Actually another myth that both biographies I read made very clear.

I did a quick google search and found this link about this and other myths:

http://faculty.css.edu/mkelsey/usgrant/alcohol.html

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

I wish our present political leaders were as drunk as he was supposed to have been, ( and as competent)...at least as a general.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Putting this as politely as possible, he was much more competent as a general than as a president.

You missed that episode of "Modern Marvels"

__________________
1987 300D (230,000 mi on a #14 head-watching the temp gauge and keeping the ghost in the machine)
Raleigh NC - Home of deep fried sushi!

LOL, I try to miss TV as much as possible. Life's too short...

Yes, no argument that his best position was a the General. Another example of the Peter Principle.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Brings to mind the famous Lincoln quote, that Lincoln, when told Grant had a drinking problem said: 'Find out what he drinks, and send all my generals a case!"

IMO, Grant's genius lay in his calm observations of the world around him. he was an engineer of sorts, a scientist of war. He understood how things like topography and geography played in waging war. Unlike the other "Napoleanic" generals of his time, he understood the importance of the mundane crap that those guys found boring, and paid close attention to them instead of deligating them out, espeicially logistics, he understood the importance of supply lines and supply chains, and of making sure he had quality products from his suppliers, something that led to the Army of the Potomoc, which had initially been victimized by crooked vendors to the detriment of the common soldier who ended up with boots that leaked and rotten food, being in far better shape healthwise than the increasingly ill-shod and starving Southerners. The Union Army was a crack military force in excellent condition at the end of the war as a result. While Little Mac may have been a superior organizer and trainer of the initial army, Grant knew that the day to day comfort and well being, aside from the fact he didn't mind if they got shot, of a soldier were as important to victory as their being able to march correctly and shoot correctly was.

But of course, his greatest attribute above all was he knew the need to keep his armies moving forward, despite casualties, even when things had gone wrong. While McClehan and Meade would slink away to lick their wounds even in victory, Grant just simply never stopped. Even defeat became am advantage to him, he knew the simple importance of inflicting greater losses on the enemy than he could sustain, RELENTLESSLY. Generals who do that win wars. I cannot think of one instance where Grant actually retreated, ever. In either victory or defeat, he always moved forward.

By all acounts, he was a very good general; he is also considered to be one of the worst presidents. Those two jobs require different skill sets.

From a few shows I've seen, Napoleon excellent at logistics. Also, the Romans did too. Nap just needed to listen to what the rabbit was telling him.
Tom

Here's some trivia (that may be true); the story is that Grant would walk to a DC hotel lobby (bar) in the evening when he was president for a drink. Eventually, everyone who wanted a favor knew where he could be found and waited for him to arrive, resulting in the term "lobbyist." Don't know if it's true.

Well, I wasn't trying to put down Napolean when I used that phrase, I was reaching for an adjective to describe the different mindset. Burnside, Pope, Hooker, where all above the day to day details of wagon trains and such, military strategy and such were their business. Grant was the total opposite, his armies were well supplied and as well fed as could be expected, something he saw to personally.

Yes, Grant's early early days were in the QM corps. I agree with your assessment of Grant the soldier. Grant the man was well respected by those who knew him, both friend and foe. There are many interresting interviews from fellow soldiers and personal friends and acquaintances, including Gen. Longstreet here. http://www.granthomepage.com/intlongstreet.htm

He was a modest man and an honest man, and was probably in way over his head as president. (Like Carter or worse?)

His memoirs are outstanding writings, all the more so because he wrote them on the eve of his death. Too bad he did not live long enough to get to his years as president.

16/58 (27.5%) posts by OP

I had to get a dig in there on you. I pretty much understood that you probably ment 'Napolionic complex'. I was watching PBS, Secrets of the Dead. It was on Napolean's invasion of Russia. The detail he was suppose to be capable of were suppose to be outstanding. The rabbit reference, was that he was to cross some river. There was a rabbit in the field, that didn't move or something. It was suppose to be a bad omen. Napoleon forded the river with all his troops, which was suppose to be a large accomplishment.
Tom