army during the American Civil War as he rose in rank from Captain to Lieutenant General? Please cite your source or sources.

The “ball is in your court.” I am retired, also.

[L Verge]

(10-15-2018 12:26 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 04:43 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  I notice you ignore my point that the number of losses at Antietam was higher for Union forces than Lee's.

The failure by McClennan to pursue Lee was seen (by every writer and commentator I've read) as being a major error. It led to the war's end being delayed ... and to Lincoln dismissing McClennan. I'd suggest that if you reckon Antietam was anything more than a strategic victory for the North ... then you want your head read.

The following is from my post of July 21, 2018 on the thread titled “RE: The Importance of Numbers”:

Cordelia A.P. Harvey, the wife of the governor of Wisconsin, who, after her husband's death in 1862, persuaded Lincoln to endorse the establishment of a hospital in Madison for Wisconsin soldiers. The source reference that I used is the "Collected Words of Abraham Lincoln," compiled and edited by Don and Virginia Fehrenbacher, at pages 200-201.

At one point in their discussions, Lincoln spoke of the number of men available for the battle of Antietam:

"This war might have been finished at that time if every man had been in his place that was able to be there, but they were scattered hither and thither over the North, some on furloughs, and in one way and another, gone; so that out of 170,000 that the government was paying, only 83,000 could be got for action. The consequence, you know, proved nearly disastrous."

In your considered judgment, AussieMick, would it be possible that President Lincoln was right? If you think that President Lincoln was wrong, maybe you should have “your head read.”

As regards President Trump’s assertions that General Grant had a “drinking problem,” you wrote:

“With all due respect to LincolnMan, [] I think Grant sometimes drank to excess. He wouldn’t be Robinson Crusoe if he did. I don’t think that it affected his decisions. Indeed the fact that he led such a successful life is an enormous credit to him. Ok, I can’t prove any of that but it’s what I deduce from the books I've read.”

Can you name a single noted historian who has written that Grant had a “drinking problem” when he served in the Union army during the American Civil War as he rose in rank from Captain to Lieutenant General? Please cite your source or sources.

The “ball is in your court.” I am retired, also.

I am not retired, but I am taking the afternoon off since I worked all weekend. I like this quote from a Wikipedia page on Grant:

Drinking
Allegations of drinking, whether true, exaggerated or false, have been made about Ulysses S. Grant since his day. Historian Joan Waugh notes, "...one of the most commonly asked questions from students and public alike is, "Was Ulysses S. Grant a drunk?'"[41] Charges of drinking were used against him in his presidential campaigns of 1868 and 1872.[42] In 1868 The Republican Party chose Schuyler Colfax as his running mate hoping that Colfax's reputation as a temperance reformer would neutralize the attacks.[43]

Biographer Edward Longacre says "Many of the anecdotes on which his reputation as a drunkard were built are exaggerations or fabrications... [44] William McFeely notes that modern media typically has falsely stereotyped Grant as a drunk.[45] Contemporary stories of Grant's alleged excessive drinking were often reported by newspaper reporters during his military service in the Civil War[c]. Some of these reports are contradicted by eye witness accounts.[47] There are several other claims of Grant drinking, as he did at the isolated Fort Humboldt, which occasioned his resignation from the Army.[48] The question is how it affected his official duties. [49] Jean Edward Smith maintains, "The evidence is overwhelming that during the Vicksburg campaign he occasionally fell off the wagon. Grant took to drink, but only in private and when his command was not on the line. 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 movement".[50]

There are no reported episodes while he was president or on the world tour, even though the media was well aware of the rumors and watched him closely. His intense dedication to staying dry proved successful and it not only resolved the alcoholism threat it made him a better decision maker and general. Historian James McPherson maintains Grant's self-discipline in the face of prewar drinking failures enabled him to understand and discipline others.[51] Geoffrey Perret believes that regardless of the scholarly books, however, "one thing that Americans know about Grant the soldier is that he was a hopeless drunkard."[52][53] However, historians overall are agreed Grant was not a drunkard – he was seldom drunk in public, and never made a major military or political decision while inebriated. Historian Lyle Dorsett, said he was probably an alcoholic, in the sense of having a strong desire for hard drink.[54][50] They emphasize he usually overcame that desire. Biographers have emphasized how "his remarkable degree of self-confidence enabled Grant to make a very great mark in the terrible American Civil War".[55]

Let me see if I am clever enough to get those citation numbers transferred to this posting so that we can see where the mentioned authors talked about this. It won't let me copy the number, but here is the list of authors and works starting with #41 citation: Joan Waugh (2009). U. S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth. University of North Carolina Press. p. 40.
Larry J. Sabato; Howard R. Ernst, eds. (2014). Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections. Infobase Publishing. p. 323.
Robert E. Dewhirst; John David Rausch, eds. (2014). Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. Infobase Publishing. p. 107.
Longacre 2006, p. 12.
McFeely 1981, pp. 55,77; Waugh 2009, pp. 39–40.
Mahoney 2016, p. 336.
White 2016, pp. 120, 182, 224.
Years later, Grant said, "the vice of intemperance had not a little to do with my decision to resign." Smith, Jean Edward (2001). Grant. New York: Simon & Schuster, 87–88.
Brands 2012a, pp. 72–73.
Smith 2001, p. 231.
McPherson 2003, p. 589.
Geoffrey Perret (1997). Ulysses S. Grant: Soldier & and President. Random House. p. 432.
"Grant's alleged alcoholism has tarnished his historical reputation." Waugh, Joan. U. S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth, University of North Carolina Press, 2009, p. 40. Accessed 17 July 2017. "Yet, if Americans today remember this Civil War general and two-term U.S. president, they tend to think of a drunken, cigar-smoking military butcher." Sullivan, Meg. "UCLA historian attempts to revive reputation of Union general, Reconstruction president," UCLA Newsroom, 36 Oct. 2009. Accessed 17 July 2017.
Dorsett 1983.
McFeely 1981, p. xiii.

Elsewhere, I read that Bruce Catton and T. Harry Williams (I believe a mentor of Wild Bill) began the "reconstruction" of Grant's reputation as both a good general and a good President in the 1960s. I also suspect that some pseudo-journalists and maybe some Southern-leaning reporters picked up on the fact that Grant had resigned his military career before the Civil War and even stated that his "intemperance" was a big factor in his decision. Being stuck in isolated posts didn't help the situation.

Finally, back to Antietam, I have to agree that the battle caused more deaths than it should had Lincoln had strong generals. When Lee was allowed to escape across the river, Lincoln must have been furious; but like the politician he was, he and his team managed to downplay McClellan's failure and get the EP into people's minds to make the battlefield gore go away.

---

Me again... Since David L. likes the NY Times, here's an article on Grant's drinking problems from a 2013 Opinionator column:

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...s-a-spill/

If you are not tired of reading yet (I could be telling you to read Ron Chernow's fairly recent book on Grant), try this:

http://www.historynet.com/ulysses-s-gran...lcohol.htm

---

(10-15-2018 04:43 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  My dad used to say to me, when I was annoying him, "Keep it up ... you'll get tired before I do."
(Whether you're my dad or I am ... depends on your point of view)

... I'm going to be repeating myself, but you are ignoring my points and I'm retired so I have time on my hands and I can keep this up as long as you like ...

I notice you ignore my point that the number of losses at Antietam was higher for Union forces than Lee's.
The failure by McClennan to pursue Lee was seen (by every writer and commentator I've read) as being a major error. It led to the war's end being delayed ... and to Lincoln dismissing McClennan. I'd suggest that if you reckon Antietam was anything more than a strategic victory for the North ... then you want your head read.

I'd better deal with your points ... Lincoln obviously wanted to get the Proclamation out of the way. He was indeed desperate for a victory, not just for the war, but to have it as a precursor for the Proclamation. I suggest he grabbed the idea of Antietam as being 'victory' with both hands ... not surprising. It has happened in other wars that a close finish battle is publicised as a victory.

With all due respect to LincolnMan (he, like you or me, just might wrong) I think Grant sometimes drank to excess. He wouldnt be Robinson Crusoe if he did. I dont think that it affected his decisions. Indeed the fact that he led a such a successful life is an enormous credit to him. Ok, I cant prove any of that but its what I deduce from the books I've read.

This assessment of Antietam from the website of The American Battlefield Trust - formerly the Civil War Preservation Trust: "The bloodiest single day in American military history ended in a draw, but the Confederate retreat gave President Abraham Lincoln the “victory” he desired before issuing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation five days later." Please note the word "draw" and also the quotes around "victory..."

[AussieMick]

David, I think Laurie has done all my hard work of searching for sources etc. (my thanks to her).

As for numbers of those fighting at Antietam, I certainly dont disagree with what you write David concerning Lincoln's wish for soldiers, but what that has to do with our discussion I'm not sure. The basic issue for me is that Union forces were about (obviously difficult to be precise) twice those of the South. Losses were greater for the North than the South. The South withdrew from the battle before the North. The North did not choose to pursue.

I think that you have been determined to show that Trump spoke inaccurately. In this case I think you're struggling.
I get the feeling that Pres Trump is likely to give you further and more substantial opportunities. Why not wait until then?

I dont know if you in the US know of this expression ... when you're in a hole, its best to stop digging.

[ReignetteC]

Brava, Laurie!

Of Grant, President Trump also said during the same speech: "He [Grant] is finally being recognized as a great general."

Similarly, NBC news tweeted the following correction:

"CORRECTION: An earlier tweet misidentified the general President Trump described as "incredible" at a rally in Ohio. It was Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, not Gen. Robert E. Lee. An attached video clip lacked the full context for Trump's remark."

[L Verge]

(10-15-2018 07:42 PM)ReignetteC Wrote:  Brava, Laurie!

Of Grant, President Trump also said during the same speech: "He [Grant] is finally being recognized as a great general."

Similarly, NBC news tweeted the following correction:

"CORRECTION: An earlier tweet misidentified the general President Trump described as "incredible" at a rally in Ohio. It was Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, not Gen. Robert E. Lee. An attached video clip lacked the full context for Trump's remark."

Thanks for letting us know that NBC actually retracted an error, Reignette. Once again the media made an error, and the Trump-haters picked up on it.

---

Just found this excellent site which speaks directly to Grant's affinity for alcohol: https://www.rbhayes.org/research/hayes-h...-s.-grant/

---

Back to Antietam in case y'all have not already looked up the statistics:

Battle of Sharpsburg
Part of the American Civil War
Battle of Antietam.png
The Battle of Antietam, by Kurz & Allison (1878), depicting the scene of action at Burnside's Bridge
Date September 17, 1862; 156 years ago
Location Washington County,
near Sharpsburg, Maryland
39°28′24″N 77°44′41″WCoordinates: 39°28′24″N 77°44′41″W

Result
Tactically inconclusive; Union strategic victory[1]
Emancipation Proclamation issued five days later

Belligerents
United States (Union) Confederate States (Confederacy)

Commanders and leaders
George B. McClellan Robert E. Lee

Units involved
Army of the Potomac[2] Army of Northern Virginia[3]



Strength
87,164[4][5] 38,000 "engaged"[5]

Casualties and losses
12,410
2,108 killed
9,549 wounded
753 captured/missing[6][7]

Confederate soldiers engaged 10,316
1,567 killed
7,752 wounded
1,018 captured/missing[6][7]

[David Lockmiller]

Thanks, Laurie, for all of that excellent work on Grant's "drinking problem."

I found the best article in your extensive presentation on Grant's "drinking problem" during the American Civil War to be the following:

After the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, the former army officer proffered his services to the recently appointed commander of Ohio’s militia, Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan. When he did not get a response from McClellan, who no doubt remembered Grant from Fort Vancouver, Grant offered his services to Brig. Gen. Nathaniel Lyon in St. Louis. Again, he received no response. Evidently, Grant was haunted by his reputation as a drunk.

Frustrated, Grant returned to Galena to help process paperwork and muster local volunteers into service. Although he had hoped for a regimental command, this time spent mustering in raw recruits was important–it brought him to the attention of Congressman Elihu B. Washburne. Realizing his capability as a soldier and organizer, Washburne persuaded Illinois Governor Richard Yates to appoint Grant colonel of the Twenty-first Illinois Infantry Regiment. The Twenty-first had been a problem regiment, but Grant quickly brought discipline to the unit and turned it into an effective fighting force. Having proven his ability as a colonel, Grant was promoted to brigadier general in July 1861.

Grant then went to see Maj. Gen. John C. Fremont, commander of the Army’s Western Department, hoping to obtain a command in Missouri. Most members of Fremont’s staff wanted him to ignore Grant, but Major Justice McKinsty, Fremont’s aide, argued on Grant’s behalf. Grant got the position, and it proved to be the break he needed. He rapidly moved through a series of departmental commands, and in early 1862 led the Tennessee expedition that forced the capitulation of Forts Henry and Donelson, vital Southern strongholds on the Tennessee River.

While his victories at Henry and Donelson earned Grant higher command, they also carried the accusations of his drinking to a wider audience. Reporters and officers jealous of Grant’s fast rise, as well as disillusioned civilians, used the perception of Grant as a drunkard in an attempt to explain the horrific losses suffered at the Battle of Shiloh in April 1862.

Shocked by the casualties of what up to that point was the war’s bloodiest battle, many newspaper reporters wrote articles critical of Grant’s command. These criticisms fed the rumors that Grant, who many believed had been forced from the Army because of his love of the bottle, had been caught drunk and off guard by Confederate General Albert Sydney Johnston’s surprise attack.

The losses suffered by both sides at Shiloh had more to do with the nature of nineteenth-century warfare than the nature of Grant’s relationship with liquor, but rumors of his affection for spirits now became generally accepted. Those who were jealous of Grant’s success helped spread the rumors. While it was true that Grant had begun to drink again after avoiding alcohol in the years before the start of the war, there are no reported incidents of him drinking excessively prior to the start of the Vicksburg campaign in late 1862. Major John Rawlins, a close member of Grant’s personal staff who took it upon himself to keep Grant temperate, went to great lengths to defend Grant against accusations that he had been drinking during the battle.

Despite the persistent rumors of his Shiloh drunkenness, Grant pressed on. In November 1862 he began his campaign to capture the Mississippi River port of Vicksburg, the key to Southern control of the river. Unable to quickly defeat the Confederate forces, by May 1863 Grant had been forced to begin a protracted siege of the city. It was during this lengthy siege, and while he was again separated from his family for a prolonged period of time, that the most well-documented instances of Grant’s drinking took place.

The first occurred on May 12, 1863. Sylvanus Cadwallader, a newspaper reporter who had attached himself to Grant’s staff and was following the progress of the campaign, was sitting in the tent of Colonel William Duff, Grant’s chief of artillery, carrying on a casual conversation. Suddenly, Grant stepped in. Duff pulled out a cup, dipped it into a barrel that he had stored in his tent, and handed the cup to Grant. Grant drank the contents and promptly handed the cup back to Duff. This procedure was repeated two more times, and Grant left the tent. Cadwallader then learned that the barrel contained whiskey. Duff had been ordered by Grant to keep the barrel handy for his exclusive use.

Less than a month later, Cadwallader recounted the most infamous tale of Grant’s drinking during the war. It began on June 3 during an inspection tour to Satartia, Mississippi, on the Yazoo River. The siege was agonizingly slow, and Grant had been separated from Julia since April. To alleviate his boredom, he had decided to travel up the Yazoo. During his trip, Grant encountered the steamboat Diligence carrying Cadwallader downriver from Satartia. Grant decided to board Diligence, and according to Cadwallader: ‘I was not long in perceiving that Grant had been drinking heavily, and that he was still keeping it up. He made several trips to the bar room of the boat in a short time, and became stupid in speech and staggering in gait. This was the first time he had shown symptoms of intoxication in my presence, and I was greatly alarmed by his condition, which was fast becoming worse.’ For the next two days, Cadwallader tried unsuccessfully to stop Grant from drinking and did his best to keep him from trouble. By the time Grant finally arrived back at his headquarters, he had sobered up.

The final incident occurred in July after the surrender of Vicksburg when Grant traveled to New Orleans to discuss operations with Maj. Gen. Nathaniel Banks. On September 4, Grant, Banks, and their respective staffs rode out to review the troops stationed in New Orleans. Banks had given Grant a large, untamed charger as a gift, and Grant elected to take the horse on the inspection. The animal proved very spirited, and following the inspection Grant had the horse moving at a fast gallop on the return trip into the city when the horse lost its footing and fell, severely injuring the general. Almost from the moment that the unfortunate beast slipped, rumors began circulating that the general had been drunk during the ride. However, there was never any evidence to prove that an intoxicated Grant caused the horse to fall.

From the New Orleans incident until the end of the war in April 1865, there are no stories of Grant’s drinking to excess. Rumors of alcohol abuse continued to hound him, but no evidence suggests that Grant ever repeated his bender of June 1863.

While the severity of Grant’s drinking problem was clearly magnified by rumor, it does seem clear from his drinking that Grant had inherited some of his grandfather’s fondness for the bottle. Yet, unlike his grandfather, Grant was largely able to control his drinking thanks to the help of people close to him and his own willpower and sense of duty.

Grant seemed to experience his greatest temptation to drink during long periods of inactivity or when he was away from his family. When he became commanding general of the Army, he was able to bring Julia and his oldest son to his headquarters. Julia had always been Grant’s strongest supporter in his battle with alcohol, and with her present, Grant stayed sober.

By today’s standards, Grant could be considered an alcoholic, but he was able to control his addiction. As Grant biographer Geoffrey Perret explained: ‘The entire staff, as well as most of Grant’s division and corps commanders, was well aware of his drinking problem. [Brig. Gen. John A.] McClernand tried to make capital out of it and one or two other officers expressed their disgust at Grant’s weakness, but to the rest, it did not matter. A few were alcoholics themselves, but the main reason it was tolerated was that when Grant got drunk, it was invariably during quiet periods. His drinking was not allowed to jeopardize operations. It was a release, but a controlled one, like the ignition of a gas flare above a high-pressure oil well.’

Grant learned how to cope with his addiction to liquor by learning when he could take a drink. Although difficult at times, Grant was able to control his sickness and rely on his ability as a natural leader to achieve victory on the battlefield. As historian James McPherson explained: ‘In the end…his predisposition to alcoholism may have made him a better general. His struggle for self-discipline enabled him to understand and discipline others; the humiliation of prewar failures gave him a quiet humility that was conspicuously absent from so many generals with a reputation to protect; because Grant had nowhere to go but up, he could act with more boldness and decision than commanders who dared not risk failure.’ Consequently, Grant was able to overcome personal failures and adversity and become a well-respected and adored man in later life.

Lyle W. Dorsett, ‘The Problem of Ulysses S. Grant’s Drinking During the Civil War,’ Hayes Historical Journal, vol. 4, no.2 (1983).