Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

[UnderseaLcpl]

@Moceefus - thanks for finding the quote I couldn't find, and the other ones. And no, I have not read Davis' book, but I plan on adding it and a good deal of other books to my collection when I have the funds for it.

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

In summary, the New Deal's monetary policies ended the Great Depression

That's not what your source says, and that's not what conventional economic wisdom says, either. Your source (economic library) cites many of the failures of the New Deal and supports the claim that it exacerbated the Depression, rather than rectifying it. It also casts doubt on your figures for GDP and employment. This is all in the last half of the document.

Furthermore, while I have no doubt that FDR was little better than Lincoln when it came to civil liberties, you make no mention of his attempt to pack the Supreme Court. That, in conjunction with his political control of Congress, and his adamant refusal to leave office, makes him the closest thing to a dictator this nation has ever had. Sorry, but he's staying on my "Worst Presidents" list.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Ture enough, but that still buys him nothing in my eyes. Lincoln was privvy to enough acts of brutality in occupied areas during the war that I have no difficulty believing that he would have done nothing to soften the reconstruction afterwards. The sentiment that the South needed to be punished was very strong at the time, and if he was the shrewd politician everyone says he was, it would have been politically unwise to attempt a gentle reconciliation.

Based on Lincoln's speeches and actions during the war, it is probable he would have had a gentler reconciliation policy than Johnson.

He encouraged and approved the very generous surrender terms Grant gave to Lee at Appomattox.

Of course, we wil never know what would have happened because of that idiot Booth.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

OK, let's start over. I already eliminated slavery as a primary motivation for the North's war against the South. Maybe you buy that argument, and maybe you don't, but even then you have to put yourself into the shoes of early 19th-century America and ask yourself how this issue of slavery should be resolved. It isn't as if the issue was resolved peacefully (Thanks, Lincoln) and it isn't as if African Americans enjoyed a markedly better existence for the next hundred years. Even if you really believe that the Civil war was fought for the interests of African-Americans and that Lincoln really was sincere in his efforts, you have to admit that they were a failure.

Slavery was the primary reason why the South seceded.

The USA fought the war primarily to preserve the Union. Lincoln was legally elected president of the United States and took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. You could not expect him to just stand by and do nothing after 11 states just illegally walked out because they did not like the election results.

The South bears as much or more responsibility for the war by refusing any type of compromise solution, leaving the federal government no choice but to resort to force.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

1) There was no Union general that cost as many lives as Grant did, so while they may have been just as incompetent, they were not as bloody-handed
2) Are you seriously going to make an argument in defense of Grant? As a military man? I mean, really? Do you have any WW1 French or British generals you'd like to nominate while you're at it?

Grant's reputation as a "Butcher" was undeserved, he was one of the best general ever produced by the USA. His big problem is that he is always compared with Robert E. Lee who was the best general ever to come out of the USA. Its the same problem Andy Roddick has...

His 1863 campaign was a masterpiece of generalship, utilising misdirection, combined arms and bold planning to outmaneuver and bottle up a Rebel army in Vicksburg.

In the 1864 campaign, he was always trying to outmaneuver and outflank Lee. His problem was that the Union generals in the Army of the Potomac always moved a bit slower and with a bit less determination than Lee's generals. Even when he did steal a march on Lee and landed a Corps in front of an undefended Petersburg, the General in charge completely bungled the attack.

In 1865, after he had reorganized the Army and put in his own men, he was able to cut off and bottle up the Army of Northern Virginia in 10 days, leaving Lee with no option but surrender.

[Sailor Steve]

"…my mind is fixed. I know no other Country, no other Government, than the United States & their Constitution."
—Robert E. Lee to Edward Childe (January 9, 1857)

"…if the slaves of the South were mine, I would surrender them all with out a struggle, to avert this war."
—Robert E. Lee to Bishop Joseph P. B. Wilmer (Spring 1861)

"A measure which makes at once Four Millions of people … voters in every part of the land … is indeed a measure of grander importance than any other one act of the kind from the foundation of our free government to the present day."
—Ulysses S. Grant, message to Congress following the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment (March 30, 1870)

"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 E. Lee

"We all form our preconceived ideas of men of whom we have heard a great deal, and I had certain definite notions as to the appearance and character of General Grant, but I was never so completely surprised in all my life as when I met him and found him a different person, so entirely different from my idea of him. His spare figure, simple manners, lack of all ostentation, extreme politeness, and charm of conversation were a revelation to me, for I had pictured him as a man of a directly opposite type of character, and expected to find in him only the bluntness of a soldier. Notwithstanding the fact that he talks so well, it is plain he has more brains than tongue. He is one of the most remarkable men I have ever met. He does not seem to be aware of his powers."
-- Former Vice-President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens who met Grant towards the end of the war

"Dear General: I have watched your movements from the hour you gave me my horse and sword and told me to go home and assist in making a crop.' I have been proud to see the nation do you honor. And now, dear Genl. in this the hour of your tribulation I weep that so brave, so magananimous a soul must suffer as you do .. and be assured that I am not the only ex-Confederate who sends his prayers daily to the Throne of Grace for the Grandest, the noblest, the bravest soldier and the Purist Statesman who ever graced the annals of history ... I am Dear General, Yours Most Affectly, A. M. Arnold, Rockbridge Bath, Va."
-- A.M. Arnold, Confederate Veteran in a letter to Grant during his illness

Confederate General Joe Johnston was one of the pallbearers at Grant's funeral.

[August]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Don't tell me that you suddenly believe that the electorate knows what is best for the country, not after everything our constitution stands for. Not after decades of special interests marching under the Democratic banner.

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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

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,

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."

[August]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

[Sailor Steve]

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

[Bilge_Rat]

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.

[Moeceefus]

"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.

[Sailor Steve]

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.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by thorn69

I'm so pro-South.

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