![]() ![]() Samet’s introduction also contains a fascinating treatment of perspectives in the Civil War through the Battle of Shilo. For instance, Samet draws parallels between Grant’s accounts of certain battles and those of other classics of war literature like the Iliad. The main difference between the two is that Long is far more concerned with the historical accuracy of Grant’s recollections, while Samet seeks to place the memoir in a much broader historical, intellectual, and literary context. Both editions are valuable and their footnotes help place Grant’s words in their broader Civil War context. I must say a word first about the various editions: I drew on two different editions of the memoirs, one edited by E. Grant was aware of these caricatures, and he works to dispel them in a number of key places in his memoir. Grant’s reputation as a “butcher” of men and as the uncompromising “Unconditional Surrender Grant” does not do the actual Grant justice. However, I argue that a close reading of the memoir reveals a Grant who is much more the strategist than some might think. Reading Grant’s Civil War memoir as a study in strategy is especially interesting: We tend to associate strategy with those commanders who deftly outmaneuver their adversaries, whereas Grant’s popular reputation as Lincoln’s fighting general, who used the overwhelming material power of the Union to overpower the Confederacy, hardly looks like strategy. The political object of the war provides that context. The strategist cannot ignore operational and tactical concerns, but must place them in their proper context. In this way strategy straddles the worlds of military operations and politics. The political object of the war sets that aim. For the purposes of this essay, I define strategy as the use of military forces to achieve the aim of a war. ” Īs great as the literary merits of Grant’s memoir may be, the focus in this essay is on appreciating the book as a work of strategy. When it was completed, Twain said of the memoir: “There is no higher literature than these modest, simple memoirs. The result of Grant’s final herculean efforts was one final triumph for a man whose life was full of improbable comebacks. It was as if Grant’s life ebbed away with every page he wrote. Having completed the memoir, Grant died a week later. He wrote much of his memoir in an overstuffed chair, often in excruciating pain. He was diagnosed with cancer of the throat. As ill luck would have it, Grant’s financial crisis was followed by a health crisis. One editor offered Grant a rather paltry sum for his memoir, which so appalled his eventual editor, Samuel Clemens-better known as Mark Twain-that he offered Grant a handsomer sum. ![]() Grant embarked on writing his memoir only as a final recourse to save his family from financial ruin. They lost a significant amount of their life savings, Grant included. A twenty nine-year-old charlatan, Ferdinand Ward, had defrauded Grant and many of his family and friends in a Ponzi scheme. In a life so full of personal and professional crises, one final personal crisis compelled Grant to break his silence. The Civil War General and former President of the United States had no intention of writing a memoir. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |