According to Wikipedia, the most famous students who would have been there in 1828 were Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis. Also, the valedictorian from 1929, Charles Mason, was the student with the highest scores ever at the academy. He beat out Lee for valedictorian, with Lee holding the record as the second highest scoring student in academy history. (The third highest scoring student ever was Douglas MacArthur 75 years later.)
I knew that U. S. Grant was also at West Point, but I looked it up and he was there in 1839. A good many of the generals on opposite sides of the Civil War served together in prior conflicts.
I wonder if there’s a book out there that traces their lives from West Point to Appomattox. I found a book recently that did a similar thing with Wellington (following him through his India campaigns) and Napoleon (starting in Egypt.) Although I don’t think they ever met before Waterloo. (Or even if they personally met at all, actually.)
There is a book that tracks both of these men through to Appomattox.
The Generals - Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee ; Authors Nancy Scott Anderson and Dwight Anderson (1989) ; ISBN 0-394-75985-0
My cousin "loaned" me this book years ago. One day I will return it.
It does what you ask - following each man's life from childhood through the surrender at Appomattox and includes a nice bibliography, chapter notes, etc. I found it a fascinating read that offered up so many details one would not expect. For any lover of history this is a great book contrasting two of the most important people in that conflict.
Since we’re off down a rabbit hole anyway, my favourite meetings of rival generals are those between Scipio Africanus and Hannibal. Once before the battle of Zama, and again years later in Ephesus when their military careers were behind them. I think one account is in Polybius and the other Livy.
Not the book you're asking for, but I want to plug Grant's autobiography. It has a sort of "I've already been a general and president so now I can tell you about embarrassing things I did as a kid" charm that is an interesting contrast to typical biographies.
It's pretty surprising how strongly top performance at that institution seems to correlate with accomplishments later in life that are mostly unrelated to academic prowess. That isn't true for regular universities, I think.
I thought so too, and I went to one of the three National Service Academies, so I was taught about a lot of these people directly. Many of the modern top generals were some of the lowest-ranked graduates, and generally took the easiest majors, mostly Political Science. The bottom-ranked leader phenomenon starts with the leaders selected by the cadets themselves, and continues to the top of the ranks. So why was it different back then? There was a stronger emphasis on military science, but they also prided themselves on outperforming Harvard in whatever colleges used to compare each other, so it wasn’t the only focus.
The obvious answer is pretty simple: graduation order determined time-in-rank seniority, so they were considered for promotion before anyone else, and this both continues and compounds throughout their career.
Is there an actual correlation to military performance? Probably, and probably slightly more so for the academy than other schools, because of the way that subjects are taught. I later went to several other name-recognizable universities, and there are large differences in the pace and depth of what is taught and tested, with the academy having a much greater pace over much more material at a much lighter depth, so it’s kind of like testing your ability to take in a lot of information very quickly and react to it, rather than master a domain of knowledge and creatively expand upon it.
There is also a social effect of named leaders to gain support among a cohort, especially in ‘minority’ populations, which are formed by commissioning source in the military officer corps. For example, Westmoreland was “first rat” at The Citadel, which has a much lower admission standard than West Point, but it was a brutal program with fierce advocacy among graduates.
Firstly, it’s a military school and we’re talking about military achievement so the things are hardly unrelated. Secondly, it would be more surprising if there were low or no correlation between their school and military achievements.
I'm surprised that they are not waiting till 2028 to open it. Would be and great PR.
I wonder if the inconclusive X-rays indicated underwhelming contents.
A difficult to x-ray lead box sounds like the ideal use case for neutron imaging.
Finding a time capsule and then opening it at 195 years rather than 200 years seems very much like you just don’t want someone five years from now to get to do it instead of you.
The sealed lead time capsule measuring about one square foot was discovered in the Thaddeus Kosciuszko monument's base during recent renovations. Academy officials determined the capsule was placed in the base of the Kosciuszko monument 26 years after the academy’s founding by cadets in 1828.
This sentence seems to imply that the capsule is from 1854, 26 years after 1828.
> The capsule was found in 2023 when the monument's base was removed from the site.
This is a reminder of how quickly things are forgotten. In this case, the presence of the time capsule was forgotten within the span of less than 200 years. I suppose those who placed the capsule could have done so under complete secrecy. More likely a few people knew about it, but that knowledge just disappeared with those who knew it.
The school that I went to buried a time capsule that was supposed to be opened in 25 years. When that time came around, some of the students present at the burial contacted the school the enquire about the opening, but no one at the school knew anything about it (the staff had all changed within that time) and the burial spot had been built on.
Isn't that the point of time capsules? The quicker we forget about them, the better. Then some event happens and they surface to everybody's excitement.
Lesson learned here is to make sure to add things which won't decay :)
I like to think that, unless there's a plan to open it, forgetting about it is just fine, if not the intent of a time capsule. Makes opening it up all the more exciting.
Putting it in the base of a statue was also smart, instead of burying it somewhere or encasing it in the foundations. Somewhere public and obvious, but still hidden.
The name "time capsule" and the formality around them is a 20th century thing, but people have been hiding messages to future people for as long as we've had the ability to do so.
I don't believe there was any intention to deliver a message to future humans (except maybe "don't rob this grave or else") when they were built. Or at least we don't have any evidence for that.
Readit News
I wonder if there’s a book out there that traces their lives from West Point to Appomattox. I found a book recently that did a similar thing with Wellington (following him through his India campaigns) and Napoleon (starting in Egypt.) Although I don’t think they ever met before Waterloo. (Or even if they personally met at all, actually.)
The Generals - Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee ; Authors Nancy Scott Anderson and Dwight Anderson (1989) ; ISBN 0-394-75985-0
My cousin "loaned" me this book years ago. One day I will return it.
It does what you ask - following each man's life from childhood through the surrender at Appomattox and includes a nice bibliography, chapter notes, etc. I found it a fascinating read that offered up so many details one would not expect. For any lover of history this is a great book contrasting two of the most important people in that conflict.
I haven't read it yet, but have heard it's an enjoyable read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsemanship_of_Ulysses_S._Gra...
The obvious answer is pretty simple: graduation order determined time-in-rank seniority, so they were considered for promotion before anyone else, and this both continues and compounds throughout their career.
Is there an actual correlation to military performance? Probably, and probably slightly more so for the academy than other schools, because of the way that subjects are taught. I later went to several other name-recognizable universities, and there are large differences in the pace and depth of what is taught and tested, with the academy having a much greater pace over much more material at a much lighter depth, so it’s kind of like testing your ability to take in a lot of information very quickly and react to it, rather than master a domain of knowledge and creatively expand upon it.
There is also a social effect of named leaders to gain support among a cohort, especially in ‘minority’ populations, which are formed by commissioning source in the military officer corps. For example, Westmoreland was “first rat” at The Citadel, which has a much lower admission standard than West Point, but it was a brutal program with fierce advocacy among graduates.
Skip the speeches.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
A difficult to x-ray lead box sounds like the ideal use case for neutron imaging.
https://www.phoenixneutronimaging.com/neutron-imaging
Remember Al Capone’s Vault (1986)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mystery_of_Al_Capone%27s_V...
Finding a time capsule and then opening it at 195 years rather than 200 years seems very much like you just don’t want someone five years from now to get to do it instead of you.
Will another ~2.5% of elapsed time really make much of a difference?
Also, why shouldn't the people who discovered it get to open it at this point?
Deleted Comment
This sentence seems to imply that the capsule is from 1854, 26 years after 1828.
This is a reminder of how quickly things are forgotten. In this case, the presence of the time capsule was forgotten within the span of less than 200 years. I suppose those who placed the capsule could have done so under complete secrecy. More likely a few people knew about it, but that knowledge just disappeared with those who knew it.
Lesson learned here is to make sure to add things which won't decay :)
Putting it in the base of a statue was also smart, instead of burying it somewhere or encasing it in the foundations. Somewhere public and obvious, but still hidden.
Quick is subjective.