Scan barcode
dale_kooyenga's review against another edition
5.0
Couldn't of been better. Grant makes you feel like you are there. Interesting background - Grant never wanted to write his memoirs, he felt that was what narcissist did to pound their chest. Following a financial scandal, tough presidency and what we know today as throat cancer he felt like he had to do something to support his family. Cool story of how he collaborated with Mark Twain on the production and even Mark Twain at a certain point was blown away and had few if any edits. Don't quote me, but 90%+ of the book is his military life not the Presidency. This is telling - I think many of our great war time leaders presidents (Washington, Eisenhower event Truman) would agree their experiences that met the greatest to them was not in the White House but on the battle field. A great, great book that makes Grant and the Civil Wat come alive.
sjgrodsky's review against another edition
4.0
Like other reviewers, I was pleased with Grant’s clear and unvarnished prose. The memoirs were written under horrific circumstances: Grant was dying of throat cancer and hoped that sales would provide income for his wife. He died one month after completing a bestseller that produced (in today’s dollars) over $12 million.
Interestingly, the character he reveals himself to be seems much like the ex-military types I sometimes encountered at work: pleasant enough if you stayed on their good side, straightforward most of the time, didn’t complain if they had to do an unpleasant task. They didn’t have much sense of humor or imagination, they made up their minds ONCE and never reconsidered. They weren’t subtle or good at detail or much fun, but they weren’t devious and (thankfully) they didn’t whine.
And so with Grant. He doesn’t rant, but makes his feelings known.
1
—
He has nothing but contempt, if not hatred, for the military men who chose loyalty to the south over loyalty to the US.
Here, for example, are his words on the peace commissioners who visited in January, 1865 (page 684 in the Library of America printing called “Memoirs and Selected Letters”) “...peace commissioners from the so-called confederate states presented themselves ... They remained several days as guests on board … I saw them quite frequently, but I have no recollection of having had any conversation whatever on the subject of their mission ... For my own part I never had admitted and was never ready to admit that they were the representatives of a government. There had been too great a waste of blood and treasure to concede anything of the kind. As long as they remained there, however, our relations were pleasant and I found them all very agreeable gentlemen.”
2
—
He liked Lincoln a lot. Somewhat humorless himself, he appreciated Lincoln’s wit. Alexander Stephens, he says, had been described to him as a small man. Yet when they met, Stephens was wearing an enormous overcoat; his small stature was revealed only when he removed the coat. Such is Grant’s straightforward description. It takes Lincoln to say: “Well, didn’t you think that was the biggest shuck and the littlest ear you ever did see?”
3
—
He implies that Lee’s reputation for military brilliance is undeserved. One of the few stories he tells about Lee shows the supposedly great man in an unflattering light: After the battle of Cold Harbor, Grant proposes that unarmed men remove the wounded and dying left behind on the battlefield. Lee’s reply temporizes. It’s only after a few letters back and forth that they arrive at an agreement. By then, a good 24 hours have passed and, Grant notes acidly, “...all but two of the wounded had died.”
4
—
Lee’s disinterest in relieving the suffering of his own fallen soldiers is nothing compared to the vicious sadism displayed by Nathan Bedford Forrest, who overpowered a regiment of (Grant’s words) “colored troops, infantry...”. Grant then quotes Forrest’s dispatches, in which he boasts that “the river was dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for two hundred yards...it is hoped that these facts demonstrate... that Negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners.” Grant, typically, refrains from direct comment but notes that Forrest’s later report left out the part that “shocks humanity to read.” (page 483).
Final impressions:
There were many more battles fought than I remembered from my grade school lessons: Iuka. Pittsburg Landing. Corinth. Sailor’s Creek. Farmville.
Many pages report troop movements, engagements, strategies, messages to other commanders, and such. The minutiae becomes unbearable. I skimmed whole sections.
It was a war of attrition, so destroying property and resources was essential. Railroads were disassembled and the tracks twisted around trees so the hard-to-get steel rails couldn’t be reused. Bridges were destroyed, crops burned, cattle taken to feed the troops. Billions of dollars of property were destroyed.
Towards the end, confederate soldiers would turn themselves in to Grant, asking to be sent north to work so they could send money home. It appears they knew the cause was lost long before the generals admitted it.
It was a war between brothers and cousins and one-time colleagues. And so, after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, the two sides, mortal enemies 24 hours before, meet to celebrate. “[Some Union officers] seemed to have a very great desire to go inside the confederate lines ... They went over, had a very pleasant time with their old friends, and brought some of them back with them when they returned.”
“Here [at the house of Mr McLean] the officers of both armies came in great numbers, and seemed to enjoy the meeting as much as though they had been friends separated for a long time while fighting battles under the same flag. For the time being it looked very much as all thought of the war had escaped their minds” (page 744).
Interestingly, the character he reveals himself to be seems much like the ex-military types I sometimes encountered at work: pleasant enough if you stayed on their good side, straightforward most of the time, didn’t complain if they had to do an unpleasant task. They didn’t have much sense of humor or imagination, they made up their minds ONCE and never reconsidered. They weren’t subtle or good at detail or much fun, but they weren’t devious and (thankfully) they didn’t whine.
And so with Grant. He doesn’t rant, but makes his feelings known.
1
—
He has nothing but contempt, if not hatred, for the military men who chose loyalty to the south over loyalty to the US.
Here, for example, are his words on the peace commissioners who visited in January, 1865 (page 684 in the Library of America printing called “Memoirs and Selected Letters”) “...peace commissioners from the so-called confederate states presented themselves ... They remained several days as guests on board … I saw them quite frequently, but I have no recollection of having had any conversation whatever on the subject of their mission ... For my own part I never had admitted and was never ready to admit that they were the representatives of a government. There had been too great a waste of blood and treasure to concede anything of the kind. As long as they remained there, however, our relations were pleasant and I found them all very agreeable gentlemen.”
2
—
He liked Lincoln a lot. Somewhat humorless himself, he appreciated Lincoln’s wit. Alexander Stephens, he says, had been described to him as a small man. Yet when they met, Stephens was wearing an enormous overcoat; his small stature was revealed only when he removed the coat. Such is Grant’s straightforward description. It takes Lincoln to say: “Well, didn’t you think that was the biggest shuck and the littlest ear you ever did see?”
3
—
He implies that Lee’s reputation for military brilliance is undeserved. One of the few stories he tells about Lee shows the supposedly great man in an unflattering light: After the battle of Cold Harbor, Grant proposes that unarmed men remove the wounded and dying left behind on the battlefield. Lee’s reply temporizes. It’s only after a few letters back and forth that they arrive at an agreement. By then, a good 24 hours have passed and, Grant notes acidly, “...all but two of the wounded had died.”
4
—
Lee’s disinterest in relieving the suffering of his own fallen soldiers is nothing compared to the vicious sadism displayed by Nathan Bedford Forrest, who overpowered a regiment of (Grant’s words) “colored troops, infantry...”. Grant then quotes Forrest’s dispatches, in which he boasts that “the river was dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for two hundred yards...it is hoped that these facts demonstrate... that Negro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners.” Grant, typically, refrains from direct comment but notes that Forrest’s later report left out the part that “shocks humanity to read.” (page 483).
Final impressions:
There were many more battles fought than I remembered from my grade school lessons: Iuka. Pittsburg Landing. Corinth. Sailor’s Creek. Farmville.
Many pages report troop movements, engagements, strategies, messages to other commanders, and such. The minutiae becomes unbearable. I skimmed whole sections.
It was a war of attrition, so destroying property and resources was essential. Railroads were disassembled and the tracks twisted around trees so the hard-to-get steel rails couldn’t be reused. Bridges were destroyed, crops burned, cattle taken to feed the troops. Billions of dollars of property were destroyed.
Towards the end, confederate soldiers would turn themselves in to Grant, asking to be sent north to work so they could send money home. It appears they knew the cause was lost long before the generals admitted it.
It was a war between brothers and cousins and one-time colleagues. And so, after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, the two sides, mortal enemies 24 hours before, meet to celebrate. “[Some Union officers] seemed to have a very great desire to go inside the confederate lines ... They went over, had a very pleasant time with their old friends, and brought some of them back with them when they returned.”
“Here [at the house of Mr McLean] the officers of both armies came in great numbers, and seemed to enjoy the meeting as much as though they had been friends separated for a long time while fighting battles under the same flag. For the time being it looked very much as all thought of the war had escaped their minds” (page 744).
peregrine_'s review against another edition
4.0
A deeply conflicting and dissonant book written by a deeply conflicted, hypocritical, -at times- shameful, charming, honest, and noble man.
acarman1's review against another edition
5.0
Real American Hero!
Giant's memoirs tell the story of a real American Hero and his fight to save the Union from traitors and slaveholders. It's a pity his prediction that one day all Americans would recognize the twin errors of slavery and secession. At the very least the real story should be told.
Giant's memoirs tell the story of a real American Hero and his fight to save the Union from traitors and slaveholders. It's a pity his prediction that one day all Americans would recognize the twin errors of slavery and secession. At the very least the real story should be told.
acarman1's review against another edition
5.0
Very detailed.
Grant was really a very good writer, tending to stick to details. When his own opinion seeps in, I can't help but wish there was more of it. He was very insightful, both in causes of the War and the relative strength and weaknesses of the generals, himself included. If you want a ground view of important battles, this is the book!
Grant was really a very good writer, tending to stick to details. When his own opinion seeps in, I can't help but wish there was more of it. He was very insightful, both in causes of the War and the relative strength and weaknesses of the generals, himself included. If you want a ground view of important battles, this is the book!
acarman1's review against another edition
5.0
Details!
This volume contains an extremely detailed description of the Vicksburg campaign. Grant as always sticks to facts, but also takes time to defend his friend Sherman from criticism. Great detail for those who watched the recent miniseries.
This volume contains an extremely detailed description of the Vicksburg campaign. Grant as always sticks to facts, but also takes time to defend his friend Sherman from criticism. Great detail for those who watched the recent miniseries.
duffypratt's review against another edition
4.0
Perhaps the best memoir I've read. The writing is clean, graceful, blunt, and lucid. While reading it, I kept thinking that the North may have won the war because Grant was such a good writer. What I mean is that the clarity of his prose shines through so brightly, and it does the same even in his orders during the war. Of course, it is not enough for orders to be clear, they must also be effective. But if the orders are sloppy, it doesn't much matter what was intended in the first place. I wish I had come across this book thirty years ago, so that I could have studied it as an example of simple, concise and powerful writing.
At the same time, this is one of the least personal of memoirs that I have read. The material covered is basically Grant the soldier and general. There is a short preamble about his family and roots, and a passing nod to his wife. Otherwise, this book covers his time at West Point, in the Mexican War, and then in the Civil War. Thankfully, for me at least, those are all good enough subjects. From its contents, the main thing I took away from this book is how little a general thinks about fighting itself. Instead, thoughts go towards troop disposition, morale, and above all, supplies. The details of fighting, I'm led to believe, rests with the lower commanders. As a result, the commanding generals almost necessarily think of their units as pieces, and to a certain extent stop thinking of them as men. I think this habit of thinking simply goes with the territory, and I also think it probably makes possible the incredibly horrible decisions that the generals must make.
Grant struck me as being considerably more humble than I would have thought possible in a general. His praise for Sherman seems unbounded, and Sheridan gets only slightly less effusive treatment. For the most part, he does not brag about his own accomplishments. Rather, he is quick to give credit to his underlings, but always in a way that seems fair and well considered.
The one person to whom Grant seems incapable of being generous is Lee. For years, I'm sure Grant lived at least partly aware of the conventional wisdom that Lee was the unparalleled genius, while Grant was a drunken butcher who had the advantage of far superior numbers. He debunks the numbers. At several points, he notes how Lee must have been deceived. He rarely gives Lee credit for any fine military move. And there is one anecdote that seems to make Lee seem like an unfeeling bastard. After a particularly bloody fight, the no-man's land was filled with wounded from both sides, and the camps could hear their pitiful screaming and moaning. Grant wrote Lee proposing a temporary truce to allow both sides to collect their wounded and dead. Lee haggled over the terms of the truce for a few days. In the meantime, the wounded basically all bled out, and by the time they had arrived at terms, both sides could only go out to collect their dead. He didn't say it, but this anecdote clearly raises the question: Who was the heartless butcher?
The book is packed with very detailed descriptions of campaigns and troop movements. For me, there were too many. I'm sure these are invaluable to students of history. And I completely understand why they are there. But for my purposes, the detail was a bit excessive (and this is my failing, not the book's). My Library of America edition also has perhaps the most useless maps. They might just as well have put a map of the U.S. at every one of these pages, and it would have been just as much help.
I highly recommend this book if you have any interest in the Civil War, or American History, or even if you just want to see the difference between the clarity of thinking at that time and what passes for thought among politicians today.
At the same time, this is one of the least personal of memoirs that I have read. The material covered is basically Grant the soldier and general. There is a short preamble about his family and roots, and a passing nod to his wife. Otherwise, this book covers his time at West Point, in the Mexican War, and then in the Civil War. Thankfully, for me at least, those are all good enough subjects. From its contents, the main thing I took away from this book is how little a general thinks about fighting itself. Instead, thoughts go towards troop disposition, morale, and above all, supplies. The details of fighting, I'm led to believe, rests with the lower commanders. As a result, the commanding generals almost necessarily think of their units as pieces, and to a certain extent stop thinking of them as men. I think this habit of thinking simply goes with the territory, and I also think it probably makes possible the incredibly horrible decisions that the generals must make.
Grant struck me as being considerably more humble than I would have thought possible in a general. His praise for Sherman seems unbounded, and Sheridan gets only slightly less effusive treatment. For the most part, he does not brag about his own accomplishments. Rather, he is quick to give credit to his underlings, but always in a way that seems fair and well considered.
The one person to whom Grant seems incapable of being generous is Lee. For years, I'm sure Grant lived at least partly aware of the conventional wisdom that Lee was the unparalleled genius, while Grant was a drunken butcher who had the advantage of far superior numbers. He debunks the numbers. At several points, he notes how Lee must have been deceived. He rarely gives Lee credit for any fine military move. And there is one anecdote that seems to make Lee seem like an unfeeling bastard. After a particularly bloody fight, the no-man's land was filled with wounded from both sides, and the camps could hear their pitiful screaming and moaning. Grant wrote Lee proposing a temporary truce to allow both sides to collect their wounded and dead. Lee haggled over the terms of the truce for a few days. In the meantime, the wounded basically all bled out, and by the time they had arrived at terms, both sides could only go out to collect their dead. He didn't say it, but this anecdote clearly raises the question: Who was the heartless butcher?
The book is packed with very detailed descriptions of campaigns and troop movements. For me, there were too many. I'm sure these are invaluable to students of history. And I completely understand why they are there. But for my purposes, the detail was a bit excessive (and this is my failing, not the book's). My Library of America edition also has perhaps the most useless maps. They might just as well have put a map of the U.S. at every one of these pages, and it would have been just as much help.
I highly recommend this book if you have any interest in the Civil War, or American History, or even if you just want to see the difference between the clarity of thinking at that time and what passes for thought among politicians today.
wherethebeck's review against another edition
5.0
I love him. Grant’s Memoirs covers his childhood through the civil war and a bit through Johnson’s presidency. Grant is the epitome of integrity, grit, and real moral courage which is vastly different from physical courage of which he also had plenty. His descriptions are blunt and witty and somehow still a breath of fresh air from over a hundred years ago.
ssindc's review
3.0
Solid autobiography, all the more interesting because of how (and when and why) he came to write it - a nifty Mark Twain anecdote. A unique perspective on the Civil War, leadership in the Army at a VERY different time, and life in a very different country.
More...