The Misunderstood

Vincent van Gogh

Sadly, sometimes beautiful art is created from the pain and suffering of being misunderstood in this world.


Self-portrait, Vincent van Gogh, 1887, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Or from taking digitalis and drinking absinthe?

General Grant is so misunderstood in Alabama that he is mistaken for another general entirely!

Oliver Cromwell.

The History Books tend to to soft pedal, but a complete psycho who fanned the flames of resentment in Ireland that burn to this day.

I know, but do you know who was Sherman's Commander? Do you know who directed his March?

Grant was no saint...........

You didn't mention Sherman.........he should have been arrested and put to death for mass murder.......alas, but to the Victor goes the right to justify such actions.......

I want to learn more about that war, but due to some challenges when it comes to reading, I'm thinking of watching a series by Shelby Foote. Anyone seen that?

Grant: (excerpt)

Some historians have viewed Grant as a "butcher" commander who in 1864 used attrition without regard to the lives of his own soldiers in order to kill off the enemy which could no longer replenish its losses.[SUP][2][/SUP] Throughout the Civil War Grant's armies incurred approximately 154,000 casualties, while having inflicted 191,000 casualties on his opposing Confederate armies.[SUP][3][/SUP] In terms of success, Grant was the only general during the Civil War who received the surrender of three Confederate armies.[SUP][2][/SUP] Although Grant maintained high casualties during the Overland Campaign in 1864, his aggressive fighting strategy was in compliance with the U.S. government's strategic war aims.[SUP][2][/SUP] Grant has recently been praised by historians for his "military genius", and viewed as a decisive general who emphasized movement and logistics.[SUP][4]

(found here)

Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War - Wikipedia


If this "Military genius" were alive today, he would face criminal charges, and imprisonment..........or, he SHOULD!


.......and, yes.........I am bias.........I have zero respect for Generals/Presidents/Politicians who subject the Soldiers under their Command to slaughter SOLELY for their own glory. Now, we had OUR horrible sins as well.........Andersonville, Ga. being the most obvious. Someone should have been "executed" for allowing that atrocity to have occurred.

[/SUP]

Thanks a ton I believe you're right. Shelby Foote was the only name I remembered.

hey!

just by marriage to me, but my Texas cousins would be your blood relations.

(they're Texans! not too pleased about the whole thing. lol)

Yep, I had quite a snicker (kilt him a bar...It's close enough!). After your first post I spent the rest of the day distorting the song lyrics into what it sounds like they could be saying. "killed in a bar" was by far the most original.

I wouldn't rely on the internet to always be truthful and accurate.

I so love to play these games!

Okay buddy, then it's on you to word your posts with more care. I will embolden the portion where it would appear to indicate you were confusing one general for another.

Those reading your post would be safe in assuming you were referencing Sherman, not Grant. "Grant sealed the order" is an evasion. But, credit where credit is due, most Yanks wouldn't know the substantive between General Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Or who was Secretary of State of the Confederacy. Or the Union.

One thing I do like about Southerners is that you guys are more historically literate than your northern cousins even when I disagree with you. Generally, typically, usually.

Okay, now I have to deviate again. Wasn't Grant forced into that situation by the circumstances forced upon him by Lee's genius? When the Federals got within spitting range of Richmond, the Rebs switched from open combat to what passed for trench warfare.

Taking ground was going to be a more bloody prospect and the nature of the Union's strategic goal from the outset required the taking of ground.

For the record, I'm not a dyed in the wool Union apologist. I think Lincoln is wholly overrated and that the South had a pretty solid Constitutional case for what it was doing. But this characterization of the Union being a fascist junta, committing atrocities the South would never think of doing is, well, silly. About as silly as the modern North's tendency to characterized the Confederate States of America as a proto-Nazi regime.

I saw a thread on another forum where the "discussion" of the civil war, or war of northern aggression, was so long, heated,
and vengeful it only stopped when it was pointed out the discussion had lasted longer than the war itself.
It was terrible, it out not to have happened. Had the Union not been preserved, would the U.S. have been able to
act in WW1 and WW2 and now support the nation of Israel as our G-d continues to fulfill His plan to redeem man to Him as before the fall?

I'm ultimately happy the Union won for that reason (with a few differences here and there). A Confederate victory would have likely undermined Americas ability to take on the world's worst aggressor nations in the 20th and 21st century.

Sure, the Union victory didn't come without dangerous drawbacks that reverberate to this day, but I would say Americans have had it good and done plenty of good under the reconstituted and expanded Star Spangled Banner.