of stories, things like supposedly grant liked his meat well cooked partly because he worked at a tannery. the criticism, there is this blood thirsty general who can't stand the sight of blood. so you get all of this very, very negative, hostile interpretati interpretation. then really around the time of the inner war period, a few british -- important british military writers start to rehabilitate grant and who see him as a more important general and give the interpretation that wigley more or less repeats and what you got is kind of the consensus though there will be people will dispute pieces including myself. but that's more or less the general view. so but you should realize that grant's reputation has ebbed and flowed and i still want you, though, to make a valid judgment but it tends to inspire less debate than lee. i wouldn't be surprised if this class is affected by that. or maybe it isn't. so, why don't we step back after giving you that little bit of context, why don't some of you start flushing out why is grant at least in the reading you got, why is grant a great general? wha