Grant Did Grant win the Civil War?

I agree that the term "Butcher" was more than a pejorative. His critics had good reason for it, as the Overland Campaign is still the bloodiest campaign in U.S. History. His assault at Cold Harbor only added to the meaning.
Grant suffered less casualties in wrapping up the war in a year, versus his predecessors in the three years before him.

Grant suffered 7000 KIA in the Overland Campaign and nullified Lee as an offensive threat. Lee, over the course of the war, suffered over 30,000 KIA and lost the war.
 
Last edited:
Check out the article by the American Battlefield Trust by Phillip Greenwalt, "They Called Grant a Butcherer. But can a Butcherer Have Regrets? Future Presidents Under Fire.
Greenwalt details Grants campaigns and gives many accounts (by some of his own generals) on why they referred to him as a Butcherer.
A quick google search will pull up the article. It's very interesting.
 
Check out the article by the American Battlefield Trust by Phillip Greenwalt, "They Called Grant a Butcherer. But can a Butcherer Have Regrets? Future Presidents Under Fire.
Greenwalt details Grants campaigns and gives many accounts (by some of his own generals) on why they referred to him as a Butcherer.
A quick google search will pull up the article. It's very interesting.
Funny, just read this same article earlier today.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/they-called-grant-butcher-can-butcher-have-regrets
 
Grant suffered less casualties in wrapping up the war in a year, versus his predecessors in the three years before him.

Grant suffered 7000 KIA in the Overland Campaign and nullified Lee as an offensive threat. Lee, over the course of the war, suffered over 30,000 KIA and lost.

That's not much of a comparison. Grant in one year to Lee in 4. But hey, whatever makes you feel good.

And Lee was still an offensive threat after the Overland Campaign. Very much so. See Jubal Early and Fort Stedman.
 
It's about perspective. And it's about operational tempo and getting results.

Lee got way more of his own men killed while prolonging the war, and Grant saved lives by wrapping it up in a year.

Haha, that's certainly an original take. Lee was the best battlefield commander of the war, No Cold Harbor, and kept the war going until the last moment it could be won, arguably, with Lincoln's reelection, while other generals failed behind him.

Grant wasted more lives on useless assaults than any commander, unfortunately, and he lived to regret it and write about it.

It certainly is about perspective. Some people will duck and dodge to cover Grant's mistakes under the rug.
 
Haha, that's certainly an original take. Lee was the best battlefield commander of the war, No Cold Harbor, and kept the war going until the last moment it could be won, arguably, with Lincoln's reelection, while other generals failed behind him.

Grant wasted more lives on useless assaults than any commander, unfortunately, and he lived to regret it and write about it.

It certainly is about perspective. Some people will duck and dodge to cover Grant's mistakes under the rug.
Oh please. Lee lost. And wasted far more lives than Grant. If Lee never regretted the loss of life, than that says something about his character.

Grant's regrets were about lives lost for no gain. Every life Lee lost was ultimately for no gain.
 
Oh please. Lee lost. And wasted far more lives than Grant. If Lee never regretted the loss of life, than that says something about his character.

Grant's regrets were about lives lost for no gain. Every life Lee lost was ultimately for no gain.

What are you talking about now? Haha. Why do you always bring Lee into this, as if it's some contest between Lee and Grant? Are you jealous of Lee or his reputation? Probably.

There you go, finally, admitting Grant regretted it. Applause. And Lee's men fought honorably for their country, surely you can admire that, no? And had it not been for the war, slavery probably would have continued indefinitely, or at least decades longer. Are you saying that should have been the case?
 
Check out the article by the American Battlefield Trust by Phillip Greenwalt, "They Called Grant a Butcherer. But can a Butcherer Have Regrets? Future Presidents Under Fire.
Greenwalt details Grants campaigns and gives many accounts (by some of his own generals) on why they referred to him as a Butcherer.
A quick google search will pull up the article. It's very interesting.

In the article I saw an assertion that Grant was known as The Butcher but nothing to back it up. Nothing that indicates his troops called him that. I don't doubt newspapers and politicians hostile to the suppression of the rebellion called him that.
 
What are you talking about now? Haha. Why do you always bring Lee into this, as if it's some contest between Lee and Grant? Are you jealous of Lee or his reputation? Probably.

There you go, finally, admitting Grant regretted it. Applause. And Lee's men fought honorably for their country, surely you can admire that, no? And had it not been for the war, slavery probably would have continued indefinitely, or at least decades longer. Are you saying that should have been the case?
I never denied that Grant regretted it. In fact, I posted the excerpt from his memoirs that said he regretted it.

I bring Lee into the conversation to bring some perspective to the ridiculous things said about Grant.
 
In the article I saw an assertion that Grant was known as The Butcher but nothing to back it up. Nothing that indicates his troops called him that. I don't doubt newspapers and politicians hostile to the suppression of the rebellion called him that.
I knew that Lee regretted that he sent so many men to their deaths on the battlefield, I often wonder if Grant had such feelings. Regardless, Grant was successful and his military career would eventually propel him to the presidency.
 
Oh please. Lee lost. And wasted far more lives than Grant. If Lee never regretted the loss of life, than that says something about his character.

Grant's regrets were about lives lost for no gain. Every life Lee lost was ultimately for no gain.
Lee was very upset over loss of life. It affected him to a great degree.
 
In the article I saw an assertion that Grant was known as The Butcher but nothing to back it up. Nothing that indicates his troops called him that. I don't doubt newspapers and politicians hostile to the suppression of the rebellion called him that.
I have not seen any evidence that his own troops referred to Grant as a "Butcher." In fact, the evidence shows that his troops supported Grant's efforts despite the terrible casualties. After the 2 day blood letting in the Wilderness, the AotP expected to turn tail and withdraw back across the Rappahannock as so many past commanders of that army had done. But upon reaching the crossroads at the Brock and Germanna Plank Roads, instead of heading north to the river, Grant gave the order to march south to Spotsylvania Court House. That news was greeted with universal admiration by the troops.
 
Yes, it was a last, resort, and it is what he did. His attempt to bag Lee In 1864 failed, so he dragged the war on through attrition, laying siege to Petersburg until Lee's army was depleted, immobile, and unable to collect supplies. That is attrition. Your ghost story that Grant hammered away and won battles in the field and did everything or something other than attrition is false.

Grant won the war by attrition, and he took the credit for such in his report.

Please state how Grant won the war other than by attrition, in your opinion.

What exactly was a last resort? What attempt did Grant fail? Moreover, why misapply blame for the prolonged war on Grant? The USA was not remotely exhausted in any aspect, so nothing Grant did was a last resort. If anything Lee engaged in a last resort by running instead of surrendering. He was finished but kept on going knowingly, so he could be called the butcher or some some blood thirsty bandit with an all-inclusive disregard for human life. But Lee had 2,000 hagiographies that claim he was a demigod with summum bonum character and the generalship of Napoleon. I am from the same state as you are and you know as well as I know that nobody up there cares a smidgen about the Civil War or if Lee was great in any aspect, so Lee's super hero reputation comes from the Lost Cause. However, the actual evidence points in the direction that Lee knew he was going to eventually lose but kept wasting men in the process, so I give all honors of the butcher to Lee.

Here is part of your above-mentioned excerpt: laying siege to Petersburg until Lee's army was depleted, immobile, and unable to collect supplies. That is attrition. Your ghost story that Grant hammered away and won battles in the field and did everything or something other than attrition is false. You literally proved with this statement in bold that Grant knew that he could win and Lee knew Grant was going to win. Grant must have known that the Confederates were close to collapsing and that's why he kept going. What about Lee? What do you think he thought? Do you think thought he could still win at that juncture? I severely doubt it. Why did Lee keep going after he was pretty much exhausted and defeated?

Furthermore, you fellows are arguing about semantics and the textbook definition of of "attrition." Hammering away trying to win battles in the field and depleting supplies are both components of attrition. Yes, both methods are attrition, so there's no use in trying to split hairs. I would suspect Grant used both methods. Therefore, you and Mr. Dan are both correct. Do you think Grant should have used blitzkrieg in that era? Even the Germans with their modern war machine had a difficult time with that method penetrating the Maginot Line(fortification). What do think Grant could have done in your eyes to defeat an army who was dug in(fortified) and who would not surrender in a era where fortification gave numerous advantages? I'll refrain from compromising a list of advantages the Confederated had and squandered(i named them 1,000 times). But I personally believe that the Confederates underperformed and should have lasted way longer. There have been contemporary armies who had the same disadvantages in resources and man power as the Confederates and were carpet bombed almost into oblivion, took genocide type casualties and lasted way longer than the Confederates. How do you explain that one?

As for the superior number theory and casualties, it is widely misunderstood, IMO. When an army goes on the offensive it requires a 2:1 to 3:1 advantage at the point of attack. Some of you boys sound like Grant just bum-rushed the Confederates by overwhelming them by throwing all his men at them at once. Nonsense. That's not how it went down at all, not even close. Grant used force concentration, which aimed to cause disproportionate losses on the enemy and therefore destroy the enemy's ability to fight. What else could have Grant done to an army that was fortified, knew the terrain, had a spy network tracking the Union's movements, which those advantages made tactical movements easy? In the modern era, they(third person pronoun) would shake -n- bake(carpet bomb) those fornications and Confederate perimeters and then send in the ground troops. Not sacrifice ground troops using frontal assaults to open up perimeters like Grant had to, that's a meat grinder. I would love to know what method Grant could have used to other than superior numbers to defeat Lee? I am all ears...

People on the internet misapply death tolls and count up total death tolls but don't understand how to do percentages for "battlefield" death tolls. It is true the Union had way more men and had a higher "total" death toll but had a lower "battlefield" death toll than the Confederates. Yes, I did the actual numbers and the Union had a 14% battlefield death toll and the Confederates had a 20% battlefield death toll. It seems to me that Union commanders did a very good job and the Confederate generals did not do so good. I don't know why I incorporated total battlefield death tolls in this post, but I think it contributes to refuting your superior numbers theory.

Can you rebut my post, other than spouting out rhetoric? What could have Grant done other than using Force Concentration? Can you explain why Lee was so good even though he held every advantage and still three of is armies were captured? Can you explain why you think Lee and the Confederates lasted long but in reality they didn't last long at all? I know, you are going to use that bland superior number theory without expounding.
 
I have not seen any evidence that his own troops referred to Grant as a "Butcher." In fact, the evidence shows that his troops supported Grant's efforts despite the terrible casualties. After the 2 day blood letting in the Wilderness, the AotP expected to turn tail and withdraw back across the Rappahannock as so many past commanders of that army had done. But upon reaching the crossroads at the Brock and Germanna Plank Roads, instead of heading north to the river, Grant gave the order to march south to Spotsylvania Court House. That news was greeted with universal admiration by the troops.

I would love to know what Grant could have done other than Force Concentration to defeat Lee in that era of warfare? These superior numbers arguments are bland because nobody explains anything. I'm going by my own experience on how wars are won. How the military progressed on defeating fortified armies and simultaneously keeping casualties low. It doesn't mean my theory is correct, but I haven't read anywhere on this board that gives a good explanation to overturn my theory. Can anyone here synthesize why superior numbers are so important or not important in war to fighting a fortified enemy? It is almost elementary what I read. All people say is Lee was great commander and he had some great victories. Considering the type of warfare and being dug in, why wouldn't Lee have had some early success? I personally believe considering it all the Confederates did not last long at all. I would love to know what else Grant could have done? He just had more men. LOL
 
What exactly was a last resort? What attempt did Grant fail? Moreover, why misapply blame for the prolonged war on Grant? The USA was not remotely exhausted in any aspect, so nothing Grant did was a last resort. If anything Lee engaged in a last resort by running instead of surrendering. He was finished but kept on going knowingly, so he could be called the butcher or some some blood thirsty bandit with an all-inclusive disregard for human life. But Lee had 2,000 hagiographies that claim he was a demigod with summum bonum character and the generalship of Napoleon. I am from the same state as you are and you know as well as I know that nobody up there cares a smidgen about the Civil War or if Lee was great in any aspect, so Lee's super hero reputation comes from the Lost Cause. However, the actual evidence points in the direction that Lee knew he was going to eventually lose but kept wasting men in the process, so I give all honors of the butcher to Lee.

Here is part of your above-mentioned excerpt: laying siege to Petersburg until Lee's army was depleted, immobile, and unable to collect supplies. That is attrition. Your ghost story that Grant hammered away and won battles in the field and did everything or something other than attrition is false. You literally proved with this statement in bold that Grant knew that he could win and Lee knew Grant was going to win. Grant must have known that the Confederates were close to collapsing and that's why he kept going. What about Lee? What do you think he thought? Do you think thought he could still win at that juncture? I severely doubt it. Why did Lee keep going after he was pretty much exhausted and defeated?

Furthermore, you fellows are arguing about semantics and the textbook definition of of "attrition." Hammering away trying to win battles in the field and depleting supplies are both components of attrition. Yes, both methods are attrition, so there's no use in trying to split hairs. I would suspect Grant used both methods. Therefore, you and Mr. Dan are both correct. Do you think Grant should have used blitzkrieg in that era? Even the Germans with their modern war machine had a difficult time with that method penetrating the Maginot Line(fortification). What do think Grant could have done in your eyes to defeat an army who was dug in(fortified) and who would not surrender in a era where fortification gave numerous advantages? I'll refrain from compromising a list of advantages the Confederated had and squandered(i named them 1,000 times). But I personally believe that the Confederates underperformed and should have lasted way longer. There have been contemporary armies who had the same disadvantages in resources and man power as the Confederates and were carpet bombed almost into oblivion, took genocide type casualties and lasted way longer than the Confederates. How do you explain that one?

As for the superior number theory and casualties, it is widely misunderstood, IMO. When an army goes on the offensive it requires a 2:1 to 3:1 advantage at the point of attack. Some of you boys sound like Grant just bum-rushed the Confederates by overwhelming them by throwing all his men at them at once. Nonsense. That's not how it went down at all, not even close. Grant used force concentration, which aimed to cause disproportionate losses on the enemy and therefore destroy the enemy's ability to fight. What else could have Grant done to an army that was fortified, knew the terrain, had a spy network tracking the Union's movements, which those advantages made tactical movements easy? In the modern era, they(third person pronoun) would shake -n- bake(carpet bomb) those fornications and Confederate perimeters and then send in the ground troops. Not sacrifice ground troops using frontal assaults to open up perimeters like Grant had to, that's a meat grinder. I would love to know what method Grant could have used to other than superior numbers to defeat Lee? I am all ears...

People on the internet misapply death tolls and count up total death tolls but don't understand how to do percentages for "battlefield" death tolls. It is true the Union had way more men and had a higher "total" death toll but had a lower "battlefield" death toll than the Confederates. Yes, I did the actual numbers and the Union had a 14% battlefield death toll and the Confederates had a 20% battlefield death toll. It seems to me that Union commanders did a very good job and the Confederate generals did not do so good. I don't know why I incorporated total battlefield death tolls in this post, but I think it contributes to refuting your superior numbers theory.

Can you rebut my post, other than spouting out rhetoric? What could have Grant done other than using Force Concentration? Can you explain why Lee was so good even though he held every advantage and still three of is armies were captured? Can you explain why you think Lee and the Confederates lasted long but in reality they didn't last long at all? I know, you are going to use that bland superior number theory without expounding.

This is a bunch of non sense and red herrings. But yes, Grant used attrition, which he said he would do in his report, as a last resort. That is in Grant's memoirs. No need for paragraphs of explanation there.

Grant's first plan was to defeat Lee in open battle, which failed 3 times in the Overland Campaign, and they he resorted to his back-up plan, which was a war of attrition, as he stated he had planned to do, in his official report.

The "Siege of Petersburg" was attrition warfare, keeping up a perpetual fire, with small engagements, while destroying the enemy's supply lines. That is attrition, and that is what Grant did.

It was a noble course, because it won. But the idea that Grant won all these battles in the open field, and that there was no Siege or Petersburg or attrition warfare, is highly caustic at best.

Grant was pretty clear in what he wanted to do, and his actions bear out his words.
 
Back
Top