Guy Posts

Grant’s Personal Memoirs will appeal to today’s commanders—the people that control and guide the efforts of thousands of people within large institutions, corporations, and governments. The young adult will trudge through the pages—much like the young Grant trudged through the Mexican-American war—unable to see the big picture, but cognizant that it exists and that others can. Understanding the big picture is requisite to both criticize and praise. Without context, how do we judge merit or lack thereof? In his memoirs, Grant suggests “that the most confident critics are generally those who know the least about the matter criticised.” In the same spirit, I know just enough about auto-biographical literature to heartily approve of most of Grant’s effort while reserving some measured criticism.

Grant’s personal reflections demonstrate a dedication to the question of whether man creates their our destiny or is a product of fate. The best framework I can come up with for Grant’s ontology is that of a fatalistic, rugged individualist. For everyday tasks, he takes full responsibility for their execution and suggests “that in positions of great responsibility every one should do his duty the best of his ability where assigned by competent authority…” Additionally, Grant takes the stance that “it is men who wait to be selected, and not those who seek, from whom we may always expect the most efficient service.” In these instances, he seems to be a subscriber to the theory that by doing one’s individual duty, fate will deliver a favorable outcome. Furthermore, on at least three occasions, Grant makes note of how minor, external events nearly deflected the course of his life:

• “I should have been appointed to one of the staff corps of the army—the Pay Department probably—and would therefore now be preparing to retire. Neither of these speculations is unreasonable, and they are mentioned to show how little men control their own destiny.”
• “Had he gone three-quarters of a mile farther he would have found me with my party quietly resting under the shade of trees and without even arms in our hands with which to defend ourselves.”
• “Mrs. Grant was with me in Washington at the time, and we were invited by President and Mrs. Lincoln to accompany them to the theatre on the evening of that day… It would be impossible for me to describe the feeling that overcame me at the news of these assassinations, more especially the assassination of the President.”

In these instances, Grant appears to concede to the millions of moving variables that surround but the handful he can control. These are valid thought experiments for him to conduct, but Grant was a commanding general, a position that wields such power over a man’s fate that Michael Shaara, author of The Killer Angels wrote, “there’s nothing so much like a god on earth as a General on a battlefield.” Grant was a director of fate, but not immune from it. He identifies the balance between what he can control and that which he cannot, and in doing so reveals his winning strategy. He realized that other generals “had been as much afraid of me as I had been of [them]. This  was a view of the question I had never taken before; but it was one I never forgot afterwards. From that event to the close of the war, I never experienced trepidation upon confronting an enemy, though I always felt more or less anxiety. I never forgot that he had as much reason to fear my forces as I had his. The lesson was valuable.”

Realizing that a weak attack becomes a strong one if the opponent is in an even weaker position, Grant was willing to take well calculated gambles that slowly drove the Confederacy to a point of concession. Rather than attempting to control all elements of the war—to concoct the perfect strategy to eliminate all uncertainty from the battlefield—Grant used the great uncertainty of the world as a weapon against those who were most frightened by it.