General Grant On History Channel

[chuckman]

The brilliance of many of the military leaders during the civil war on both sides is pretty remarkable. It will remain a stain on the country that they had to fight each other. Grant's worst years were between his resignation from the Army and when he recommissioned.

[Diamondback]

Excellent series, dvr'd it here. Interesting that the left's playbook has not changed in over 100 years.

Nor the measures to defeat it...

[WillBrink]

Excellent series, dvr'd it here. Interesting that the left's playbook has not changed in over 100 years.

Indeed. People should watch that as it really brings home the fact how little things have actually changed.

[chuckman]

Indeed. People really should watch that as it really brings home the fact how little things have really changed.

With regard to politics, NOTHING has changed. Washington was beloved, until he was president. People called him a traitor, said he needed to be hanged. Thomas Jefferson disliked Washington. The media vilified Washington. Then Adams was president, the public hated him because he didn't go to bat for the French in their war against England. They burned him in effigy. Political factions, dissent, back-stabbing...it's as old as Adam and Eve...

[Averageman]

With regard to politics, NOTHING has changed. Washington was beloved, until he was president. People called him a traitor, said he needed to be hanged. Thomas Jefferson disliked Washington. The media vilified Washington. Then Adams was president, the public hated him because he didn't go to bat for the French in their war against England. They burned him in effigy. Political factions, dissent, back-stabbing...it's as old as Adam and Eve...

I think you can pin it down to Hamilton encouraging Washington to go after the Frontiersmen not paying taxes on their Whiskey.
That was the exact moment the Political Class lost touch with the Common Man.

[SeriousStudent]

....... I suspect this thread will fall apart within a few pages like all of our other Civil War related posts.
....

Every single time the Civil War comes up here or on any forum, people lose their minds and the thread gets locked.

Let's not have a repeat of the conflict, shall we?

[chuckman]

I think you can pin it down to Hamilton encouraging Washington to go after the Frontiersmen not paying taxes on their Whiskey.
That was the exact moment the Political Class lost touch with the Common Man.

Definitely. And Washington had the temerity to actually put on his general's uniform to lead the military. This stuff has happened to every president. People have lost their shit over Trump, or Obama, or Nixon, or FDR, or..... Grant was just the guy at that point in history where the left changed tactics.

[WillBrink]

With regard to politics, NOTHING has changed. Washington was beloved, until he was president. People called him a traitor, said he needed to be hanged. Thomas Jefferson disliked Washington. The media vilified Washington. Then Adams was president, the public hated him because he didn't go to bat for the French in their war against England. They burned him in effigy. Political factions, dissent, back-stabbing...it's as old as Adam and Eve...

I meant more the fact of who actually gave a damn about slavery and racial injustice and oppression, which really has not changed. As far as politics in general, "Twus ever thus" as Mr Natural would say. Interesting to note that people revered him far and wide however and his role very much downplayed by historians who wanted to change the narrative.

[chuckman]

I meant more the fact of who actually gave a damn about slavery and racial injustice and oppression, which really has not changed. As far as politics in general, "Twus ever thus" as Mr Natural would say. Interesting to note that people revered him far and wide however and his role very much downplayed by historians who wanted to change the narrative.

Yes, I agree. To underscore your point which I highlighted, look how much historians have changed the narrative on many presidents. Lincoln is a good example: while he may have had good intentions and motives, he absolutely shredded the constitution to achieve his goals. Every text book has him practically walking on water.

[WillBrink]

Yes, I agree. To underscore your point which I highlighted, look how much historians have changed the narrative on many presidents. Lincoln is a good example: while he may have had good intentions and motives, he absolutely shredded the constitution to achieve his goals. Every text book has him practically walking on water.

He also was not an abolitionist where as it seemed like Grant really was. It seems like Lincoln did come to believe in the cause of ending slavery as time went on, but as far as the reasons for preventing the south from leaving the Union, that was not his motivation, at least at the start.

Per usual, now that time has passed, people are more willing and interested to look at the facts about historical figures vs white washed BS. I think Grant probably did as much, if not more so, for the cause of ending slavery than Lincoln did, who gets all the credit for it.

I didn't know Grants parents were strict abolitionists, or that he set the one slave given to him by his father in law free when he was dirt poor, etc, etc. I seemed like Grant really did believe in that cause in addition to his feelings those trying to leave the Union were traitors to the nation.

I'm not sure Lincoln would have worked as hard on the Reconstruction either.

I'm mildly ashamed to admit I didn't know as much about Grant as I should have.

His was a true American story and experience, ups and downs, and all.