Grant's Hammer

[DWMack]

I completed reading Bonekemper's Grant: "A Victor, Not a Butcher". Even before having read this book, it was always my feeling that Grant was unfairly labeled; when in fact, Lee lost more troops by Percentage and in real numbers. My questions are if Grant was not put in charge of the AOP, would the north still have won - if so how long would it have taken and how many more lives would have been lost.

I have to think that his Overland campaign of adhesion (and hammering if I must) was the only way to knock Lee of of his porch - since Lee took a defencive Strategy during that time. Many did not agree with Grant's strategy because of the high number of casualties. But I ask, what other way would have ended the war within a year?

 

[brass napoleon]

IMO, Grant was a victor because he was a butcher. Nothing less could have won the war at that point. Others might have been able to do it, and maybe even some with more finesse and less blood, but only if they were willing to fight with everything they had.

From everything I've heard, Grant was at heart a decent person. It takes an unusual type of person to be able to set his personal feelings aside and send thousands to be slaughtered. Grant, Lee and Lincoln could do it, and that's what makes them great. McClellan, Joe Johston, and others couldn't, and that's why they failed.

 

[RobertP]

, it was always my feeling that Grant was unfairly labeled; when in fact, Lee lost more troops by Percentage and in real numbers. My questions are if Grant was not put in charge of the AOP, would the north still have won - if so how long would it have taken and how many more lives would have been lost.

Didn't Grant lose more men it the Overland Campaign that Lee had in his army? Sure, he probably had a lower percentage since the AoP was close to three times the size of the ANV, but overall losses, no.

Grant had the advantage in men and materiel, and used it. The war would have dragged on at least another year had he not forced the issue as he did.

 

[DWMack]

Didn't Grant lose more men it the Overland Campaign that Lee had in his army? Sure, he probably had a lower percentage since the AoP was close to three times the size of the ANV, but overall losses, no.

Grant had the advantage in men and materiel, and used it. The war would have dragged on at least another year had he not forced the issue as he did.

Lee's Army of NV lost over 209,000 - 55,000 more than Grant.

 

[DWMack]

IMO, Grant was a victor because he was a butcher. Nothing less could have won the war at that point. Others might have been able to do it, and maybe even some with more finesse and less blood, but only if they were willing to fight with everything they had.

From everything I've heard, Grant was at heart a decent person. It takes an unusual type of person to be able to set his personal feelings aside and send thousands to be slaughtered. Grant, Lee and Lincoln could do it, and that's what makes them great. McClellan, Joe Johston, and others couldn't, and that's why they failed.

Since Lee put his army in a defensive position during the OL campaign, Grant was destined to lose more troops just by the nature of being on the offensive.

 

[dvrmte]

Lee's Army of NV lost over 209,000 - 55,000 more than Grant.

So you're comparing Lee's and Grant's casualties for the war not against one another.

Okay,
dvrmte

 

[DWMack]

So you're comparing Lee's and Grant's casualties for the war not against one another.

Okay,
dvrmte

right. Not head to head, but entirely

 

[gary]

So you're comparing Lee's and Grant's casualties for the war not against one another.

Okay,
dvrmte

If dvrmte's point is that it's an unfair comparison, I concur. Bonekemper points out that Grant proportionately lost less men than Lee, but he also acknowledges that the number of casualties from the Overland Campaign was higher for Grant than Lee.

Grant's losses were partially attributable to inept leadership on corps level. Butler's failure to capture Petersburg being the shining example an able administrator (ahem, looter) who should not have been a corps commander.

 

[K Hale]

IMO, Grant was a victor because he was a butcher. Nothing less could have won the war at that point. Others might have been able to do it, and maybe even some with more finesse and less blood, but only if they were willing to fight with everything they had.

I don't know about "finesse," but if they were willing to fight with everything they had, they would not have done it with less blood. That's why McClellan couldn't get it done.

 

[ole]

Agreed, Ms. Hale. A trace of Grant's aggressiveness applied in all the previous AotP commanders might well have made it unnecessary for Grant to come east.

 

[Scribe]

Didn't Grant lose more men it the Overland Campaign that Lee had in his army? Sure, he probably had a lower percentage since the AoP was close to three times the size of the ANV, but overall losses, no.

Grant had the advantage in men and materiel, and used it. The war would have dragged on at least another year had he not forced the issue as he did.

One of the charges made by Grant's detractors was that he was nothing more than "another blundering Suvorov."

Pretty sure that wasn't a compliment but then came across a C. Vann Woodward footnote that described Suvorov as "the great Russian field marshal who never lost a battle."

Blundering, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[BillO]

Well, lets see:
Wilderness- caught in the flank, no calvary warning, forced to fight in the woods.
Spotsylvania- outmarched to courthouse, made a beautiful dawn attack completely stampedeing a corp of rebels and capturing a battalion of artillery and then lost all the gained ground and most of the artillery.
Cold Harbour- I don't even know where to begin!
Petersburg- Made a beautiful tactical move across the river , made a very successfull initial attack, storming several forts and taking several miles of lines and then stopped.
He was a butcher and a very level headed man but not a great general. I don't think Grant won the war, Lincoln did.

 

[Scribe]

Well, lets see:
Wilderness- caught in the flank, no calvary warning, forced to fight in the woods.
Spotsylvania- outmarched to courthouse, made a beautiful dawn attack completely stampedeing a corp of rebels and capturing a battalion of artillery and then lost all the gained ground and most of the artillery.
Cold Harbour- I don't even know where to begin!
Petersburg- Made a beautiful tactical move across the river , made a very successfull initial attack, storming several forts and taking several miles of lines and then stopped.
He was a butcher and a very level headed man but not a great general. I don't think Grant won the war, Lincoln did.

Okay, let's do see.

Forts Henry and Donelson: A Confederate army taken entire, and Confederate strongpoints at Bowling Green
and Columbus, Ky., made untenable and abandoned.

Vicksburg: A Confederate army taken entire, the Confederacy split in half, and the Mississippi River becomes blue water to the Gulf.

Appomattox: A Confederate army taken entire, and the rebellion effectively ended.

Grant was the greatest general of the WotR and arguably the greatest U.S. general ever.

 

[BillO]

Whee this is fun, There was a war in the west? ( I'm a Virginian) Appomatox was inevitable by then, if the south was going to do anything it would have had to do it quick. and last only if you don't consider Stonewall Jackson or Robert E. Lee Americans.

 

[DWMack]

I don't know. I'd take Grant, Sheridan, Sherman, and Thomas over Lee and any of his men. But then, I'm biased.

Wilderness- Inconclusive = Grant Kept moving forward. Lee stays on his back porch in a fetal defensive pos.

Spotsylvania - Grant weighed down with more men in enemy territory, of course he was outmarched to the courthouse.

Cold Harbor - One of Grant's few mistakes. Still, Lee stays on the defensive. (Lee loses 23,000 at Gettysburg alone. Grant loses 12,000 at Cold Harbor)

Petersburg - Lee not able to follow up fort Stedman break-through pushe back loses 4000. Grant Breaks through defenses (Lee retreats) takes Petersburg.

And yes there was a war in the west. If Grant hadn't of won those battles out west the confederacy might have won the war

 

[Scribe]

Whee this is fun, There was a war in the west? ( I'm a Virginian) .

Gee, what a coincidence so were Lee and Jackson. And while they were tinker-toying around in Virginia Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Farragut, et al were winning the war in the west.

Appomatox was inevitable by then, if the south was going to do anything it would have had to do it quick. .

And what did Lee do to win the war quick? Hint, the Confederacy did not win the war, and Lee's attempts at quick victory in the Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns were not only misguided but, to be kind, failures.

Appomattox was only inevitable because Grant made it so.

 

[The Iron Duke]

Well, lets see:
Wilderness- caught in the flank, no calvary warning, forced to fight in the woods.
Spotsylvania- outmarched to courthouse, made a beautiful dawn attack completely stampedeing a corp of rebels and capturing a battalion of artillery and then lost all the gained ground and most of the artillery.
Cold Harbour- I don't even know where to begin!
Petersburg- Made a beautiful tactical move across the river , made a very successfull initial attack, storming several forts and taking several miles of lines and then stopped.
He was a butcher and a very level headed man but not a great general. I don't think Grant won the war, Lincoln did.

( I'm a Virginian)

If Grant's peformance was so bad then why does Lee get a free pass for the Seven Days?

His staff work was terrible, Jackson's performance was poor, and he lost four out of five battles. And the one battle he did win he had a numerical advantage of 20,000 men. So why is Grant the one accused of winning only because he had superior numbers?

Lee suffered greater casualties than McClellan. But Grant is the butcher? Grant had to consistently flank Lee's army out of position whereas Lee was the benefactor of McClellan's endless abandonment of one position after another.

Lee was a much tougher opponent than McClellan. It took much more skill to win the Overland Campaign than the Seven Days. Ironically, it was Lee's Lieutenants which actually gave me a greater appreciation for Grant's campaign in Virginia.

 

[brass napoleon]

If Grant's peformance was so bad then why does Lee get a free pass for the Seven Days?

His staff work was terrible, Jackson's performance was poor, and he lost four out of five battles. And the one battle he did win he had a numerical advantage of 20,000 men. So why is Grant the one accused of winning only because he had superior numbers?

Lee suffered greater casualties than McClellan. But Grant is the butcher? Grant had to consistently flank Lee's army out of position whereas Lee was the benefactor of McClellan's endless abandonment of one position after another.

Lee was a much tougher opponent than McClellan. It took much more skill to win the Overland Campaign than the Seven Days.

I think you have to give Lee some leeway (no pun intended) for just having taken over the army right in the middle of battle. The maneuvers he planned were brilliant and complex. The fact that they weren't delivered well was probably due largely to the fact that he had just taken command and was still getting used to his commanders. He certainly did turn things around in his next battle!

 

[The Iron Duke]

All of that is true and I don't disagree. However, this was also Grant's first time working with the Army of the Potomac. He was a newcomer just as Lee was in 1862. But I wanted to show that the common criticisms of Grant can also be hurled at Lee. But Lee typically gets a free pass because his last name is Lee.

 

[K Hale]

There was a war in the west?

This explains why you seem to so undervalue Grant.

The war was won in the west.