All Hail Ceaser(Grant)...

[5fish]

In April of 1865, after celebrating the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, and after mourning the death of President Lincoln. General Grant and his staff discuss and decide they must take action and take control of the United States government. General Grant believes he understands and knows how to implement President Lincolns vision of a post-war America. He believes there needs to be a strong ruler in the White house to keep the southern states in line as they return to the union and to expand the nation westward. He and his staff believe America needs a Ceaser to lead America in these trying times and coming challenges.

General Grant marches his army to the banks of the Potomac river demanding the surrender of the United States government to him. What would President Johnson and congress due? Would Sherman and the Union army have followed Grant and make him Ceaser? The American people would have supported him or fight against him? What side would the Southern states support?

So many questions... All Hail Ulysses Grant!! First Emperor, First of his name!

 

[diane]

Sherman was the general who raised Stanton's hackles. He had said he should take his army into Washington and clean the place out, and his army was so loyal to him they would have followed him. Grant, had he been so inclined, could easily have combined with Sherman and the two of them done the job with astonishing ease. Right after the defeat of the South and the death of Lincoln was the time to strike such a blow...had either of them been a Napoleon. These generals had led their armies to victory and those armies were loyal to the core - and didn't much like the new Tennessean president. It was one of those moments in our history where the world holds its breath - would these generals be Napoleons? Americans have a habit of wanting to be lead by victorious generals - they could have done it. BUT - both of them had fought for the Union, to keep the country from becoming a bunch of little squabbling nation-states, to restore it to the order the Founders had established. And...there were still Confederate armies in the field who had not yet surrendered. What would they do at this turn of events?

 

[rittmeister]

Sherman was the general who raised Stanton's hackles. He had said he should take his army into Washington and clean the place out, and his army was so loyal to him they would have followed him. Grant, had he been so inclined, could easily have combined with Sherman and the two of them done the job with astonishing ease. Right after the defeat of the South and the death of Lincoln was the time to strike such a blow...had either of them been a Napoleon. These generals had led their armies to victory and those armies were loyal to the core - and didn't much like the new Tennessean president. It was one of those moments in our history where the world holds its breath - would these generals be Napoleons? Americans have a habit of wanting to be lead by victorious generals - they could have done it. BUT - both of them had fought for the Union, to keep the country from becoming a bunch of little squabbling nation-states, to restore it to the order the Founders had established. And...there were still Confederate armies in the field who had not yet surrendered. What would they do at this turn of events?

says it all

 

[5fish]

What would they do at this turn of events?

So I assume we are all for the military take over of the government as General Hooker proposed...

says it all

WE are ready 15plus years of Grant's rule instead of the 8 he did have...

 

[diane]

Who said anything about us? Generals don't usually ask the public if they want to be taken over!

Now Hooker had an interesting blurt of bravado, which Lincoln knew to be that which is why he said he'd take his chances. It was letting Hooker know - better be sure. The most interesting scenario was the Confederate dictator. Robert E Lee was surprised when a group of Confederate congressmen asked him to become dictator - we really need one! Fact was, they did. Too many mules pulling different directions, too many states going or threatening to go their own ways, too many supplies being withheld, too many generals playing musical chairs. What we need, General Lee, is a benevolent dictator! It was not too long ago the US had had a king. most countries did have one or something like one - dictator meant something different to them in that time than it does to us today.

 

[5fish]

What we need, General Lee, is a benevolent dictator!

If grant had crossed the Potomac and declared himself Great leader, I wonder what generals would have lined up to face Grant in battle as a civil war broke out. I wonder which states would have supported Grant power grab and which ones would field armies against him...

 

[diane]

If grant had crossed the Potomac and declared himself Great leader, I wonder what generals would have lined up to face Grant in battle as a civil war broke out. I wonder which states would have supported Grant power grab and which ones would field armies against him...

Sherman, for one. McClellan, Hooker, Rosecrans for sure, George Thomas - there were a lot who would not stand for a general going rogue! (If Sherman had done it, Grant would have come for him.)