First off please don't call me Boss. August or Dave will suffice.

Now as to your post. I was mainly joking when I suggested that you may not have much of an argument but only because you won't present it. Instead you try to lead me on this Grant the Butcher boondoggle which Steve and Bilge Rat have already addressed.

So far you have not eliminated slavery from the argument to my or anyone elses satisfaction. I'll say it again, had the institution of slavery never existed the south would not have seceded. Protecting that "right" is what pushed them into rebellion. They said it themselves so you can't just dismiss it.

Oh and Thanks a lot Confederates for making the first big test of states rights to be about the right to keep slaves! Had it been about something like illegal immigration instead maybe we could have resolved this in court and avoided the war. :)

I'm not saying the war or the secession wasn't about slavery. Steve proved that to me some time ago. I'm just saying that slavery was not the primary motivation behind the North's invasion. In any case, sorry for leading you on a "boondoggle", August.
--------------------------------------------------------------
As for Grant, since I started this,

Horrible certainly but a war of attrition is ultimately what it took to defeat Lee. Everything else had been tried and nothing else had worked.

If you're looking for answers to why the north was so hard on the south after the war maybe it was that necessity, well that and an assassinated President, which caused it.

Actually Andrew Johnson wanted a quiet and peaceful reconstruction just as much as Lincoln did. The problem was a powerful faction in Congress who saw the money to be made, and that they could make the South suffer at the same time. The fights between Johnson and the Carpetbaggers was fierce, and ultimately led to Johnson's impeachment.

Grant also tried to smooth things over, and was quite active in these battles, which is why so many of his former enemies (Lee included) had so much respect for him.

Some more of what his enemies had to say:

"There is one West Pointer, I think in Missouri, little known, and whom I hope the northern people will not find out. I mean Sam Grant. I knew him well at the Academy and in Mexico. I should fear him more than any of their officers I have yet heard of. He is not a man of genius, but he is clear-headed, quick and daring."
-Confederate General Richard S. Ewell to Robert E. Lee, May, 1861

"Do you know Grant? Well, I do. I was in the Corps of Cadets with him at West Point for three years. I was present at his wedding. I served in the same army with him in Mexico. I have observed his methods of warfare in the West, and I believe I know him through and through and I tell you that we cannot afford to underrate him and the army he now commands."
-General James Longstreet, to his fellows who were joking about Grant's abilities

"Grant is not a retreating man. Gentlemen, the Army of the Potomac has a head."
-Robert E. Lee

Cold harbor was a mistake. Grant stated afterwards that he regretted not having called off the attack and this was the battle he regretted the most.

Grant originally ordered the attack late on june 1st for early morning june 2nd, when all reports showed there were few confederate troops there and there was a good chance to break open the road to Richmond. (Cold harbor was only 10 miles from Richmond).

However, due to typical sloppy staff work from the Army of the Potomac and general battlefield confusion (orders being issued late, being delivered late or not at all, units leaving late or taking the wrong road at night, etc.), troops were not anywhere near ready to jump off early june 2nd so the entire attack was postponed 24 hours.

well, in 24 hours, Lee's army could turn its lines into an impregnable fortress, which is what happened...

more importantly, Grant never again ordered that type of frontal assault for the rest of the war, which lasted for another 10 months.

Grant was not the only one to make mistakes, check out Malvern Hill or Pickett's charge, both ordered by Lee. Making mistakes is human, the difference is that we can start the game over, a general who makes a mistake in RL has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life. The important question is not whether they made a mistake, but whether they learned from it; both Lee and Grant were quick learners.

"The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission reports that at Cold Harbor, the North suffered 13, 000 casualties while the South had only 2,500. Some reports indicate that Grant lost 6,000 men in a one-hour period. Lacking appropriate military skills, Grant callously pushed more and more soldiers into his front lines, ignoring the number of casualties in order to wear down the Confederates. For ruthlessly sacrificing the lives of these young men, Grant was given the designation "Grant the Butcher."


Its safe to say mistakes were made on both sides.


"The infantry assault was preceded by a massive artillery bombardment that was meant to soften up the Union defense and silence its artillery, but it was largely ineffective. Approximately 12,500 men in nine infantry brigades advanced over open fields for three-quarters of a mile under heavy Union artillery and rifle fire. Although some Confederates were able to breach the low stone wall that shielded many of the Union defenders, they could not maintain their hold and were repulsed with over 50% casualties, a decisive defeat that ended the three-day battle and Lee's campaign into Pennsylvannia. Years later, when asked why his charge at Gettysburg failed, General Pickett replied: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."


Lee ordered this charge, yet one can not question his ability as a general because of its failure.

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our
most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by
reading newspapers that these geniuses plainly saw all my strategic
defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.
Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously
superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by
writing editorials - after the fact."

- Robert E. Lee, 1863

My personal opinion is the South had much better fighters (more fight in their blood) and much better Generals to lead them. Just look at the battles throughout the entire war and the evidence is written in the blood that was spilled.

Lee was a fricken genius in my book and knew how to make the most with the least amount of resources. Probably the most militaristic and strategic minded person this world has ever known. He's up there with Douglas MacArthur in my list of "men who knew how to fight a war". He was a very disciplined person and never received a single demerit at West Point during his 4 years there. That's unheard of for a school that's so strict!

To me, Grant wasn't a great General at all. And I'm not saying this because I'm so pro-South. The fact is, he just had a lot more men to throw at the South. Give him a small force and he'd lose. Give him a big force and he'd win, but you could rest assured that his big force would be nothing more than a handful of wounded men by the end of the battle. I think this led to him becoming such a bad drunk. It's got to be hard to swallow the "could of/should of" reality when you're responsible for the literally thousands of young lives being lost due in large part to your poor military tactics I can imagine.

It's my opinion that the north suffered such heavy losses during the war because of Grant's poor leadership. There were other northern Generals that used this same method as well. It's so easy to just throw numbers at the enemy to win. Anybody who's into RTS games will know this. We're all guilty of doing the same thing in games like Red Alert. Just create a ton of infantry and charge at the enemy with them and you'll most likely win no matter what equipment they have on their side or how they're strategically setup on the map. You're gonna suffer heavy losses but you're guaranteed to win.

You may not think Grant was a great general, but his enemies, including Lee, said he was.

Lee was a great defensive commander, but the two times he went on the attack he lost. He was beaten by McLellan and he was beaten by Meade. If either of those two had bothered to chase him the war might have ended much sooner.

This is due to their much larger numbers of course.

If Lee had fought for the north, the war would have been over in a month.

You are indeed. Far more than RE Lee himself apparently.

I have to admit, I'm a little shocked to see just how many people think Grant was a great general. With the vast superiority in resources he had, I would expect more from a really great general, but it seems that everyone else thinks he is, and I assume you probably have reasons for that in addition to what you've posted here, so I cede the argument. Grant was a great general, apparently. I can't believe I said that. Yes, people's minds can be changed on the internet.

However, if one person.... and I mean even one person suggests that Bernard Montgomery was a great general, I will personally execute you all KGB-style.:DL

At Antietam, that's arguably true, but at Gettysburg Lee ignored Longstreet's advice and ordered Pickett's charge. I don't think it can be denied that that was a major blunder. He had developed a case of what pilots call "target fixation."

I don't think it would have been that quick or easy, but I agree with your point. I'm not denying that Lee was one of the greats, both as a general and as a man, but he made some of the same mistakes Grant did. I'm merely saying that contemporary quotes from Lee and others show Grant to be underrated as both by later generations.

I won't deny that Lee screwed up at Gettysburg. I think he got a little over zealous in that battle and thought he had it whupped. He could have won that battle had he listened to Longstreet! But it's a good thing for the north that he did screw up. Otherwise Lincoln was about ready to abandon ship and end the war. Lincoln wasn't going to allow and couldn't afford to let the South to invade the north like the north had been invading the South.

This is why we like you so much.

Well it won't be me. I'm a Paratrooper and as you know the Airborne community has had a long standing beef with that man.

I didn't figure it would be you, August. I just wanted you to agree with me, as I get tired of disagreeing with you when there are other opinions that are so much more disagreeable. :DL I prefer to be on the same side as you.:salute:

I just would like to thank you for allowing me to express my dislike of Montgomery. I would do it all again. :up:

Feel free. I'll help: Monty sucked!

The attacker requires at least a 3 to 1 superiority in numbers to assure success, and will almost always suffer heavier casualties. (The latter situation has been offset largely in modern warfare.)

a couple of points:

1. superiority of men and material is nice, but has never been a garantee of success (as Napoleon, the German Army in 1940-42 and the IDF can attest :ping:). You still need someone on top who knows what he is doing and the determination to do it. If the commanding general is incompetent (Pope, Burnside) or does not have the killer instinct (McClellan, Hooker, Meade), numerical superiority means squat. McClellan blew numerous chances to crush Lee's army before, during and after Antietam; its doubtful Grant would have made the same mistakes. Just compare the speed and the fury shown by Grant in his pursuit of Lee in April 1865 with the very cautious approach shown by McClellan and Meade after Antietam and Gettysburg, respectively;

2. I have not seen any evidence that the average Confederate soldier or officer was better than his Union counterpart. The results are skewed by Lee's performance in the East. The results in the West were closer to what you would expect given the Union's superiority. Many confederate generals in the ANV look very good when all they were doing is following Lee's orders. Many of the same generals performed much worse when given an independent command (Hood, Longstreet);

3. Lee's performance and reputation were helped by having a brillant subordinate. His greatest successes came in 1862-63 when Stonewall Jackson, who in many ways was as brillant as Lee, was his point man. After Stonewall was killed, the performance of the ANV dropped off measurably. It is interesting to speculate how Gettysburg would have turned out if Stonewall was still around;

4. Grant's reputation as a drunk was overblown. There is no evidence that he drank when campaigning, certainly not during the 1864 overland campaign against Lee in may-june 1864. The rest of the time it was about average for a Civil War General (they tended to be a hard drinking lot :arrgh!:);

5. as to Monty, I guess we can keep that for another thread...:D

This has to be the most often cited and possibly least accurate theory about warfare I have ever head (And keep hearing). There's no such thing as 'assure success' and the amount of forces required by an attacker to have a reasonably high chances of succeeding is heavily dependent on the state of the defending force.

Also, an attack can suffer much less casualties regardless of ridiculously high numerical superiority if it's properly executed.