Longstreet knew Grant., Longstreet Robert E. Lees’s right hand man was cousin to Grant’s wife Julia. Longstreet attended their wedding in St Louis after the Mexican war. Joseph E. Johnston, Simon B. Buckner confederate officers were Pallbearers at President Grant’s funeral. He had the largest funeral procession even larger than President Lincoln. He was a war hero by all accounts. He was a decent family husband and father. He was soft spoken and quiet. Well read. He was considered a horse whisper ..he had that calm demeanor that horses respected it started when he was a toddler. He drank but he only weighed about 120 pounds during the Civil War he was only 5’8” tall. It didn’t take much to get him drunk. However he did not stay drunk constantly. He drank when his wife was not with him to calm his stress. She took care of his terrible headaches. She always had a way because of their closeness made him calmer She traveled with him always where ever he went. His staff loved her too. She would leave her children with Grants parents who lived in Covington Ky ..they attended school there. She was with him in the Overland Campaign, Vicksburg, Tennessee, many areas in the south one of his oldest boys travelled with him too. He smoked cigars ..people found he smoked them they sent him boxes and boxes during the war. He died of throat cancer. Mark Twain was a very close friend. Helped Grant publish his memoirs with a fair book deal. So his wife would be taken care of after his death at age 63. Before he died after his WH presidency him and Julia and the youngest son world tour Europe., Scotland, visited and had dinner with Queen Victoria. Visited Belgium, France, Italy, Russia, China’s emperor, Japan and its emperor, the Middle East Egypt. He was highly sought after to have him visit wined and dined treated like a hero all around the world. History tries to only remember in the south that classified him as a butcher. However Robert E. Lee and president Lincoln knew he would fight not run away and give up like the previous battles of the Potomac Union Generals. Lincoln was thrilled to have him…raised to him to head of all of the Union Forces in the end. A five star general which was only awarded to Washington, Grant and Pershing. It was actually a 6 star general without the extra star. Grant played a large part in the ending of the civil war. He was not a coward. He had many horses shot from under him during the war. Robert E. Lee surrendered after he ran Confederate President Jefferson Davis out of Richmond the capital. That was the worst blow for morale. All supply lines were cut rail lines had been destroyed by Sherman’s bow ties left where ever he went. The south fell under General Sherman and all of Grants’s Generals, Troops and officers. The confederate General Law and his retelling just had to make a non hero out of Grant. General Lee never said such things after the war about Grant. Grant let the Confederate soldiers keep their rifles and horses if they belonged to them. He would not let his union troops jeer are cheer the loss of Robert E, Lees troops out of respect. Lee tipped his hat at Grant before he rode away from Appomattox. He also got to keep his sword. Robert E. Lee was treated with respect and honor on the day of surrender by General Grant and his staff. What a butcher and dumb man only a jealous person remembers him with those words. War is hell and troops will die it is unavoidable.
Great summary. I remember reading somewhere comments Longstreet allegedly made where he chastised a fellow confederate general who did not know Grant and was speaking ill of him that Grant will never stop fighting until he has nothing left to fight with and that the south was doomed. The recent book about Twain and Grant is a great one if you’ve not read it. And Grant’s and Sherman’s personal memoirs are two of my all time favorite books. Thanks again for your comments
I finished Chernow’s Grant last spring. Grant is my new favoriteAmerican, I live in northern-ish Virginia so I love to go find places where Grant was- wilderness Campaign, culpeper cthouse, where he had his first field office; most things within an hour! His love of horses was also admirable and though fellow student tried to trick him, he really couldn’t be tricked when he was tested on horseback at Westpoint.
An apt and judicious assessment of one of our greatest generals, who succeeded where a chain of predecessors failed. RIP President Grant. I salute you every time I pass your tomb. His autobiography was one the most widely published books in the world of his day.
The Generals who fought Lee before would get beaten by him -then retreat .and regroup .Grant once he engaged Lee at the Wilderness never let up and kept Lee off balance by constantly attacking and punching.
Every commander who presses attacks, keeping pressure on the enemy, suffers great losses. Grant, , Ike, Patton, Chesty Puller, and others. A Total war strategy, a no holds barred grab'em by the nose, and kick em in the ass approach wears down an opponent who cannot resupply or recover from his losses, because of the constant pressure applied against him. That was the only way to beat Lee and the South. I'm a Southern Man, with Confederate family members who served back then, and a Marine Veteran, and I believe in that approach in war. You don't play the enemies game, and dance with him, you beat him senseless, harass him constantly, and never let up until he is dead or surrenders. Just as in the coming invasion of Japan in 1945, a commander has to ask himself, how many casualties will I sustain if I drag this out, against losses if I keep the pressure on, and do the hardest thing. To let Lee go, and resupply and maneuver at will, would have been far more costly. Timidity among previous commanders hadn't gotten the North anywhere, So Grant brought what he knew to the fight. Total war. He screwed up a time or two, he sure did, but, the strategy was sound.
Yes. Entering the Civil War the range, rate, and lethality of weapons was swiftly improving which greatly enhanced being on the defense. Grant and the North were almost always on the offense and in Southern territory. Lee and the South had two large campaigns into Northern territory, Antietam and Gettysburg, and both ended in massive causalities and retreats. Grant suffered large losses in the East, but his strategy pinned Lee's forces in the East enabling Sherman to destroy Georgia and end the South's hopes and capability of winning the war or even a favorable negotiated outcome.
I too consider myself to be a southern man and I too have strong connections with the Confederate army. The difference between us is that I went into the Army but I do have an uncle and a grandfather who went into the Marines. Grant’s way of waging war was the only way the North could eventually win this war. From his endeavors our country produced the Generals (and Colonels, LTC’s, Maj’s and Cpt’s) who went on to win WWI and WWII. We must have lost something in those ranks when it came to Korea and Viet Nam. We almost got it all back when it came to Iraq, but lost it all again when it came to Afghanistan (although I really believe those wars had way too much political interference when it came to war fighting). I know all wars are political but once the politicians fail to keep the peace and they send in the troops they need to let the Generals do their thing until it is actually over.
I tend to believe that Grant's strategy and tactics were borne of his experience prior to the war as well. His tenacious approach reflected his years of ups and downs, good fortune and bad - both in the military and not. He was nothing if not ultimately tough and used to a long haul. I think his unique ability as a general came to the fore in part due to fate. His specific POV, capacity for endurance, familiarity with struggle and his resilient spirit were a strong match to the hour and need. He seems to exemplify the concept of perseverance over perfection. Great video - thanks!
@@spumpstein9374 My thoughts too regarding Grant's character, the factors responsible for how it was developed and the importance of chance or, as you put it, "fate" is in having the right person show up at the right time. In all these things, good fortune is so important, like having Sherman as a close and supportive friend, Meade as commander of the AOP and Rawlins, his aid de camp, who kept him on the "straight and narrow." I would add one more thing, I think Grant's deep attachment to, affection for and skill with horses taught him early in his life to suppress his fears and never show them, always be calm in upsetting situations and quietly assert mastery and confidence over potentially chaotic and dangerous situations. When dealing with spirited horses, the worst thing you can be, is afraid and the worst thing you can do is use brute force and inflict pain to "make" a panicked or otherwise emotionally upset animal "behave" --- we know that it just won't work, but many others will resort to it.
Patton's casualities were actually low relative to the German Army. Around 170,000 to German forces that 3rd Army faced around 1.5 million most of those captured. Grant used the right strategy. But wrong tactics. Very heavy losses which should not have happened given how poorly equipped, supplied and outnumbered the Confederate armies were,. The war should have been over in 2 years tops, not ,4.
To all those who cite Cold Harbor as "proof" of Grant as butcher, there is a definitive reply: "The Vicksburg Campaign." He risked his army's annihilation as much as did Lee in before Antietam, while tying up and mystifying numerous Confederate generals and succeeding brilliantly. He was the only person who had a realistic grand strategy for marshalling all of the North's capabilities towards ending the war (and that arguably includes Halleck). Not even Napoleon, for all his gifts, actually displayed that kind of long-term vision over so wide an area (and yes of course the challenges were barely similar). Lee was at least as much of a butcher as Grant - Gettysburg day 3, for one example - but could afford the bill far less. Grant is my nominee for America's greatest solider.
Grant, as a "butcher," 7:58 is belied by the statistics. While Grant fought a largely offensive war, his troops incurred far fewer, by percentages and numbers, casualties than Lee's. If Lee were the strategic genius, the Southern mythology proposes him to be, he needed only to hold off the Union. And if Lee had listened to Longstreet, at Gettysburg, we might well be living in a very different country today.
The USA has been blessed with numerous brilliant, successful soldiers. There is really no such thing as GOAT in almost anything - except perhaps J S Bach. Arguably, Lincoln was our greatest soldier. He was Commander-In-Chief and without him both slavery and secession would have succeeded.
I am sorry to correct you. Grant did not have a strategy of any kind. The strategy for the North was the Anaconda Plan which was developed by Winfield Scott and controlled and carried out by Lincoln and Halleck. Grant was just the general, like Lincoln and Halleck that understood the math. Grant was just carrying out the battlefield tactics dictated by the Anaconda Plan. Grant understood just as Lee did that only a lot of blood was going to end the war. The only thing Lee and the South could hope for was to inflict enough damage to the Union Army to cause the North to lose faith in their cause.
@@ambrosephill9 With all due respect, no. Anaconda was overwhelmingly a naval plan and it envisioned a slow strangulation of the South via denial of access to water, largely because, after 1st Bull Run, Halleck and Scott wanted to avoid further major bloodlettings. Anaconda envisioned taking Vicksburg but it didn't stipulate how - in fact, Halleck left it to Grant to develop the (brilliant) strategy for the campaign. It did not envision Grant's shift to what became known as "hard war" beginning with the right turn after the Wilderness, or his coordination of armies culminating in Missionary Ridge, or Sherman's Atlanta Campaign. That was Grant, Grant, Grant, and Grant.
I don't think Lee knew what was going to happen on day 3 of Gettysburg. If he did he would have done something different. Cold harbor with Grant was a different matter. But Grant knew he would bleed Lee at Cold Harbor as well and Grant could take it and replace losses. Lee could not. That is why the Union stopped prisoner exchanges at that point in the war. The south needed the men worse than the North did. You can be a butcher and still be smart that's why the word ruthless was invented.
Grant was smart enough to realize in order to win, the North would have to do a death grip on Lee's army and not let go, no matter how many casualties.
Right strategy. But wrong tactics. To incur massive losses while being the larger, better equpped and supplied army and having to go at it for almost a year must be really be saying something. The war itself should have been over within two years, not four. Was the Confederate Army really that good?
I think the proper Lincoln quote: “I cannot spare this man. He fights! Grant’s Vicksburg Campaign should have gotten more notice from his adversaries. A real consideration for the Overland Campaign was Lincoln’s need to show results to the North leading up to the 1864 Election.
Yes - especially so given that was an age in which the advantages almost always lay with a dug in defender armed with rifled muskets that could reach out and kill at half a mile.
@@mirrorblue100 Half a mile, I doubt that most people might be accurate at 250 yards and an expert might be able to hit a man-sized target at 500 yards. But a half a mile, you have been watching the Chris Kyle story to many times.
As far as the 1864 election, the biggest mistake the South made was relieving Joe Johnston, John Bell Hood was personally brave and could handle troops in sizes from a division or smaller, but a whole army. I think not. Jefferson Davis might have thought that Hood's aggressiveness would tip the balance against Sherman, but Sherman had a much larger force. If the Atlanta campaign had been a stalemate or a seize of Atlanta. Then maybe Lincoln might have lost the election and then the war. But no Hood thought he was fighting in the East against Generals who were not willing to sacrifice all their men. Sherman like Grant did not care about the losses and expected Lincoln to support them and reman and resupply them.
@@ambrosephill9 You don't understand that just because you miss your intended target doesn't mean the ball doesn't strike in the rear echelon - and that man is still dead whether he was the intended target or not. Moreover - troops were not dispersed during this war - so large units could be taken under fire at long ranges. A half mile is roughly 1000 yards and the balls in use then could kill at that range. And I have no idea who Chris Kyle is.
Yes and if Jefferson Davis had left Joe Johnston in command in Georgia. Johnston would have at least forced Sherman to besiege him in Atlanta. If Johnston could hang on to Atlanta after the election. Then Lincoln might have lost and McClellan might have become President and sued for peace.
I read in one of Shelby Foot's books that after the Battle of the Wilderness when the troops were mustered to march they all cheered when the order came down to march south and not north like all the previous generals had done. Before Grant all the generals would just go back home after a battle to lick their wounds and get ready to do it again which had proved to be a failed strategy over and over again. Apparently the troops knew this before the generals did.
@@Conn30Mtenor Grant was not an alcoholic.!A Norwegian artist who was staying with Grant. Lincoln had commissioned him to paint a large work of his top generals on horseback. After 6 weeks Ole Bolling asked for a drink. Grant responded that he had none. He told the artist that he had been slandered during his time in the army, and so kept no alcohol. I believe his statement because he was an honorable man. He has another problem. He could not hold his liquor. With just one drink, he would slur his speech. The second drink left him holding onto the furniture. He also had what I know all about. Severe migraine headaches, lasting 3 days, with vomiting. As in a hangover, you are in bed and block out light. Throughout his life he drank little or none. In the White House, he was know to take just a sip of champagne and did not finish his glass. He was a family man. He loved Julia and his 4 boys, and 1 daughter. When he was with his family all of his life, he hardly ever drank. There is much more to say in this topic. BTW, he did not “ feel sorry for himself.”
@arturbello4213he had outmaneuvered Lee at nearly every turn. He made it impossible for Lee to effectively counter-attack. If Lee hadn’t bled the CSA dry with useless and ill advised battles (let’s not forget Lee’s useless and stupid attack on the third day of Gettysburg, which saw the needless slaughter of his own troops), the CSA would have been in a better position. Also, Grant understood how logistics won wars while Lee considered logistics a nuisance. If Lee understood logistics like Grant did, the war may have likely turned out differently.
Grant used overwhelming numbers to win the war. That's how you win, you capitalize on your advantages. As the saying goes, " If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!"
The Southern criticism of Grant was because they felt generalship was about gallantry and honor; whereas Grant fought the war as more of an administrator and coordinator. From the moment Grant started his Overland Campaign he maintained the initiative on all fronts, and denied the South's attempts to take the initiative from him. Grant grappled with Lee's army and ran it to ground. Grant forced Lee to fight the war on Grant's terms. The South could not realize how badly they were pinned because the war did not look like what they expected a war to be.
It took Grant less than 2 months to Bottle up Lee and for all intents, took him out of the war. The thing that Grant understood was if he could take out Lee the war would be over.
Grant and Sherman were the first understanding of modern warfare. Well, Longstreet understood it as well- so he mastered trench warfare to stay alive as long as possible.
@DLYChicago Sheridan's Shenandoah Campaign did more damage to the Confederacy's food supply and morale than Sherman's march through Georgia and South Carolina. THAT is saying something.
If you have read Bonekemper's book on Grant and Lee, Grant had a total casualty count, killed, wounded or captured, of 154,000 while inflicting 191,000 casualties on the South. Lee incurred 209,000 casualties while inflicting 240,000 on the North. I would point out that Grant fought a vigorous and aggressive war throughout the West, while Lee ignored the Southern Defensive strategy with two disastrous assaults on the North at Antietam and Gettysburg where he was lucky to save any of Army. Then he was fighting a defensive war on his home ground with excellent interior lines and the ability to mass his forces quickly for any threat. He still ended up with 55,000 more casualties. And Grant was the butcher?
Being out gunned and out numbered will yield a higher number of KIA’s and wounded to one’s army. Lee saw the writing on the wall, and knew it was a matter of time before the industrial strength and superior number of men in the north would eventually overwhelm the south. He, I believe, wanted to win on northern soil to keep the momentum in the souths favor, and to put political pressure on the north for a possible treaty. It would also demonstrate legitimacy for the south and possible recognition by other western powers in Europe. I could be wrong though, but I feel he thought he had a window of opportunity to act before the industrial might, wealth, and man power of the north defeated the south. Which it eventually did. Tactics and good men win battles. However, Logistics and resources usually wins wars. I think Lee knew this, and took a gamble with the offense. I Know Longstreet favored the defensive strategy, and he was correct at Gettysburg. I once thought that way too, but I think Lee had a good understanding of the overall dynamic at play. For me, it’s easy to look back, with 20/20 hindsight, from a 21st century perspective on a 19th century conflict. For me, I’ll give the Generals respect for understanding their century better than me I think.
@@ml5955 The "good interior lines" means that Lee could move troops to an area quickly, so he generally wasn't fighting outnumbered or out gunned. Lee had 20,000 reported casualties at Gettysburg and historians estimate his real total between 23,000 and 28,000. That means 35,000 to 40,000 total for his two Offensive moves against the North. If he had faced an aggressive commander at Antietam, he would have lost his Army and only the weather preserved it at Gettysburg.
Lee and Grant had two different strategic goals. Grant's goal was to take and hold territory, denying it to the South. By contrast, Lee's goal was to inflict such sharp defeats on the North so that they would give up the war. The reason for this is the massive disparity in force. The South never could, nor were ever inclined towards taking and holding Northern Territory. They just wanted the North to stop invading. Also, Lee spent more time in the Eastern theater where the army sizes were larger, which accounts for part of the casualties disparity.
@@pathfinderlight I would say the Grant fought a Strategic War where the outcome of a single battle wasn't important as long as his Army could advance. Lee was looking for that single battle that would change the outcome. By the time of the Civil War, technology probably had made that obsolete. Even during the Overland Campaign, Grant would just move his Army to the Confederate right if he couldnot break though in a location and Lee had to follow him, just as Johnson had been forced to follow Sherman to Atlanta.
@@ml5955The South wasn't outgunned. That's a myth that Southerners told themselves for cope. Prior to the war, the Buchanan administration moved the vast majority of guns and ammo south, and tue first act of secession was taking hundreds of forts protected with skeleton crews that had most of the country's weapons. The North was at an ammunition deficit for well after Gettysburg.
In all of the portraits of Grant, including this one, you can see the eyes and look of a man that has seen much hardship and reverses in life. Grant well understands the difficulties and failures that happen and has great compassion for those who have struggled throughout their lives. Yet every time he was knocked down, including the last year of his life, he got up and carried on, doing the best he could with what he had. Grant is a personal hero for me and someone I try, in my own little world, to emulate.
@@67gneissguy I agree completely. If you're interested, read his "Memoirs". They are high in the top tier of civil war memoirs. They will have you staying up at night reading through them to find our how the civil war ended. They are That Good. Also re-read his surrender terms to Lee. In a few moments with no coaching, editing, politicians saying OOOH you can't do that, you must say this, he drafted out one of the most important documents in all of American history. The last of the few sentences was crucial: "That being accomplished, the men are free to return home, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in the jurisdiction where they reside." Truly a Great Man
I was the ops manager for origins 79 & 80. The American Civil War was one of my primary areas of interest. I'm a Yankee by birth and by predilection, and since at the time you had so many lost cause types who always wanted to play the Confederates, well a good union opponent was appreciated. Over the past several decades I have done a fair amount of reading of not just the popular texts, but many of the academic texts that I could purchase at half Price books just outside Ohio State University until that store was shut down. There's a bias of the time, which listening to the narration was highlighted for me just now. Grant was an excellent operational general, like Lee. What kind of "generalship" is that? Tactically he was good, and even more importantly he understood the qualities of his commanders such that most of the people he recommended for promotion did well. For the commander of an army, that is very important. Strategically, it's not that he was brilliant in the way of two other commanders we think of for that, Lee and Sherman. But he had a different kind of brilliance. He was very clear headed, and he adjusted his approach constantly by watching what worked, and what didn't. That is why his wilderness campaign was so bloody. Lee had ended up with a command staff that, through a combination of his own choices of subordinates to promote, and serendipity of starting with some excellent generals under him, was excellent. He had also grown complacent by the time of Gettysburg, which frankly was one of his worst campaigns. Grant was not going to have one of his western battles where he could hold his losses to roughly the same as the Confederates, or slightly higher. Considering the huge advantage of manpower, from a strategic level doing this an unequivocal, crushing strategic victory, especially when you consider that Grant had crushed the Confederates on the battlefield too, and followed through taking substantial strategically critical territory for the Confederacy. But Grant didn't need a crushing strategic victory that way against Lee. Against Lee, Grant took the worst losses of any Union general fighting a campaign at that level. But the thing is, that was still an unequivocal victory. Grant could take three to one losses and still win, assuming Lincoln could get reelected if that had happened. Grant was aware of this, he hated the losses he was taking - but he had to pin Lee. Even if Grant could not slowly push Lee back, which is exactly what he did, he had to keep large numbers of troops being transferred to the Atlanta campaign. Which he did, and Sherman (remember my note about choosing good commanders) rewarded him richly for it. And probably saved Lincoln's reelection. So pinning Lee's army, and engaging in a deliberate war of attrition, was the path to victory AT THIS POINT IN THE WAR. Grant hated the losses he was taking, but knew for the sake of the war he could not back off. The losses Grant took were the cost of grinding the army of Northern Virginia down until it was combat ineffective, while pinning those forces so Sherman could split the Confederacy in two, all the while causing the total failure of the Confederate logistics system, which to be honest was already in terrible shape. So Grant kept the pressure up. He paid for it in casualties, but that was the cost of victory. As an interesting aside, the historian narrating this makes a very interesting point. He does not use the terms tactical, operational, and strategic very much. That's because though they were not the common parlance of the time. This was all about generalship, which was talked about as a generic capability, and not split up as it is today. So Grant pursuing a simple and straightforward strategic vision that won the war means that, as far as Law and many others were concerned concerned, grant's generalship wasn't "good". Lee out maneuvered him at times, caused him to take heavier losses, and handed Grant a simple and straightforward, albeit extremely expensive, solution. Grant took it, and History shows us who turned out to be right.
I have to quibble a bit with your characterizations of strategic vs operational vs tactical capabilities of various generals. I think Lee was not primarily a strategic general. Tactically brilliant. On a given battlefield he was formidable. And operationally he shrewdly used his advantage of interior lines to flummox the Union for years. Strategically, however, he seemed to fail to see the big picture that Grant saw. Alternatively, perhaps he saw it but knew he had no counter to it so he did what he could with the resources available to him. But that is unknowable.
@@cleanwillie1307 Not nitpicking at all, in fact I agree with you. That's why my exact statement was "Strategically, it's not that he was brilliant in the way of two other commanders we think of for that, Lee and Sherman." I did NOT want to turn my first post into a target for the Lost Cause types. Lee was very strong strategically in his choices of defensive lines, maneuver and counterattacks out of those lines, and then understanding where the Union had vulnerabilities. But the one thing he and most of the Confederate generals did not understand was that there were virtually no battles where the Confederates maintained a casualty ratio with the union that would permit them to survive a longer war. Grant was always sensitive to casualties, which is why when he made blunders (versus mistakes) like Cold Harbor and Shiloh, he did not repeat them. He only started taking losses at 1.5 to even as high as 2 to 1, in the wilderness campaign. But he didn't take them inadvertently, he had decided to turn the wilderness into a meat grinder. Both directly and indirectly it devastated the Army of Northern Virginia. But Grant had Lincoln while Lee was stuck with Jefferson Davis. When your boss is that terrible, It does limit what you can do. When your strategic position before the war is also that compromised, maybe you should delay your revolt a little bit longer...
Grant was the first General to coordinate all Union armies working together at one time for an overall victory. No Confederate army could come to Lee's help due to being engaged in combat themselves. AND during the same time Sherman was marching through Georgia and the Carolina,'s. Grant saw the overall strategy.
That is a great comment. The South had the interior lines, which allowed them to move their forces around to reinforce themselves where needed. Grant knew that if Union forces attacked on all fronts at once, that wouldn't be possible.
Union started out with the "Anaconda Plan" under Winfield Scott. Capture of New Orleans - huge (overlooked) victory. But then lost track + focus under Halleck. Grant brought the coordinated grand strategy back - incl focus on closing the remaining ports.
I am sorry to correct you. Grant did not have a strategy of any kind. The strategy for the North was the Anaconda Plan which was developed by Winfield Scott and controlled and carried out by Lincoln and Halleck. Grant was just the general, like Lincoln and Halleck that understood the math. Grant was just carrying out the battlefield tactics dictated by the Anaconda Plan. Grant understood just as Lee did that only a lot of blood was going to end the war. The only thing Lee and the South could hope for was to inflict enough damage to the Union Army to cause the North to lose faith in their cause.
@@ambrosephill9What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that Grant succeeded where others failed. Might I suggest you stop reading all the "Lost Cause" bullshit. You might also consider that without the United States, you might now be speaking German.
Well the south couldn't fight that type of war, they didn't have the number and logistics that the north had. So while you make a valid point, you left out some needed context.
Grant’s WP classmates said he was the best horse trainer in the army. He lost his own mount in a card game on the way to Mexico but took on a wild mustang and had him as docile as any mount in just a few days.
Just as the Civil War was the transition into modern warfare, so too was Grant a transition to a modern general. Those demeaning him were judging him by standards rapidly becoming extinct. Perhaps Grant's greatest strength was his ability to appreciate his army's advantages and use them to their fullest rather than adhering to outdated theories of how a war should be fought. In the end, HE WON.
@@davidstraight3622Unnecessarily? How would YOU know. His tactics ended the war. Until he took over it was a slog. You could easily argue that he saved lives by ending the war sooner. That’s what so many amateur war critics get wrong. In war, people die every day. Every day the war continues more people die. Do the math and you may find that taking high casualties for a few months may save lives versus continuing to dither for several more years.
@@davidstraight3622 Very true. It foreshadowed the terrible human wastage of WW1 and other industrial wars. Sadly, the advances in technology and the scale of armies, etc. made his approach a viable, albeit costly, path to victory.
Any confederate general calling Grant a butcher should ask President Davis to look to the West toward General Hood. Hood was the epitome of a butcher and seemed almost to enjoy slaughtering his troops. Meanwhile Grants overall casualty rates in the western theater were minuscule considering how much fighting he did on the offensive. It’s a shame that so many still have this view of Grant as the butcher, he engaged Lee and latched on to the army of northern VA bringing the war to a close within 11 months of taking overall command. That constant pressure was deliberate and kept Lee from moving south to join Johnston in defeating Sherman. The last thing the North needed was Lee utilizing the interior lines of the south to reinforce one army, win a battle and then move all troops to engage Grant. Grant was Napoleonic in his generalship and we all owe him a debt in keeping this nation whole.
Grant's Vicksburg Campaigns (8 of them) ended up in taking the city. I would say his generalship was excellent in the west but In the east he understood attritrion, there was very little of the Western Grant involved.
@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 In the east he was limited in his maneuvering room by the rivers and swamps cutting through the territory. The Overland Campaign is a story of moving from crossroads to river ford and trying to get there before the other guy till Grant finally bottled Lee up in Petersburg/Richmond. The last bit afterward was a footrace as Lee tried to escape.
Please, Grant is not in the same category as Napoleon. Grant was given an army that outnumbered his enemy and had virtually unlimited supplies and yet still managed to loss several battles against a much weaker single enemy. Napoleon leveled devastating defeats on enemies that outnumbered him while fighting multiple nations.
Strategically Grant was a genius.He placed four armies in motion to negate the southern advantage of fighting on interior lines: Phil Sheridan in the Shanandoah valley, Benjamin Butler east of Richmond, William Tecumseh Sherman's movement to atlanta.
Butler was a special case. A talentless hack of a general - Grant couldn't get rid of him because of his political connections. So he set him on a task that would be useful if Butler succeeded, but inconsequential if he failed. Grant expected Butler to fail, but at least he was out of the way.
@@michaelmorris4515 Agree, Butler was pretty much worthless but he provided Lee with one more problem to handle with his limited resources. Sheridan was a different story. He didn't tie down many troops but he precipitated a famine. The county I live in has no barns that predate the Civil War courtesy of General Sheridan.
Apparently, Grant and Lee both had more qualities than were seen by the opposition. In fact, those fighting with them saw a bit more. In Grant's case, one of those views came from William Tecumseh Sherman. He once wrote that he was "a site smarter than Grant...but where he beats me and the rest of the world: he doesn't care a damn about the enemy when out of his sight. Just the thought of the enemy out of my sight scares me like hell!"
Reminds me of a quote from Grant when his subordinates were talking about what Lee was going to do, "Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do"
@lillybloom1590 Most certainly! Truth is, I actually heard the quote from the 1989 documentary "The Civil War," compiled by Ken Burns, and narrated by John Chancellor and Jason Robards, who was among others who cited quotes. Not sure which episode, or rather, night, it was presented, though I am guessing the 3rd night. If that quote turns out erroneous, please reply! Thanks so much!
The South disliked Grant partly because he had been unknown to them. Mainly though, it was because Grant fought the war brutally. He did this, not because he was a brute but because he knew that savagery reduced the cost (in blood and treasure). Grant's ratio of losses (154,000:191,000) is a statement of real achievement, even more so in attack.
Grant is hated because he believed in giving rights to blacks .He enforced reconstruction on the South hand the Army occupied the South until Hayes came in to office after him .
Perhaps if the Union had a better sense of how to see the war as a whole or at least how to defeat Confederate Army the ANV, that war would have ended with McClelland march on Richmond in the summer of 1862? Or perhaps with McDowell's unwarranted attack on Confederate forces at Manassas on July 2, 1861? What took those confounded Yankees so long to whoop those pesky misguided Rebels, whom they had out manned and out gunned from the start lol?
I agree with General Law 100%. Grant's true mark of greatness was his willingness to stick to what he knew was a long term winning plan in spite of all the criticism and bitterness directed at him.
It’s bizarre that Law would characterize Grant as an unknown as Longstreet, his commanding officer, was Grant’s best friend at West Point. But perhaps I can suggest a reason. The unsaid thing is that Law had personal enmity with Longstreet who had removed him from command and actually arrested Law until the CSA’s general staff reinstated him. After the war Longstreet returned to Mississippi and was a supporter of reconstruction and civil rights for African Americans. Grant appointed Longstreet as customs collector in New Orleans and when local whites tried to stage an armed rebellion Longstreet put the riot down and restored the integrated government. In short, by 1884 Law had every reason to despise Grant and Longstreet.
Grant understood that the more lightly equipped Southern Army was always going to be quicker and faster. How do you deal with that? Get up close and grapple with them; never give them room to maneuver. So he just went at lee. And in the end that was exactly what he needed to do. Grant understood that the south had to be BEATEN, not just defeated.
I believe the entire country had a wake-up call after Shiloh. After that battle Lincoln realized he had to completely destroy the South and build it back up into a modern economy. It was about this time Lincoln began to consider destroying the slavery system first, and by the time Grant took over, and initiated a comprehensive plan to attack the South, it marked the beginning of the end.
As a horseman myself, when I began to read Grant's Memoirs, the first thing that oozed out of the pages was his genuine love of horses. I believe that it was his experience, gaining their respect while avoiding their hatred, training and bending strong and dangerous creatures to the wearisome tasks needing to be done, that was directly applicable to his handling military formations for the task of winning the Civil War. It is no wonder that Grant was perhaps the most admired man of the second half of the 19th Century, in North America and in in Europe too. This despite what some of the losers thought.
The key to Grant's success is that he did not fear Lee. He understood Lee's strategic weaknesses. and how to exploit them ... Grant was a tactician. His campaign in Vicksburg was a masterpiece of the principle of meeting and defeating fragments of your enemy before he was able to consolidate numbers against you. After Grant's final incursion into Virginia with the Army of the Potomac, his signature maneuver became evident. Usually conducted at night after a battle, to pull the army out of their lines from one end, march behind the other lines, and head south on the available roads outside the reach of the rebel defenses. In that way he peeled off the entire army, unzipping its lines from left to right, or right to left, onto a flank march to which Lee had to react, instead of dictating the issue as he so often had done. Now, Lee had to contend with the one general he had feared from the start, the one he had hoped to avoid, the ONE who understood him.
@@jaybee9269 There is a quote, I believe from Lee, before Grant was appointed to overall command, when one of Lee's generals was congratulating him on his latest spanking of a Union commander. Lee replied to the effect the what he feared was a commander whom he, Lee, did not understand. Then he got Grant, who scolded his own generals for believing that Lee could "turn a somersault, and land in your rear." As to the statement that Lee made about Grant using overwhelming numbers instead of talent, Lincoln, for one, applauded Grant for doing his job with what he had, and not constantly pestering the government for more men. True, he headed south with a very large army, but never stopped, never bogged down, and despite great losses, never cried for more reinforcements. And, but for the failure of his commander on the ground, who stalled in front of the Petersburg works after arriving by surprise when the defenses were barely manned, could have shortened the war by a year by fooling Lee, who hustled his army into the lines with just hours to spare.
Lee did not know Grant and did not remember him .Grant remembered Lee though.The Southern General who did know Grant was Longstreet and his wounding at the Wilderness took him out of action during a critical time when Lee needed intel on Grant (the Overland Campaign).
One of Grant’s greatest strengths (unlike most Northern generals) was his ability to stay calm under duress and keep the enemy under constant pressure. While if you where in his army, I’m sure it did feel like you where in the meat grinder and you didn’t get much rest, but he knew that this was going to end the war sooner.
A lopsided victory is "Pyrrhic" only if the "victor" can not sustain his losses and becomes successively weakened. For some things, like the invasion of hostile territory, asymmetrical losses are necessary when dealing with foes of similar technology. Grant, I think everyone will agree, used what he had very effectively and none of his battles even hinted at being Pyrrhic, even if the causalities were high. It is my opinion that ALL the Confederate "victories" were, in one way or another, Pyrrhic. To me it is so ironic that Southern officers would call Grant a "butcher" when the ordinary "Ruffians" in the Confederate armies had their lives squandered by their "Gentlemen" officers in many battles. If Grant was a butcher, who supplied the hogs?
Lee was the true butcher. He wasted lives needlessly and had no real strategic vision in waging the war. Grant did. Sherman did as well. Grant kept Lee pinned down, essentially rendering him ineffective. This allowed Sheridan and Sherman to do their things in depriving Lee of men, material and food (control the grain and you control world). The AoNV was losing more men to desertion than to disease or combat as they were hungry and had enough (or in this case, not enough as well). Grant’s strategy of keeping the pressure up while taking a good chunk of his army in an attempt to outflank Lee on the southern end of his army led to significant casualties on both sides but also forced Lee to always be in the defensive as he had to constantly keep moving his own forces south to counter Grant. When Lee surrendered, it was just a matter of days before it would be Sherman linking up with Lee to kick his boot into Lee’s figurative posterior, not Lee linking up with Hood. Lee lost in large measure due to his ineptness in thinking strategically, especially concerning grand strategy. Grant prosecuted the war due to his ability to see the strategy and grand strategy. He implemented the Anaconda plan very well.
Yes, its kind of dumb to claim Grant had unacceptable loses vs Lee, when after each battle, Lee retreated, and Grant advanced. You dont retreat when you are winning, and you dont advance, after losing.
People want to talk about Grant’s exceedingly high casualty rates, but from Wikipedia, “Throughout the Civil War, Grant's armies incurred approximately 154,000 casualties, while having inflicted 191,000 casualties on his opposing Confederate armies.” Somehow he gave better than he took. Law’s quotes come 20 years after the war, probably just after Grant’s death, when the Lost Cause propaganda campaign was beginning. Grant was the only general in the war that forced the surrender of multiple opposing armies. He placed himself between two armies in Mississippi, and defeated them both, even though he was outnumbered and in enemy territory. He was not cowed by Lee, and inflicted on Lee’s army a 46% casualty rate compared to his own 41%, in spite again being in enemy territory and for part of the time sieging prepared defenses (which favors the defenders). The facts just do not support the Lost Cause narrative.
The Confederates had less men and less supplies. Grant was creating meatgrinders and the Confederates got the worst of it but his casualties were still horrendous. Such is war, though.
Are these numbers factoring in prisoners taken? If so grant took over 40,000 prisoners in the western theater before moving east. Wouldn’t this skew the average? I’m genuinely curious, not trying to criticize your comment
@@frankbaptista8334 Head to head, Grant backed Lee into in inescapable corner, and Lee lost a greater percentage of his men. And the remnants of Lee’s army, who were paroled instead of taken prisoner, are not counted in those “killed, wounded, or captured” casualty numbers. Add those 35,000 to Lee’s total.
@@projoebiochem Really reaching there, Grant lost over 50,000 in one month, please tell me who lost more then that in such a short time. Put Lee and Grant against each other with equal armies, no doubt Lee would win.
a fascinating complex character, highly intelligent & scrupulously honest & honourable in all his dealings...also had a laid back sense of humour that had no trace of profanity...I mostly love the fact that he was a genius horseman & reinsman...in another age he would have been a natural aviator...
Lee was masterful as a general during a battle. The movements and strategies to win the day. Grant was masterful at conducting a campaign. Overseeing all aspects, from logistics to looking at a series of strategic battles to achieve success to win the war
The confederate general quoted reminds me of what an Alabama football player said after losing to Michigan in the playoffs this year, " They didn't beat us. We beat ourselves. " Nah, you got beat and outcoached.
The Union Army of the Potomac suffered grievous losses during the Overland campaign. But due to immigration Grant could replace his losses. The South could not
Grant recognized if he refused to acknowledge defeat, he could keep his army in the field and on the attack. He ultimately denied Lee the ability to maneuver and, by staying in constant contact, forced Lee to stay engaged and lose men daily that he could not replace. Lee spent the remainder of the war being reactive to anything Grant did.
Grant was a hammer and a bulldog. What made him different from other Union Generals is that he didn't let go of the enemy once he engaged him. After losing battles, other generals withdrew and licked their wounds. Grant, after a battle, regardless of the results, moved forward. He didn't want the blood that his soldier spilled to be in vain. His strategy, as he told Lincoln, was that the destruction of Lee's army was his goal and that wherever he went, he would also be there.
@user-gl5dq2dg1j The southern generals knew of him and how he fought. I think Longstreet (?) served with him in Mexico and warned General Lee that he was as tenacious a man as there was.
Are you sure about that???? Our failures in Vietnam and SE Asia, Iraq, Afghanistan, illegal aliens, wokeism, and our current political mess are good things??? I think not. In fact most of the world is saying today that the existance of the US is the biggest problem to having world peace. But then again no one likes the US until the balloons go up and they find themselves neck deep in shit!!! LOL
Yes it was such a good thing that it destroyed the American Republic and turned us into an empire most of the world hates. Or they hate us when they don't need us. It was such a good thing that males are not males, females are not females, the state can take away a parent's right to control their child's health care and provide sterilizing health care against the wishes of the parent's, illegal aliens crossing our borders, crime destroying our cities, and Marxist under the guise of Woke, anti-Enlightenment, and Liberal politics destroying a people and culture. Yeah it was a real good thing!!!! LOL
What I understand is that Grant never relented. He didn't take a break when he thought he was winning: No, he kept going, driving his men to absolute victory.
I think I agree with everythjng Law said. Grant was competent and always did the sensible thing. His campaigns were all pretty straightforward, and he used his numerical advantage to great effect. (He never fought a battle with much worse than 2-1 odds). His rare qualities were his tenacity and his ability to keep his army cohesive and well supplied in all situations. In 1860s America, that wasn't a small feat.
Grant always fought on the offensive in enemy territory, meaning he had to leave substantial numbers of troops behind to protect supply and communication lines, to forage, etc. Generally accepted doctrine is that an attacker requires a 3:1 advantage against a defender; Grant had less than that. What he pulled off was quite remarkable.
@@kenrodmelrocity4241 I think quite remarkable is a fair assessment. Grant typically didn't move very far from rivers and ports, which was how he kept his supply chain short. He was the best general in the war when it came to logistics.
Grant started his Army career as a quartermaster as did W T Sherman. Remorseless Anglo-Saxon logistics and supply. Always a winner. Shout out to North Carolina for being best Confederate state consistently supporting their soldiers with food, uniforms, weapons and ammunition.
@@braedenh6858 Exactly! Which, I believe, is why many historians refer to him as the first modern general. I read his memoirs. The guy was a logistics genius.
Not sure what you mean by "straightforward" campaigns. Vicksburg used a dizzying array of feints, lightning-fast marches, and unpredictable shifts in direction that kept the rebels completely bamboozled.
Grant's victory at Vicksburg is considered by many historians to compare with anything Alexander the Great did. It's considered one of the great strategic and tactical victories of all time. BTW, Grant's troops suffered fewer casualties, numerically and by percentage, than Lee's. While fighting an offensive war. If Lee was such a genius, he would have known that all he had to do was defend until the North got exhausted. The Vietnamese understood that.
Exacto siempre he pensado eso simplemente defender las fronteras. Conozco los motivos de las invasiones Maryland Pensilvania... Delirantes para la realidad del Sur. Tienes razón la opinión pública del norte por tanta sangre derramada sin resultados y algunas corrientes políticas ( Mcclelland) hubiesen jugado a favor del sur.
If memory from long ago is correct, T. Harry Williams referred to Grant as the "first of the modern generals". Grant pursued Lee similar to the U.S. taking it to Hitler in WWII-IMO.
I recently saw some quotes of his discussing how it was unfair to judge generalship in the early days of the war vs at the end due to how much better everyone had gotten at war. All that "progress" definitely had an impact on how WW1 was fought.
A couple of times Grant came close tumbling checked. At Spotsylvania where only the wounding of General Longstreet stopped the charge of his relieving force, and then at North Anna, where Lee’ s incapacity keep the Federal from falling into a trap that might have produced a result something like Chancellorsville, Then of course Cold Harbor. But the difference lay with who was in charge of the Federals. Grant was never going to quit. Shiloh proved how cool he was in the face of fire.
@@johnschuh8616 If we are looking at what ifs, Spotsylvania was a close footrace. If Grant's troops have moved slightly faster or Lee's slightly slower the Union would have occupied the position first and the war probably would have ended there. As far as a repeat of Chancellorsville that occurred in the Wilderness. It was fought over the same ground with about the same draw. The major difference was Grant was in charge and after pulling out of the position, turned South rather than North.
I forget the Southern officer, but as the war started, he told his fellow Confederates that the North had an officer, if discovered, would win the war. That officer was Grant.
It was Longstreet who knew Grant well from the “old days.” He made the comment to Jeff Davis when giving him an assessment of West Point grads. Longstreet opined that due to the circumstances of Grant’s dismissal from the US Army he did not think Grant would be reinstated or rise to high command but if his old friend Sam Grant were to rise to high command it would be a problem for the Confederacy.
@@ChineseChicken1 The Army of the Tennessee was a Union army. The Army of Tennessee surrendered to Sherman on April 17-18 1865 after Lee's surrender of the ANV on April 9, 19865
I think Grant is one of history’s great commanders/Generals. He is right up there with the best. Grant during the war was often stymied by poor transport, poor communications and poor staff under and over him. He had to deal with the politics of those above him, and political Generals he couldn’t get rid of under him. The fighting at the Wilderness and Cold Harbor were bloody sure, and Grant did regret the latter deeply. But his movement South around Richmond which included a river crossing (can’t remember the name) nearly caught Lee flat footed. The generals under him flubbed the timing of the southern attack on Richmond, enough so that the Confederates managed to recover. Hence more months of siege/trench warfare that somewhat anticipated the first world war. It also wasn’t just the fight in front of him that Grant considered, he was also directing other theatres of the war, enough to thoroughly destroy the South’s ability to wage war as the other armies the South had. In many ways Grant was ahead of his time. As to that Confederate officers perspective, phooey! Many of his contemporaries underestimated him.
The Confederates lost due to Federal superiority in terms of sea power, industrial output and population. Counterfactuals are fun but don’t change anything. At this moment in our history, it is good to remind people of the enormous suffering the Civil War brought. It is always those least likely to fight who advocate most loudly for war. It is the Soldier who knows the brutality of war, not the armchair generals.
First and foremost, the Confederates lost because they took on that combination of sea power, industrial output and population- and at a time when the Confederate States were utterly unprepared for any conflict at all.
600,00 dead, major parts of the south a ruin with a population that never really dealt with the reasons why and has to this day not completely forgiven. It is a wound our people must live with, understand and strengthen our resolve to be a working democracy and a free people. Our people on both sides paid the price, instead of dividing us it should give pause and pray that it never happens again. One thing that has stuck with me though is that the north never ran a deficit in spending during the whole time, something to think about.
Except that the confederates lost multiple key land battles throughout the war. You can cope all you want but the fact of the matter is that the confederacy was defeated in the field of battle.
Isn't it interesting that Grants critics are always pointing to Cold Harbor as evidence that Grant was a butcher, and that he "learned his lesson" there, but they seldom if ever compare Grants losses at Cold Harbor with that of Lee's at Gettysburg. How many charges into a well entranced, superior force that held the high ground did Lee order over three days? How many men did Lee lose in those three days? Did Lee "learn his lesson" in those three days? When we look at the results of these two battles, what was the out come of the two battles? In both cases, the South withdrew. That's right, after Cold Harbor the CSA didn't "hold" Cold Harbor, they retreated from it as they continued to be out maneuvered and pressed by Union forces. McPherson states: In that [Cold Harbor] attack, ordered by Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, fifty thousand Union soldiers uffered seven thousand casualties, most of them in less than half an hour. For this mistake, which he admitted, Grant has been branded a 'butcher' careless of the lives of his men, and Cold Harbor has become a symbol of mule-headed futility. At Gettysburg, Lee's men also sustand almost seven thousand casualities in the PIckett-Pettigrew assault, most of them also within a half hour. Yet this attack is perceived as an example of great courage and honor. This contrast speaks volumes about the comparative images of Grant and Lee, North and South, Union and Confederacy
The Union Army suffered huge casualties at Cold Harbor and the Overland Campaign, but Grant took Lee's Army out of the war and under siege at Petersburg. Grant was appointed General in Chief in March 1864 and 13 months later Lee surrender.
One year with Grant in command his casualties surpassed the 3 previous years combined. When Grant took over Lee’s army was a shell of what it once was. Would love to see Lee and Grant fight each other with equal armies.
@@frankbaptista8334 You mean the three years in which Lee rode circles around the Army of the Potomac, While Grant was systematically wrestling control of the Mississippi and the Cumberland rivers away from the CSA, resulting in cutting the CSA in half? The idea that Lee didn't know anything about Grant until Grant opposed him is a myth. Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania that resulted in Gettysburg was Lee's idea of a way to take Union pressure off Vicksburg. In fact, the fall of Vicksburg hurt the CSA much more than the losses at Gettysburg.
@@frankbaptista8334 But that is the point of several books Lee squandered his solders in useless attacks. Per the authors had he taken in the full picture and been a better Strategic general...
A crucial point they overlook - Grant was constantly on offense throughout the war, and always found a way to win. Lee’s victories were always on defense. Whenever Lee attempted an offensive campaign, he got stomped.
Grant didn’t allow Lee freedom of operation or a rest. Lee was a master of maneuver while Grant grabbed a hold of Lee and refused to let go. This of course allowed Sherman greater freedom of operation. Attritional warfare isn’t often a pretty thing but his overall strategy was successful. Lee in the end was beaten
I served with the Army, Navy and attached to USMC as a Corpsman for over ten year and have always loved history. I have always felt if I was in the Army during the Civil War, I would consider it senseless, cannon-fodder tactics, especially if I'd been on the losing side of a battle. At least in the modern Army you are taught to use fire and maneuver, you don't just march into the teeth of the enemy fire. Grant may not have been the most brilliant tactician of the war, but he won battles. Many other Union Generals had enjoyed the advantage of numbers, but failed to capitalize on it the way Grant did. It is a testament to Grant, that many of his tactics are still studied at West Point. He must have done something right.
Based on your experience, you would be aware that fire and maneuver relies on (amongst others) a clear understanding of the strategic/tactical objectives by junior and non-commissioned officers, a consistently high level of troop training and experience and above all, the ability to communicate throughout the battlefield in order to reinforce weaknesses or take advantage of breakthroughs. I suggest in the Civil War context, the latter point has a critical effect on tactics. Concisely, in the Civil War the available firepower outstripped the ability of attacking armies to effectively manage battlefield communications. Just as it had been from the dawn of organised conflict, Civil War armies still largely communicated battlefield orders by voice, written orders, flags or bugles. This meant that in order to be able to coordinate their attacks, forces needed to be grouped tightly in order to enable such communication to occur and implement the co-ordination required to bring sufficient weight of attack to the selected point in their opponent's line. However, unlike earlier wars they were facing masses of rifled muskets, entrenched defenders and more powerful artillery. I'm in awe of those soldiers who fought under such conditions, they were cannon fodder. Until the advent of improved battlefield communications in later wars enabled changes in to doctrine and tactics, these soldiers had to "march and deliver" under terrible conditions. My admiration of Grant is not so much that he could alleviate this situation given the available technology at the time, but that he understood the situation better than others and as you said, he capitalised it better to ultimately win key battles.
@@THE-HammerMan yes I have, and I can't recall brigade or division-sized, massed ranks of troops attacking Japanese postions in the same fashion as Pickett at Gettysburg or Grant at Cold Harbor. At Okinawa, the bloodiest battle of the Pacific Campaign, US army and marine battlefield casualties totalled about 15% of the combat forces engaged over a period of 2 months and 3 weeks. At Gettysburg, Union casualties were just under 25% of those engaged over just 3 days (39% for the South). Both figures exclude casualties from other causes, and are those from the land battles only in the case of Okinawa. I'm not denigrating the experiences and hardships of WW2 soldiers, but it does illustrate my point that by WW2 improved battlefield communications enabled the development and implementation of better combined arms doctrine as well as small squad maneuver and infiltration tactics. Whilst these battles using these tactics are still terrifying to those involved, better communications and tactics mean attacking forces suffer much fewer casualies than those engaged in a typical Civil War battlefield.
@@markswayn2628 Yeah, my dad said Okinawa was the nastiest of them all. No battles in history rival the wholesale slaughter of the Civil War, but you miss the point entirely. You can praise tech and communication advances all you want, but there will always be the occasion to rush into the maelstrom to seize an objective. It has, and always will happen when absolutely necessary... "Communications be damned, let's get it done!". So it happens and lives are lost to save many others. Se la vie, de la muer, se la guer. [Pardon my spelling, I've not time to Google the correct French]
@@THE-HammerMan I think we're both missing eachother's point. I'm not disagreeing with your views regarding the need of armies to seize an objective by force and initiative, often under very difficult circumstances. Nor am I necessarily praising tech and communication advances, just recognising that these developments occurred. My original point was a response to a comment regarding the tactics used in the Civil War as applied by Grant. I was discussing that conditions during the Civil War such as the need for visual communications to control forces used on the battlefield largely determined the tactics used, and the high casualty levels as a result. Better communications in the following 70 years or so enabled changes to tactics whereby objectives could be more readily reached, often with lower casualty levels. All wars demand a "rush into the maelstrom" at some stage, but the doctrines and tactics (and of course equipment) available to a soldier today means they are much more likely to survive than in the Civil War. Comments about the tactics used in 1861-65 often miss the point, generals such as Grant had to operate with the tools they had available to them at the time.
Ironic to claim Grant had no grasp of strategy. Even Lee complained that Grant’s continuous flanking maneuvers (Cold Harbor being an exception) gave him (Grant) the strategic initiative, effectively fixing Lee in place and gradually backing him up toward Petersburg. And while Grant directed multiple armies in a coordinated approach, Lee refused to direct the other Confederate armies, even after being appointed to do so. So, Lee was the tactical master, but Grant mastered the big picture from the start.
I forgot to add that Grant very effectively coordinated his army's movements with the navy, as early as the Fort Donelson/Henry campaign, which may be one of the first examples of combines force strategies.@@williamfleckles
Grant was on top of the strategic game from the very beginning. His move into Kentucky to counter Polk was just the first example of strategic insight and the quickness of mind and speed of action to get the job done.
Amen that. He was initially successful with entrenched defense because it was novel. All new tactics and weapons invite new responses designed to defeat those tactics and weapons. Those who are fighting the last war are doomed to failure. Plans only last until they are initiated.@@DeidadesForever
On the idea that the confederate leaders didn't know who Grant was-----At Appomattox when Grant met Lee, Grant told of meeting Lee at a staff meeting during the Mexican war and that he remembered Lee well and his appearance. However Lee said he remembers the meeting, but basically nothing at all about Grant including his appearance. Lee said in effect said, "Yeah I kind of remember a meeting back then, we had quite a few, but dude I can't remember a single thing about you personally, sorry." Actually that probably helped the union cause. On confederate generals saying Grant's reputation was a result of him fighting lesser or incompetent generals, well the same can be said of the confederate generals, they ALL got their reps fighting inferior federal generals-----that's how wars go. Good generals make good use of any advantage they have, the lesser ones don't.
@@carlmally6292 Well many think the marble man was destined because he never got a single demerit at West Point. Grant on the other hand was a dreamer, an artist, loved to read books and did a fair job in spite of not being overawed with the idea of Army
No battle is more misunderstood than Cold Harbor. It was bloody, but no more bloody, percentage-wise, than Malvern Hill or Pickett's Charge- and it proved to Lee that he could never divide his forces to trick Grant as he had tricked Hooker, and the fact that Grant could sustain losses on a scale that Lee could never hope to inflict on Grant's army convinced Lee to retreat to the works of Petersburg. The campaign of 1864 convinced Lee that his only hope was to dig in and hope for a miracle.
Correct. His name was Hiram Ulysses Grant. No "Simpson " at all. His application to West Point had his name wrong, but would have taken too long to correct it & his place might have been given to another in the interim. Besides, he didn't want to be called by the other plebs as "HUG"...
@@John-t1t5v According to Grant, the "S." did not stand for anything. Upon graduation from the academy he adopted the name "Ulysses S. Grant". Simpson was the name of one of his brothers, and it was his mother's maiden name.
No one will say that Grant was a brilliant strategist in terms of Napoleon or Lee. That being said he did win by application of larger forces, there is no sugarcoating it. What made him different is when others would stop after a battle, win, or lose, he moved forward. It is a fact that many died in his campaigns. He was of the opinion though to make the lives lost mean something. It was his intent that wherever the Army of Northern Virginia went, so would go the Army of the Potomac. He eventually caused the conditions and moral of the southern army to crumble and lead to Appomattox. He won not through brilliance but by perseverance!
Lee was probably the better battlefield tactician. Grant was the master strategist who saw the far broader picture. Omar Bradley put it well after the Second World War when he observed, "Amateur soldiers talk about tactics. Professionals talk about logistics." Or as George Patton once observed of one of his campaigns, "It wasn't the soldiers who were the heroes of that one. It was the men driving the ammo trucks down those sons-of-bitching roads day and night under artillery shells." While Lee was piling up glories in Mexico at the front lines, Grant was working in the quartermaster corps. What he learned there would later pay off.
I'm no expert, but what you said about the Mexican War stands out to me too. Grant's role in the Mexican War taught him the realities of time and distance when sustaining an army in the field. In the West he denied the CSA distance (ability to resupply and coordinate on interior lines), and when he came East he denied them time (kept the tempo of operations at a higher level than they could sustain).
Grant fought with what he had. He pressed his advantages and used his forces as they should been used. He understood what his strengths were and based on these strengths, he pressed them against his opponents. I believe his genius was the depth of his understanding of what he had and what his enemies had. Winning battles is only important if you win the war. Losing battles are painful, but these losses served to win the war. Winning the war is the only thing that matters in the end.
The Overland Campaign really has a lot in common with the opening of World War 1 on the Western Front. A war of movement that gets bogged down into trench warfare.
Grant spent the entire war deep in enemy territory, attacking well-defended positions, and winning. Vicksburg was brilliant. Compare that to Lee, who went north twice and was beaten both times.
@@DeidadesForever Antietam ended Lee's first northern invasion. He retreated afterwards. Meanwhile, this "draw" was good enough to embolden Lincoln to seize the moment to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. There is a bad habit of chopping this war up into individual battles and not seeing the bigger picture. Look at the overall result. This was a loss and no mistake.
@@curious968 In fact no, in fact your argument is that the North was far superior to the South, and no, the South had better generals and better horsemen, in fact the difference was less than that of the 13 colonies against Great Britain, which by the way everyone said was impossible to beat and they did, the argument that the North was superior is completely invalid, although they were superior but not by the great difference that is usually attributed to them.
James Longstreet not only knew Grant well, he was Grant’s best man at his and Julia Dent’s wedding. Grant was in the quartermaster corps in the old army, so many of the old infantry and artillery officers would not know much about him.
Armies typically lose more troops on offense than they do on defense. Grant almost always played offense. He deserves far more credit than he receives. He was no butcher.
A point to remember from an Honorably Discharged Veteran of the US Army, is that when you're talking casualties, you're talking about men's lives. It mays sound cool but if it's your life or the life of a family member, it really means something.
Confederate General Longstreet was Grant's Best Man at his Wedding. They were friends while they attended West Point at the same time. When Longstreet heard that Grant was promoted to Lieutenant General and took command of the Army or the Potomac, Longstreet told Lee that "He will fight you every day until the end of the war" So a few Confederate Officers knew about Grant. 🤨
Let's not forget that the Army of Northern Virginia didn't just up and decide to quit one day, it was trapped and forced to surrender. Grant had previously trapped and destroyed the Army of Mississippi, making him the only only commander of the war to annihilate an opposing field army, having wiped out two.
@@Derna1804 In most histories I have read, Thomas is credited with destroying Hood's army. I certainly never heard that Hood had an effective fighting force after Nashville. All you are really doing is, however accurately, describing its death throes. If you look at other major battles (both Manassas, Gettysburg to name three), you don't see the losing army fading away. That's the distinction I think we are discussing.
@@curious968 There is a strategic difference because the battle hardened troops that stuck with Hood could still form the cadre of a reconstructed force, and some deserters could still be recovered later. An army being trapped and wiped out entirely means the complete loss of all officers, NCOs and men, a loss of competence and tradition. That prevents effective replacement or reconstitution of the force. The Confederate Army was raised from U.S. Army veterans who had in turn inherited a military heritage dating all the way back to the Colonial Militia and predating the basis for the British Army, the New Model Army, by a few years. Knowledge about training, discipline, esprit de corps, leadership etc. is painstakingly acquired through trial and error and passed on through generations. It's not as simple as copying a doctrine and throwing a few farm boys together. An effective fighting force needs a culture.
@@Derna1804 That's all interesting, but what actually happened? Point me to some history I haven't read. I never read that, in actuality, whatever surviving remnants of Hood's army there might have been showed up anywhere else in significant numbers. If that didn't happen, then I don't see the difference. But, I could be mistaken. Show me. Some of the army that surrendered and was paroled at Vicksburg _did_ show up later on in other units, but they had to be reprovisioned and I never heard that it was anything like everyone or that it made any notable difference in the war. Historians, despite this, rate Pemberton's army as "wiped out" by all I ever read. The history I read suggests that whether it was at Vicksburg, Nashville, or Appomattox, once a large confederate force laid down its arms, the vast majority never took up arms again either because of their own sense of honor or the simple idea they didn't want to get that close to dying again for what they must have thought was a sure loser. Or maybe yet other reasons. Moreover, there was always a certain amount of informal southern AWOL activity that was tolerated (and not much discussed outside of professional historian circles). If your army is made up of rural soldiers, not all of whom owned plantations, they did have to go home now and then, for a while, to make sure there was a home to come back to. This "informal desertion", where men came and went, was tolerated, but it turned from a trickle to a flood as the war went past mid-1863 and became a torrent in 1865 and they didn't come back anymore either.
Except for Cold Harbor, the rest of the Grant's casualties were just about 1:1. He knew a Tie was a Win for the North. Lee must have known that, but kept on fighting.
@@T555BIRD Grant was, after all, on the offensive. Moreover, his offensive against Lee was with the intent that Lee be continually pressured so that he would be unable to send any reinforcements to Johnston. It worked. Within six weeks of the opening of the campaign, Lee was pinned in the Richmond- Petersburg area and was unable to assist Johnston at all.
@@manilajohn0182 I would add that per Lincoln's orders in late July 1864, that the war would be run by Grant through City Point. Lincoln did not trust Halleck, or anyone else to keep the pressure on. That is why Grant meets Sheridan in the Valley in September 1864 and Horace Porter is sent to Sherman in the fall of 1864. To keep the pressure on the Confederacy. In my view, the Confederacy was destroyed by the March to the Sea and the Battle of Franklin.
Really must’ve been difficult for these southern generals to surrender to a man that they didn’t think was their equals. Southern pride on display 20 years later in the writing by law.
When Lee went on the offensive, notably, Malvern Hill, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, his looses were as bad or worse than Grant's. And he didn't have the resources to back up those losses. The Confederates may have thought Grant's success at Vicksburg was due to inferior opponents but the same could be said about Lee at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Nevertheless, Grant invaded the Mississippi hinterland south of Vicksburg with a tenuous supply line against two different armies with interior lines and technically superior numbers and he soundly defeated both of them. I'll take superior strategic understanding over tactical brilliance every time. Furthermore, Grant devised the overall strategy of late 1864 that slowly strangled the Confederate insurrection. Lee never gave a damn about anything but VA.
People who say Lee's looses were as bad or worse than Grant's, are disingenuous. Lee always fought with a smaller army, beating the odds. Lee's losses were far more logical and natural than Grants. Except his coolness and tenacity, Grant didn't have much going for him. His Army was so enormous and logistically superior (in the west & the east), that his defeat would only bring him shame (like it did to his predecessor), and victory only its long overdue logical conclusion.
“ Finally, the respective casualty figures of these two generals contradict the myth about who, if either, was a butcher. For the entire war, Grant’s soldiers incurred about 154,000 casualties (killed, wounded, missing, captured) while imposing about 191,000 casualties on their foes. In all their battles, Lee’s troops incurred about 209,000 casualties while imposing about 240,000 casualties on their opponents. Thus, both generals armies imposed about 40,000 more casualties than they incurred. However, Lee, who should have been fighting defensively and preserving his precious manpower, instead exceeded Grant’s understandable aggressiveness and incurred 55,000 more casualties than Grant. In summary, Grant’s aggressiveness in three theaters was consistent with the Union need for victory and resulted in success at a militarily reasonable cost while Lee’s aggressiveness in a single theater was inconsistent with the strategic and tactical defensiveness the Confederates needed to preserve their limited manpower and force the stalemate that was sufficient for Southern victory.”
@@twlyon24 If Lee wasn't aggressive Richmond would have fallen in 1862. Author of the text above is representing Lee's campaigns as a matter of choice. Like if he had stayed on a defensive, enemy would sit on his ass, let him preserve his army, augment his numbers, or would make futile assaults on Marye's Heights five years in a row. Grant and Lee waged two different wars. People fall on hindsight when they talk about Grant's tactics...
The American Civil War had pretty much been decided in the first week of July 1863: 1) Yankee General Ulysses S. Grant had taken Vicksburg and 30,000+ Confederate Soldiers (an entire field army). The entire Mississippi River was now a Yankee Highway and Arkansas, Texas and Western Louisiana was cut off from the Confederacy. 2) The Union Army of the Potomac River, commanded by Yankee General George Gordon Meade, defeated Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia’s raid into Pennsylvania at Gettysburg, inflicting casualties upon the Southern Army they just couldn’t afford. 3) Yankee General William Stark Rosecrans’ Army of the Cumberland River, in a brilliant and almost bloodless campaign, maneuvered Confederate General Braxton Bragg and the Confederate Army of Tennessee completely out of middle Tennessee, occupied the City of Chattanooga thus unlocking and opening the door to the City of Atlanta, without a single major battle. 4) The Union Navy seized Port Hudson on the Mississippi River thus freeing up US Naval Forces to strengthen the blockade of Mobile Bay, Alabama. The only way to smuggle anything into the Confederacy anymore was through Mexico which was now part of The French Empire of Napoleon III. And the French simply seized everything and used it themselves. By the time Grant was given Command of All Union Forces the Writing was on The Wall.
@@edwardclement102 Agreed. Union victory would have been much delayed. It might have even cost Lincoln the election. Sherman respected Johnston. But, as usual, the south was hell bent on winning big battles. So Davis relieved Johnston in favor of Hood. Hood went north to Tennessee, expecting Sherman to follow, and engage in a glorious battle that would blunt the Yankee advance Sherman coolly ignored Hood, correctly figuring that he would get destroyed by Thomas. This made the march to the sea inevitable. From start to end, the south had no real strategic vision and overestimated its chances. It fought as if it was always 1861 where its forces really were superior. But, by 1863, they weren't anymore and Davis and the rest didn't notice. Post-Gettysburg, Lee did. He adopted Johnston's tactics after Gettysburg.
This is framed around Grant, but it also shows the difference in the strategies of both sides: The South felt their position of States Rights to be so obviously true, they felt the North would put up just a weak attempt to preserve the Union as it was. In the words of Lee before hostilities had commenced, he would "bloody their nose" and they would have no stomach for the fight. The Southern leadership under estimated Lincoln's commitment to preserving the Union and his blind pursuit of Generals that were equally committed to winning.
@@michaelwoehl8822 I absolutely agree with you that the states rights claim was a fallacy, but is the 'right' southern leadership fell back on to justify breaking up the Union. Just a reminder, the only 'state right' the southern leadership was concerned with was enslaving their labor force of black people.
Grant was punishing the South for rebellion per his memoir. The South was fighting for sovereignty as a new country and states rights. The South's lack of war materials and fighting age men eventually lead to defeat.
@@snocamo154 Yes, the South was fighting for its own sovereignty, but the only state right they wanted was slavery. Be honest about it. Don't be an apologist for the old south. There were 22 million citizens in the north, 9 million in the south. An armed conflict needed to be decided quickly for the south to prevail. A war that last beyond the first year became unwinnable for them, and compromise with Lincoln was not possible. The Civil War defined when the USA changed from being a collection of states to single country. Until then, everyone was from the town or state, but afterwards the unifying location was to be an American. It took generation to make it clear, but legally we were one nation afterwards.
One thing to remember is that Grant forced Lee to dig in and defend Richmond, negating Lee's mobility and natural aggressiveness and allowing the Union forces in the western theater to begin demolishing the Confederacy
Lee wasn't Lee anymore after Grant engaged him. All that wonderful stuff -- the dividing his smaller army, the surprise attacks, the clever out-maneuvering, all of it largely if not entirely vanished. Lee never was able to seize the initiative, never able to force Grant to retreat. Lee wasn't Lee anymore.
Longstreet warned Lee, et al, that Grant would be relentless. Longstreet was best friends with Grant, was best man at the latter’s wedding. Longstreet knew.
Regional arrogance. Nothing west of the Wabash could be "that important". Illinois and Western Kentucky and Tennessee were still regarded, with some justification as the "western wilderness" and the population density and infrastructure of these regions was low. "Can anything good come out of Nazereth?"
Calling Grant a "butcher" who only won by overwhelming force is a Lost Cause trope. Grant beat Lee just like we beat Germany and Japan in WWII. We overwhelmed them and then occupied them afterwards. Total victory. The Neo Confederates like their idols , would have you think this was a boxing match with Marques of Queensbury rules of chivalry that had to be adhered to. Well, your enemy always gets a vote and the commanders of Grant prior to that time did that but US Grant didn't. About a year after he took over the war was done.
Interesting point. Gordon Rhea has in his latest book new and interesting information that rounds out the actual numbers of soldiers in the ANV during the overland Campaign. Seems a researcher located newspapers in Abingdon VA in a trunk in the attic of an old woman's home. I guess they are in the Library of Congress now.
That's a great portrait of Grant. Never seen it before. Where did it come from? Read Grants autobiography a couple years ago. Frankly, the biggest takeaway was just how on top of Army logistics and organization he was in Virginia.
Most Southern supporters refuse to see the whole picture. Grant was a brilliant strategist and his Vicksburg Campaign proves it. When an attacking force goes against an entrenched defending force, of course more men are needed. Grant caught old man Lee at Petersburg and whipped him. Even the average Confederate soldier knew the war was long lost and many thousands deserted rather than be killed in vain. BTW, Jackson's tactics in bringing a superior force on a detachment earned him laurels, but our Confederate sympathizers cannot "grant" the same conclusion to Ulysses. Modern historians rank Grant head and shoulders over Marse Robert.
How about Longstreet? Never heard much about Law. What did he win? There were many Southern Generals that knew of Grant from West Point and from the Mexican war. How did you miss Vicksburg?
What the South never “got” was that Grant was not Patton, he was Eisenhower. He wasn’t conducting a single enemy in a single place, he was fighting a NATIONAL STRATEGIC Campaign that few recognized as such. Basically, as Patton once alluded, Grant held Lee by the NOSE, in place, being the South’s strongest force, while he coordinated his death grip on the entire South with Thomas, Sheridan and, most of all, Sherman. The Anaconda plan strangled southern commercial existence while Grant coordinated and supplied FOUR ARMIES into the ULTIMATE STRANGLEHOLD, the end of Lee. Grant was so above all that went before that the always vocal, “lesser minds” had lots of bone headed, negative comments on Grant’s strategy, simply because their lack of brain density did, and DOES, make grasping his genius difficult to impossible TO grasp!
J.F.C. Fuller assessed Grant as a great strategist and that even greater and rarer thing, a grand strategist who thought in continental/global terms. As Bruce Catton put it with his usual acuity ' Lincoln saw in Grant a soldier who knew what he had always felt instinctively; Confederate resources could not keep up with Confederate geography. '
As Burnside outranked Meade and Burnside's Corps was included in the overland campaign it was necessary for Grant to be there to be the ranking officer. More importantly once Meade's army (and Burnside's independent Corps) reached Richmond/Petersburg it was necessary for Grant to be there so Benjamin Butler, the local commander, wouldn't outrank both Meade and Burnside.
@@digitalnomad9985 He was replaced in NO by Banks in late 1863. Took over the Department of (eastern) VA and NC in 1864. aka Army of the James. While Meade and Lee were hammering it out in north central VA, he botched an opportunity to take Petersburg and got 'bottled up' in Bermuda Hundred.
Shelby Foote thought General Grant was a magnificent general. Anyone who wishes can read "The Beleaguered City" in volume II of The Civil War. How Grant captured the "impregnable" confederate fortress city of Vicksburg is an amazing story and shows Grant at his brilliant best. Even his close friend General Sherman thought Grant would fail to capture Vicksburg, and had bitten off more than he could chew. But Grant proved his friend wrong. And these slight confederate criticisms of Grant, show a weakness of the southern generals. Don't these southern generals now that war is very cruel? Why not use your advantages in men and material to crush your enemies? Also, while Grant was keeping the confederates busy in Virginia, General Sherman was coming up from Atlanta to crush the southerners from behind. Grant was the anvil and Sherman was the hammer. That's pretty good strategy in my opinion.
In "The Civil War" by Ken Burns there is a part about how Sherman made a mistake during a battle which caused lots of casualties. The doc went on to say that Sherman never admitted to that mistake. And also that he never repeated it. That is what distinguishes great generals.
![KSI - Dirty [Official Visualiser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VoDh1h1dPUE/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact that nobody thought he was great was one of his strengths.
Well said, and a truism.
Art of war 101.
@@ml5955 what? The old phrase show that you are strong when you are weak and weak when you are strong ? Or ?
@@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail How can something self evident be well said?
@@reneaguilar3471 it means he was always underestimated
Longstreet knew Grant., Longstreet Robert E. Lees’s right hand man was cousin to Grant’s wife Julia. Longstreet attended their wedding in St Louis after the Mexican war. Joseph E. Johnston, Simon B. Buckner confederate officers were Pallbearers at President Grant’s funeral. He had the largest funeral procession even larger than President Lincoln. He was a war hero by all accounts. He was a decent family husband and father. He was soft spoken and quiet. Well read. He was considered a horse whisper ..he had that calm demeanor that horses respected it started when he was a toddler. He drank but he only weighed about 120 pounds during the Civil War he was only 5’8” tall. It didn’t take much to get him drunk. However he did not stay drunk constantly. He drank when his wife was not with him to calm his stress. She took care of his terrible headaches. She always had a way because of their closeness made him calmer She traveled with him always where ever he went. His staff loved her too. She would leave her children with Grants parents who lived in Covington Ky ..they attended school there. She was with him in the Overland Campaign, Vicksburg, Tennessee, many areas in the south one of his oldest boys travelled with him too. He smoked cigars ..people found he smoked them they sent him boxes and boxes during the war. He died of throat cancer. Mark Twain was a very close friend. Helped Grant publish his memoirs with a fair book deal. So his wife would be taken care of after his death at age 63. Before he died after his WH presidency him and Julia and the youngest son world tour Europe., Scotland, visited and had dinner with Queen Victoria. Visited Belgium, France, Italy, Russia, China’s emperor, Japan and its emperor, the Middle East Egypt. He was highly sought after to have him visit wined and dined treated like a hero all around the world. History tries to only remember in the south that classified him as a butcher. However Robert E. Lee and president Lincoln knew he would fight not run away and give up like the previous battles of the Potomac Union Generals. Lincoln was thrilled to have him…raised to him to head of all of the Union Forces in the end. A five star general which was only awarded to Washington, Grant and Pershing. It was actually a 6 star general without the extra star.
Grant played a large part in the ending of the civil war. He was not a coward. He had many horses shot from under him during the war.
Robert E. Lee surrendered after he ran Confederate President Jefferson Davis out of Richmond the capital. That was the worst blow for morale. All supply lines were cut rail lines had been destroyed by Sherman’s bow ties left where ever he went. The south fell under General Sherman and all of Grants’s Generals, Troops and officers. The confederate General Law and his retelling just had to make a non hero out of Grant. General Lee never said such things after the war about Grant. Grant let the Confederate soldiers keep their rifles and horses if they belonged to them. He would not let his union troops jeer are cheer the loss of Robert E, Lees troops out of respect. Lee tipped his hat at Grant before he rode away from Appomattox. He also got to keep his sword. Robert E. Lee was treated with respect and honor on the day of surrender by General Grant and his staff. What a butcher and dumb man only a jealous person remembers him with those words. War is hell and troops will die it is unavoidable.
South Africa Natal Colony Is Under Queen Victoria
Great summary. I remember reading somewhere comments Longstreet allegedly made where he chastised a fellow confederate general who did not know Grant and was speaking ill of him that Grant will never stop fighting until he has nothing left to fight with and that the south was doomed. The recent book about Twain and Grant is a great one if you’ve not read it. And Grant’s and Sherman’s personal memoirs are two of my all time favorite books. Thanks again for your comments
I finished Chernow’s Grant last spring. Grant is my new favoriteAmerican, I live in northern-ish Virginia so I love to go find places where Grant was- wilderness Campaign, culpeper cthouse, where he had his first field office; most things within an hour! His love of horses was also admirable and though fellow student tried to trick him, he really couldn’t be tricked when he was tested on horseback at Westpoint.
An apt and judicious assessment of one of our greatest generals, who succeeded where a chain of predecessors failed. RIP President Grant. I salute you every time I pass your tomb. His autobiography was one the most widely published books in the world of his day.
The Generals who fought Lee before would get beaten by him -then retreat .and regroup .Grant once he engaged Lee at the Wilderness never let up and kept Lee off balance by constantly attacking and punching.
Every commander who presses attacks, keeping pressure on the enemy, suffers great losses. Grant, , Ike, Patton, Chesty Puller, and others. A Total war strategy, a no holds barred grab'em by the nose, and kick em in the ass approach wears down an opponent who cannot resupply or recover from his losses, because of the constant pressure applied against him. That was the only way to beat Lee and the South. I'm a Southern Man, with Confederate family members who served back then, and a Marine Veteran, and I believe in that approach in war. You don't play the enemies game, and dance with him, you beat him senseless, harass him constantly, and never let up until he is dead or surrenders. Just as in the coming invasion of Japan in 1945, a commander has to ask himself, how many casualties will I sustain if I drag this out, against losses if I keep the pressure on, and do the hardest thing. To let Lee go, and resupply and maneuver at will, would have been far more costly. Timidity among previous commanders hadn't gotten the North anywhere, So Grant brought what he knew to the fight. Total war. He screwed up a time or two, he sure did, but, the strategy was sound.
Yes. Entering the Civil War the range, rate, and lethality of weapons was swiftly improving which greatly enhanced being on the defense. Grant and the North were almost always on the offense and in Southern territory. Lee and the South had two large campaigns into Northern territory, Antietam and Gettysburg, and both ended in massive causalities and retreats. Grant suffered large losses in the East, but his strategy pinned Lee's forces in the East enabling Sherman to destroy Georgia and end the South's hopes and capability of winning the war or even a favorable negotiated outcome.
I too consider myself to be a southern man and I too have strong connections with the Confederate army. The difference between us is that I went into the Army but I do have an uncle and a grandfather who went into the Marines. Grant’s way of waging war was the only way the North could eventually win this war. From his endeavors our country produced the Generals (and Colonels, LTC’s, Maj’s and Cpt’s) who went on to win WWI and WWII. We must have lost something in those ranks when it came to Korea and Viet Nam. We almost got it all back when it came to Iraq, but lost it all again when it came to Afghanistan (although I really believe those wars had way too much political interference when it came to war fighting). I know all wars are political but once the politicians fail to keep the peace and they send in the troops they need to let the Generals do their thing until it is actually over.
I tend to believe that Grant's strategy and tactics were borne of his experience prior to the war as well. His tenacious approach reflected his years of ups and downs, good fortune and bad - both in the military and not. He was nothing if not ultimately tough and used to a long haul. I think his unique ability as a general came to the fore in part due to fate. His specific POV, capacity for endurance, familiarity with struggle and his resilient spirit were a strong match to the hour and need. He seems to exemplify the concept of perseverance over perfection. Great video - thanks!
@@spumpstein9374 My thoughts too regarding Grant's character, the factors responsible for how it was developed and the importance of chance or, as you put it, "fate" is in having the right person show up at the right time. In all these things, good fortune is so important, like having Sherman as a close and supportive friend, Meade as commander of the AOP and Rawlins, his aid de camp, who kept him on the "straight and narrow." I would add one more thing, I think Grant's deep attachment to, affection for and skill with horses taught him early in his life to suppress his fears and never show them, always be calm in upsetting situations and quietly assert mastery and confidence over potentially chaotic and dangerous situations. When dealing with spirited horses, the worst thing you can be, is afraid and the worst thing you can do is use brute force and inflict pain to "make" a panicked or otherwise emotionally upset animal "behave" --- we know that it just won't work, but many others will resort to it.
Patton's casualities were actually low relative to the German Army. Around 170,000 to German forces that 3rd Army faced around 1.5 million most of those captured. Grant used the right strategy. But wrong tactics. Very heavy losses which should not have happened given how poorly equipped, supplied and outnumbered the Confederate armies were,. The war should have been over in 2 years tops, not ,4.
To all those who cite Cold Harbor as "proof" of Grant as butcher, there is a definitive reply: "The Vicksburg Campaign." He risked his army's annihilation as much as did Lee in before Antietam, while tying up and mystifying numerous Confederate generals and succeeding brilliantly. He was the only person who had a realistic grand strategy for marshalling all of the North's capabilities towards ending the war (and that arguably includes Halleck). Not even Napoleon, for all his gifts, actually displayed that kind of long-term vision over so wide an area (and yes of course the challenges were barely similar). Lee was at least as much of a butcher as Grant - Gettysburg day 3, for one example - but could afford the bill far less. Grant is my nominee for America's greatest solider.
Grant, as a "butcher," 7:58 is belied by the statistics. While Grant fought a largely offensive war, his troops incurred far fewer, by percentages and numbers, casualties than Lee's.
If Lee were the strategic genius, the Southern mythology proposes him to be, he needed only to hold off the Union. And if Lee had listened to Longstreet, at Gettysburg, we might well be living in a very different country today.
The USA has been blessed with numerous brilliant, successful soldiers.
There is really no such thing as GOAT in almost anything - except perhaps J S Bach.
Arguably, Lincoln was our greatest soldier. He was Commander-In-Chief and without him both slavery and secession would have succeeded.
I am sorry to correct you. Grant did not have a strategy of any kind. The strategy for the North was the Anaconda Plan which was developed by Winfield Scott and controlled and carried out by Lincoln and Halleck. Grant was just the general, like Lincoln and Halleck that understood the math. Grant was just carrying out the battlefield tactics dictated by the Anaconda Plan. Grant understood just as Lee did that only a lot of blood was going to end the war. The only thing Lee and the South could hope for was to inflict enough damage to the Union Army to cause the North to lose faith in their cause.
@@ambrosephill9 With all due respect, no. Anaconda was overwhelmingly a naval plan and it envisioned a slow strangulation of the South via denial of access to water, largely because, after 1st Bull Run, Halleck and Scott wanted to avoid further major bloodlettings. Anaconda envisioned taking Vicksburg but it didn't stipulate how - in fact, Halleck left it to Grant to develop the (brilliant) strategy for the campaign. It did not envision Grant's shift to what became known as "hard war" beginning with the right turn after the Wilderness, or his coordination of armies culminating in Missionary Ridge, or Sherman's Atlanta Campaign. That was Grant, Grant, Grant, and Grant.
I don't think Lee knew what was going to happen on day 3 of Gettysburg. If he did he would have done something different. Cold harbor with Grant was a different matter. But Grant knew he would bleed Lee at Cold Harbor as well and Grant could take it and replace losses. Lee could not. That is why the Union stopped prisoner exchanges at that point in the war. The south needed the men worse than the North did. You can be a butcher and still be smart that's why the word ruthless was invented.
Grant was smart enough to realize in order to win, the North would have to do a death grip on Lee's army and not let go, no matter how many casualties.
He made a right decision in a situation where he had more good options than bad.
Attrition.
Well said.
@@huddlechannel2932 Except at Cold Harbor...
Right strategy. But wrong tactics. To incur massive losses while being the larger, better equpped and supplied army and having to go at it for almost a year must be really be saying something. The war itself should have been over within two years, not four. Was the Confederate Army really that good?
I think the proper Lincoln quote: “I cannot spare this man. He fights!
Grant’s Vicksburg Campaign should have gotten more notice from his adversaries.
A real consideration for the Overland Campaign was Lincoln’s need to show results to the North leading up to the 1864 Election.
Yes - especially so given that was an age in which the advantages almost always lay with a dug in defender armed with rifled muskets that could reach out and kill at half a mile.
@@mirrorblue100 Half a mile, I doubt that most people might be accurate at 250 yards and an expert might be able to hit a man-sized target at 500 yards. But a half a mile, you have been watching the Chris Kyle story to many times.
As far as the 1864 election, the biggest mistake the South made was relieving Joe Johnston, John Bell Hood was personally brave and could handle troops in sizes from a division or smaller, but a whole army. I think not. Jefferson Davis might have thought that Hood's aggressiveness would tip the balance against Sherman, but Sherman had a much larger force. If the Atlanta campaign had been a stalemate or a seize of Atlanta. Then maybe Lincoln might have lost the election and then the war. But no Hood thought he was fighting in the East against Generals who were not willing to sacrifice all their men. Sherman like Grant did not care about the losses and expected Lincoln to support them and reman and resupply them.
@@ambrosephill9 You don't understand that just because you miss your intended target doesn't mean the ball doesn't strike in the rear echelon - and that man is still dead whether he was the intended target or not. Moreover - troops were not dispersed during this war - so large units could be taken under fire at long ranges. A half mile is roughly 1000 yards and the balls in use then could kill at that range. And I have no idea who Chris Kyle is.
Yes and if Jefferson Davis had left Joe Johnston in command in Georgia. Johnston would have at least forced Sherman to besiege him in Atlanta. If Johnston could hang on to Atlanta after the election. Then Lincoln might have lost and McClellan might have become President and sued for peace.
I read in one of Shelby Foot's books that after the Battle of the Wilderness when the troops were mustered to march they all cheered when the order came down to march south and not north like all the previous generals had done. Before Grant all the generals would just go back home after a battle to lick their wounds and get ready to do it again which had proved to be a failed strategy over and over again. Apparently the troops knew this before the generals did.
Grant wasn't interested in retreating back across the Potomac, getting drunk and feeling sorry for himself.
I might add the Union suffered more then 100,000 casualties during the proceeding three years for little success.
@@johnfleet235 yea except that they won the war... lol!
If only the Union officer corps were that intuitive
@@Conn30Mtenor Grant was not an alcoholic.!A Norwegian
artist who was staying with Grant. Lincoln had commissioned him to paint a large work of his top generals
on horseback.
After 6 weeks Ole Bolling
asked for a drink.
Grant responded that he had none. He told the artist that he had been slandered during his time in the army, and so kept no alcohol.
I believe his statement because he was an honorable man.
He has another problem.
He could not hold his liquor.
With just one drink, he would slur his speech.
The second drink left him holding onto the furniture.
He also had what I know all about. Severe migraine headaches, lasting 3 days, with vomiting. As in a hangover, you are in bed and block out light.
Throughout his life he drank little or none. In the White House, he was know to take just a sip of champagne and did not finish his glass.
He was a family man. He loved Julia and his 4 boys, and 1 daughter.
When he was with his family all of his life, he hardly ever drank.
There is much more to say in this topic.
BTW, he did not “ feel sorry for himself.”
Grant was like a dog on a bone. He worked it adjusted, worked it some more.. he didn’t quit.
Excellent analogy. My dog appreciates your insight!
i like that analogy
Murdering your own troops is like a dog eating bone, that sounds like something biden would say.
@arturbello4213he had outmaneuvered Lee at nearly every turn. He made it impossible for Lee to effectively counter-attack. If Lee hadn’t bled the CSA dry with useless and ill advised battles (let’s not forget Lee’s useless and stupid attack on the third day of Gettysburg, which saw the needless slaughter of his own troops), the CSA would have been in a better position. Also, Grant understood how logistics won wars while Lee considered logistics a nuisance.
If Lee understood logistics like Grant did, the war may have likely turned out differently.
Grant used overwhelming numbers to win the war. That's how you win, you capitalize on your advantages. As the saying goes, " If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!"
The Southern criticism of Grant was because they felt generalship was about gallantry and honor; whereas Grant fought the war as more of an administrator and coordinator. From the moment Grant started his Overland Campaign he maintained the initiative on all fronts, and denied the South's attempts to take the initiative from him. Grant grappled with Lee's army and ran it to ground. Grant forced Lee to fight the war on Grant's terms. The South could not realize how badly they were pinned because the war did not look like what they expected a war to be.
Indeed!
It took Grant less than 2 months to Bottle up Lee and for all intents, took him out of the war. The thing that Grant understood was if he could take out Lee the war would be over.
Grant and Sherman were the first understanding of modern warfare. Well, Longstreet understood it as well- so he mastered trench warfare to stay alive as long as possible.
@@GBU61 And then he sent General Sheridan to shut down any more Shenandoah shenanigans.
@DLYChicago Sheridan's Shenandoah Campaign did more damage to the Confederacy's food supply and morale than Sherman's march through Georgia and South Carolina. THAT is saying something.
If you have read Bonekemper's book on Grant and Lee, Grant had a total casualty count, killed, wounded or captured, of 154,000 while inflicting 191,000 casualties on the South. Lee incurred 209,000 casualties while inflicting 240,000 on the North. I would point out that Grant fought a vigorous and aggressive war throughout the West, while Lee ignored the Southern Defensive strategy with two disastrous assaults on the North at Antietam and Gettysburg where he was lucky to save any of Army. Then he was fighting a defensive war on his home ground with excellent interior lines and the ability to mass his forces quickly for any threat. He still ended up with 55,000 more casualties. And Grant was the butcher?
Being out gunned and out numbered will yield a higher number of KIA’s and wounded to one’s army. Lee saw the writing on the wall, and knew it was a matter of time before the industrial strength and superior number of men in the north would eventually overwhelm the south. He, I believe, wanted to win on northern soil to keep the momentum in the souths favor, and to put political pressure on the north for a possible treaty. It would also demonstrate legitimacy for the south and possible recognition by other western powers in Europe. I could be wrong though, but I feel he thought he had a window of opportunity to act before the industrial might, wealth, and man power of the north defeated the south. Which it eventually did.
Tactics and good men win battles. However, Logistics and resources usually wins wars. I think Lee knew this, and took a gamble with the offense. I Know Longstreet favored the defensive strategy, and he was correct at Gettysburg. I once thought that way too, but I think Lee had a good understanding of the overall dynamic at play. For me, it’s easy to look back, with 20/20 hindsight, from a 21st century perspective on a 19th century conflict. For me, I’ll give the Generals respect for understanding their century better than me I think.
@@ml5955 The "good interior lines" means that Lee could move troops to an area quickly, so he generally wasn't fighting outnumbered or out gunned. Lee had 20,000 reported casualties at Gettysburg and historians estimate his real total between 23,000 and 28,000. That means 35,000 to 40,000 total for his two Offensive moves against the North. If he had faced an aggressive commander at Antietam, he would have lost his Army and only the weather preserved it at Gettysburg.
Lee and Grant had two different strategic goals. Grant's goal was to take and hold territory, denying it to the South. By contrast, Lee's goal was to inflict such sharp defeats on the North so that they would give up the war. The reason for this is the massive disparity in force. The South never could, nor were ever inclined towards taking and holding Northern Territory. They just wanted the North to stop invading.
Also, Lee spent more time in the Eastern theater where the army sizes were larger, which accounts for part of the casualties disparity.
@@pathfinderlight I would say the Grant fought a Strategic War where the outcome of a single battle wasn't important as long as his Army could advance. Lee was looking for that single battle that would change the outcome. By the time of the Civil War, technology probably had made that obsolete. Even during the Overland Campaign, Grant would just move his Army to the Confederate right if he couldnot break though in a location and Lee had to follow him, just as Johnson had been forced to follow Sherman to Atlanta.
@@ml5955The South wasn't outgunned. That's a myth that Southerners told themselves for cope. Prior to the war, the Buchanan administration moved the vast majority of guns and ammo south, and tue first act of secession was taking hundreds of forts protected with skeleton crews that had most of the country's weapons.
The North was at an ammunition deficit for well after Gettysburg.
In all of the portraits of Grant, including this one, you can see the eyes and look of a man that has seen much hardship and reverses in life. Grant well understands the difficulties and failures that happen and has great compassion for those who have struggled throughout their lives.
Yet every time he was knocked down, including the last year of his life, he got up and carried on, doing the best he could with what he had.
Grant is a personal hero for me and someone I try, in my own little world, to emulate.
I’ve read several books on Grant and they all note that he was unflappable under pressure. He was always calm in the most adverse situations.
@@67gneissguy I agree completely. If you're interested, read his "Memoirs". They are high in the top tier of civil war memoirs. They will have you staying up at night reading through them to find our how the civil war ended. They are That Good. Also re-read his surrender terms to Lee. In a few moments with no coaching, editing, politicians saying OOOH you can't do that, you must say this, he drafted out one of the most important documents in all of American history. The last of the few sentences was crucial: "That being accomplished, the men are free to return home, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in the jurisdiction where they reside." Truly a Great Man
I am a filipino and Grant is one of the american generals and leaders i admired the most, way right up there with Lincoln.
I was the ops manager for origins 79 & 80. The American Civil War was one of my primary areas of interest. I'm a Yankee by birth and by predilection, and since at the time you had so many lost cause types who always wanted to play the Confederates, well a good union opponent was appreciated. Over the past several decades I have done a fair amount of reading of not just the popular texts, but many of the academic texts that I could purchase at half Price books just outside Ohio State University until that store was shut down.
There's a bias of the time, which listening to the narration was highlighted for me just now. Grant was an excellent operational general, like Lee. What kind of "generalship" is that?
Tactically he was good, and even more importantly he understood the qualities of his commanders such that most of the people he recommended for promotion did well. For the commander of an army, that is very important.
Strategically, it's not that he was brilliant in the way of two other commanders we think of for that, Lee and Sherman. But he had a different kind of brilliance. He was very clear headed, and he adjusted his approach constantly by watching what worked, and what didn't. That is why his wilderness campaign was so bloody.
Lee had ended up with a command staff that, through a combination of his own choices of subordinates to promote, and serendipity of starting with some excellent generals under him, was excellent. He had also grown complacent by the time of Gettysburg, which frankly was one of his worst campaigns.
Grant was not going to have one of his western battles where he could hold his losses to roughly the same as the Confederates, or slightly higher. Considering the huge advantage of manpower, from a strategic level doing this an unequivocal, crushing strategic victory, especially when you consider that Grant had crushed the Confederates on the battlefield too, and followed through taking substantial strategically critical territory for the Confederacy. But Grant didn't need a crushing strategic victory that way against Lee.
Against Lee, Grant took the worst losses of any Union general fighting a campaign at that level. But the thing is, that was still an unequivocal victory. Grant could take three to one losses and still win, assuming Lincoln could get reelected if that had happened. Grant was aware of this, he hated the losses he was taking - but he had to pin Lee. Even if Grant could not slowly push Lee back, which is exactly what he did, he had to keep large numbers of troops being transferred to the Atlanta campaign. Which he did, and Sherman (remember my note about choosing good commanders) rewarded him richly for it. And probably saved Lincoln's reelection.
So pinning Lee's army, and engaging in a deliberate war of attrition, was the path to victory AT THIS POINT IN THE WAR. Grant hated the losses he was taking, but knew for the sake of the war he could not back off. The losses Grant took were the cost of grinding the army of Northern Virginia down until it was combat ineffective, while pinning those forces so Sherman could split the Confederacy in two, all the while causing the total failure of the Confederate logistics system, which to be honest was already in terrible shape. So Grant kept the pressure up. He paid for it in casualties, but that was the cost of victory.
As an interesting aside, the historian narrating this makes a very interesting point. He does not use the terms tactical, operational, and strategic very much. That's because though they were not the common parlance of the time.
This was all about generalship, which was talked about as a generic capability, and not split up as it is today. So Grant pursuing a simple and straightforward strategic vision that won the war means that, as far as Law and many others were concerned concerned, grant's generalship wasn't "good". Lee out maneuvered him at times, caused him to take heavier losses, and handed Grant a simple and straightforward, albeit extremely expensive, solution. Grant took it, and History shows us who turned out to be right.
I have to quibble a bit with your characterizations of strategic vs operational vs tactical capabilities of various generals. I think Lee was not primarily a strategic general. Tactically brilliant. On a given battlefield he was formidable. And operationally he shrewdly used his advantage of interior lines to flummox the Union for years. Strategically, however, he seemed to fail to see the big picture that Grant saw. Alternatively, perhaps he saw it but knew he had no counter to it so he did what he could with the resources available to him. But that is unknowable.
@@cleanwillie1307 Not nitpicking at all, in fact I agree with you. That's why my exact statement was "Strategically, it's not that he was brilliant in the way of two other commanders we think of for that, Lee and Sherman." I did NOT want to turn my first post into a target for the Lost Cause types.
Lee was very strong strategically in his choices of defensive lines, maneuver and counterattacks out of those lines, and then understanding where the Union had vulnerabilities. But the one thing he and most of the Confederate generals did not understand was that there were virtually no battles where the Confederates maintained a casualty ratio with the union that would permit them to survive a longer war.
Grant was always sensitive to casualties, which is why when he made blunders (versus mistakes) like Cold Harbor and Shiloh, he did not repeat them. He only started taking losses at 1.5 to even as high as 2 to 1, in the wilderness campaign. But he didn't take them inadvertently, he had decided to turn the wilderness into a meat grinder. Both directly and indirectly it devastated the Army of Northern Virginia. But Grant had Lincoln while Lee was stuck with Jefferson Davis. When your boss is that terrible, It does limit what you can do. When your strategic position before the war is also that compromised, maybe you should delay your revolt a little bit longer...
Grant was the first General to coordinate all Union armies working together at one time for an overall victory. No Confederate army could come to Lee's help due to being engaged in combat themselves. AND during the same time Sherman was marching through Georgia and the Carolina,'s. Grant saw the overall strategy.
That is a great comment. The South had the interior lines, which allowed them to move their forces around to reinforce themselves where needed. Grant knew that if Union forces attacked on all fronts at once, that wouldn't be possible.
Union started out with the "Anaconda Plan" under Winfield Scott. Capture of New Orleans - huge (overlooked) victory. But then lost track + focus under Halleck. Grant brought the coordinated grand strategy back - incl focus on closing the remaining ports.
I am sorry to correct you. Grant did not have a strategy of any kind. The strategy for the North was the Anaconda Plan which was developed by Winfield Scott and controlled and carried out by Lincoln and Halleck. Grant was just the general, like Lincoln and Halleck that understood the math. Grant was just carrying out the battlefield tactics dictated by the Anaconda Plan. Grant understood just as Lee did that only a lot of blood was going to end the war. The only thing Lee and the South could hope for was to inflict enough damage to the Union Army to cause the North to lose faith in their cause.
Additionally, Lee refused aid to other armies.
@@ambrosephill9What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that Grant succeeded where others failed.
Might I suggest you stop reading all the "Lost Cause" bullshit. You might also consider that without the United States, you might now be speaking German.
The Southern generals fought the war like it was 1810. Grant, Sherman, Meigs fought the war like it was 1910.
@@edwardmeade there is merit in what you say.
Well the south couldn't fight that type of war, they didn't have the number and logistics that the north had. So while you make a valid point, you left out some needed context.
The WW I generals fought like it was 1860.
1918
Lee was one of the great generals of the 19th century. He lost because Grant was a 20th century general.
Grant was a great general,history constantly tries to f him over.
I know. I grew up w/ a mother from Alabama who called the Civil War The War for States’ Rights.
The lost cause is responsible for this. It is not taught in schools as it occurred. That’s why we must study it as it actually occurred.
Grant’s WP classmates said he was the best horse trainer in the army. He lost his own mount in a card game on the way to Mexico but took on a wild mustang and had him as docile as any mount in just a few days.
Hard to imagine any real strategist criticizing a leader for recognizing the strength of his position, and utilizing it to achieve the objectives.
Just as the Civil War was the transition into modern warfare, so too was Grant a transition to a modern general. Those demeaning him were judging him by standards rapidly becoming extinct. Perhaps Grant's greatest strength was his ability to appreciate his army's advantages and use them to their fullest rather than adhering to outdated theories of how a war should be fought. In the end, HE WON.
And a lot of Union soldiers died or were maimed unnecessarily because of his tactics.
@@davidstraight3622Unnecessarily? How would YOU know. His tactics ended the war. Until he took over it was a slog. You could easily argue that he saved lives by ending the war sooner. That’s what so many amateur war critics get wrong. In war, people die every day. Every day the war continues more people die. Do the math and you may find that taking high casualties for a few months may save lives versus continuing to dither for several more years.
He won. But with heavy loss of life
@@davidstraight3622 Very true. It foreshadowed the terrible human wastage of WW1 and other industrial wars. Sadly, the advances in technology and the scale of armies, etc. made his approach a viable, albeit costly, path to victory.
@@exposethenwo6491and Lee lost in large part to the fact he needlessly sent his own men to unnecessary deaths. He was more the butcher than Grant.
Any confederate general calling Grant a butcher should ask President Davis to look to the West toward General Hood. Hood was the epitome of a butcher and seemed almost to enjoy slaughtering his troops. Meanwhile Grants overall casualty rates in the western theater were minuscule considering how much fighting he did on the offensive. It’s a shame that so many still have this view of Grant as the butcher, he engaged Lee and latched on to the army of northern VA bringing the war to a close within 11 months of taking overall command. That constant pressure was deliberate and kept Lee from moving south to join Johnston in defeating Sherman. The last thing the North needed was Lee utilizing the interior lines of the south to reinforce one army, win a battle and then move all troops to engage Grant. Grant was Napoleonic in his generalship and we all owe him a debt in keeping this nation whole.
No need to look to Hood when you can look to Lee: Gaines Mill, Malvern Hill, Antietam, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg...
Grant's Vicksburg Campaigns (8 of them) ended up in taking the city. I would say his generalship was excellent in the west but In the east he understood attritrion, there was very little of the Western Grant involved.
@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 In the east he was limited in his maneuvering room by the rivers and swamps cutting through the territory. The Overland Campaign is a story of moving from crossroads to river ford and trying to get there before the other guy till Grant finally bottled Lee up in Petersburg/Richmond. The last bit afterward was a footrace as Lee tried to escape.
Was any more bloodthirsty than Sherman?
Please, Grant is not in the same category as Napoleon. Grant was given an army that outnumbered his enemy and had virtually unlimited supplies and yet still managed to loss several battles against a much weaker single enemy. Napoleon leveled devastating defeats on enemies that outnumbered him while fighting multiple nations.
Strategically Grant was a genius.He placed four armies in motion to negate the southern advantage of fighting on interior lines: Phil Sheridan in the Shanandoah valley, Benjamin Butler east of Richmond, William Tecumseh Sherman's movement to atlanta.
Sheridan was not until later in the year, but Nathaniel Banks was in motion in the Red River Campaign.
Butler was a special case. A talentless hack of a general - Grant couldn't get rid of him because of his political connections. So he set him on a task that would be useful if Butler succeeded, but inconsequential if he failed. Grant expected Butler to fail, but at least he was out of the way.
@@michaelmorris4515 no doubt a competent General in place of Butler would have put Richmond and Lee in dire straights a lot earlier.
@@michaelmorris4515 Agree, Butler was pretty much worthless but he provided Lee with one more problem to handle with his limited resources. Sheridan was a different story. He didn't tie down many troops but he precipitated a famine. The county I live in has no barns that predate the Civil War courtesy of General Sheridan.
"The county I live in has no barns that predate the Civil War courtesy of General Sheridan." FAFO.
@@edwardmeade
Apparently, Grant and Lee both had more qualities than were seen by the opposition. In fact, those fighting with them saw a bit more. In Grant's case, one of those views came from William Tecumseh Sherman. He once wrote that he was "a site smarter than Grant...but where he beats me and the rest of the world: he doesn't care a damn about the enemy when out of his sight. Just the thought of the enemy out of my sight scares me like hell!"
Reminds me of a quote from Grant when his subordinates were talking about what Lee was going to do, "Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do"
@@SpearFL
I remember that quote.
Thanks for reminding me.
@lillybloom1590 Most certainly! Truth is, I actually heard the quote from the 1989 documentary "The Civil War," compiled by Ken Burns, and narrated by John Chancellor and Jason Robards, who was among others who cited quotes. Not sure which episode, or rather, night, it was presented, though I am guessing the 3rd night. If that quote turns out erroneous, please reply! Thanks so much!
Well Sherman thought he was smarter.
@@lillybloom1590 type the quote into google it will give you the source
The South disliked Grant partly because he had been unknown to them. Mainly though, it was because Grant fought the war brutally. He did this, not because he was a brute but because he knew that savagery reduced the cost (in blood and treasure). Grant's ratio of losses (154,000:191,000) is a statement of real achievement, even more so in attack.
Grant is hated because he believed in giving rights to blacks .He enforced reconstruction on the South hand the Army occupied the South until Hayes came in to office after him .
Their commentary on Grant is a good example of how so many in the AoNV failed to see the war as a whole.
Perhaps if the Union had a better sense of how to see the war as a whole or at least how to defeat Confederate Army the ANV, that war would have ended with McClelland march on Richmond in the summer of 1862? Or perhaps with McDowell's unwarranted attack on Confederate forces at Manassas on July 2, 1861?
What took those confounded Yankees so long to whoop those pesky misguided Rebels, whom they had out manned and out gunned from the start lol?
Losers always make excuses.
@@mirrorblue100 What's your excuse then?
@@FuzzyWuzzy75 Oh look! A troll with what they think is a witty response!
@@mirrorblue100 I didn't hear an excuse but rather a matter of fact analysis.
I agree with General Law 100%. Grant's true mark of greatness was his willingness to stick to what he knew was a long term winning plan in spite of all the criticism and bitterness directed at him.
It’s bizarre that Law would characterize Grant as an unknown as Longstreet, his commanding officer, was Grant’s best friend at West Point. But perhaps I can suggest a reason.
The unsaid thing is that Law had personal enmity with Longstreet who had removed him from command and actually arrested Law until the CSA’s general staff reinstated him. After the war Longstreet returned to Mississippi and was a supporter of reconstruction and civil rights for African Americans. Grant appointed Longstreet as customs collector in New Orleans and when local whites tried to stage an armed rebellion Longstreet put the riot down and restored the integrated government.
In short, by 1884 Law had every reason to despise Grant and Longstreet.
Grant understood that the more lightly equipped Southern Army was always going to be quicker and faster. How do you deal with that? Get up close and grapple with them; never give them room to maneuver. So he just went at lee. And in the end that was exactly what he needed to do. Grant understood that the south had to be BEATEN, not just defeated.
I believe the entire country had a wake-up call after Shiloh. After that battle Lincoln realized he had to completely destroy the South and build it back up into a modern economy. It was about this time Lincoln began to consider destroying the slavery system first, and by the time Grant took over, and initiated a comprehensive plan to attack the South, it marked the beginning of the end.
Bit of trivia, Grant held equestrian records that stood into the 20th century.
Interesting tidbit. Thank you.
As a horseman myself, when I began to read Grant's Memoirs, the first thing that oozed out of the pages was his genuine love of horses. I believe that it was his experience, gaining their respect while avoiding their hatred, training and bending strong and dangerous creatures to the wearisome tasks needing to be done, that was directly applicable to his handling military formations for the task of winning the Civil War. It is no wonder that Grant was perhaps the most admired man of the second half of the 19th Century, in North America and in in Europe too. This despite what some of the losers thought.
It was said of Grant, dating back to West Point - “he had a way with horses.”
The key to Grant's success is that he did not fear Lee. He understood Lee's strategic weaknesses. and how to exploit them ... Grant was a tactician. His campaign in Vicksburg was a masterpiece of the principle of meeting and defeating fragments of your enemy before he was able to consolidate numbers against you. After Grant's final incursion into Virginia with the Army of the Potomac, his signature maneuver became evident. Usually conducted at night after a battle, to pull the army out of their lines from one end, march behind the other lines, and head south on the available roads outside the reach of the rebel defenses. In that way he peeled off the entire army, unzipping its lines from left to right, or right to left, onto a flank march to which Lee had to react, instead of dictating the issue as he so often had done. Now, Lee had to contend with the one general he had feared from the start, the one he had hoped to avoid, the ONE who understood him.
Lee always said he feared McClellen more than Grant. As it turned out, brains weren’t everything.
@@jaybee9269 There is a quote, I believe from Lee, before Grant was appointed to overall command, when one of Lee's generals was congratulating him on his latest spanking of a Union commander. Lee replied to the effect the what he feared was a commander whom he, Lee, did not understand. Then he got Grant, who scolded his own generals for believing that Lee could "turn a somersault, and land in your rear." As to the statement that Lee made about Grant using overwhelming numbers instead of talent, Lincoln, for one, applauded Grant for doing his job with what he had, and not constantly pestering the government for more men. True, he headed south with a very large army, but never stopped, never bogged down, and despite great losses, never cried for more reinforcements. And, but for the failure of his commander on the ground, who stalled in front of the Petersburg works after arriving by surprise when the defenses were barely manned, could have shortened the war by a year by fooling Lee, who hustled his army into the lines with just hours to spare.
Lee did not know Grant and did not remember him .Grant remembered Lee though.The Southern General who did know Grant was Longstreet and his wounding at the Wilderness took him out of action during a critical time when Lee needed intel on Grant (the Overland Campaign).
One of Grant’s greatest strengths (unlike most Northern generals) was his ability to stay calm under duress and keep the enemy under constant pressure. While if you where in his army, I’m sure it did feel like you where in the meat grinder and you didn’t get much rest, but he knew that this was going to end the war sooner.
A lopsided victory is "Pyrrhic" only if the "victor" can not sustain his losses and becomes successively weakened. For some things, like the invasion of hostile territory, asymmetrical losses are necessary when dealing with foes of similar technology. Grant, I think everyone will agree, used what he had very effectively and none of his battles even hinted at being Pyrrhic, even if the causalities were high. It is my opinion that ALL the Confederate "victories" were, in one way or another, Pyrrhic. To me it is so ironic that Southern officers would call Grant a "butcher" when the ordinary "Ruffians" in the Confederate armies had their lives squandered by their "Gentlemen" officers in many battles. If Grant was a butcher, who supplied the hogs?
Exceptionally well stated. The idea of Grant as a butcher stems from the Lost Cause mythology. Was Lee any less a butcher at Gettysburg?
Lee was the true butcher. He wasted lives needlessly and had no real strategic vision in waging the war. Grant did. Sherman did as well. Grant kept Lee pinned down, essentially rendering him ineffective. This allowed Sheridan and Sherman to do their things in depriving Lee of men, material and food (control the grain and you control world). The AoNV was losing more men to desertion than to disease or combat as they were hungry and had enough (or in this case, not enough as well). Grant’s strategy of keeping the pressure up while taking a good chunk of his army in an attempt to outflank Lee on the southern end of his army led to significant casualties on both sides but also forced Lee to always be in the defensive as he had to constantly keep moving his own forces south to counter Grant.
When Lee surrendered, it was just a matter of days before it would be Sherman linking up with Lee to kick his boot into Lee’s figurative posterior, not Lee linking up with Hood. Lee lost in large measure due to his ineptness in thinking strategically, especially concerning grand strategy. Grant prosecuted the war due to his ability to see the strategy and grand strategy. He implemented the Anaconda plan very well.
Yes, its kind of dumb to claim Grant had unacceptable loses vs Lee, when after each battle, Lee retreated, and Grant advanced. You dont retreat when you are winning, and you dont advance, after losing.
People want to talk about Grant’s exceedingly high casualty rates, but from Wikipedia, “Throughout the Civil War, Grant's armies incurred approximately 154,000 casualties, while having inflicted 191,000 casualties on his opposing Confederate armies.” Somehow he gave better than he took. Law’s quotes come 20 years after the war, probably just after Grant’s death, when the Lost Cause propaganda campaign was beginning. Grant was the only general in the war that forced the surrender of multiple opposing armies. He placed himself between two armies in Mississippi, and defeated them both, even though he was outnumbered and in enemy territory. He was not cowed by Lee, and inflicted on Lee’s army a 46% casualty rate compared to his own 41%, in spite again being in enemy territory and for part of the time sieging prepared defenses (which favors the defenders). The facts just do not support the Lost Cause narrative.
The Confederates had less men and less supplies. Grant was creating meatgrinders and the Confederates got the worst of it but his casualties were still horrendous.
Such is war, though.
Are these numbers factoring in prisoners taken? If so grant took over 40,000 prisoners in the western theater before moving east. Wouldn’t this skew the average? I’m genuinely curious, not trying to criticize your comment
Head to head Lee inflicted more casualties against Grant than he took.
@@frankbaptista8334 Head to head, Grant backed Lee into in inescapable corner, and Lee lost a greater percentage of his men. And the remnants of Lee’s army, who were paroled instead of taken prisoner, are not counted in those “killed, wounded, or captured” casualty numbers. Add those 35,000 to Lee’s total.
@@projoebiochem Really reaching there, Grant lost over 50,000 in one month, please tell me who lost more then that in such a short time.
Put Lee and Grant against each other with equal armies, no doubt Lee would win.
Using Law's perspective is very informative and an excellent approach. Well done.
a fascinating complex character, highly intelligent & scrupulously honest & honourable in all his dealings...also had a laid back sense of humour that had no trace of profanity...I mostly love the fact that he was a genius horseman & reinsman...in another age he would have been a natural aviator...
Lee was masterful as a general during a battle. The movements and strategies to win the day. Grant was masterful at conducting a campaign. Overseeing all aspects, from logistics to looking at a series of strategic battles to achieve success to win the war
A person that gets it.
The confederate general quoted reminds me of what an Alabama football player said after losing to Michigan in the playoffs this year, " They didn't beat us. We beat ourselves. " Nah, you got beat and outcoached.
Having a center who could snap the ball to the quarterback would have helped.
@@vlaekershner7305 It's a team game. Poor Alabama didn't have a complete team, they got beat. Bunch of sore Losers, with a capital L.
I hate to be so unscholarly, but the brig general’s comments seem a lot like butthurt cope.
That’s Bama for you. Hopefully we’ll continue to see that attitude in the coming season(s).
Yall sound butt hurt lol
Grant saved the Union. End.
"Saving the Union" is Unconstitutional. Holding it together by bayonet-point?
Yet he nearly destroyed it as president.
Yep And a big assist from Sherman.
The Union Army of the Potomac suffered grievous losses during the Overland campaign.
But due to immigration Grant could replace his losses.
The South could not
Go Gators!
Grant recognized if he refused to acknowledge defeat, he could keep his army in the field and on the attack. He ultimately denied Lee the ability to maneuver and, by staying in constant contact, forced Lee to stay engaged and lose men daily that he could not replace. Lee spent the remainder of the war being reactive to anything Grant did.
Grant was a hammer and a bulldog. What made him different from other Union Generals is that he didn't let go of the enemy once he engaged him. After losing battles, other generals withdrew and licked their wounds. Grant, after a battle, regardless of the results, moved forward. He didn't want the blood that his soldier spilled to be in vain. His strategy, as he told Lincoln, was that the destruction of Lee's army was his goal and that wherever he went, he would also be there.
It must have been a shock to Lee and his staff to have a Union general who after not winning a battle kept dogging him.
@user-gl5dq2dg1j The southern generals knew of him and how he fought. I think Longstreet (?) served with him in Mexico and warned General Lee that he was as tenacious a man as there was.
@@PeteOtton Lee: "That man will fight us every day til the end of the war."
Grant won. Lee lost. This was, and still is, a good thing.
Exactly my friend. Him and Sherman saved our union. Not many people give them the respect they deserve 💔🔥🏆🙏🏽🙌🏾❤️👍🏼
Absolutely.
Respectfully, it was a team effort, and President Lincoln was the Captain.
@@tyjameson7404
Are you sure about that???? Our failures in Vietnam and SE Asia, Iraq, Afghanistan, illegal aliens, wokeism, and our current political mess are good things??? I think not. In fact most of the world is saying today that the existance of the US is the biggest problem to having world peace. But then again no one likes the US until the balloons go up and they find themselves neck deep in shit!!! LOL
Yes it was such a good thing that it destroyed the American Republic and turned us into an empire most of the world hates. Or they hate us when they don't need us.
It was such a good thing that males are not males, females are not females, the state can take away a parent's right to control their child's health care and provide sterilizing health care against the wishes of the parent's, illegal aliens crossing our borders, crime destroying our cities, and Marxist under the guise of Woke, anti-Enlightenment, and Liberal politics destroying a people and culture.
Yeah it was a real good thing!!!! LOL
The wilderness campaigned showed Lee, grant was coming for him 🙏🏽🔥🏆👍🏼🙌🏾❤️💔
What I understand is that Grant never relented. He didn't take a break when he thought he was winning: No, he kept going, driving his men to absolute victory.
True. After Petersburg instead of marching to Richmond and parading there, he chased Lee down.
Constantly driving for victory
@@scotttracy9333 Unlike Meade after Gettysburg.
@@remaguire
Exactly 💯
I think I agree with everythjng Law said.
Grant was competent and always did the sensible thing. His campaigns were all pretty straightforward, and he used his numerical advantage to great effect. (He never fought a battle with much worse than 2-1 odds).
His rare qualities were his tenacity and his ability to keep his army cohesive and well supplied in all situations. In 1860s America, that wasn't a small feat.
Grant always fought on the offensive in enemy territory, meaning he had to leave substantial numbers of troops behind to protect supply and communication lines, to forage, etc. Generally accepted doctrine is that an attacker requires a 3:1 advantage against a defender; Grant had less than that. What he pulled off was quite remarkable.
@@kenrodmelrocity4241 I think quite remarkable is a fair assessment.
Grant typically didn't move very far from rivers and ports, which was how he kept his supply chain short. He was the best general in the war when it came to logistics.
Grant started his Army career as a quartermaster as did W T Sherman. Remorseless Anglo-Saxon logistics and supply. Always a winner.
Shout out to North Carolina for being best Confederate state consistently supporting their soldiers with food, uniforms, weapons and ammunition.
@@braedenh6858 Exactly! Which, I believe, is why many historians refer to him as the first modern general. I read his memoirs. The guy was a logistics genius.
Not sure what you mean by "straightforward" campaigns. Vicksburg used a dizzying array of feints, lightning-fast marches, and unpredictable shifts in direction that kept the rebels completely bamboozled.
Grant's victory at Vicksburg is considered by many historians to compare with anything Alexander the Great did. It's considered one of the great strategic and tactical victories of all time.
BTW, Grant's troops suffered fewer casualties, numerically and by percentage, than Lee's. While fighting an offensive war. If Lee was such a genius, he would have known that all he had to do was defend until the North got exhausted. The Vietnamese understood that.
Exacto siempre he pensado eso simplemente defender las fronteras. Conozco los motivos de las invasiones Maryland Pensilvania... Delirantes para la realidad del Sur. Tienes razón la opinión pública del norte por tanta sangre derramada sin resultados y algunas corrientes políticas ( Mcclelland) hubiesen jugado a favor del sur.
If memory from long ago is correct, T. Harry Williams referred to Grant as the "first of the modern generals". Grant pursued Lee similar to the U.S. taking it to Hitler in WWII-IMO.
I recently saw some quotes of his discussing how it was unfair to judge generalship in the early days of the war vs at the end due to how much better everyone had gotten at war. All that "progress" definitely had an impact on how WW1 was fought.
A couple of times Grant came close tumbling checked. At Spotsylvania where only the wounding of General Longstreet stopped the charge of his relieving force, and then at North Anna, where Lee’ s incapacity keep the Federal from falling into a trap that might have produced a result something like Chancellorsville, Then of course Cold Harbor. But the difference lay with who was in charge of the Federals. Grant was never going to quit. Shiloh proved how cool he was in the face of fire.
@@johnschuh8616 Longstreet was wounded at the Wilderness. But you raise good points.
@@johnschuh8616 If we are looking at what ifs, Spotsylvania was a close footrace. If Grant's troops have moved slightly faster or Lee's slightly slower the Union would have occupied the position first and the war probably would have ended there. As far as a repeat of Chancellorsville that occurred in the Wilderness. It was fought over the same ground with about the same draw. The major difference was Grant was in charge and after pulling out of the position, turned South rather than North.
and it was disastrous and horrific and pointless both time times..
I forget the Southern officer, but as the war started, he told his fellow Confederates that the North had an officer, if discovered, would win the war. That officer was Grant.
It was Longstreet who knew Grant well from the “old days.” He made the comment to Jeff Davis when giving him an assessment of West Point grads. Longstreet opined that due to the circumstances of Grant’s dismissal from the US Army he did not think Grant would be reinstated or rise to high command but if his old friend Sam Grant were to rise to high command it would be a problem for the Confederacy.
@@johnkeenan5404 Longstreet said Grant would fight every day until the end of the war--And he did .
Three armies surrendered during the Civil War. All three confederate, all three to Grant.
Army of the Tennessee surrendered to Sherman.
@@ChineseChicken1 The Army of the Tennessee was a Union army. The Army of Tennessee surrendered to Sherman on April 17-18 1865 after Lee's surrender of the ANV on April 9, 19865
And only one was shattered...by Thomas 🙂
@@virginiaoflaherty2983 Well thank you Mr. Helpie Helperton. I mean how could a Union Army surrender to Sherman 😆
@@ChineseChicken1Fort Donelson, Vicksburg and Appomattox are where whole Confederate armies surrendered to Grant. That’s three armies.
Nonetheless from spring 1864 to the spring 1865 the Union armies were continuously on the offensive.
One stalemate after another
@@ChineseChicken1 except at Appomattox, the one that counted.
True. But with heavy losses. Victory in war is useless to those who are dead and maimed
@@exposethenwo6491 But Grant did more with his 60K loses than the the previous 100K suffered by the AOP
@arturbello4213 And yet they fought like tigers.
I think Grant is one of history’s great commanders/Generals. He is right up there with the best. Grant during the war was often stymied by poor transport, poor communications and poor staff under and over him. He had to deal with the politics of those above him, and political Generals he couldn’t get rid of under him. The fighting at the Wilderness and Cold Harbor were bloody sure, and Grant did regret the latter deeply. But his movement South around Richmond which included a river crossing (can’t remember the name) nearly caught Lee flat footed. The generals under him flubbed the timing of the southern attack on Richmond, enough so that the Confederates managed to recover. Hence more months of siege/trench warfare that somewhat anticipated the first world war.
It also wasn’t just the fight in front of him that Grant considered, he was also directing other theatres of the war, enough to thoroughly destroy the South’s ability to wage war as the other armies the South had.
In many ways Grant was ahead of his time.
As to that Confederate officers perspective, phooey! Many of his contemporaries underestimated him.
The Confederates lost due to Federal superiority in terms of sea power, industrial output and population. Counterfactuals are fun but don’t change anything. At this moment in our history, it is good to remind people of the enormous suffering the Civil War brought. It is always those least likely to fight who advocate most loudly for war. It is the Soldier who knows the brutality of war, not the armchair generals.
First and foremost, the Confederates lost because they took on that combination of sea power, industrial output and population- and at a time when the Confederate States were utterly unprepared for any conflict at all.
600,00 dead, major parts of the south a ruin with a population that never really dealt with the reasons why and has to this day not completely forgiven. It is a wound our people must live with, understand and strengthen our resolve to be a working democracy and a free people. Our people on both sides paid the price, instead of dividing us it should give pause and pray that it never happens again. One thing that has stuck with me though is that the north never ran a deficit in spending during the whole time, something to think about.
@@manilajohn0182 Jefferson Davis. "That private arms in the hands had proved a sad delusion. The South had gone to war without counting the cost.".
@manilajohn0182 is right. The seceding states never had the real chance to win the war, so it makes no sense to choose to fight it.
Except that the confederates lost multiple key land battles throughout the war. You can cope all you want but the fact of the matter is that the confederacy was defeated in the field of battle.
Washington, Lincoln and Grant. Nuff said.
Isn't it interesting that Grants critics are always pointing to Cold Harbor as evidence that Grant was a butcher, and that he "learned his lesson" there, but they seldom if ever compare Grants losses at Cold Harbor with that of Lee's at Gettysburg. How many charges into a well entranced, superior force that held the high ground did Lee order over three days? How many men did Lee lose in those three days? Did Lee "learn his lesson" in those three days? When we look at the results of these two battles, what was the out come of the two battles? In both cases, the South withdrew. That's right, after Cold Harbor the CSA didn't "hold" Cold Harbor, they retreated from it as they continued to be out maneuvered and pressed by Union forces. McPherson states:
In that [Cold Harbor] attack, ordered by Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, fifty thousand Union soldiers uffered seven thousand casualties, most of them in less than half an hour. For this mistake, which he admitted, Grant has been branded a 'butcher' careless of the lives of his men, and Cold Harbor has become a symbol of mule-headed futility. At Gettysburg, Lee's men also sustand almost seven thousand casualities in the PIckett-Pettigrew assault, most of them also within a half hour. Yet this attack is perceived as an example of great courage and honor. This contrast speaks volumes about the comparative images of Grant and Lee, North and South, Union and Confederacy
The Union Army suffered huge casualties at Cold Harbor and the Overland Campaign, but Grant took Lee's Army out of the war and under siege at Petersburg. Grant was appointed General in Chief in March 1864 and 13 months later Lee surrender.
One year with Grant in command his casualties surpassed the 3 previous years combined.
When Grant took over Lee’s army was a shell of what it once was. Would love to see Lee and Grant fight each other with equal armies.
And no one ever talks about the confederate casualties suffered at Franklin TN, where Hood basically sacrificed an entire army, generals and all.
@@frankbaptista8334 You mean the three years in which Lee rode circles around the Army of the Potomac, While Grant was systematically wrestling control of the Mississippi and the Cumberland rivers away from the CSA, resulting in cutting the CSA in half? The idea that Lee didn't know anything about Grant until Grant opposed him is a myth. Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania that resulted in Gettysburg was Lee's idea of a way to take Union pressure off Vicksburg. In fact, the fall of Vicksburg hurt the CSA much more than the losses at Gettysburg.
@@frankbaptista8334 But that is the point of several books Lee squandered his solders in useless attacks. Per the authors had he taken in the full picture and been a better Strategic general...
Thanks for all You do, great one!
A crucial point they overlook - Grant was constantly on offense throughout the war, and always found a way to win. Lee’s victories were always on defense. Whenever Lee attempted an offensive campaign, he got stomped.
The bigger lesson is that offensive action was very difficult in the Civil War, which is why Grant and Sherman were top generals.
Not really he won at Second Bull Run...he outnumbered the federals, and he definitely took the offensive.
Lee's victories were not always on the defensive.
@@raford67 Yes he won some tactically offensive battles But his most notable defeats where when he took the strategic offense
One thing I do agree with is that Lee never had a winning vision even in Antietam where it was technically a tie.
Grant didn’t allow Lee freedom of operation or a rest. Lee was a master of maneuver while Grant grabbed a hold of Lee and refused to let go. This of course allowed Sherman greater freedom of operation. Attritional warfare isn’t often a pretty thing but his overall strategy was successful. Lee in the end was beaten
I served with the Army, Navy and attached to USMC as a Corpsman for over ten year and have always loved history. I have always felt if I was in the Army during the Civil War, I would consider it senseless, cannon-fodder tactics, especially if I'd been on the losing side of a battle. At least in the modern Army you are taught to use fire and maneuver, you don't just march into the teeth of the enemy fire. Grant may not have been the most brilliant tactician of the war, but he won battles. Many other Union Generals had enjoyed the advantage of numbers, but failed to capitalize on it the way Grant did. It is a testament to Grant, that many of his tactics are still studied at West Point. He must have done something right.
Based on your experience, you would be aware that fire and maneuver relies on (amongst others) a clear understanding of the strategic/tactical objectives by junior and non-commissioned officers, a consistently high level of troop training and experience and above all, the ability to communicate throughout the battlefield in order to reinforce weaknesses or take advantage of breakthroughs.
I suggest in the Civil War context, the latter point has a critical effect on tactics. Concisely, in the Civil War the available firepower outstripped the ability of attacking armies to effectively manage battlefield communications. Just as it had been from the dawn of organised conflict, Civil War armies still largely communicated battlefield orders by voice, written orders, flags or bugles. This meant that in order to be able to coordinate their attacks, forces needed to be grouped tightly in order to enable such communication to occur and implement the co-ordination required to bring sufficient weight of attack to the selected point in their opponent's line. However, unlike earlier wars they were facing masses of rifled muskets, entrenched defenders and more powerful artillery.
I'm in awe of those soldiers who fought under such conditions, they were cannon fodder. Until the advent of improved battlefield communications in later wars enabled changes in to doctrine and tactics, these soldiers had to "march and deliver" under terrible conditions.
My admiration of Grant is not so much that he could alleviate this situation given the available technology at the time, but that he understood the situation better than others and as you said, he capitalised it better to ultimately win key battles.
"... don't march into the teeth of enemy fire..." ?
Oh? Really? I guess you've never heard of the Pacific Islands Campaign in WWII...
@@THE-HammerMan yes I have, and I can't recall brigade or division-sized, massed ranks of troops attacking Japanese postions in the same fashion as Pickett at Gettysburg or Grant at Cold Harbor. At Okinawa, the bloodiest battle of the Pacific Campaign, US army and marine battlefield casualties totalled about 15% of the combat forces engaged over a period of 2 months and 3 weeks. At Gettysburg, Union casualties were just under 25% of those engaged over just 3 days (39% for the South). Both figures exclude casualties from other causes, and are those from the land battles only in the case of Okinawa.
I'm not denigrating the experiences and hardships of WW2 soldiers, but it does illustrate my point that by WW2 improved battlefield communications enabled the development and implementation of better combined arms doctrine as well as small squad maneuver and infiltration tactics. Whilst these battles using these tactics are still terrifying to those involved, better communications and tactics mean attacking forces suffer much fewer casualies than those engaged in a typical Civil War battlefield.
@@markswayn2628 Yeah, my dad said Okinawa was the nastiest of them all.
No battles in history rival the wholesale slaughter of the Civil War, but you miss the point entirely. You can praise tech and communication advances all you want, but there will always be the occasion to rush into the maelstrom to seize an objective. It has, and always will happen when absolutely necessary... "Communications be damned, let's get it done!". So it happens and lives are lost to save many others.
Se la vie, de la muer, se la guer.
[Pardon my spelling, I've not time to Google the correct French]
@@THE-HammerMan I think we're both missing eachother's point. I'm not disagreeing with your views regarding the need of armies to seize an objective by force and initiative, often under very difficult circumstances. Nor am I necessarily praising tech and communication advances, just recognising that these developments occurred. My original point was a response to a comment regarding the tactics used in the Civil War as applied by Grant.
I was discussing that conditions during the Civil War such as the need for visual communications to control forces used on the battlefield largely determined the tactics used, and the high casualty levels as a result. Better communications in the following 70 years or so enabled changes to tactics whereby objectives could be more readily reached, often with lower casualty levels. All wars demand a "rush into the maelstrom" at some stage, but the doctrines and tactics (and of course equipment) available to a soldier today means they are much more likely to survive than in the Civil War. Comments about the tactics used in 1861-65 often miss the point, generals such as Grant had to operate with the tools they had available to them at the time.
Ironic to claim Grant had no grasp of strategy. Even Lee complained that Grant’s continuous flanking maneuvers (Cold Harbor being an exception) gave him (Grant) the strategic initiative, effectively fixing Lee in place and gradually backing him up toward Petersburg. And while Grant directed multiple armies in a coordinated approach, Lee refused to direct the other Confederate armies, even after being appointed to do so. So, Lee was the tactical master, but Grant mastered the big picture from the start.
Nice point
I forgot to add that Grant very effectively coordinated his army's movements with the navy, as early as the Fort Donelson/Henry campaign, which may be one of the first examples of combines force strategies.@@williamfleckles
Grant was on top of the strategic game from the very beginning. His move into Kentucky to counter Polk was just the first example of strategic insight and the quickness of mind and speed of action to get the job done.
lee was never a master tactician
Amen that.
He was initially successful with entrenched defense because it was novel. All new tactics and weapons invite new responses designed to defeat those tactics and weapons. Those who are fighting the last war are doomed to failure. Plans only last until they are initiated.@@DeidadesForever
On the idea that the confederate leaders didn't know who Grant was-----At Appomattox when Grant met Lee, Grant told of meeting Lee at a staff meeting during the Mexican war and that he remembered Lee well and his appearance. However Lee said he remembers the meeting, but basically nothing at all about Grant including his appearance. Lee said in effect said, "Yeah I kind of remember a meeting back then, we had quite a few, but dude I can't remember a single thing about you personally, sorry." Actually that probably helped the union cause. On confederate generals saying Grant's reputation was a result of him fighting lesser or incompetent generals, well the same can be said of the confederate generals, they ALL got their reps fighting inferior federal generals-----that's how wars go. Good generals make good use of any advantage they have, the lesser ones don't.
Longstreet knew him quite well as did Simon Bolivar Buckner. Neither one underestimated him.
@@carlmally6292 Well many think the marble man was destined because he never got a single demerit at West Point. Grant on the other hand was a dreamer, an artist, loved to read books and did a fair job in spite of not being overawed with the idea of Army
Indeed, Lee is the archetype of a "Southern Gentleman" that never really existed in the South.@@virginiaoflaherty2983
Thanks!
Grant was a winner who knew what had to be done and how to do it.
No battle is more misunderstood than Cold Harbor. It was bloody, but no more bloody, percentage-wise, than Malvern Hill or Pickett's Charge- and it proved to Lee that he could never divide his forces to trick Grant as he had tricked Hooker, and the fact that Grant could sustain losses on a scale that Lee could never hope to inflict on Grant's army convinced Lee to retreat to the works of Petersburg. The campaign of 1864 convinced Lee that his only hope was to dig in and hope for a miracle.
Grant’s name did not include “Simpson.” That was an error, made by the congressman who got Grant admitted to West Point.
Correct. His name was Hiram Ulysses Grant. No "Simpson " at all. His application to West Point had his name wrong, but would have taken too long to correct it & his place might have been given to another in the interim.
Besides, he didn't want to be called by the other plebs as "HUG"...
@@John-t1t5v According to Grant, the "S." did not stand for anything. Upon graduation from the academy he adopted the name "Ulysses S. Grant". Simpson was the name of one of his brothers, and it was his mother's maiden name.
No one will say that Grant was a brilliant strategist in terms of Napoleon or Lee. That being said he did win by application of larger forces, there is no sugarcoating it. What made him different is when others would stop after a battle, win, or lose, he moved forward. It is a fact that many died in his campaigns. He was of the opinion though to make the lives lost mean something. It was his intent that wherever the Army of Northern Virginia went, so would go the Army of the Potomac. He eventually caused the conditions and moral of the southern army to crumble and lead to Appomattox. He won not through brilliance but by perseverance!
Lee was probably the better battlefield tactician. Grant was the master strategist who saw the far broader picture.
Omar Bradley put it well after the Second World War when he observed, "Amateur soldiers talk about tactics. Professionals talk about logistics." Or as George Patton once observed of one of his campaigns, "It wasn't the soldiers who were the heroes of that one. It was the men driving the ammo trucks down those sons-of-bitching roads day and night under artillery shells."
While Lee was piling up glories in Mexico at the front lines, Grant was working in the quartermaster corps. What he learned there would later pay off.
I'm no expert, but what you said about the Mexican War stands out to me too. Grant's role in the Mexican War taught him the realities of time and distance when sustaining an army in the field. In the West he denied the CSA distance (ability to resupply and coordinate on interior lines), and when he came East he denied them time (kept the tempo of operations at a higher level than they could sustain).
Your videos are top notch. It is so interesting to learn about the words of the men who were there.
Grant fought with what he had. He pressed his advantages and used his forces as they should been used. He understood what his strengths were and based on these strengths, he pressed them against his opponents. I believe his genius was the depth of his understanding of what he had and what his enemies had. Winning battles is only important if you win the war. Losing battles are painful, but these losses served to win the war. Winning the war is the only thing that matters in the end.
The Overland Campaign really has a lot in common with the opening of World War 1 on the Western Front. A war of movement that gets bogged down into trench warfare.
Grant spent the entire war deep in enemy territory, attacking well-defended positions, and winning. Vicksburg was brilliant. Compare that to Lee, who went north twice and was beaten both times.
in antietam it was technically a draw
@@DeidadesForever Antietam ended Lee's first northern invasion. He retreated afterwards. Meanwhile, this "draw" was good enough to embolden Lincoln to seize the moment to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.
There is a bad habit of chopping this war up into individual battles and not seeing the bigger picture. Look at the overall result.
This was a loss and no mistake.
@@curious968 In fact no, in fact your argument is that the North was far superior to the South, and no, the South had better generals and better horsemen, in fact the difference was less than that of the 13 colonies against Great Britain, which by the way everyone said was impossible to beat and they did, the argument that the North was superior is completely invalid, although they were superior but not by the great difference that is usually attributed to them.
James Longstreet not only knew Grant well, he was Grant’s best man at his and Julia Dent’s wedding. Grant was in the quartermaster corps in the old army, so many of the old infantry and artillery officers would not know much about him.
Armies typically lose more troops on offense than they do on defense. Grant almost always played offense. He deserves far more credit than he receives. He was no butcher.
A point to remember from an Honorably Discharged Veteran of the US Army, is that when you're talking casualties, you're talking about men's lives. It mays sound cool but if it's your life or the life of a family member, it really means something.
I’m
No war is won perfectly.
A short but fine analysis.
It's amazing how the southern myths about the civil war continue to this day. Grant was the best general in the war.
Either Grant or Sherman. Both were superior to all the Confederate generals
Confederate General Longstreet was Grant's Best Man at his Wedding. They were friends while they attended West Point at the same time. When Longstreet heard that Grant was promoted to Lieutenant General and took command of the Army or the Potomac, Longstreet told Lee that "He will fight you every day until the end of the war" So a few Confederate Officers knew about Grant. 🤨
Let's not forget that the Army of Northern Virginia didn't just up and decide to quit one day, it was trapped and forced to surrender. Grant had previously trapped and destroyed the Army of Mississippi, making him the only only commander of the war to annihilate an opposing field army, having wiped out two.
George Thomas also did with Hood's army at Nashville.
@@carlmally6292 Hood's army was broken, but it wasn't annihilated, it mostly fell apart from desertion.
@@Derna1804 In most histories I have read, Thomas is credited with destroying Hood's army. I certainly never heard that Hood had an effective fighting force after Nashville. All you are really doing is, however accurately, describing its death throes.
If you look at other major battles (both Manassas, Gettysburg to name three), you don't see the losing army fading away. That's the distinction I think we are discussing.
@@curious968 There is a strategic difference because the battle hardened troops that stuck with Hood could still form the cadre of a reconstructed force, and some deserters could still be recovered later. An army being trapped and wiped out entirely means the complete loss of all officers, NCOs and men, a loss of competence and tradition. That prevents effective replacement or reconstitution of the force.
The Confederate Army was raised from U.S. Army veterans who had in turn inherited a military heritage dating all the way back to the Colonial Militia and predating the basis for the British Army, the New Model Army, by a few years. Knowledge about training, discipline, esprit de corps, leadership etc. is painstakingly acquired through trial and error and passed on through generations. It's not as simple as copying a doctrine and throwing a few farm boys together. An effective fighting force needs a culture.
@@Derna1804 That's all interesting, but what actually happened?
Point me to some history I haven't read.
I never read that, in actuality, whatever surviving remnants of Hood's army there might have been showed up anywhere else in significant numbers. If that didn't happen, then I don't see the difference. But, I could be mistaken. Show me.
Some of the army that surrendered and was paroled at Vicksburg _did_ show up later on in other units, but they had to be reprovisioned and I never heard that it was anything like everyone or that it made any notable difference in the war. Historians, despite this, rate Pemberton's army as "wiped out" by all I ever read.
The history I read suggests that whether it was at Vicksburg, Nashville, or Appomattox, once a large confederate force laid down its arms, the vast majority never took up arms again either because of their own sense of honor or the simple idea they didn't want to get that close to dying again for what they must have thought was a sure loser. Or maybe yet other reasons.
Moreover, there was always a certain amount of informal southern AWOL activity that was tolerated (and not much discussed outside of professional historian circles).
If your army is made up of rural soldiers, not all of whom owned plantations, they did have to go home now and then, for a while, to make sure there was a home to come back to. This "informal desertion", where men came and went, was tolerated, but it turned from a trickle to a flood as the war went past mid-1863 and became a torrent in 1865 and they didn't come back anymore either.
Except for Cold Harbor, the rest of the Grant's casualties were just about 1:1. He knew a Tie was a Win for the North. Lee must have known that, but kept on fighting.
Someone read a book or two. The BS about Grant throwing away lives is just that total BS.
During the Overland Campaign Grant's casualties were 55,000, Lee's 32,000. Many in the North (including Mrs. Lincoln).labeled Grant as a butcher.
NOPE. Read some history Grant's casualties more like 3:2.
@@T555BIRD Grant was, after all, on the offensive. Moreover, his offensive against Lee was with the intent that Lee be continually pressured so that he would be unable to send any reinforcements to Johnston. It worked. Within six weeks of the opening of the campaign, Lee was pinned in the Richmond- Petersburg area and was unable to assist Johnston at all.
@@manilajohn0182 I would add that per Lincoln's orders in late July 1864, that the war would be run by Grant through City Point. Lincoln did not trust Halleck, or anyone else to keep the pressure on. That is why Grant meets Sheridan in the Valley in September 1864 and Horace Porter is sent to Sherman in the fall of 1864. To keep the pressure on the Confederacy. In my view, the Confederacy was destroyed by the March to the Sea and the Battle of Franklin.
Really must’ve been difficult for these southern generals to surrender to a man that they didn’t think was their equals. Southern pride on display 20 years later in the writing by law.
When Lee went on the offensive, notably, Malvern Hill, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, his looses were as bad or worse than Grant's. And he didn't have the resources to back up those losses. The Confederates may have thought Grant's success at Vicksburg was due to inferior opponents but the same could be said about Lee at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Nevertheless, Grant invaded the Mississippi hinterland south of Vicksburg with a tenuous supply line against two different armies with interior lines and technically superior numbers and he soundly defeated both of them. I'll take superior strategic understanding over tactical brilliance every time. Furthermore, Grant devised the overall strategy of late 1864 that slowly strangled the Confederate insurrection. Lee never gave a damn about anything but VA.
You are wrong Lee encouraged the invasion of Kentucky in 1862, and the CSA army would have done fine had Joe Johnston been listened to.
@@edwardclement102 Ok, Lee occasionally thought strategically, but that does not change the quality of Grant's strategy.
People who say Lee's looses were as bad or worse than Grant's, are disingenuous. Lee always fought with a smaller army, beating the odds. Lee's losses were far more logical and natural than Grants. Except his coolness and tenacity, Grant didn't have much going for him. His Army was so enormous and logistically superior (in the west & the east), that his defeat would only bring him shame (like it did to his predecessor), and victory only its long overdue logical conclusion.
“ Finally, the respective casualty figures of these two generals contradict the myth about who, if either, was a butcher. For the entire war, Grant’s soldiers incurred about 154,000 casualties (killed, wounded, missing, captured) while imposing about 191,000 casualties on their foes. In all their battles, Lee’s troops incurred about 209,000 casualties while imposing about 240,000 casualties on their opponents. Thus, both generals armies imposed about 40,000 more casualties than they incurred. However, Lee, who should have been fighting defensively and preserving his precious manpower, instead exceeded Grant’s understandable aggressiveness and incurred 55,000 more casualties than Grant.
In summary, Grant’s aggressiveness in three theaters was consistent with the Union need for victory and resulted in success at a militarily reasonable cost while Lee’s aggressiveness in a single theater was inconsistent with the strategic and tactical defensiveness the Confederates needed to preserve their limited manpower and force the stalemate that was sufficient for Southern victory.”
@@twlyon24 If Lee wasn't aggressive Richmond would have fallen in 1862. Author of the text above is representing Lee's campaigns as a matter of choice. Like if he had stayed on a defensive, enemy would sit on his ass, let him preserve his army, augment his numbers, or would make futile assaults on Marye's Heights five years in a row. Grant and Lee waged two different wars. People fall on hindsight when they talk about Grant's tactics...
Grant knew how to win and so he did.
The American Civil War had pretty much been decided in the first week of July 1863:
1) Yankee General Ulysses S. Grant had taken Vicksburg and 30,000+ Confederate Soldiers (an entire field army). The entire Mississippi River was now a Yankee Highway and Arkansas, Texas and Western Louisiana was cut off from the Confederacy.
2) The Union Army of the Potomac River, commanded by Yankee General George Gordon Meade, defeated Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia’s raid into Pennsylvania at Gettysburg, inflicting casualties upon the Southern Army they just couldn’t afford.
3) Yankee General William Stark Rosecrans’ Army of the Cumberland River, in a brilliant and almost bloodless campaign, maneuvered Confederate General Braxton Bragg and the Confederate Army of Tennessee completely out of middle Tennessee, occupied the City of Chattanooga thus unlocking and opening the door to the City of Atlanta, without a single major battle.
4) The Union Navy seized Port Hudson on the Mississippi River thus freeing up US Naval Forces to strengthen the blockade of Mobile Bay, Alabama. The only way to smuggle anything into the Confederacy anymore was through Mexico which was now part of The French Empire of Napoleon III. And the French simply seized everything and used it themselves.
By the time Grant was given Command of All Union Forces the Writing was on The Wall.
And he had a major part in writing it.
Would have been different had oe Johnston been kept in his position.
A miss print I meant to say it would have been different had Joe Johnston been kept in command.
@@edwardclement102 Not in the long run. Realistically the South never had the resources to win that war.
@@edwardclement102 Agreed. Union victory would have been much delayed. It might have even cost Lincoln the election. Sherman respected Johnston.
But, as usual, the south was hell bent on winning big battles. So Davis relieved Johnston in favor of Hood. Hood went north to Tennessee, expecting Sherman to follow, and engage in a glorious battle that would blunt the Yankee advance
Sherman coolly ignored Hood, correctly figuring that he would get destroyed by Thomas. This made the march to the sea inevitable.
From start to end, the south had no real strategic vision and overestimated its chances. It fought as if it was always 1861 where its forces really were superior. But, by 1863, they weren't anymore and Davis and the rest didn't notice. Post-Gettysburg, Lee did. He adopted Johnston's tactics after Gettysburg.
This is framed around Grant, but it also shows the difference in the strategies of both sides: The South felt their position of States Rights to be so obviously true, they felt the North would put up just a weak attempt to preserve the Union as it was. In the words of Lee before hostilities had commenced, he would "bloody their nose" and they would have no stomach for the fight. The Southern leadership under estimated Lincoln's commitment to preserving the Union and his blind pursuit of Generals that were equally committed to winning.
This really had nothing to do with state's rights, it is now and was then a fallacy.
@@michaelwoehl8822 I absolutely agree with you that the states rights claim was a fallacy, but is the 'right' southern leadership fell back on to justify breaking up the Union. Just a reminder, the only 'state right' the southern leadership was concerned with was enslaving their labor force of black people.
Grant was punishing the South for rebellion per his memoir. The South was fighting for sovereignty as a new country and states rights. The South's lack of war materials and fighting age men eventually lead to defeat.
@@snocamo154 Yes, the South was fighting for its own sovereignty, but the only state right they wanted was slavery. Be honest about it. Don't be an apologist for the old south. There were 22 million citizens in the north, 9 million in the south. An armed conflict needed to be decided quickly for the south to prevail. A war that last beyond the first year became unwinnable for them, and compromise with Lincoln was not possible. The Civil War defined when the USA changed from being a collection of states to single country. Until then, everyone was from the town or state, but afterwards the unifying location was to be an American. It took generation to make it clear, but legally we were one nation afterwards.
And the solders to endure all that hardship initially to save the union....then to free the slaves.
One thing to remember is that Grant forced Lee to dig in and defend Richmond, negating Lee's mobility and natural aggressiveness and allowing the Union forces in the western theater to begin demolishing the Confederacy
Lee wasn't Lee anymore after Grant engaged him. All that wonderful stuff -- the dividing his smaller army, the surprise attacks, the clever out-maneuvering, all of it largely if not entirely vanished. Lee never was able to seize the initiative, never able to force Grant to retreat.
Lee wasn't Lee anymore.
@@curious968 absolutely
Longstreet warned Lee, et al, that Grant would be relentless. Longstreet was best friends with Grant, was best man at the latter’s wedding. Longstreet knew.
True. They respected one anothers strengths and weaknesses. Longstreet was no rabid Confederate and Grant had a moral abhorrence to war.
How could Union generals be unimpressed by the Vicksburg campaign?
Jealousy?
Regional arrogance. Nothing west of the Wabash could be "that important". Illinois and Western Kentucky and Tennessee were still regarded, with some justification as the "western wilderness" and the population density and infrastructure of these regions was low. "Can anything good come out of Nazereth?"
No kidding, they must not have paid attention ….. to their detriment.
Grant just grinded you down slowly with attrition 🔥👍🏼💔🙏🏽🙌🏾❤️🐐
Calling Grant a "butcher" who only won by overwhelming force is a Lost Cause trope. Grant beat Lee just like we beat Germany and Japan in WWII. We overwhelmed them and then occupied them afterwards. Total victory. The Neo Confederates like their idols , would have you think this was a boxing match with Marques of Queensbury rules of chivalry that had to be adhered to. Well, your enemy always gets a vote and the commanders of Grant prior to that time did that but US Grant didn't. About a year after he took over the war was done.
It’s always great to be underestimated. Grant won where ever he went. Longstreet knew him well. Lee lost half his army during the overland campaign.
Interesting point. Gordon Rhea has in his latest book new and interesting information that rounds out the actual numbers of soldiers in the ANV during the overland Campaign. Seems a researcher located newspapers in Abingdon VA in a trunk in the attic of an old woman's home. I guess they are in the Library of Congress now.
What you’d hear coming from the bar when old cronies were commiserating about their glory days of defeat.
“Sour grapes “
Like Mansteins book "Lost Victories"
Whenever Law speaks, I listen- and tend to agree.
Another well selected report, Ron- great work.
Did Law ever win anything other than a hand of Poker?
That's a great portrait of Grant. Never seen it before. Where did it come from? Read Grants autobiography a couple years ago. Frankly, the biggest takeaway was just how on top of Army logistics and organization he was in Virginia.
A big army and an understanding of how to keep that army well supplied and able to fight.
@@williamfleckles He started as a quartermaster.
@@virginiaoflaherty2983 Yes, I think I read that before! My problem is I forget a lot of things I once knew.. Thank you!
Mother while researching our family history. Have a great grandfather buried Fredericksburg, Virginia, 1863 due to Southern Fascism.
Most Southern supporters refuse to see the whole picture. Grant was a brilliant strategist and his Vicksburg Campaign proves it. When an attacking force goes against an entrenched defending force, of course more men are needed. Grant caught old man Lee at Petersburg and whipped him. Even the average Confederate soldier knew the war was long lost and many thousands deserted rather than be killed in vain. BTW, Jackson's tactics in bringing a superior force on a detachment earned him laurels, but our Confederate sympathizers cannot "grant" the same conclusion to Ulysses. Modern historians rank Grant head and shoulders over Marse Robert.
Amen that!
How about Longstreet? Never heard much about Law. What did he win? There were many Southern Generals that knew of Grant from West Point and from the Mexican war. How did you miss Vicksburg?
What the South never “got” was that Grant was not Patton, he was Eisenhower. He wasn’t conducting a single enemy in a single place, he was fighting a NATIONAL STRATEGIC Campaign that few recognized as such. Basically, as Patton once alluded, Grant held Lee by the NOSE, in place, being the South’s strongest force, while he coordinated his death grip on the entire South with Thomas, Sheridan and, most of all, Sherman. The Anaconda plan strangled southern commercial existence while Grant coordinated and supplied FOUR ARMIES into the ULTIMATE STRANGLEHOLD, the end of Lee. Grant was so above all that went before that the always vocal, “lesser minds” had lots of bone headed, negative comments on Grant’s strategy, simply because their lack of brain density did, and DOES, make grasping his genius difficult to impossible TO grasp!
J.F.C. Fuller assessed Grant as a great strategist and that even greater and rarer thing, a grand strategist who thought in continental/global terms. As Bruce Catton put it with his usual acuity ' Lincoln saw in Grant a soldier who knew what he had always felt instinctively; Confederate resources could not keep up with Confederate geography. '
As Burnside outranked Meade and Burnside's Corps was included in the overland campaign it was necessary for Grant to be there to be the ranking officer. More importantly once Meade's army (and Burnside's independent Corps) reached Richmond/Petersburg it was necessary for Grant to be there so Benjamin Butler, the local commander, wouldn't outrank both Meade and Burnside.
Butler? I thought he spent the war occupying New Orleans. How is he the "local commander" in Virginia?
@@digitalnomad9985 He was replaced in NO by Banks in late 1863. Took over the Department of (eastern) VA and NC in 1864. aka Army of the James. While Meade and Lee were hammering it out in north central VA, he botched an opportunity to take Petersburg and got 'bottled up' in Bermuda Hundred.
Grant*s campaign at Vicksburg was more brilliant than Lee*s Chancellorsville or Mc Arthur*s Inchon, both of which were brilliant.
Lee lucked out at Chancellorsville. Hooker was knocked senseless during the key moment off the battle. That, and Lee having Jackson pull it off.
Wasn’t BG Law familiar with the friendship between Longstreet and Grant?
Grant may have broken the Confederate generals but it was Sherman who broke the Confederate spirit. 😮
Shelby Foote thought General Grant was a magnificent general. Anyone who
wishes can read "The Beleaguered City" in volume II of The Civil War. How
Grant captured the "impregnable" confederate fortress city of Vicksburg is
an amazing story and shows Grant at his brilliant best. Even his close friend
General Sherman thought Grant would fail to capture Vicksburg, and had
bitten off more than he could chew. But Grant proved his friend wrong.
And these slight confederate criticisms of Grant, show a weakness of
the southern generals. Don't these southern generals now that war is
very cruel? Why not use your advantages in men and material to crush
your enemies? Also, while Grant was keeping the confederates busy in
Virginia, General Sherman was coming up from Atlanta to crush the
southerners from behind. Grant was the anvil and Sherman was the
hammer. That's pretty good strategy in my opinion.
In "The Civil War" by Ken Burns there is a part about how Sherman made a mistake during a battle which caused lots of casualties. The doc went on to say that Sherman never admitted to that mistake. And also that he never repeated it. That is what distinguishes great generals.