| |

Who kept U.S. Grant sober?By Peter Cozzens | Civil War Times | Single Page | 7 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post Rawlins had just exacted another pledge from Grant not to drink (whether because Grant had been drinking or because Rawlins feared he would is uncertain) when Dana arrived in April. Most in camp were for turning Dana out on his heels, but Rawlins' faith in Grant led him to counsel prudence. He took Dana into his confidence, and the two became warm friends. Dana came to champion Grant, and his support allayed doubts in Washington. Dana had no qualms Grant was a great general, but he also believed that without Rawlins, Grant "would not have been the same man." In Dana's judgment, "Rawlins was one of the most valuable men in the army. He "bossed everything at Grant's headquarters. He had very little respect for persons, and a rough style of conversation. I have heard him curse at Grant when the general was doing something that he thought he had better not do." Subscribe Today
Now a lieutenant colonel, Rawlins had begun to assert himself in matters of strategy. After failed attempts to get below and behind Vicksburg by canal and bayous, Rawlins advocated a bold, direct approach: Run the Vicksburg batteries with gunboats and transports, then ferry troops to the east bank of the Mississippi for a land advance against the city. After careful consideration, Grant adopted the plan over Sherman's objections. The effort succeeded and set the stage for victory. One brief bout with the bottle almost lost Grant Rawlins' services. In early June 1863, the general fell ill, perhaps with a migraine. A doctor at Sherman's headquarters induced Grant to take at least one glass of wine to help ease his pain. A few days later Rawlins found him sipping wine with some staff officers. To make matters worse, Rawlins found a box of wine in front of Grant's tent. Rawlins disposed of it, only to learn that the general had forbidden anyone to remove it; he wanted to pass it around when Vicksburg fell. On the morning of June 6, Rawlins penned a rebuke to Grant. His "great solicitude of this army" compelled him to remind Grant of the general's pledge of abstinence made to him nine months earlier. He added, "You have the full control of your appetite and can let drinking alone." Perhaps his concern was unfounded, Rawlins wrote, but if it was not, and Grant took another drop a liquor, "let my immediate relief from duty in this department be the result." That same night Grant took a steamboat up the Yazoo River with Charles Dana on a reconnaissance. When he returned, rumors circulated that the general had been "stupidly drunk." James H. Wilson, a fellow staff officer and friend of both Rawlins and Grant, scribbled in his diary, "General G. intoxicated." The rumors were apparently unfounded, however, since Rawlins added an endorsement on his own copy of the letter that his admonitions had been heeded, and "all had went well." There was no more talk by Rawlins of Grant's drinking that summer. After Vicksburg a season of quiet descended upon Grant's army. Julia Grant and her children had settled into army headquarters, occupying a large white house belonging to William and Ann Lum. The Lums' Connecticut governess, Mary Emma Hurlbut, soon caught Rawlins' eye. Shy in the presence of women, Rawlins overcame his reserve and proposed. Much to the pleasure of Grant and his wife, Emma accepted. Vicksburg earned Grant a promotion to major general in the Regular Army. His first act was to try to end the political threat posed by McClernand, whom he had removed from corps command in June after the Union setback at Haynes' Bluff. Rawlins traveled to Washington, ostensibly to deliver Grant's report of the Vicksburg Campaign but really to indict McClernand, who, although now under Grant's command, still enjoyed Lincoln's confidence. On July 31, he was Lincoln's guest at a cabinet meeting. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles admired his "frank, intelligent, and interesting descriptions of men and of army operations….The unpolished and unrefined deportment of this earnest and sincere patriot and soldier interested me more than that of almost any other officer whom I have met." Rawlins' arguments convinced Welles, the president and Stanton that Grant was right to remove McClernand. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Copyright © 2010 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
7 Comments to “Who kept U.S. Grant sober?”
This story is factually incorrect. Grant didn't "shuffle around his father's general store". It was a leather store and harness shop. He was the hide buyer, and spent a great deal of his time on the road, traveling up and down the Mississippi, buying the tanned hides that they used to make the harnesses, saddles and other leather items that they sold in the store. The author's errors call into question the veracity of the rest of the story! Do you plan to run a correction?
By Kathleen Webster on Oct 21, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Yup, Ms. Webster, you're right – and I know and knew that. I slipped up in calling it a "general" store. But I stand by the rest. He was a clerk, in name and in fact, when he was not on the road. Matter of where you want to put the emphasis.
I think you're a bit harsh – and engaging in hyperbole – calling into question the veracity of everything in a story because of one error, but that's your privilege of course.
By Peter Cozzens on Nov 14, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Mr. Cozzens doesn't mention the arrival of Buell and the decisive contribution of his army in saving Grant at Shiloh. He downplays Hooker's crucial role in in getting behind Bragg's left flank at Chattanooga. See my page on Stewart's Division's Reports (www.aotc.net/chatt-stewart.htm) to see how the Confederate defenders viewed Hooker's "foundering." He doesn't even refer to his own book on Iuka where he made a very strong case for Grant having been drunk and unable or unwilling to direct Ord to join the battle. And I don't want to hear about acoustic shadow. Ord was about 3 miles away as the crow flies, and Grant was 8 miles away on an evening with no wind at all, according to people present. He doesn't mention Grant's little excursion to New Orleans without Rawlins. The article is a nice portrait of Rawlins, but seems hastily written.
By Bob Redman on Dec 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm
To the moderator who removed my factual and reasoned observations about Cozzen's article, you are a jerk.
By Bob Redman on Dec 4, 2009 at 9:52 pm
I found this to be an interesting and enjoyable article. Not being a Civil War history buff, I can't comment on its historical merits. But the article does seem to shed light on why Grant said so little about Rawlins in his autobiography. Rawlins as loyal aid is one story. Rawlins as Grant's military genius and firebrand is quite another. Great men sometimes become curiously blind to the importance of their subordinates.
That said, it would be incorrect to deny Grant's central role. Rawlins could have done nothing without Grant. As in many cases, it is the fortuitous combination of complementary personalities that created the formidable new entity that decided the War — in this case, Grant, Rawlins, Sherman, and a few others. And let us not forget their chief.
By Mark H. Moulton on Feb 5, 2010 at 4:30 pm