Why is Grant on the $50 bill?

[Arrian]

Vicksburg was pretty smart, you've gotta give Grant that.

Defense also had the advantage at the time. You can certainly argue that Grant's tactics resulted in too many casualties, but given the alternative (McClellan, who just wouldn't engage), whaddya gonna do?

Besides, didn't Lee get his ass handed to him on the few occasions he attempted offensive operations? The man was clearly excellent on defense, but like I said defense had the advantage, so Lee's greatness may be magnified by that. He gets points for having all manner of supply problems and for being consistently outnumbered, though.

-Arrian

[Capt Dizle]

Grant was relentless and decisive. I just don't see a lot of evidence of particular skill or brilliance. His campaign against Vicksburg entailed many poorly conceived actions prior to success.

Mr. Fun is also relentless with his trolls here but I for one am not going to play the trout. Like Grant, he is awkward and fumble-some and lacking finesse.

The Wehrmacht, yes Germany produced more than a couple of world class military leaders and they should be respected for their professional abilities separate from other issues.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Defense also had the advantage at the time. You can certainly argue that Grant's tactics resulted in too many casualties, but given the alternative (McClellan, who just wouldn't engage), whaddya gonna do?

Besides, didn't Lee get his ass handed to him on the few occasions he attempted offensive operations? The man was clearly excellent on defense, but like I said defense had the advantage, so Lee's greatness may be magnified by that. He gets points for having all manner of supply problems and for being consistently outnumbered, though.

Indeed. Lee had with him a genius in defensive military strategy in General Longstreet. Longstreet was all for hunkering down in a defensive posture and forgoing attacking. It was Lee's insistance on attacking in 1863 which got him in big trouble. Gettysburg was the most famous example of Lee trying to go on the offensive and failing. Of course, some would argue that if Lee had Jackson, it may have worked. True, but doesn't that say that Jackson was the great general and not Lee?

Grant and Sherman had figured out how to win the war on the offensive. They had to forces to use and would send massive amounts of them in order to beat back the defensive superiority of the Confederates. The final campaign of the Army of the Potomic was a masterstroke. Grant, even after losing battles, pushed onwards, forcing Lee back and back until they were contained at Appomatox.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Arrian
Vicksburg was pretty smart, you've gotta give Grant that.

Defense also had the advantage at the time. You can certainly argue that Grant's tactics resulted in too many casualties, but given the alternative (McClellan, who just wouldn't engage), whaddya gonna do?

Besides, didn't Lee get his ass handed to him on the few occasions he attempted offensive operations? The man was clearly excellent on defense, but like I said defense had the advantage, so Lee's greatness may be magnified by that. He gets points for having all manner of supply problems and for being consistently outnumbered, though.

-Arrian

Actually, no, you are not correct in this assessment. Lee practiced the offensive defensive during the early parts of the war. Later, when he could no longer muster sufficient forces relative to the Yanks did he resort to purely defensive operations.

The Battle of Chancellorsville is a good example. Jackson of course is often credited with these excellant offensive operations but Lee was always a general in control of his army and should be credited with the strategic success without taking away Jackson's unequaled performance.

Lee's abilities far eclipse that of Grant. One should not dismiss the fact that Lee was offered the Yankee command by Scott. The old general knew best and if you want to cast a cloud on Lee, don't do it by attacking his reputation as the best general of the war, do it on the grounds that if he had taken control of the Northern forces it would have saved at least 50% of the eventual casualties as any reasonable projection would have him defeating Southern forces in much less time...possibly within 8-9 months of the commencement of real hostilities.

[Capt Dizle]

dp

[chequita guevara]

I don't think Vicksburg was all that brilliant. It's not the height of genius to surround a city and starve it into surrender.

[Arrian]

I was under the impression that at one stage, Grant had a large group of troops just bypass Vicksburg, march inland (leaving their supply line behind) and defeat a relief force marching to help the Vicksburg defenders. That part I thought was smart, and unorthodox.

-Arrian

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Defense also had the advantage at the time. You can certainly argue that Grant's tactics resulted in too many casualties, but given the alternative (McClellan, who just wouldn't engage), whaddya gonna do?

Besides, didn't Lee get his ass handed to him on the few occasions he attempted offensive operations? The man was clearly excellent on defense, but like I said defense had the advantage, so Lee's greatness may be magnified by that. He gets points for having all manner of supply problems and for being consistently outnumbered, though.

Indeed. Lee had with him a genius in defensive military strategy in General Longstreet. Longstreet was all for hunkering down in a defensive posture and forgoing attacking. It was Lee's insistance on attacking in 1863 which got him in big trouble. Gettysburg was the most famous example of Lee trying to go on the offensive and failing. Of course, some would argue that if Lee had Jackson, it may have worked. True, but doesn't that say that Jackson was the great general and not Lee?

Grant and Sherman had figured out how to win the war on the offensive. They had to forces to use and would send massive amounts of them in order to beat back the defensive superiority of the Confederates. The final campaign of the Army of the Potomic was a masterstroke. Grant, even after losing battles, pushed onwards, forcing Lee back and back until they were contained at Appomatox.

Well, I think you are wrong on almost all points but it would be senseless to debate. The victors write the history and of course Yankee generals will come off far better in that light than they actually were.

I will make some comments. Lee's campaign in 1863 was based on the hope that a victory in the north might bring about peace. The backdrop was this, Lee had trounced the Yanks time and time again in the fighting in Virginia. There was a sizeable segment in the North that clammered for peace. At a war council Lee argued that the chances for victory would be greater by invading the north than by shifting resources to defend Vicksburg. Lee felt strongly that the South did not have the resources to win out over the long haul and even if Grant had been forstalled in Miss he (or another General) would have only come back the next year.

In opting to take the long shot Lee probaby made the right decision. And, at Gettysburg, he took other long shots on the second and third day because he believed it would take a longshot to win the war.

I can't equate Grant's methodical meatgrinder with any sort of mastery, but I agree that it was effective and irresistable.

[mrmitchell]

Arrian

Vicksburg was pretty smart, you've gotta give Grant that.

What che said.

Defense also had the advantage at the time. You can certainly argue that Grant's tactics resulted in too many casualties, but given the alternative (McClellan, who just wouldn't engage), whaddya gonna do?

You have a good point. Grant was better than McClellan. However, running across a field of hot lava is better than being torn apart and eaten by a hungry crowd of sharks.

Capt Dizzle

Lee's abilities far eclipse that of Grant. One should not dismiss the fact that Lee was offered the Yankee command by Scott. The old general knew best and if you want to cast a cloud on Lee, don't do it by attacking his reputation as the best general of the war, do it on the grounds that if he had taken control of the Northern forces it would have saved at least 50% of the eventual casualties as any reasonable projection would have him defeating Southern forces in much less time...possibly within 8-9 months of the commencement of real hostilities.

I don't wish to drag us into an "alternate history" threadjack, but the consequences of the war would have been dramatically different if the Confederate states had fallen within a few months, and probably for the worse, in the long run.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


Actually, no, you are not correct in this assessment. Lee practiced the offensive defensive during the early parts of the war. Later, when he could no longer muster sufficient forces relative to the Yanks did he resort to purely defensive operations.

The Battle of Chancellorsville is a good example. Jackson of course is often credited with these excellant offensive operations but Lee was always a general in control of his army and should be credited with the strategic success without taking away Jackson's unequaled performance.

Lee's abilities far eclipse that of Grant. One should not dismiss the fact that Lee was offered the Yankee command by Scott. The old general knew best and if you want to cast a cloud on Lee, don't do it by attacking his reputation as the best general of the war, do it on the grounds that if he had taken control of the Northern forces it would have saved at least 50% of the eventual casualties as any reasonable projection would have him defeating Southern forces in much less time...possibly within 8-9 months of the commencement of real hostilities.

I'm not arguing that Grant was in the same league as Lee. No way. I do not think Grant was a genius. He simply understood he had the numbers to win if he refused to let up. Nothing brilliant there, but it was effective.

I'm aware that Lee was great at using tactical offense to help win strategically defensive battles. But when he launched strategic offensives, they failed, did they not? I don't recall the specifics, but I thought he lost some minor battles trying to retake West Virginia early in the war, too.

That doesn't mean he wasn't a great general. It might mean he wasn't quite all he's been made out to be.

And as for the winners writing the history... well, the American Civil War might be the exception to that particular rule. It seems to me that Confederate apologists have had their say and then some.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

I don't wish to drag us into an "alternate history" threadjack, but the consequences of the war would have been dramatically different if the Confederate states had fallen within a few months, and probably for the worse, in the long run.

But that could be a fun threadjack!

[Imran Siddiqui]

And as for the winners writing the history... well, the American Civil War might be the exception to that particular rule. It seems to me that Confederate apologists have had their say and then some.

That was going to be my retort as well . Grant was a GOOD general, but the Confederates want to make him out as some hack that wouldn't have done jack if he was in the ANV. It isn't true, he was a good general. Perhaps he wasn't as good as Longstreet, Lee, or Jackson, but it doesn't diminish things.

Lee has been constantly overrated for leading the Lost Cause, and while he was very good, he wasn't the be all and end all (that was Jackson ).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
Grant was relentless and decisive. I just don't see a lot of evidence of particular skill or brilliance. His campaign against Vicksburg entailed many poorly conceived actions prior to success.

Mr. Fun is also relentless with his trolls here but I for one am not going to play the trout. Like Grant, he is awkward and fumble-some and lacking finesse.

The Wehrmacht, yes Germany produced more than a couple of world class military leaders and they should be respected for their professional abilities separate from other issues.

Well then don't start the trolls by using such stupid words like "War of Northern Agression" when you can be more fair and objective by calling it for what the war was -- the Civil War.

Also, do not use stupid trolls like comparing Grant with Nazi officers of Germany during World War II.

[MrFun]

And yeah Imran -- Lee has been overrated ad nauseam.


He had tunnel vision when it came to envisioning war strategy beyond the borders of his state, Virginia. He also disregarded advice of lower ranking officers such as during the battle of Gettysburg. He was a human being -- not a deity or a god.

[Arrian]

Ok, my understanding of Lee's role in West Virginia appears to have been wrong. He didn't do anything particularly distinguished, but neither was he soundly beaten:

Gen. Robert E. Lee directed his first offensive of the war against Brig. Gen. Joseph Reynolds's entrenchments on the summit of Cheat Mountain and in the Tygart Valley. The Confederate attacks were uncoordinated, however, and the Federal defense was so stubborn that Col. Albert Rust (leading the attacks) was convinced that he confronted an overwhelming force. He actually faced only about 300 determined Federals. Lee called off the attack and, after maneuvering in the vicinity, withdrew to Valley Head on September 17. In October, Lee renewed operations against Laurel Mountain with the troops of Floyd and Loring, but the operation was called off because of poor communication and lack of supplies. Lee was recalled to Richmond on October 30 after achieving little in western Virginia.

(from americancivilwar.com)

-Arrian