1990s as a successor to the organization of the same name that originally built and administered grants tomb in new york city until it was transferred to the National Park service. The gma is dedicated to the preservation of grants tomb, the largest monument in the western hemisphere. Grant, the principal author of Union Victory in the civil war, and our nations 18th president. We revived the gma tradition to commemorate grants birthday with a dinner in new york city. The program each year has been an educational one, highlighted by a hollow a colloquy in which general David Petraeus interviews a historian about different aspects of grants story. Another celebration is the commemoration of grants birthday at his tomb. Because of the pandemic, we are advanceriencing, both if vince have been canceled, but we thought it was important to celebrate grants birthday. It also means we can reach a great many people who otherwise would not have 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 MonumentAssociation Website at gra ntstomb. Org to learn more about the monument and how you can help in its preservation. To see you before too long when this challenge is behind us and grants tomb is open to the public. Thanks like to extend it to the National Park rangers and volunteers who are caretakers of the tomb. They are sharing this program with their audience and keeping watch over the monument in this period of temporary closure. Globalk that kkr institute, which has provided us technical assistance. With one of general grants most distinguished successors in the pantheon of American Military leaders. General David Pretorius has been a household petraeus has been a household name since the iraq war, when he betrayed when he leadership so impressive, he is considered a great commander. Is a professor of english at west point. Expertise isr exceptional. Her latest book is an edited memoir of Ulysses S Grants. I should also point out that she is with us tonight in her personal capacity, so the views she expresses are her own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the army, the department of the defense, or the u. S. Government. We are glad professor samet could join us. At ceremony grants tomb had been held today, she would have been the keynote speaker. I hope you all stay safe. We will now turn the program over to general pretorius portray us petraeus. Gen. Petraeus thank you for the kind introduction. I wish i were the chairman of kkr. I am the chairman of the kkr Global Institute and a partner. Thank you to the audience for joining us for this virtual celebration. It is great to be back with the Grant Monument association, a superbly organization led, an organization that has done so much to refurbish and maintain the magnificent monument in which grant and his wife julia are buried, and does so much to preserve the legacy of the distinguished general who truly did save the union. It is also a pleasure to be on a virtual stage with professional or elizabeth with professor , the author of several highly acclaimed works. Andve known and environ for over a samet decade. Editing of the memoirs of Ulysses S Grant, she demonstrates those attributes convincingly once again. After reading the prepublication copy, i described the book as an enthralling, brilliant, illuminating and unique contribution that helps return Ulysses S Grants to the pinnacle where he belongs. A reviewer of the Washington Post captured the essence of her book far better than that. He wrote, the annotated memoirs of Ulysses S Grant is everything a work of popular scholarship should be. Authoritative, thorough, and compulsively readable. Additionsnnotated come across as perfunctory and relevanttive, this has historical, biographical, and literary material. The book dispels halftruths and myths. 1950s, schoolchildren were regularly taught certain facts about the civil war, notably that robert e lee was not only a superb military tactician, but also the 19th century equivalent of chaucers perfect gentlemen knight. Lees counterpart would typically be characterized as a drunk with a certain brute aptitude for command. View utterly rejects this of grant as well as the romanticism surrounding lee and the confederacy. As socalled lost cause was grant firmly declared unholy. Congratulations on a wonderful review. Congratulations on a terrific annotated version of grants memoirs and welcome to this virtual stage. Prof. Samet thank you. Gen. Petraeus you refer to , someoneyour virgil who has been your guide over the years. Subject forral historians, especially military historians. But what brought someone who teaches and who is trained in literature to this man . Prof. Samet great was not someone i thought a lot about until i stumbled on the memoirs. Grant did not fit my meat my preconceptions of what a 19thcentury general was like. The modesty, the plain speech, the humor. There is a humor that is sometimes easy to miss in the memoirs, brutal and bleak as the subject is. There are wonderful portraits and anecdotes throughout. This is someone who admitted his great love of novels. He had eight great deer he had a great deal of care for language. This was a great surprise to me and a great delight. Was keenomeone who that he would put his meaning in prose so plainly that there would be no mistaking it. That is something that i share with my own students as an aspiration. Petraeus you have us suggested some of the reasons why grants book is among the finest military memoirs ever written. The man himself is i think justifiably enjoying something of a resurgence of late. Have enjoyed ron hernowow and you ron c an yiou and e. U. Ou in the past several years. How people forgotten this man . s reputation has been volatile over the years. You mentioned several of the people who brought him to the four most recently. When he died, he was one of the worlds most famous americans. Book does a tremendous job of eliminating that facet of grant. He always had enemies, and ultimately his reputation fell victim to a couple of things, mostly political. He was a victim 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 compromise in the late 18th in the late 1870s, the 1876 election. He went from a hero to a goat. It was not until the middle of the 20th century, with the historians,ork of that his reputation began to be resurrected. I also think the presidency, which had its ups and downs, had something to do with it as well. Anyone who wants to celebrate grant has to reckon with that presidency. The memoirs do not get to the presidency. They end with the end of the war. Some of theto factors that have contributed to the volatility of his reputation , but the epigrams that you have chosen for your addition from general sherman and from Charles Dickens all seem to point to a certain inaccessibility or a knowability. Did his personality contribute to the way he was remembered and interpreted . The general who is famous for two things, getting off at shiloh and writing in ben writing been her hur, was dramatic. Grant knew what he was doing, but was also someone who absented himself. He is scrupulous. He really is not the hero of his own tail in that way. He does not put himself forward in the way that sherman does to a greater degree in his own memoirs. He is also not the villain. He is hard to cast as a villain. Says that grant is a mystery to him. He thinks that grant was a mystery to himself. I think sherman is being a little coy there. I think sherman understood grant well. There was a sense that grant was not studied in that way, not performing, but was doing what came naturally to him. He also combined that with the fact that he was not a great talker, not a great speech maker, and was a listener. I think that kind of inaccessibility probably did contribute to the difficulties perhaps with which subsequent biographers and historians have had to contend. Gen. Petraeus including you. Prof. Samet right. Gen. Petraeus the market was flooded with civil war memoirs during the latter part of the 19th century, but grant for a long time refused to write a memoir. What prompted him to finally do so . Most generals who fought in the civil war spent the rest of the 19th century refighting it on the phage on the page. Oneman did also not write right away. Great resisted until a series of life changedn his his mind. A series of misfortunes, a fall then in 1884, and hisscandal of affirm that son was a partner in with ferdinand ward, the napoleon of finance, who was a swindler, and it was grants money that bankrolled the firm and all of it was lost. Oft summer, in the process he was in new jersey he was eating a peach and felt a great stinging sensation in his throat. He went to get a diagnosis and it was too late. He had cancer and there was nothing he could do. 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. It was mark twainit was mark twi will give you a good deal and we will sell this by subscription. Todays money would be a significantly larger sum. He saved the day and did what he was always best at, which was meeting the emergency. Subjectraeus grants was the war, not the presidency. Was hisways representation of or different than those by his contemporaries and other writers who have attempted to capture this difficult and sometimes allusive subject elusive subject . Prof. Samet it is a middle course. He is not romantic. He has no illusions about war. There is no novelistic quality, although there is a great drive to the memoirs. Not a romantic quality attaching to the civil war for him. Nor is he satiric. He steers that middle way. He never takes a delights, never revels in the brutality or even the heroism, even though he recognizes heroism when he sees it. The narrative is characterized by a clear eye to prose, a lien, spare prose. He has great momentum. He is one who can really tell a story. As others have noted, there are in this story a couple of known it a couple of moments where though meant to him where the momentum lags a bit, but he really picks it up at the end it, and you are swept relentlessly toward appomattox and the close of the war. Youth,traeus from his grant was a gifted trainer and writer of horses rider of horses. What role did they play in his personal and professional life . Think ofet i like to him as a horse whisperer. Thursday great military tradition there is that great military tradition going back to alexander the great of horses no one else can ride. , that west point at west point, or horsemanship was a new dish was new at the academy. He famously took a difficult horse and jumped higher than anyone had jumped before and it was quite a spectacle. He would ride Long Distances on his own with a wagon sometimes, transporting people or just writing around for his own pleasure. His father was a tanner and wanted nothing to do with the tannery, but anything to do with animals he loved. This was something that came naturally to him and that i his powersrevealed 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. Gen. Petraeus he did not really want to go to restaurant to west point. How did that end up in what was the experience for him . He had no desire and did not even really think about it as an option, but his father said you are going. Grant said i will not end his father said yeah, you will. He ends up there. The most exciting prospect for him was the travel. He took a steamer, a railroad and set a pace to annihilate time and space. He found this all fantastic. He ended up in philadelphia for a while, visiting, went to the theater, and his father reprimanded him for staying too long. He went to west point of course. He had a fear of failure he had to overcome. His schooling was sort of adequate but not terrific. Town who wentis to west point before him had failed. But he passed the entrance exams. Historianssequent have tended to exaggerate his struggles there. Andas an average student some things, quite good in others. Fairly good in math and horsemanship. Not good in tactics, near the bottom of his class. The other thing he reveals about his west point experience is that he did not find it that interesting. He says i never read a lesson twice over and spent most of his time reading novels. Ofread novels, but not those a trashy sort, he tells us. He. Petraeus not long after graduates, he find tims he finds himself in the war in mexico. What was his attitude toward that war 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, the most unjust war raged by a stronger against a weaker nation. That is the reflection of the older man on the earlier conflict. The correspondence from the time is not as explicit about his discontent. It is explicit about the hardships endured. More people died by disease them by combat in the mexican war, and he lost many of his friends and comrades in that war. He found out some important things. You ask about the lessons he learned. He found out about that he had physical courage. He wrote the letter where he said that bullets had more that there was more to fear in anticipation than what he battley found himself in , where he did not have time to think about it. 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 heo almost every battle could, he was designated as the regimental quartermaster because everybody knew he was good with horses. Part of the portfolio was dealing with mules. This is what they did. He learned the importance of logistics, feeding and supplying , the importance of camp sanitation. He worked in mexico for two commanders, taylor, who cared not it all for sanitation, and thus disease was rampant. He learned a certain amount of ourcefulness, and osos also studied Winfield Scott and zachary taylor, the two generals. Gen. Petraeus he carried out a Long Distance romance with a woman who would become his wife, julia. They married when he returned. Tell us about his marriage and his family life. Prof. Samet he was happy with his family. They accompanied him to war whenever they could. He had his family with him when he could. I think they really gave him a sense of grounding. We had the testimony of his children, particularly his eldest child, about what a caring and kind of father he was, how he used to read with them, play with them. Frederick, his son, says that he was no martinet, he was not a disciplinarian as a father. Frederick has this quotation he first created a feeling of absolute respect for him. Them to read at to read to them come as i said. The marriage is interesting in the wedding. Nts to like many marriages of the time, it brought political and National Issues to the fore. Gen. Petraeus his life between the war in mexico and the civil war might well be called the lost years. What was he up to . Prof. Samet he devotes only a few chapters to it. If you want to know what he was up to then, you have to go to over sources. The best is i think lloyd lewis. Episode inoward one particular that is pertinent for today. When grant had to cross the us in this of panama and there was a when grant had to cross the thmus of panama and there was a cholera epidemic. Cared for the sick, contracted for mules to transport them, and i think realized for the first time that he could meet an emergency, he could solve problems. He was calm in the face of this emergency. We had the testimony of the people who are on that miserable trip of how carrie of how caring he was and how he got the survivors to the west coast. It was a very trying time. He ends up in the west coast. He ends up in a series of remote posts in the Pacific Northwest where he is away from his family and is really quite miserable. He writes wrenching letters that one can read in the papers. Get mail,ly, does not the male is not regular, the weather is terrible. It is a horrible scene. He writes to julia that he would resign or it not for the fact of poverty, poverty, poverty, he writes. It stares him in the face. He does resign under somewhat cloudy circumstances. These are where the rumors, the stories of his drinking and he probably did drink to excess when he was on the west coast. A wellestablished army practice at the time. You have people like george kruk and others, young officers posted out there, who suggest that is what went on on the west coast. He goes home to st. Louis, fails at a number of ventures, and ends up when the war breaks out, we find him in galena, illinois, working at his fathers Leather Goods store. Gen. Petraeus he then somehow arrives through this meeting to form militias and so forth and asthis process emerges someone who has a west point background, combat experience, and ability. And endsup at the fore up at command early on as a one star general. In the developing western theater. Theater is really nowhere near as wellknown to most americans as is the eastern theater, but that is really where he earned his reputation and it is where he honed the art of command and demonstrated brilliance as a tactical commander at donaldson and so forth and as an operational commander. What are the most important lessons he learned in the western theater . Prof. Samet as you say, that is really where he learned his craft. Sometimes that was by trial and error, but it was really a place of testing. He is there for the first time in command. He tells the story in his memoirs of the first time he is in command of his regiment and is chasing a confederate colonel in missouri and decides that instead of sending scouts out, he does not call halts, he is writing toward the rest of the hill where he might encounter the enemy but finds the camp deserted. He says at that point in the memoirs that, i realize the enemy was just as afraid of me as i was of him. He says that was a valuable lesson. He would feel some anxiety in the future facing the enemy, but never a real fear. That was something that was important. After that, at the tactical ,evel and at four donaldson where he is the famous moments where his old friend is left in command at donaldson who depart in the night im not talking only unconditional some saying have there, all the newspapers pick can up and i think that you see him gaining some kind of confidence. Ultimately a victory, it is a setback in that he is surprised the first day, he is not he has sherman and others and trash. He was sort of caught unprepared. There is a famous scene and i know you like it, on the first of shiloh, he and sherman tell the story later in his life that this tree andr sherman is quite distraught. I will let you sit on because i know you like that. The rain is stripping off in front of him, he has cigar in his mouth as always. Available cover it being used as makeshift hospitals. You could hear the cries of the wounded on the battlefield and others have limbs hacked off without anesthesia. Sherman comes up, pauses for a grant, and says, well, we have the devilss own daytoday and grant says yes. Tomorrow, though. That has always captured me. It is a story i retold on several occasions. Very difficult days. The Lincoln Memorial did capture this indomitable sheer will, but very quiet. Not pounding his chest, not cheerleading or doing anything particularly voluble, just merely lincoln tomorrow and they did. Afternoon we being driven into the tennessee river, they get reinforcements in, they kill the confederate commander, and they owned the battlefield, albeit other than that, you almost would have called that particular battle a draw, i think. But he does survive and then moves on and it is really the success of pittsburgh that catches lincolns i and makes him believe he finally might have a general aggressive enough is enough. Supposedly replied, find out he drink and give it to the other generals. At least he fights. Likewas the relationship between grant and his commanderinchief, lincoln. It captures the essence. He is really not interested in stories from his old army cronies. I think they had a fantastic relationship largely because, one of the reasons, grant got results. That he knew he was fighting a war in a larger political context. He knew his battlefield strategy had to harmonize with the. Verall strategy of war when those aims and large to emancipation, grant accordingly adopted this policy adapted his policies. That is important because not all commanders were returned to that. They did what they wanted and sometimes lincoln had to divert decisions because of making their own political decisions. That turned out to be increasingly the foundation of their bond. There is one letter in particular that is a great that lincolnine rights to grant after you all know,ere he tried lots of different bypassednd he finally and came around from the johnsons army as well is to Lacey Chabert spurt. After it was all over, lincoln said im really glad that you won. I was not exactly sure what was going on but i figured you knew your own business better than i did but he finally said, i did what you i thought you are to do but i didnt say anything. This a personal knowledge meant that you are right and i was wrong. I find that to be a telling letter. That campaign was incredibly risky in the end. After going south of pittsburgh he races out sure, before they can which,its burke, defeated them in battle, he could invest pittsburgh, but the campaign was risky that as you recall, sherman had an official sayingput into the file he wanted to register his concerns about the risk, the two most trusted commanders ultimately among union forces. Lets keep in mind that the most important winning that was success in 1864 that ensured lincolns victory, by now retired and the longer it in lincoln isd frustrated and you will not use your forces, please loan them to me so i can put them to use. He ensures the victory over mcclellan in the election of 1864, which mcclellan he would have noted in advance that he would arrange for some kind of settlement with the south and the union would not be what it is today. Grant has been brilliant tactically, at the operational level, and what was the essence of that strategy . You alluded to his comment where he said, you should he takes eight weeks to and inverything he has the insight freesd the command so he himself up to think strategically. Hugerea of this command is and we get that. From the Canadian Border to the i thinkd to the west, leaving me with administrative responsibilities really did help them to do that. In his back pocket, just moved to side in the wilderness. And allows sherman to maneuver through the south and also in the Shenandoah Valley, the breadbasket of the confederacy. By holding the army in place and really grinding it out in the , he helpsl warfare , he is sheridan, knowing not particularly concerned. That is really the idea that he recognizes this is the way to in the war. The victories in atlanta and the Shenandoah Valley just before the election are what seal the election. For lincoln, keeping in mind that in new york as an example, there were riots, opposition to the war, great frustration, and so forth. You have forces coming out of the area as well, never doing much in the crater battle and so forth, going down the valley right where lee goes, and it ultimately culminates in what happened in april of 1865. Two central figures, grant and sherman, were really different personalities. Each was arguably the others most important professional relationship, certainly from shiloh onward. Yearsl recall saying the west at the time is ohio. There is a kind of identity. Grant mentions that quite freely in the memoirs. Came andhat sherman behind closed doors, registered his concern. He does show a great deal of loyalty in doing it. Best opinion, granted not take it, and sherman did what he was told to do. This relationship was wonderful in that respect. Graduated several years ahead of grant. It was only a 4 that they started working together. Grant took shermans measure where even though sherman outranked him at the time, he was assigned supply and heuring the battle wrote a letter saying, you know, whatever you want me to do, i will do it. There was no standing on ceremony and grant realized that unlike some of the other generals who were really concerned about seniority, sherman did not care about that. He just wanted to win. They were likeminded in that respect. Sherman was really quite inspired by grants tenacity. And what he called his simple faith in success. He couldthers believe succeed as well. War,dically throughout the sherman really depended on grants unflappable nature. Calm inof advance, a particularly intriguing one, i thought. It asks, when when when one looks for indicators, there were not that many. Succeed in his career. He ended up, in my view, being the only u. S. Army general to demonstrate brilliance in combat at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war and hit it literally save the union. Meanwhile, his friend and ,lassmate, a top graduate proved unsuccessful as a general. Have you ever pondered the unlikely rise of grant and thought about why so many of those who finished ahead of him and so many of the normal gates and progression to general officer ultimately didnt achieve what he did . Again, whatink, distinguished it was a great capacity to grow and learn from mistakes and failure. Not everyone is able to do that. He never had that fixed sometimeswhich can lead to a kind of blindness. I think he preserved a iexibility and resilience think people have exaggerated the degree to which he failed at west point. He was indifferent to his studies and i think that showed in his grades. Professorto become a of mathematics. Was not that he was antiintellectual, but i do not think that military culture particularly grasses imagination. All of the qualities that leader distinguishes leadership were in fact recognized by his pierce. Noticed his loyalty and tenacity. , and iticed purpose think those are the hallmarks that distinguished him. The other things that played a great role, he had an instinctive knowledge of topography. You can see the paintings he did at west point which sort of revealed a great visual orientation. His Staff Officers say he could take a look at a map and no immediately, a photographic memory. I think that served him. This was a time where, you could just about see the whole thing and grant did. So i think those sorts of strengths were the ones that ended up being needed. Being the right leader at the right time, i think he had those particular attributes. Because he was not steeped in military arts and science, i think it led to a creativity. That manifested itself in his operational and strategic lands. The other attribute we discussed in previous sessions was that he had an ability to see the battlefield study could see the map, he might have seen part of the battlefield, but he andd picture it in his mind he could envision a battle time and thener again,d in his own mind 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 subordinate commanders to do. There is something there that is godgiven i think, that is improved with training, certainly, but was a talent that really came out, i think, as he developed on the battlefield, commanding ever larger forces, indeed, offering help at various points in time. The curious relationship they had where he did not mind if grant send orders directly to commanders who were working directly relationship,good having been grateful of course that grant kept him on in the lake of gettysburg and so forth, where he failed to take inantage of the final day the confederacy hitting the High Water Mark in retreating and failed to pursue them history and as reagan judged them. Lets switch gears and talk about another attribute of grant. That is his writing. Mark twain thought he was a. Errific writer he had a vested interest in saying so. But a number of others, prominent among them, matthew arnold, have also expressed great admiration for the generals prose. But the you are the english professor. What distinguished grant as a writer . I mentioned before his interest in putting meaning so plainly that that is something he put in time and time again in his memoirs. I tell people i do not like fluff. Sorry to disappoint you. To put your meaning so plainly that there is no point in restating it. He did not like fluff and look what happened to him. That he was ase really good stylist and he writes nothing like the book he read, which is interesting. He has that narrative with wonderful descriptive powers. This is particularly true of early chapters where he talks about mexico. He really found love with the country of mass code despite the misery of war. The descriptions of people in the way of life and the scenery are really quite remarkable. It is true in his letters home when he talks about various aspects of it. Really won him over. The powers of observation, but nevertheless compellingly descriptive way. I think it was really important. The other thing i think is extremely compelling to me about the memoirs was the way, it is his story but it is in the story of the civil war. There are a lot of reasons it hes with the civil war his own story, what story did he have to tell . If he had one story to tell, it was that of the national cataclysm and that is what people wanted to hear from him. The following two questions were also submitted from the audience. Between compared these member grants memoirs to caesars commentaries. That is pretty substantial praise. Is that an apt comparison . That is mark twains version of the blurb you find on the back of the book. Not since the bible has there been a book this wonderful. I think it is apt in the sense that it is as military memoirs go. Impact andig an military historians regarded as on that level. Came, i saw, i conquered, you will never see anything like that in grant. Caesar refer to himself in the third person. If this is not grants way. It was Winfield Scotts way. In terms of style and personality, hugely different. But in terms of an account of war and an a compelling s,rrative of force, war that is what he was doing. I do not think there is any more powerful military in a more in american history. I think grant stands alone. People compare grant to washington frequently. Lincoln, washington and grant i henk washingtons greatness had an aristocratic sensibility. The gentleman from virginia. His sense of military rank and his sense of military as a profession i think was very much an old world one. But he fused that strangely and wonderfully for us with a republican centers sensibility. Grant begins his memoir discussing that he is american, his family has been american for however many generations. Dry up in the west, i think he felt very much on the front here , and i think he did not he was not a gentleman in that sense, though he was a very gentle person, i think, he didnt have that sense of being an officer and a gentleman. He was a more modern figure, i think. Let me bring it to a close in the final sessions. Ways the americans of chosen to remember the civil war. One aspect of that has been in the news of late, questioning the memorialization of confederates, place names, base what would grant have thought about the fact that we are other utterly surrounded by tributes to the enemy he did so much to defeat . And the leaders really were at the end of the day defending a truly abhorrent practice of slavery. Quite eloquently on northern terms. I think he would have been quite mystified at the degree to which the idolatry of southern heroes have eclipsed really a celebration of the northern side. Mythology, which david and eric have written about at length, the mythology that lost cause was really triumphed in the civil war. I think that in particular, the base names, that grant would have found mystifying, that we have so many army bases named for confederate generals and also confederate generals like, off death actually terrible generals. They were not skilled at their jobs. It is a peculiar thing that this is what has happened and that this is how we have commemorated the war, which he understood i think in very different terms. Quest before we close the conversation this evening, i would like to ask you to share with us one of your favorite perhaps one of the most surprising items you discovered it grants memoirs. It is always a hard choice for me because there are so many passages that i like. I thought i would share one i would like to share with my students, when i can, i like to read the memoirs as a whole with them. But when i want to talk to them about the relationship of writing and soldiering, i often read the passage that comes from the end of the 10th chapter of the memoirs and it describes general Winfield Scott and general zachary taylor, who are the two generals for whom grant works in mexico. It is a beautiful companion portrait which shows off his powers of observation and the way one of the things i like most about the memoirs is the fact that it is punctuated by lovely character sketches. In very few words, he is able to give you a portrait of various historical figures. This is scott and taylor. I have now been with the two leading commanders conducting in a foreign land. The concept with the two was very marked. The general never were a uniform but dressed himself entirely for comfort. He moved about the field in which he was operating to see for his own eyes the situation. He would often be without Staff Officers and when he was accompanied by them, there was no prescribed order in which they followed. He was given the course sideways, both feet on one side particularly on the battlefield. General scott was the reverse and all of these particulars. He always wore the uniform prescribed or allowed by law. It would be sent to all of the them of theotifying hour when the commanding general might be connected. Armywas done so all the might be under arms to salute their chief as they passed. On these occasions, he wore his dress uniform. Staff proper besides all officers on his staff, engineers, quartermasters, that could be spared, followed, also in uniform. Orders were prepared with great that theyith the view should be a history of what they followed. No grand devotes an entire paragraph to the way the munich kate, which i think is fascinating. In their modes of addressing thought, quite a strong limit other characteristics. The general was precise and language style to his own, but was proud of his rhetoric not averse to speaking of himself come often in third person. He could be so praised upon the person he was talking about without the least embarrassment. Taylor was not a conversationalist. On paper, he could pick his meaning that she could put his meaning so plainly. He knew how to express what he wanted to say in the fewest words. He would not sacrifice meaning to the construction of high sounding sentences. With their opposite characteristics, both were great soldiers. Both were true, patriotic and upright. Both were pleasant to serve under. Taylor was pleasant to serve with. Wonderful. Alovely way to conclude wonderful retrospective of the man who saved the union and went on to be a president and to write the most clear and forthright memoirs of any u. S. Military commander. Your notations bring alive. Announcer all of our programs are archived on our website at cspan. Org history. You can watch lectures in college classrooms, tour historic sites, archival films and see our schedule of upcoming programs. That is cspan. Org history. America areal program in the Tennessee Valley. In 1936 film created to promote the efforts ensure the construction of two massive projects. Nora stamm and wheeler dam. Heres a preview. Electric refrigerators and a host of other appliances have been to help lift the print lift the depression. Timester is installed, are changing, new ways are replacing the old. The tyrus energy of electric with is let us contract today and tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] announcer learn more about the Tennessee Valley sunday at 4 00 p. M. Eastern. Announcer harvard professor erez manela talks about Woodrow Wilsons american upbringing shaped his outlook on Foreign Policy as president , particularly his vision for the league of nations. About power and disorder this video is courtesy of the National World thei muted courtesy of National World war i museum in kansas city, missouri