|View single post by PvtClewell|
|Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 08:57 pm||
History treats Gen, Grant as a non-political person but think to get ahead an reach the high offices of the military you must be political. The man Gen Grant was not naive at politics or he would have never became the Head of all the armies.
Grant was clearly apolitcal. There were times when a jealous Halleck tried to shunt Grant to the background despite Grant's previous success at Donelson, Henry and Shiloh. Grant was made General in Chief because he won battles and for no other reason.
It's a stretch to think that Grant had to climb over the backs of relatively minor subalterns like Prentiss or Wallace to achieve stature. I don't think so.
Again Historians have failed to give us an honest image of a man named Grant, just like with Gen. Lee's image...
Really? What do historians have to gain by presenting an alternative picture of Grant? Especially when the historical evidence, I think, more than suggests otherwise.
Gen. Meade was to be the fall guy if thing went bad against Gen. Lee!!!
One clear example to disprove this is Cold Harbor, a battle which was planned and executed by Meade. Yet Grant, who was trying to manage a line more than seven miles long, took the heat for the debacle, even publicly regretting that the June 3 assault, under his overall command, had been made at all. To me it seems more like a case of Grant protecting Meade instead of blaming him.