- This topic has 4 voices and 3 replies.
-
Posts
-
I just finished this and can see why it is considered one of the best memoirs out there. Some observations:1. He spoke very candidly about the Mexican war and his opposition to it. He felt (his words) that it was a case of a stronger nation picking on a weaker one for no just cause.2. He had very little good to say about any CSA General except Nathan Forrest who he felt was one of the best Generals the south produced.3. He says very adimantly that it was Wade Hampton who burned Columbus and not Sherman.4.And the biggest surprise was that he does not speak one word of his being President.His book was very straight forward, very candid and an insight into the war I dont think I have ever found in any thoer book I have read on the subject.
I read Grant's memoirs about 20 years ago as a lieutenant in the Marines. That year, I was on a Civil War memoir kick and read Grant's, Sherman's, Longstreet's, Porter Alexander's, Hood's, and Early's. Reading memoirs, especially from this period – but from every other period as well – needs to be done with an eye for and understanding of the bias of the writer. This is particularly true among the Southern writers, who sought to justify their actions. I read the Southern memoirs, as much a possible, not cover to cover, but campaign by campaign — I'd read a campaign in Longstreet, and follow it up with the same campaign in Alexander, etc.Grant's memoirs, while not completely devoid of this bias, were by and large frank and straight forward. I thought at the time, and still do, that there is much to learn from this book, and highly recommend it.
I read Grant's Memoirs about 3 years ago at the same time as i read phil Sheridan's. Of the two, I thought grant wrote a clearer account of the war but I really enjoyed Sheridan's account of his time as CoS during the Indian Wars.
