Monument association is nonprofit that was organized in the 1990s. Theis associated with organization of the same name that until it was transferred to the National Park service. The dma is dedicated to the preservation of grants tomb, the largest muzzling them in the western hemisphere. An important part of our mission is to Foster Foster education , our ulysses s. Grant nations 18th president. In recent years, we revised the tradition dating back to the 19th century to commemorate grants birthday with a dinner in new york city. The program each year has been an educational one highlighted ia, quite in which general david petronius interviews a historian about different aspects of grants story. Another annual tradition is the official commemoration of grants birthday at his tomb. An impressive ceremony organized by the National Parks service and west point. We are of the pandemic all experiencing, both events have been canceled but we thought it was important to recognize grant;s birthday and that is why we have come together online to provide you a call of way we can bring to you at home. We can also reach a great many people who otherwise would not been able to make it to dinner in new york. For those of you joining us for the first time, we encourage you to check out the grant Monuments Association website at granttomb. Org. We thank you for joining us. We hope you are staying safe and we hope to see you again before too long when the present challenge is behind us and grants tomb is once again open to the public. Before i turn this over to our guests, i would like to extend special things to the National Park rangers and volunteers who are caretakers of the two. They are sharing this program with their audience and keeping watch over the monument during this period of temporary closure. Then he also thanked the kkr Global Institute which has provided us Technical Assistance for tonight. We are honored to have with us one of general grants those distinguished successors in the pantheon of American Military leaders. General petraeus is now the chairman of the kkr and previously served for 37 years in the army. He has been a household name since he first came to prominence in the iraq war when he displayed leadership so impressive that many justifiably consider him americas greatest living commander. Tonight, he will be speaking with another special guest whom we are glad to welcome back. Elizabeth semitism a professor of english at west point. Her expertise on military and literary matters is exceptional and is evident in her five books. Her most recent title is the annotated memoirs of ulysses s. Of tremendous scholarship that has greatly enriched our understanding of grants classic autobiography. I should also point out on her behalf that she is with us tonight in her personal capacity so the views she expresses our her alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the department of the army come of the department of defense, or the u. S. Government. We are especially glad the professor can join as because if Birthday Celebration at grants tomb had gone forward today, she wouldve been the keynote speaker. Both of tonights panelists will be featured in a threepart series on grant the History Channel will air starting memorial day, may 25. With that, i hope you all stay safe and we will now turn the program over to general petronius. General . Ret. Gen. Petraeus thank you very much for the kind introduction. Thanks for elevating me at kkr. I wish i were the chairman. Im actually the chairman of the Global Institute and a partner in the firm. And thank you to all of the members of the audience joining us for this virtual celebration of grants 198th birthday. It is great to be back with this grant association. It is an organization that has done so much to refurbish and maintain the magnificent monument in which grant and his wife julia are buried and also the organization that does so ofh to preserve the legacy the distinguished general who truly did save the union. To be on aa pleasure virtual state this evening with professional elizabeth samet, a highly respected professor of english at west point and the author of highly asked several highly acclaimed works. I have known and admired elizabeth for well over a decade. She is a true lyricist with words and a consummate history. With her annotated memoirs of ulysses s. Grant, she demonstrates those attributes convincingly once again. After reading their prepublication copy and fact, i described the book as an enthralling, brilliant, illuminating, and unique contribution that helps return ulysses s. Grant to the pinnacle on which he belongs. But michael from the Washington Post captured the essence of the her book far better. He wrote the annotated memoirs of ulysses s. Grant is everything a work of popular scholarship should be. Authoritative, thorough, and compulsively readable. Where many annotated editions come across as perfunctory and unimaginative, this one truly illuminates the text with an abundance of relative relevant historical material. For a firsttime reader, he continues, the book dispel several halftruths and myths. Back in the 1950s when i was growing up in ohio, schoolchildren were regularly taught certain facts about the civil war. Notably that the confederate general robert e. Lee was not only a superb military tactician that also the 19th century equivalent of chaucers perfect gentleman night. By contrast, he observes that would typically be characterized as a drunk with an aptitude for command. He notes, utterly rejects this view of grant as well as the romance surrounding lee and the confederacy. The socalled last cause was as grant firmly declared unholy and at its heart festered the unholy enslavement and exploitation of men, women, and children. Congratulations on a wonderful review, elizabeth. Congratulations on a terrific annotated version of grants memoirs and welcome to this virtual stage. Dr. Samet thank you, it has been a great pleasure to be with you. Today. Ret. Gen. Petraeus let us begin. You referred to grant as someone who has been your guide in many ways over the years. Hit he is a natural subject for military historians but what brought someone who teaches and is trained in literature to this man and his memoirs . Thinkmet originally, i grant was not someone i thought a lot about until i stumbled on the memoirs. The memoirs themselves the book itself was what introduced me to grant. And ultimately to west point. Two military culture. He did not fit my preconceptions of what a 19th century general would be like. Hisi was struck when i read memoirs in graduate school by his modesty, the plain speech and humor. There is a humor that i think is sometimes easy to miss in his memoirs. There are some wonderful portraits and humorous anecdotes throughout. This was someone who admitted great dealhe had a of care for language. So as someone who was working on a phd at the time in english, this was a great surprise to me and a great delight. This was someone who was keen that he would always put his meaning in prose so plainly that there would be no mistaking it and that is something i share with my own students as an aspiration. Ret. Gen. Petraeus your suggested some of the reasons the book is widely regarded as among the finest military memoirs ever written and the man think, is come i justifiably enjoying something of a resurgence of late. I think the Monument Association has enjoyed hearing john turnover and you and others. Nonetheless, his reputation has seen considerable ups and downs over the decades in the last century. How has succeeding generations how have succeeding generations remembered or perhaps forgotten this man who was the most celebrated figure of his own age . Prof. Samet his reputation has been extremely volatile over the severald you mentioned people that have brought him to the four recently. Worldsdied, he was the most famous american. He had a world tour after his presidency and was greeted by throngs of people throughout. Book does a tremendous job of illuminating that factor of grant. He has a we sat his enemies and ultimately has reputation fell the to a couple of things mostly political. Great a big them of the Reconciliation Movement and the lost cause movement that emerged in force as soon as the war ended but particularly after the end of reconstruction with the late 1870s, the 1876 election. A goe went from a hero to to. And it was not until the middle of the 20th century with the pioneering work of laurie lewis and bruce cap bruce captain that his reputation has been resurrected. And i also think his presidency that had its ups and downs. Ret. Gen. Petraeus and the memoirs as we will touch on later do not get to the presidency. They really end with the end of the war and they ended with the end of his life as well. You pointed to some of the factors that have contributed to the volatility of his reputation. But the epigrams you have chosen from gertrudeon stein, general sherman, and Charles Dickens all seem to point to a certain and accessibility or on no ability. How much does his own person how much did his own personality impact this . The general who is famous for a two things, getting lost at shiloh and writing ben hur after the war coming he knew a Little Something about drama and he said that if grant had studied to be undramatic, he could not have succeeded better. And i think grant new wood he was doing but was also someone that absented himself. He feels absent from the memoirs. Scrupulous in not recounting any battle that he was not a part of but he is not the hero of his own tail in that way. In that way. Le he does not put himself forward as sherman did in his own memoirs. And he is not a villain. Sherman, and this is one of the epigraph that you were referred to at the beginning of the book says grant is a mystery to him and he thinks grant was a mystery to himself. I think sherman is being a little coin there. I think he understood him quite well but there is a sense that grant was not studied in that way and was not performing but was just sort of doing what came naturally to him in that he also combined that with the fact that he was not a great talker. Not a great speech maker. And was a listener. And i think that kind of inaccessibility probably did contribute to the difficulties perhaps with which subsequent biographers and historians have had to contend. Ret. Gen. Petraeus including you. Prof. Samet right. Ret. Gen. Petraeus the market was flooded with Civil War Veteran memoirs but grant for a long time refused to write a memoir. What finally prompted him to do so . Prof. Samet you are right. Most of the generals that fought the civil war spent the rest of the 19th century refighting it on the page. Greg decided not to do that and sherman as well. By whatwas so outraged he regarded as all of the lies being sold that he wanted to correct the record. Grant still resisted until a series of events late in his life changed his mind. This began this series of misfortunes began in december 1883. There was a fall on an icy new york sidewalk. And then in may of 1884, the great scandal of grant and a firm that his son was a partner ward who wasnand known as the Young Napoleon of finance and was a swindler. Thats grants monday bankrolled the firm and all of it was lost. That summer, in the process of that she was in new jersey in the summer and he was eating a peach and felt a great stinging sensation in his throat. He waited until the fall to get a diagnosis. It was by then too late. He had a cancer. There was nothing he could do. So in order to make sure that his family would be provided for , he decided to write the memoirs. He had already written a few articles and was encouraged by many but it was really mark twain who said that i will give you a good deal and we will sell it by subscription. Of book was sold by sale agents many of whom were veterans of the civil war and ultimately sold hundreds of thousands of copies and this netted over 400,000 to juliet which in todays money would be a significantly larger sum. He saved the day and he did what he was always best at which is meeting the emergencies. Ret. Gen. Petraeus in fact he finished in his final days. Grants subject is the war. Not the presidency. In what ways does his representation of war differ from those by his contemporaries and other writers who have attempted to capture this very difficult and sometimes elusive subject . Prof. Samet i think he does he steers a middle course. It is not at all romantic. He has no illusions about war. There is not the sort of novelistic quality although there is a great narrative drive to the memoirs. There is not a novelistic quality that the 19th century romantic view is attached to the war. Is he satiric. He steers the middle way. He never takes delight or heroism although he recognizes it when he sees it. The narrative throughout is characterized by a clear eyed prose, a lean, spare prose and it does have a great momentum. He really was a writer that could tell a story. One is really swept up in the narrative of the civil war. As others have noted, there are a couple of moments where he is in a desperate straight where the momentum flags a bit but that is it is only intermittent and he really picks it up at the end and you are swept relentlessly towards appomattox and the close of the war. Can see. Petraeus you why you are a great english professor as well. From his youth, grant was a gifted trainer and rider of horses. Can you tell us how horses became so important to him and what role they played in his personal and professional life . Prof. Samet i like to think of him as the original horse whisperer. There is the great military tradition going back to alexander the great, the rite of passage. The horses that no one else can ride are tamed. And grant has that experience at west point. During the graduation exercises. Newemanship was a fairly course of study at the academy and he was the best equestrian in the academy and at the graduation exercises, he took a famously difficult horse and jump higher than anyone had ever jumped before and it was quite a spectacle. He started with horses in his youth. He would ride long distances on his own, with a wagon sometimes transporting people or just riding around for his own pleasure. His father was a tanner and grant wanted nothing to do with the tannery but anything to do with animals or horses he quite loved. This was something that came naturally to him and that i also revealed his powers of communication and observation in a strange way. I think he was able to measure people in a similar way that he measured horses in that respect. Ret. Gen. Petraeus he did not really want to go to west point. How did he end up there . What was the experience like for him . Prof. Samet he had no desire. He did not even think about it as an option but his father came home one day and said you are going. Rant said i wont go. , yes, you will go. And he thought, if he thinks i should go i will go. The most exciting prospect to him was the travel, actually. He took a steamer, a railroad trip and he was going at what he said was a pace to annihilate time and space. It was probably 20 miles per hour. He found this all fantastic. He ended up in philadelphia for went tovisiting come he the theater. His father reprimanded him for staying too long and then he made his way up to west point. He had some fear of failure he had to overcome. Was hisng schooling from the west was adequate but not terrific. Boy who went from this from his town that went before him had failed so there was some pressure there but he did pass his exams. And subsequent historians have tended to exaggerate his struggles there. An average student in some things and quite good in others. Fairly good in math and horsemanship. Not very good in tactics as he freely admitted. Toward the bottom of his class. He also realized it also reveals that he did not find it that interesting. Read a lessonever twice over. He spent most of his time reading novels. I could not do nothing so i read novels but not of the trashy sort. Ret. Gen. Petraeus that is good to hear. Not long after he graduates he finds himself in war in mexico. What was his attitude towards that war, if you will, and what does he take away from fighting in it . Prof. Samet he thought it was a terrible war. He says in the memoirs that it was a political war from first to last. The most unjust he said a war ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker one. These are the reflections of an on the conflict. The correspondence from the time is not as explicit about his discontent. It is explicit about the hardships in dort. More people died by disease than by combat in the mexican war and he lost many of his friends and comrades in that work. He found out some important things. You asked about lessons learned. He found up that he had physical courage. He said he wrote a letter bullets ys that there was more to fear in anticipation then when he found himself in battle. I think he did not have time necessarily to think about it that just responded. He found that out and i do not think that is anything you can find out until you are in the midst of it. Even though he found his way into almost every battle he could come in he was actually designated as the regimental quartermaster because everyone knew he was good with horses. And part of the quartermasters portfolio was dealing with mules. This is what they did. He learned from that the importance of logistics and the importance of feeding and supplying armies. Importand about the ce of camp sanitation. He worked for taylor who cared nothing at all about sanitation and thus disease was rampant. He also learned a certain amount of resourcefulness and studied Winfred Scott and taylor. Ret. Gen. Petraeus throughout the war, he was carrying out a longdistance romance with the woman who would become his wife, julia. He married finally when he returned. Tell us a bit about his marriage and his family life. Prof. Samet i think he was really happiest with his family. They accompanied him to war. Whenever he could come he had his son with him. Later when his headquarters was at city point in virginia come he had his family with him whenever he could. They gave him a sense of grounding. The of the testimony of his children, especially his oldest child about what a caring and kind father he was. Played to read to them and with them. And frederick his son says he was not a disciplinarian as a father. Frederick has a wonderful quotation which i really like where he says he first created in a small child the feeling of absolute respect for him and believe in him. He used to read to them. And the marriage was an interesting one and that he married into a slaveholding family and his own parents did not come to the wedding. There was a great deal of tension. Ret. Gen. Petraeus because they disagreed with that practice. Prof. Samet right. Like many marriages of the time, it brought the Political National issues to the four. Ret. Gen. Petraeus to the fore. Ret. Gen. Petraeus the period mexicanime between the war and the civil war, are called the lost years. Memoirs, he in the only devotes a few chapters to that. If you want to know what he was up to during bed, you have to go to other sources. Points to one episode in particular that i think is also pertinent for crosswhen grant had to the isthmus of panama and there was a cholera epidemic at the time. The senior officer there left grant with the sick and went on to the coast. Grant cared for the sick, contracted some mules to transport them and i think saw there as lewis points out, he realized for the first time that he could meet an emergency, that he could solve problems, that he face of thethe emergency and we have the testimony of many of the people on that miserable trip how caring and concerned he was as he endorsed the sick and got the survivors to the other coast, the west coast. It was a very trying time. And then come he ends up at the west coast. Posts in theemote Pacific Northwest away from his family and he is quite miserable. Really wrenching letters that one can read in the papers. He is lonely. He does not get mail, the meal is irregular. The weather is terrible. Writesble scene and he to juliet that he would resign if not for the fact that poverty, poverty, poverty would stare them in the face. He cannot figure out how to otherwise provide for them. He does resign under somewhat cloudy circumstances. Rumors comeere the of the stories of his drinking and he probably did drink to excess when he was on the west was a wellestablished army practice at the time. People like george and other young officers posted out there wentst that is really what on on the west coast. He goes home to st. Louis and ends up when the war breaks out, we find him in galina, illinois working his fathers Leather Goods store. Ret. Gen. Petraeus he then somehow rides through the state forming militias. In this process emerges as someone who has a west point background, combat experience, in ability and ends up command early on as a one star general. In the developing western theater. Theater is nowhere near as well known to most americans as is the Eastern Theater but that is really where he earned his reputation and where he honed the art of command and demonstrated brilliance as a tactical commander first at donaldson. And then as an operational level commander at the extraordinary battle of the expert. What were the most important thats really where he learned his craft, i think. Sometimes it was by trial and error but it was really a place of testing. Hes there for the first time in command, he tells the story the first time hes in command of his regiment and chasing a confederate colonel in missouri and decides instead of sending scouts out he doesnt call a halt and he sort of is riding toward the crest of the hill where he might encounter the enemy. But he finds that the enemy camp has just been deserted. He says at that point, i realized then that the enemy was just as afraid of me as i was with him. And he said that was a valuable lesson and would feel some anxiety in the future facing the enemy but never a really fear. And i think that was something that was important. And after that, at the tactical level and then at fort donaldson where of course he has the famous moment where his old frent is left in command, at donaldson by two rather incompetent commanders who depart in the night, and he writes to his old friend and says lets talk terms and grant replies, im not talking terms. Ill accept only an unconditional surrender. So he begins to have some there all the newspapers pick that up and i think he gains you could see him gaining some kind of confidence. Shilo, however, although a victory is a setback in that he is surprised by the first day, hes not had sherman and others entrench and i think that everybody sort of it was no mystery that the confederates were going to attack buzz he was sort of caught unprepared, does manage though and theres that famous scene and i know you like that scene on the first evening of shilo, where he and sherman tells the story later in his life that they meet under this tree and shermans quite distraught and ill let you say the line because i know you like that. Well, grant is sitting under a tree with his slouched hat on and the rain is dripping off his in front of him. He has the stub of a cigar in his mouth as always. All the available cover is being used as make 14i69 hospitals. You can hear the cries of the wounded still on the battlefield, others who are having limbs hacked off without anes theesha. And sherman comes up and pauses r a moment and says to grant we had a day didnt yes and he says yes lincoln tomorrow though. And that has always captured, its a story i actually retold on several occasions during the surge in iraq and very, very difficult days. And lick em tomorrow really did capture this dom nance will but very quiet again not pounding his chest and cheer leading not doing anything particularly volume yubble just lick em tomorrow and he did and at the end of the day as you noted after nearly being driven into the Tennessee River in day one to get reinforcements in, they kill the confederate commander and they own the battlefield albeit other than that you almost would have called that particular battle a draw i think. But he does survive and of course then he moves on to vicksburg. And its really the success of vicksburg that catches lincolns eye and makes him believe that he finally might have a general aggressive enough to win the war. In fact, youll recall another great anecdote supposedly that lincoln upon being warned that grant drank supposedly replied find out what he drink and give it to the other generals, at least he fights. What was the relationship like between grant and his commanderinchief lincoln . So like most of lincolns great quotes he probably didnt say that one but i think it captures sort of the essence though in the sense that lincoln recognized that this was someone who could get the job done and so he really was not interested in stories from his old army cronies. And i think they had a fantastic relationship largely because one of the reasons well, grant got results. The other was that he knew he was fighting a war in a larger political context and he knew that his battlefield strategy had to harmonize with the overall strategy of the war and that the war aim. Into en those aims were emancipation grant adopt it had policies to suit that and i think that was important because not all commanders were attuned to that. They did what they wanted and sometimes lincoln had to reverse their decisions because they strayed into making their own political decisions so i think that turned out to be increasingly sort of the foundation of their bond. And i think that theres one letter in particular thats a great favorite of mine that lincoln writes to grant after vicksburg where, as you well know, grants strategy at vicksburg he tried lots of Different Things until something worked. He kept everybody busy and then he finally bypassed the port and came around from the south, ran the batteries. On the mississippi river. Right and came around and fought johnsons army as well as fighting and coming back to lay seige to vicksburg. And after it was over and lincoln said im really glad you won and it was great. He said i wasnt exactly sure what was going on. But i figured you knew your own business better than i did. And then he said finally you did what i thought you ought to do which was one the batteries but i didnt say anything and now i wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right and i was wrong. And you would know better than i. But i find that to be a really telling letter. I was always waiting for that. Of course that campaign was incredpli risky in the end because after going south of vicksburg and going ashore, he throws loose of his supply lines and races out to the east to defeat piecemeal the confederate reinforcements before they can reach vicksburg, which as you note having fended off the reinforcements defeated them in battle he then could invest vicksburg with a seige. But that campaign was so risky that as youll recall sherman had an official letter put in the file saying that he wanted to register his concerns about the risk. Again, the two most trusted commanders ultimately among the union forces. And it was that battle that then of course proments lincoln to bring grant east to make him the commander of all union forces and then grant develops a strategy that win it is war. Lets keep in mind that the most important of winning that was the success of forces on the battlefield in 1864 that ensured lincolns victory over mcclellan by now retired no longer a general having had his chance as the commander of the union forces and lincoln so frustrated with him that he supposedly wrote a letter that said if youre not going to use your forces please loan them to me so that i can put them to use, and he ensures the victory over mcclellan in the election of 1864 which had mcclellan won he had announced in advance that he was going to sue for peace and arrange some kind of settlement with the south and then the union would not be what it is today. So lincoln or grant has been brilliant tactically. Hes been brilliant at the operational level larger level now he is in charge of the entire strategy. What was the essence of that strategy . So you alluded to his comment to meade i think where he said where lee goes you should follow. I think that was the main effort. Right. He makes a lot of important decisions. He takes about when he finally comes east he takes about eight weeks i think to study everything. And he makes what i think what his torns have suggested, fuller in particular makes this point, he has the insight to leave executive command of the army of the potomac to meade so he frees himself up to think strategically. And the area of his command is huge. We forget that. How it stretches from the Canadian Border to the south and all the way to the west, and i think that leaving meade with those administrative responsibilities really did help him to do that. While still sitting in meades back pocket to make sure that he goes where lee goes but just moves aside and hits him again in the wilderness. Right. And keep going south. While hes holding lees army, this allows sherman free maneuvers through the south and also sheridan in the schenn doea valley which is the bread basket of the confederacy. So by holding lees army in place and by really grinding it ut in the most brutal war, warfare, he helps free up sherman and sheridan knowing and this goes back to his relationship with sherman with whom he loses contact for part of the time but he knows sherman is doing what hes supposed to do so hes not particularly concerned, has an absolute trust. So thats really the idea that he recognizes this is the way to win the war. And the victories of course in atlanta and then in the schenn doea valley just before the election are what seal that election for lincoln keeping in mind that of course in new york as an example there were draft riots, there was opposition to the war, great frustration and so forth. And of course with sherman coming to atlanta, then savannah and up and of course you had forces coming out of the tide water area as well, never doing much, the crater battle and so forth, sherman going down the valley and picking it clean and then meade going right where lee goes, and ultimately of course culminates at apmat tox in april 1865. Now, the two central figures in this, grant and sherman, were really very different personalities. But each was arguably the others most important professional relationship certainly from shilo onward. In fact, youll recall sherman saying years after the war grant stood by me while i was crazy and i stood by him while he was drunk. How did their relationship work . And why did it work . Well, youre absolutely right to say they were very different personalities, although they were also both men of the west and i think that the west at the time was ohio. But there was a kind of identity, the western army had a different character from the army of the potomac and several officers noted that when they moved east with grant it was just a completely different way of operating. They had that trust. I think you mentioned shermans raising of objections when grant cut loose from his supply line at vicksburg. Whats interesting there is that grant mentions that quite freely and happily in the memoirs because he says that sherman came to him and they behind closed doors, registered his concerns. And i think he thus shows a great deal of loyalty in doing it. He gave his best opinions. Grant didnt take it and sherman did what he was told to do. So this relationship really was quite wonderful in that respect. Sherman of course was senior to grant, he graduated several years ahead of him and it was only at fort donaldson that they started working together. And i think grant took shermans measure he was assigned to supply grant during the donaldson battles and he wrote a letter saying whatever you want me to do ill do it, and there was no standing on ceremony and i think grant realize that had this was not someone unlike some of the other generals with whom he had to work who were really concerned about seniority and precedence and everything, sherman didnt care about that he just wanted to win. So i think they were likemindd in that respect. And then i think sherman really was quite inspired by grants tenacity and by what he called his simple faith in success. And he made others believe they could succeed as well. I think sherman went through his own periods of real crisis after bull run and periodically throughout the war, and i think sherman really depended on grant sort of unflappable nature. He knew that he had a completely different personality and i think he took great strength from that calm, that sense of calm that grant exuded. A wonderful, wonderful relationship. Now, i had a question sent from one of the viewers in advance that is a particularly intriguing one, i thought. It asks when one looks for indicate rgs of future leadership in grant, there were not that many with a few exceptions, as you mentioned, in the mexican war. He wasnt that high in his west point class, he didnt succeed in his career once he went out west. He failed at numerous civilian endeavors, yet he ended up gain in my view now, being the army general demonstrate brilliance in combat consistently at the tactical and strategic levels of war and he did literally save the union. Meanwhile, his friend and classmate william franklin, the top graduate in grants west point class, proved ununsuccessful as a general. Have you ever pondered the unlikely rise of grant and wondered why so many of those who finished ahead of him in so many of the normal gates and progressions to general officer ultimately didnt remotely achieve what he did . I think, again, i think that what distinguished him was a great capacity to grow and to learn from mistakes and to learn from failure. And not everyone is able to do that. He never had i think that sort of fixed certainty which in a hirkecal organization can sometimes lead to a kind of blindness. So i think he preserved that sort of flexibility and resilience. I think, again i think people have exaggerated the degree to which he failed at west point. I think he just he indifferent to his studies and i think that showed in his grades. However and he wanted to become a professor of math actually until the mexican war. So it wasnt that he was antiintellectual in that sense. But i dont think that military culture particularly seized his imagination initially. But i think even his all those qualities that later distinguished his leadership were in fact recognized by his peers. So if you go back and read peoples accounts of him they noticed his loyalty, they noticed his tenacity, they noticed a kind of fixty of purpose and i think that that really are the things, the hallmark that is distinguished him. I mean, the other things that i think play add great role later on, he had a kind of instinctive knowledge of topography. Yes. Surprising drawings and paintings he did at west point sort of reveal a sort of great visual orientation. But i think and his Staff Officers say that he could take a look at a map and sort of know but almost immediately sort of photographic memory and think that served him in the horsemanship as well allowed him, this was a period where as long as the battle line was growing you could just about, if you were a good horseman just about see the whole thing. And grant did and he would ride and see for himself. And so i think that those sorts of strengths were the ones that ended up being needed. I mean, i think theres a thing to being the right leader at the right time and i think he had those particular attributes. I think he was also not because he wasnt steeped in military arts and science like the mcclellans. I think it sort of led to a kind of creativity that manifested itself in his operational and strategic plans. The other attributes that weve discussed in previous sessions was that he had an ability to see a battlefield so he could see the map, he might have seen part of the battlefield, but he could picture it in his mind and even more importantly he could nvision a battle playing out over time. And then he could in his own mind again, because there were no staffs to speak of in those days. Of course you wrote all of your own orders and aides were there to deliver them to the commanders on the battlefield. But he could get those orders all in the right sequence and very concisely express what it was that he needed each of those suboird nat commanders to do. And again there is something there that is just godgiven, i think, that is improved with training certainly. But with the talent that really came out i think as he developed on the battlefield commanding ever Larger Forces all the way up to the actual strategy, and indeed offering help to meade at various points in time. As youll recall that curious relationship where meade didnt mind if grant sent orders directly to the commanders who were working directly for meade and again had that very good relationship, meade having been grateful of course just that grant kept him on in the wait of getiesburg and so forth where he had failed to take advantage of the final day in the confodesy hitting the High Water Mark and then retreating and failed to pursue them as aggressively as certainly history would judge now and lincoln judged then he should have done. But lets switch gears a little bit now and talk about another attribute of grants. And that is his riding. Of course writing. Mark twain noted he was a great writer but he had a vested interest in saying so. But another others, prominent among them, have also expressed great admiration for the generals prose. But youre the english professor. What distinguished grant as a writer . Well, i think i mentioned before his interest in putting his meaning so plainly there could be no mistaking it. Thats a phrase he repeats several times. And my students they think english professors like what they call fluff and i tell them i dont like fluff. Im sorry to disappoint you. I like you to put your meaning so plainly there can be no mistaking it. So i will share with them some grant and say he didnt like fluff and look what happened to him. So theres this sense that he just had hes a really good style luss and he writes nothing like the books he read, which is very interesting as well. He has that narrativeness. He has wonderful descriptive powers. This is particularly true i think of the early chapters where he talks about mexico. He really fell in love with the country of mexico, despite being miserable during the war. And the descriptions of the people and the way of life and the scenery are really quite remarkable and this is true also in his letters home where he talks about various aspects of it. He returned to mexico. He just really, it won him over. And so theres just a wonderful the powers of observation and the ability to communicate what he sees in a wonderful spare and lean but nevertheless compellingly descriptive way i think is really important. And the other thing that i think is extremely compelling to me about the memoirs is the way that he its his story but its his story in the great story of the civil war. And thats i think also there are lots of reasons why it ends with the end of the war, but i think one of the most important is that he regards his own story part of the reason he didnt want to write it is what story did he have to tell . If he had one story to tell it was that of the Great National cataclysm and thats what people would want to hear. To continue this line of questioning, if you will, and to the following two questions were also submitted from the audience. Twain compared grants memoirs to caesars commentaries. That is pretty substantial praise. Is that an apt comparison . Well, i think thats mark twains version of the blurbs you find on the back of a book. Not since the bible has there been a book this wonderful. So thats twain, the salesman. I think it acts in the sense that it is as military memoirs go, it is has as big an impact as caesars did in military historians regard it as on that level. You know, i came, i saw, i conquered. Youve never going to see anything like that in grant. So in terms of after all, caesars a man who referred to himself in the third person. This is not grants way. It was Winfield Scotts way but not grant. And so i think in terms of the style and the personality hugely different. But in terms of an account of lore and a compelling narrative afwars, that of wars, that clearly there is thats what he was doing. He wanted people to think that this was the next best thing to caesar. And i dont think theres anything more powerful military memoir and certainly in American History. Sherman quite wonderful but grant stands alone. Now, you write that grants greatness was entirely, emphatically american. Why do you seem to regard him as the consummate american . So when i wrote that i had in mind washington because people compared grant to washington frequently. Teddy road velt said great americans were lincoln, washington, and grant. I think washingtons greatness, which is substantial, was a sort of amalgamation. He had a sort of kind of aurist cratic sensibility. He was a gentleman from virginia. Rank and f military his sense of sort of military as a profession i think was very much an old world one but he happened to fuse that strangely and wonderfully for us with a republican sensibility. Grant has none of that. He begins his memoirs discussing that hes american, his family has been american for however many generations. As ive mentioned growing up in the west i think he felt very much on the front tier and i think that he did not regard he was not a gentleman in that sense, although he was a very gentle person i think he didnt have that sort of sense of an aurist cratic sense of being an officer and a gentleman. He was a very different, more modern figure, i think. Let me bring this to a close with two final questions. I want to return in this one to a point you made tat outset, that one of the obstacles preventing us from celebrating grant as a hero can be traced to the ways in which americans have chosen to remember the civil war. One aspect of that commemoration has been in the news a good bit of late questioning the memorialization of confederates throughout statry placings, base names and other public honors. What would grant have thought about the fact that we are utterly surrounded by tributes to the enemy he did so much to defeat and whose leaders after all really were the end of the day defending a truly abhorrent practice, slavery . I think that and in his memoirs hes very clear, he says that is one of the worst causes for which one has ever thought and one for which there is the least excuse. He was a reconciliationist but, as said, on northern terms and i think he would have been quite mystified at the degree to which the eye doll tri of southern heroes has sort of eclipsed really a celebration of the union or of the northern side. That mythology, which historians like david blight and erik sonner have written about at length, the mythology of the lost cause really triumphed after the civil war. I think you mentioned the base names, i think that in particular grant would have found really completely mystifying that we have so many army bases named for confederate generals. And also confederate generals like, for example, polk who were actually, a terrible general. They were not skilled at their job. So its a very peculiar thing that what has happened and how we have commemorated that war, which he understood i think in very different terms. Well, before we close the conversation this evening, i would like to ask you to share with us one of your favorite passages and perhaps one of the most surprising items you discovered in grants memoirs. Thats always a hard choice for me because there are so many passages that i like. I thought i would share one that i like to share with my students. When i can i like to read the memoirs as a whole with them. But when i cant or when i want to talk to them about the relationship of writing and soldiers i often read this passage which comes from the end of the tenth chapter. And it describes general Winfield Scott and general Zachary Taylor who are the two generals for whom grant worked in mexico and its a beautiful companion portrait which shows also his powers of observation and the way one of the things i like most about the memoirs is the fact that its punctuated by these lovely character sketches in very few words hes able to give you a portrait of various historical figures. This is scott and taylor. I have now been in battle with the two leading commanders. The contrast between the two is very marked. General taylor never wore a uniform but dressed himself entirely for comfort. He moved about the field in chefs operating to see through his own eyes the situation. Often he would be without Staff Officers and when he was accompanied by them there was no prescribed order in which they followed. He was very much given to sit his horse sideways with both feet on one side particularly on the battlefield. General scott was the reverse. He always wore all the uniformed prescribed or allowed by law when he inspected his lines. Word would be sent to all divisions and brigade commanders in advance notifying them of the hour when the commanding general might be expected. This was done so that all the army might be under arms to salute their chief as he passed. On these occasions he wore his dress uniform, cocked hat, saber and spurs. His staff proper besides all officers constructively on his staff engineers, inspectors, quarter masters, that could be spared followed also in uniform and in prescribed orders. Orders were prepared with great care and should be a history of and now grant wrote an entire paragraph to the way they communicate. These two generals contrast quite as strongly as in their other characteristics. General scott was precise language, cultivated his own ,tyle, proud of his rhetoric not adverse to speaking of himself in the third person, and he could be so praised upon the person he was talking about without the least investment. Taylor could put his meaning so plainly that there was no mistake. He knew how to express what he wanted to say with the fewest, wellchosen words but would not sacrifice meaning to the construction of high sounding sentences. There opposite characteristics are both great and successful. Both were true, patriotic and upright in all their dealings. Both were pleasant to serve er, taylor was a surf with was pleasant to serve with. What a great perspective of the man who went to save the union and then write the most forthright and eloquent memoirs , whichmilitary commander your annotations bring alive beautifully. Thank you so much, elizabeth. Always a pleasure. Learn more about the people and events that shaped the civil war and reconstruction every saturday at 6 p. M. Eastern, only on American History tv, here on cspan3. , on American History tv, Duquesne University president teaches a class on constitutional issues that arose during the presidencies of Richard Nixon and gerald ford. Here is a preview. Know where was that more evident than in the dramatic battle for the white house tapes. As you probably know from history books, they subpoenaed prove or disprove complicity in the coverup. They include all of the potential defendants, who include dean. Elliott richardson told me that nixon with nexen multiple times and set archie cox would just as soon cut off his right arm than do anything improper or politically motivated. Nixon scouted him because he assumed political motives and everything. Cox really did not want a constitutional showdown. He knew there was a legitimate question based on this notion of executive privilege as to whether he really did have the power to subpoena those tapes from the chief executive. Those people dont realize this, but scholars would have put their money on nixon in this battle. He had just won a major reelection victory the argument was why should a special evencutor or the courts tell a president what he has to disclose from the white house . So it was very much an open question at this time. One of you guys asked me last week why nixon didnt just burn the tapes. Thats what pat buchanan had advocated. It wasnt so easy. Who would do it . If you burn the tapes, the act itself would be a crime or impeachable so they remained in the closet in the white house as the watergate drama unfolded. Learn more about the nixon and ford presidencies tonight at 8 p. M. Eastern, here on American History tv. Monday night, on American History tv, may 8 is known as victory in europe day. American history tv and washington journal marked the 75th anniversary of germanys surrender with rick atkinson. He wrote a book on the allied triumph in europe. Tv,h American History monday night on cspan3. Memorial day on American History tv, we feature 24 hours of American Military history with roundtable discussions, tours,interviews and interviews. Here, on cspan3. Harvard professor erez manela talked about how Woodrow Wilsons american upbringing and education shaped his outlook on Foreign Policy as president , particularly his vision for the league of nations in the aftermath of world war i. Mr. Manela discussed how wilson championed selfdetermination and reform as bulwarks against both concentrated power and disorder. This video is courtesy of the National World war i museum and memorial in kansas city, missouri. Erez manela is a teacher at Harvard University and serves as direc