[russellbeattie]

Twain writes about it himself in his (insanely long) autobiography. Grant was nearly broke when Twain - who was a great admirer of his - pushed him to write it and set him up with a publisher. After the publisher tried to screw Grant with a horrible contract, Twain published it himself.

[enkid]

One of Grant's failings was trusting too easily. He was broke because he was taken in by a con artist, then developed throat cancer before he could get his feet back under him, and spent his dying months writing out the manuscript by hand because he couldn't do tate to a secretary any more.

[DoreenMichele]

From what I have read, Grant is why the US has had only one civil war.

In most countries, civil war begets civil war and each one sows new seeds for the next one.

[mrguyorama]

We only had one civil war because after Lincoln was assassinated, reconstruction was basically scrapped and we openly ignored what happened while letting prominent Confederate politicians and sympathizers get into power and twist reality into their "Lost Cause" myth. To this day, some American students are still taught that the Civil War was started and caused by "Northern Aggression" and that slavery wasn't important.

Would a marshal plan style rebuild/de-confederation of the south caused a second civil war? Most likely not? Would it have helped black people not be screwed over for the next hundred years? I sure hope so.

[DoreenMichele]

Some things I have read suggest the civil war didn't start per se over slavery. The decision to emancipate the slaves occurred sometime during the war and was sort of made on the local level when some commanding officer chose to give asylum to two Black men, escaped slaves iirc. And then it became official policy at some point and after the fact we remember it as having been the reason for the war from the start.

My general understanding is the South wished to secede. There were many differences between that region and the rest of the country, slavery being only one difference. The Deep South continues to be a distinctive region and is more religious than most of the rest of the country.

I read a compelling account of how Grant was an alcoholic and ne'er-do-well for much of his life and attributes that fact as the cause of Grant's decision to be unexpectedly compassionate when he set terms of surrender.

Lee was reluctant to surrender. Surrendering was typically a bad thing.

Grant laid out only three conditions, one of which was "You must let us help you rebuild." This is why there were carpet baggers.

I'm not going to argue this further. As stated above, "from what I have read....etc."

You aren't required to agree with me.

[WorldMaker]

> Some things I have read suggest the civil war didn't start per se over slavery.

What you've read seems to include a lot of Lost Cause lies. Slavery is clearly mentioned in most of the Ordinance of Secession [1] as a fundamental cause, including and especially the first one ratified (by South Carolina [2]).

The decision of the Union to emancipate slaves did come later in the war, but it was what most of the Ordinance of Secession already feared was a likely outcome prior to the war even starting and became a bit of a self-fulfilled prophecy.

You don't have to take my word for it, but it is incredibly well documented by the Southern states themselves how much the Southern states seceded primarily because of slavery. Most of the other "takes" on the war are lies after the fact trying to bury the facts. It's not an argument of opinions, it's a fight between known historic facts versus centuries of later propaganda and subterfuge.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Declaration_of_...

[DoreenMichele]

What you are saying doesn't actually disagree with anything I've said though somehow you want to say that while we both agree the war started because the South wished to secede and the North didn't decide to set a goal of emancipation until later, somehow I'm wrong and you are right.

Slavery being listed as a fundamental reason for secession and their fear that the North would at some point interfere with their self determination in that regard doesn't actually contradict anything I've said.

I'm not pro slavery, but if you believe this is an internal matter and other forces are trying to interfere, it's not unreasonable to conclude that they are being aggressive towards you and you have no choice but to defend yourself.

Them being morally in the wrong on the detail of slavery doesn't mean they were just making stuff up about the North being "aggressive" and trying to interfere.

Deciding to secede due to such interference as a matter of self determination means self determination was per se the issue, not slavery.

[dragonwriter]

> Some things I have read suggest the civil war didn’t start per se over slavery.

It started over slavery for the South, as is clearly laid out in secession documents, founding documents of the confederacy, the Cornerstone Speech, etc.

It started over preserving the Union for the North, but most of the vehemently pro-slavery faction having buggered-off out of the Union during the war, and the provocation of the war itself being a factor, the war also tipped the political balance against slavery.

> My general understanding is the South wished to secede. There were many differences between that region and the rest of the country, slavery being only one difference.

Slavery was the main difference, as the seceding states said fairly explicitly in seceding, but also as even a casual review of the conflicts (both political and violent) leading up to secession makes very clear.

> My general understanding is the South wished to secede.

The slaveholders and their political allies wished to preserve slavery. Some of them chose to secede as a means of doing so.

> The Deep South continues to be a distinctive region and is more religious than most of the rest of the country.

Yes, it remains the seat of power of a large and powerful religious community founded not too long before the Civil War by seceding from a broader national group explicitly over the issue of preserving slavery (the Southern Baptist Convention), very much like the later political secession.

Not sure how that does anything but underline the contemporary (to the Civil War) importance of slavery in the region and how it is foundational to the regions enduring culture and institutions.

[drewcoo]

> One of Grant's failings was trusting too easily.

And a general who trusts too easily, just might possibly trust too readily, sir.

He was no Sherman, but his "governance" of the south led to carpetbaggers and "south shall rise again" BS that remains to this day.

If Lee had won the war or McClellan . . . we would have very different, much stronger ideas of republic today.

[bryanrasmussen]

I mean the whole being strict on the south was not just Grant's view, there were lots of people who wanted it. Johnson evidently wanted to be more lenient but was forced by the Congress to be hard.

As far as McClellan winning the war!! That really moves the alternate history from the realm of Science Fiction to one of Fantasy.

[sonofthesouf]

You have "South Shall Rise Again," at least these days, because folks have disdain towards the Federal apparatus and so the Confederacy makes for an easy monument around which to gather.

Arguably, the reason "the South" is a contentious topic as it stands presently - is a lack of folks being touched by the better angels of our nature. Grant wisely understood that in order to rebuild the nation, one couldn't become punitive towards his erstwhile and future countrymen.

[yardie]

The south had “carpetbaggers” because they were traitors. The federal government sent bureaucrats they could trust to run the government in the south.

[BrotherBisquick]

Exactly. Just like how I'm committing treason against my house by leaving it every morning.

[yardie]

The house is still there. You're just no longer part of it.

[dctoedt]

> He [Grant] was no Sherman, but his "governance" of the south led to carpetbaggers and "south shall rise again" BS that remains to this day.

A while back I read a tweet from an anonymous Army officer: "Sherman should've mowed the deep south like a lawn, making multiple passes"

https://twitter.com/pptsapper/status/1313470161974947843

[themitigating]

"and "south shall rise again"

Are you sure this can't be explained much more easily as pride?

[NoZebra120vClip]

Wikipedia has an interesting paragraph on the circumstances whereby his autobiography will not enter into the Public Domain as scheduled, but later, due to some "gaming the system".

[bryanrasmussen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Memoirs_of_U._S._Gran...

searching for gaming, public domain, and copyright all come up empty - do you have more details.

[lIl-IIIl]

I think that comment was about Twain's autobiography, not Grant's:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_Mark_Twain#....

I remember when it first came out, which was surprisingly recently, in 2010.

They published it in secret in 2001 so that it is not considered "unpublished" and doesn't enter public domain in 2003. Although I don't understand how "publishing in secret" is still considering publishing.

[bryanrasmussen]

hmm, well Twain was quite committed to the idea of perpetual copyright, so seems fitting somehow.