Grant Grant the "butcher".

[cash]

Under any circumstance to loose as nearly as many men as Lee had in the ANV does nothing to dispel Grant's butcher image. Then too, how were the other 59% of Grant's men lost?

What does losing over half his army in casualties during the Overland Campaign do to Lee's reputation?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/overland-campaign-1864

 

[WJC]

Absolutely. The term "butcher" was applied by his northern compatriots, not southern.

Have you- or anyone else here- seen any evidence documenting the first use of the term applied to Grant? Was it in a newspaper story? A letter? It seems to have been widespread, but it had to start somewhere....

 

[contestedground]

Yes, that is exactly what the Confederates said. I make no defense of Grant on that incident. As Sherman said (I'm paraphrasing), war is horrible and ugly, and you cannot make it pretty.

Which Confederates? Where?

Someone once told me that Ed gives a great tour, but sometimes he goes a little astray when it come to the facs. Someone with access to his study of the Vicksburg campaign might have some luck tracking down this story ... if he even mentioned it there.

Let's try to deal with facts and sources.

 

[diane]

Have you- or anyone else here- seen any evidence documenting the first use of the term applied to Grant? Was it in a newspaper story? A letter? It seems to have been widespread, but it had to start somewhere....

Mary Lincoln usually gets credit for it, but it was after her maid Elizabeth Keckley wrote about in her autobiography. I believe that was published in 1868. Grant didn't have that nickname until then...which was when he was running for president.

 

[WJC]

Mary Lincoln usually gets credit for it, but it was after her maid Elizabeth Keckley wrote about in her autobiography. I believe that was published in 1868. Grant didn't have that nickname until then...which was when he was running for president.

Thanks for your response.
So we know it was used in print in 1868.
I have read articles about Grant that start off calling him "Grant the butcher" as if it were part of his surname, but not explaining why he should be called that. It seems automatic, the product of a long PR campaign?

 

[diane]

Thanks for your response.
So we know it was used in print in 1868.
I have read articles about Grant that start off calling him "Grant the butcher" as if it were part of his surname, but not explaining why he should be called that. It seems automatic, the product of a long PR campaign?

That's so. His opponents in the presidential race were digging up everything from booze to Jews - this tag was just another part of their arsenal.

 

[CSA Today]

On the contrary: Simply comparing numbers of casualties can be misleading; comparing casualties in terms of percentages removes the bias of differing force populations and is a much better means of comparison.
The bottom line is a soldier in Lee's Army had a far greater likelihood of becoming a casualty than a soldier in Grant's Army.

Numbers can be misleading, a much smaller army can have far fewer casualties but a higher statistical number of casualties. For example, Grant began the Overland Campaign with 118,000 men and was opposed by Lee with 60,000. Page 418. An example, Civil War historians Randall, and Donaldson write: "Confederate losses in the Wilderness campaign were proportionately heavier than those of Grant. Page 421. At the Battle of the Wilderness "Union losses approximated 18,000, of whom over 2,000 were killed. Confederate losses probably exceeded 10,000."Page 419.

J.G. Randall, David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction,pp.418-421.

 

[CSA Today]

What does losing over half his army in casualties during the Overland Campaign do to Lee's reputation?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/overland-campaign-1864

Losing 55,000 of 118,000 men did nothing to dispel Grant's image as a butcher of his own men.

"In the whole campaign from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor, the Union's losses were approximately 55,000, nearly as much as Lee's whole army. As a defensive accomplishment in fighting off superior numbers, the campaign stands as a significant chapter in Confederate annals."

Source: J.G. Randall, David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1962) pp.419-420

 

[CSA Today]

K as in 1,000. That is, 23K means 23,000 and 13K means 13,000. Casualties: killed, wounded, captured and missing, i.e., total men no longer available for fughting.

True, but why use 23,000 k if you mean 23,000 casualties? If you are giving total numbers 23,000 should be explanatory enough. In describing casualties, K is commonly the abbreviation for the number killed, Dow for died of wounds, M for missing, and C for captured.

 

[thomas aagaard]

In your post #23 where you wrote:"Lee lost 23K at Gettysburg and 13K as Chancellorsville", I assumed by K you meant killed not casualties.

no K = kilo = 1000
23K = 23000.

K is commonly the abbreviation for 1000 in the rest of the world...
I just forgot that you Americans don't use the metric system like everyone else do...

Sorry for the confusion.

True, but why use 23,000 k if you mean 23,000 casualties?

I didn't. I used "23k" for 23000

---
Also I made a mistake, the 23000 was Union looses at Gettysburg.
Lee lost 28,063
(3,903 killed, 18,735 wounded, 5,425 missing & captured)
(source: civil war trust)

 

[CSA Today]

no K = kilo = 1000
23K = 23000.

K is commonly the abbreviation for 1000 in the rest of the world...
I just forgot that you Americans don't use the metric system like everyone else do...

Sorry for the confusion.

I didn't. I used "23k" for 23000

---
Also I made a mistake, the 23000 was Union looses at Gettysburg.
Lee lost 28,063
(3,903 killed, 18,735 wounded, 5,425 missing & captured)
(source: civil war trust)

no K = kilo = 1000
23K = 23000.

K is commonly the abbreviation for 1000 in the rest of the world...
I just forgot that you Americans don't use the metric system like everyone else do...

Sorry for the confusion.

I didn't. I used "23k" for 23000

---
Also I made a mistake, the 23000 was Union looses at Gettysburg.
Lee lost 28,063
(3,903 killed, 18,735 wounded, 5,425 missing & captured)
(source: civil war trust)

OK.

 

[WJC]

Numbers can be misleading, a much smaller army can have far fewer casualties but a higher statistical number of casualties. For example, Grant began the Overland Campaign with 118,000 men and was opposed by Lee with 60,000. Page 418. An example, Civil War historians Randall, and Donaldson write: "Confederate losses in the Wilderness campaign were proportionately heavier than those of Grant. Page 421. At the Battle of the Wilderness "Union losses approximated 18,000, of whom over 2,000 were killed. Confederate losses probably exceeded 10,000."Page 419.

J.G. Randall, David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction,pp.418-421.

Thanks for your response.
Using those numbers, Grant's forces suffered approximately 15.25% loss, Lee's probably exceeded 16.67%.

 

[cash]

Losing 55,000 of 118,000 men did nothing to dispel Grant's image as a butcher of his own men.

"In the whole campaign from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor, the Union's losses were approximately 55,000, nearly as much as Lee's whole army. As a defensive accomplishment in fighting off superior numbers, the campaign stands as a significant chapter in Confederate annals."

Source: J.G. Randall, David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1962) pp.419-420

Avoiding the question.

What does losing over half his army in casualties during the Overland Campaign do to Lee's reputation?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/overland-campaign-1864

 

[CSA Today]

Avoiding the question.

What does losing over half his army in casualties during the Overland Campaign do to Lee's reputation?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/overland-campaign-1864

Uh, did I forget something? Civil War historians Randall and Donaldson [both Lincoln scholars] seemed impressed with Lee's performance.

"In the whole campaign from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor, the Union's losses were approximately 55,000, nearly as much as Lee's whole army. As a defensive accomplishment in fighting off superior numbers, the campaign stands as a significant chapter in Confederate annals."

 

[cash]

Uh, did I forget something? Civil War historians Randall and Donaldson [both Lincoln scholars] seemed impressed with Lee's performance.

"In the whole campaign from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor, the Union's losses were approximately 55,000, nearly as much as Lee's whole army. As a defensive accomplishment in fighting off superior numbers, the campaign stands as a significant chapter in Confederate annals."

Yes, you didn't answer the question.

What does losing over half his army in casualties during the Overland Campaign do to Lee's reputation?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/overland-campaign-1864

 

[CSA Today]

Yes, you didn't answer the question.

What does losing over half his army in casualties during the Overland Campaign do to Lee's reputation?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/overland-campaign-1864

Paradoxically, Lee's reputation was enhanced while Grant, after losing almost as many men as Lee had in his army, had his reputation reaffirmed as a butcher of his own men.

 

[diane]

Paradoxically, Lee's reputation was enhanced while Grant, after losing almost as many men as Lee had in his army, had his reputation reaffirmed as a butcher of his own men.

But that was after the war, and for political reasons. Is there anything to show he was referred to as a butcher before he began running for president? He was indeed criticized in the North for the high casualties during the war but didn't have the name. Lee, too, received criticism. The Overland Campaign was a real bloody affair. We have to note, too, it wasn't only the commanders. Both the AoP and the ANV were highly aggressive armies - they were both determined to win and end the war once and for all. The Mule Shoe at Spotsylvania, for instance. That was incredibly personal and deeply psychological - there was at least one point where Lee really thought he had lost control, and Grant was told by his line officers to stop it while he could.

 

[CSA Today]

But that was after the war, and for political reasons. Is there anything to show he was referred to as a butcher before he began running for president? He was indeed criticized in the North for the high casualties during the war but didn't have the name. Lee, too, received criticism. The Overland Campaign was a real bloody affair. We have to note, too, it wasn't only the commanders. Both the AoP and the ANV were highly aggressive armies - they were both determined to win and end the war once and for all. The Mule Shoe at Spotsylvania, for instance. That was incredibly personal and deeply psychological - there was at least one point where Lee really thought he had lost control, and Grant was told by his line officers to stop it while he could.

I may have misunderstood the poster, but I deduced that he referred to lasting reputations.

 

[cash]

Paradoxically, Lee's reputation was enhanced while Grant, after losing almost as many men as Lee had in his army, had his reputation reaffirmed as a butcher of his own men.

Interesting. Grant loses a much smaller percentage of his army while Lee loses over half of his army and yet Lee's reputation is enhanced. If I were a Civil War soldier, my chances would be much better if I were under Grant than if I were under Lee. Who's the butcher?

 

[CSA Today]

Interesting. Grant loses a much smaller percentage of his army while Lee loses over half of his army and yet Lee's reputation is enhanced. If I were a Civil War soldier, my chances would be much better if I were under Grant than if I were under Lee. Who's the butcher?

Grant losing nearly half of his nearly twice as large army is even more astounding. Fortunately for him, he also had a bigger butcher shop than Lee to replenish his meat [uh men].