Are General U. S Grant campaigns worthy of contemporary note?

[Wxman]

It is my understanding that people have studied Grant's Vicksburg campaign for the last 150 years.

But I'm unclear if that's exemplary military brilliance in contrast to D-Day famous Eisenhower of pure logistical / administrative / politician acumen.

What about Grant's campaigns can I take to the battlefield with me today; R.E. Lee, Von Clausewitz, Patton, being of undeniable worth.

Is Grant a subject of study concerning and respecting maneuver and tactical specific to the man himself, or can at best it attributable that he delegated extremely well the nuance of battle and strategy, e.g., Sheridan, Sherman, Thomas, Warren, et ali.

How would Grant compare to another, e.g., Nimitz, Westmoreland, Schwarzkopf in his own regard (or would the latter be of no note whatsoever without Grant being their pedestal upon which to stand?

[Aktungbby]

Grant could be commendably enlightened when called upon but could fail to manage his advantage when he'd worked so hard for it. His steadfast "we'll whip 'em tomorrow" attitude at Shiloh and follow through to do just that would be his calling card. His side-step of Lee to bridge the James River after the disaster or Cold Harbor is an example. When Lee didn't see the move until the Union army was south of him at Petersburg and the back door was wide open only to fail time-wise long enough for the hormswoggled "granny Lee'(rare indeed) to put troops in place...and the war debacled into one of attrition. The second brilliant chance came when a huge mine was dug and the Confederate line was blown up only to fail dismally under subordinate commanders Ledlie and Burnside. Even Grant fumed it was a "great opportunity" lost. Besides Ft Donaldson and Vicksburg and opening the "Cracker line" at Chattanooga, Grant manifested himself at the battle of the Wilderness. Admittedly not a success on the battlefield against the crafty Lee and his 'war horse' Longstreet, Grant's opening round in the East as supreme Union commander served notice...whereas Hooker had retreated after his debacle at nearby Chancellorsville the year before, every soldier marching at the end of the Wilderness battle knew one thing-They were still marching South and East- Toward Richmond! "All day Union supply wagons and the reserve artillery moved to the rear, confirming the soldiers' weary expectation of retreat. After dark the blue divisions pulled out one by one. But instead of heading north, they turned south. A mental sunburst brightened their minds. It was not another "Chancellorsville ... another skedaddle" after all. "Our spirits rose," recalled one veteran who remembered this moment as a turning point in the war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_point_of_the_American_Civil_War). Despite the terrors of the past three days and those to come, "we marched free. The men began to sing." For the first time in a Virginia campaign the Army of the Potomac stayed on the offensive after its initial battle." The business would be finished one way or another. Lincoln with his 'dry' wit had put it best:" Find out what he drinks-the man fights and send a case to my other generals". The mark of the man was never more evident than in his writing of his straight-forward (for the time) autobiography to provide for his family. "...fearing for his family's future, U.S. Grant set to work on his personal memoirs in the hopes it might generate some income for his family. It was at this time that Grant was also diagnosed with the throat cancer that would claim his life. Showing the same "Stand Fast" determination he had displayed throughout his life; He refused morphine or other narcotics because they "fogged" his mind, as he put it, and thus he wouldn't be able to write. He was in excruciating pain while he wrote his memoirs." Three days after he stopped writing, he died of throat cancer. The book was a great success-(I own a copy):up:. The mark of the man at the Wilderness to a subordianate: "Grant seemed to be waiting for such an opportunity and snapped, "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." His two-PM-in-the-Afternoon Courage... Everyone who attends West point reads from the same book-maybe MacArthur was brilliant-I like to think that Eisenhower, when equally confronted with the tremendous attack at the Bulge, knew his US GRANT lore cold and presented his subordinates (Patton, Bradley and Montgomery) with the view that the battle was a great opportunity for victory and what the Allies would do to the Germans; Then followed Grant's example and wrote a straight-forward account: Crusade in Europe.. (Hey I own a copy:up:). Neither were brilliant; they didn't have to be. Cigars killed Grant and cigarettes sure didn't help Ike.

[Armistead]

Grant sucked!

The End.

Really, he fought the way most did, let his general do his fighting and plans usually went wrong with someone.

[Sailor Steve]

Not everybody agrees with you.

“We all thought Richmond, protected as it was by our splendid fortifications and defended by our army of veterans, could not be taken. Yet Grant turned his face to our Capital, and never turned it away until we had surrendered. Now, I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general. I doubt that his superior can be found in all history.”
-Robert Edward Lee

[Admiral Halsey]

Not everybody agrees with you.

“We all thought Richmond, protected as it was by our splendid fortifications and defended by our army of veterans, could not be taken. Yet Grant turned his face to our Capital, and never turned it away until we had surrendered. Now, I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general. I doubt that his superior can be found in all history.”
-Robert Edward Lee

Lee said that about Grant? Now that's what you call a compliment.

[August]

Grant wasn't any kind of tactical genius compared to say Lee or Jackson but he understood what it took to win. Unlike his predecessors who staked union fortunes on tryng to out finesse Lee, Grant knew the way to victory was dogged persistance. Defeats did not cause him to retreat he'd just advance around the flank and keep hitting until the rebels ran out of men and materiel.

[Wxman]

Lee said that about Grant? Now that's what you call a compliment.

Wow.

I infer from that statement that Grant's mentality is studied at War College.

But what is it about Grant that is studied except at Senior year level? And that regarding administration.

So McLellan set the stage and created an Army that required a General of the fortitude that of Grant?

I believe that both sides realized the conflict was to go nowhere unless it was decisive, i.e., N. want to "win", then it is necessary to subjugate the opponents utilizing 'harsh' measures and overwhelm the opponents with overwhelming numbers.

S. want to "win" then hold out sufficiently long for the liberal N. political elements to force suing for peace, or you beat them into the ground sufficiently well into paste where thy don't rise up again.

:arrgh!:
:huh:

[Armistead]

Lee said that about Grant? Now that's what you call a compliment.

The better you make your opponent that defeated you look, the better you look. I think that was part of the statement. If you compare the tactics of the Overland Campaign, Lee was placed in the position where he had to outthink Grant and basically did so. Both sides generals made mistakes that could've changed the outcome of some battles, but not the war.

I honestly doubt, by the numerous statements Lee made, that he saw Grant as a great tactician and he certainly thought he was much better, just lacked enough numbers and equipment. Been interesting if Lee faced Grant with the army he had during 63, would Grant have destroyed his army against a stronger Lee with resources..

I think Jackson was better than both of them..

[August]

The better you make your opponent that defeated you look, the better you look.

I've heard the same theory applied to Britain's perception of Erwin Rommel.

His reputation provided an excuse for British defeats and later when the tide had turned in North Africa beating the great "Desert Fox" provided a great boost to British morale.

[Armistead]

Well, if you read of Lee's many statements written and to others, it seems he had a disdain for Grant during the war for his tactics. I can't remember which location, but once Lee had set up a perfect inverted V plan and should've wiped out one of Grant's corps to his left that had crossed over, but Lee was sick that day and couldn't function and his generals failed him. Grant did see the mistake and corrected it in time, so no battle.

Rather amazing the ANV held up against the attacks. I think several times if Grant would've pushed the battle, it would've been over, instead he sidestepped, which I think was more costly, more so at places like Cold Harbor. Honestly, the North had enough men and supplies they should've opened two fronts on Lee. Hooker almost succeeded doing this..

Grant was a good general, but let's be honest, he got Lee at his worse and then could only seige..

[Dread Knot]

Well, if you read of Lee's many statements written and to others, it seems he had a disdain for Grant during the war for his tactics. I can't remember which location, but once Lee had set up a perfect inverted V plan and should've wiped out one of Grant's corps to his left that had crossed over, but Lee was sick that day and couldn't function and his generals failed him. Grant did see the mistake and corrected it in time, so no battle.

The location you're referring to was at the North Anna River, where the Army of the Potomac found itself split into three parts by the bends of the river. A healthy Lee with Jackson and Longstreet would have exploited the awkward Yankee deployment to the fullest. Instead lee was ill and his subordinates botched the opportunity. Lost opportunities were rife in the Civil War. A similar tantalizing opportunity was lost by the Union at Petersburg a few weeks later.

Rather amazing the ANV held up against the attacks. I think several times if Grant would've pushed the battle, it would've been over, instead he sidestepped, which I think was more costly, more so at places like Cold Harbor. Honestly, the North had enough men and supplies they should've opened two fronts on Lee. Hooker almost succeeded doing this Grant did open up more than one front on Lee in Virginia. Ben Butler was to move against Richmond from the south, simultaneously, another army led by General Franz Sigel was directed to seize the Shenandoah Valley. Both failed their tasks in spectacular fashion. A bugaboo for both sides in the ACW was a lack of decent commanders at the lower levels.

Yet, despite these setbacks Grant actually managed to accomplish many of his original goals. He had planned in 1864 to out maneuver Lee and then defeat him in battle while lesser armies isolated the theater from the rest of the Confederacy. As it turned out, he wore down Lee by sheer attrition while managing to make up for Butler and Sigel's staggering incompetence by accomplishing some of their goals himself. When you succeed at your plan despite the plan being the first causality of battle, that seems to me to be the mark of a great general.

Grant was a good general, but let's be honest, he got Lee at his worse and then could only seige.. One could argue that Grant's star was tarnished in having to settle for a 10 month siege at Petersburg. However, if sealing Lee off meant other Union generals like Sherman and Sheridan got the greater glory for tramping almost unopposed through the Confederacy then so be it. The war had seen enough gratuitous ego appeasing by that point.

I've been hearing this Grant vs. Lee debate for decades. Although, I credit Lee for constantly out-foxing Grant, I have to give Grant his due for seeing the frustrating thing through to the conclusion. He did have the overwhelming advantage in men, animals and resources. However, so did his many predecessors in the Army of the Potomac who consistently fumbled that advantage away. Grant's bloody repulse at Cold Harbor seems to be the focal point for his criticism as an mere butcher. I find it interesting that Lee's similar ill-considered frontal attacks at Malvern Hill, Cemetery Ridge and Fort Stedmen tend to be glossed over.

Grant's strength of will, his determination to do the best he could with what he had, his refusal to give up --or more importantly to not complain about the cruelty of fate, help explain the success of his generalship. These qualities were by no means common among Civil War generals. Many of them spent more time and energy clamoring for reinforcements or explaining why they could not do what they were ordered to do than they did in trying to carry out their orders. Their memoirs are full of self-serving excuses for failure, which was always somebody else's fault. Grant’s were not.

I also give General Lee eternal credit for pouring ice water on the idea raised by some of his staff of resorting to guerilla warfare and so keeping the conquered South from becoming a smoldering ember. To go on fighting from the woods and the lanes and the swamps might indeed have plagued the Yankees and infected a deep wound beyond healing, but the one thing on earth it could not do was give the South a chance to be left alone with what used to be.

[Armistead]

I'm talking two fronts on Lee, dealing with Lee himself. Butler was bottlenecked and Sigel was on a campaign of his own and was facing Breckenridge who checked and defeated him. Yes, I understand these were basic fronts against Lee.