Grant Grant the "butcher".

[wausaubob]

Deaths through disease and malnutrition outnumbered deaths due to combat by approximately 2:1, in the statistics compiled by the U.S.
Deaths through combat were not the main cause of death in the Civil War.
Anything that shortened the war reduced the death count.
The generals that took care of their logistics, that could get decent, fresh food, to their troops, and get wounded men to the rear hospitals quickly, saved lives.
All three of Grant's biggest victories were logistical successes.
At Vicksburg he took away Pemberton's communications with Jackson, MS and the rest of the Confederacy, and established his own at Haynes Bluff and won the battle through siege.
At Chattanooga, he implemented Thomas' and Mieg's plan to shorten and improve the supply line, and got Sherman's people across the river successfully. Once he accomplished those things, the Confederates had too many problems to solve, and they did not solve all of them.
In Virginia, he had to keep Lincoln and Stanton feeling secure, while implementing, if possible, what McClellan had tried in 1862, which was to get south of the James and rely on a sea based supply line that was immune from Confederate interference.
All three logistical efforts were tremendously successful, and based on the those successes, there was not much of a chance that the Confederates could win against the larger and better equipped U.S. armies.

 

[WJC]

Thanks for initiating what should be an interesting conversation.
As luck has it, earlier today I said to @67th Tigers, "Was Grant "a useless butcher"? Did the soldiers of the Union army view him as "a useless butcher? Perhaps that should be a separate thread all its own."
You've already started it....

 

[Bee]

I am a bit confused regarding the disconnect of the thread title vs the content of the OP. Is the title meant as click bait, or demonstrative of sort sort of irony?

 

[shermans_march]

Grant got the term butcher because of his actions in the overland campaign and the siege of petersburg. I think it is overblown assumption. Lee was behind strong earthworks and Grant made some mistakes but his determination ended the war. If Grant was a butcher then so was Lee.

For example:
When you compare to overall casualties of the overland campaign, Lee had more than Grant even though Lee had the advantage, being in a defensive position. Lee had 53.8% casualties while Grant had 44.3% casualties.

 

[JerseyBart]

It's a term of convenience and deflection.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I've heard the term before, but I'm curious to know who first coined it? It's obviously meant to detract from the man and his actions, but I've got the feeling from what I've read that Mary Todd Lincoln also referred to Grant as a 'butcher', and perhaps others in the North did, too. It seems to be a Northern derogation, rather than a Southern one. That's my current impression anyway.

 

[wausaubob]

Combat deaths drew the attention. But deaths due to disease and malnutrition determined who prevailed.
Moreover the deaths could have ended as early as November 1864. Gradually the consensus is growing that the Confederates did not achieve anything by prolonging the war after that point, nor was there a rational basis for thinking they would achieve anything. The war continued because of the horror had created a mystical belief in the cause, which was assuredly lost by that point.
As noted above, the "butcher" label deflected responsibility from people who had chosen war and chose to continue it under circumstances in which the Union occupied the strategic center of the south and there was 0% chance of foreign intervention.

 

[CSA Today]

Grant got the term butcher because of his actions in the overland campaign and the siege of petersburg. I think it is overblown assumption. Lee was behind strong earthworks and Grant made some mistakes but his determination ended the war. If Grant was a butcher then so was Lee.

For example:
When you compare to overall casualties of the overland campaign, Lee had more than Grant even though Lee had the advantage, being in a defensive position. Lee had 53.8% casualties while Grant had 44.3% casualties.

A statistical anomaly, Lee had a smaller army (60,000-62,000) so his percentages would be higher. Grant's actual casualties were far greater than Lee's.

"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

 

[shermans_march]

A statistical anomaly, Lee had a smaller army (60,000-62,000) so his percentages would be higher. Grant's actual casualties were far greater than Lee's.

"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

Comparing the casualties in relation to the size of each army is absolutely necessary. Those percentages are not a statistical anomaly but another perspective of looking at the numbers. Lee was behind defensive earthworks most of the campaign, so the higher casualties overall makes sense. The defensive almost always has the advantage and will inflict higher casualties.

 

[CSA Today]

Comparing the casualties in relation to the size of each army is absolutely necessary. Lee was behind defensive earthworks most of the campaign, so the higher casualties overall makes sense. The defensive almost always has the advantage and will inflict higher casualties.

 

[CSA Today]

Comparing the casualties in relation to the size of each army is absolutely necessary. Lee was behind defensive earthworks most of the campaign, so the higher casualties overall makes sense. The defensive almost always has the advantage and will inflict higher casualties.

Cold Harbor wasn't the entire campaign. Lee was quite aggressive during much of the campaign.

 

[KansasFreestater]

Heard something very disturbing on recent Vicksburg Campaign tour with Ed Bearss and Terry Winschel. One of them said that Grant ordered dead animals to be dumped where they would contaminate/poison the Reb soldiers' water sources. If true, wouldn't that be a war crime?

Ed offered as fact some other things about Grant that I don't believe, such as the discredited "Yazoo bender" myth, but this is a much, much, much more serious charge. If true, it would indeed seem to make Grant a monster.

 

[Bee]

Heard something very disturbing on recent Vicksburg Campaign tour with Ed Bearss and Terry Winschel. One of them said that Grant ordered dead animals to be dumped where they would contaminate/poison the Reb soldiers' water sources. If true, wouldn't that be a war crime?

Ed offered as fact some other things about Grant that I don't believe, such as the discredited "Yazoo bender" myth, but this is a much, much, much more serious charge. If true, it does seem to make Grant a monster.

K,

I would like to pursue this accounting, immediately. Can you offer me any more information on the dead animals/waterway incident? Who suggested this? One of the guides? Any sources discussed? I am gobsmacked by this allegation. B

 

[shermans_march]

Cold Harbor, Spotsylvania Court House, and Battle of North Anna all were fought with Lee behind defensive positions. 41% of Grants casualties occurred from those 3 battles. Lee's only real offensive in the campaign, that had significant casualties on the Union side, was Battle of the Wilderness.

 

[KansasFreestater]

K,

I would like to pursue this accounting, immediately. Can you offer me any more information on the dead animals/waterway incident? Who suggested this? One of the guides? Any sources discussed? I am gobsmacked by this allegation. B

Gobsmacked -- good word. Exactly the way I felt.

I believe it was Ed who made the claim. Ed is not a Grant fan, and said other things about Grant that I believe untrue, but this charge is so serious that I need to investigate further. That is why I mention it here on the forum, hoping someone here may have further information.

 

[shermans_march]

Heard something very disturbing on recent Vicksburg Campaign tour with Ed Bearss and Terry Winschel. One of them said that Grant ordered dead animals to be dumped where they would contaminate/poison the Reb soldiers' water sources. If true, wouldn't that be a war crime?

Ed offered as fact some other things about Grant that I don't believe, such as the discredited "Yazoo bender" myth, but this is a much, much, much more serious charge. If true, it would indeed seem to make Grant a monster.

I don't see any sources that even mention this incident. Pure speculation in my opinion.

 

[KansasFreestater]

K,

I would like to pursue this accounting, immediately. Can you offer me any more information on the dead animals/waterway incident? Who suggested this? One of the guides? Any sources discussed? I am gobsmacked by this allegation. B

Ed also mentioned something that makes Grant look very bad, but which, unlike the water-poisoning claim, is well documented: letting his dead and wounded men lie between the lines for three days without calling a truce so that they could be collected. Similar to Cold Harbor (although at Cold Harbor, I personally blame Lee as much as Grant).

 

[CSA Today]

Cold Harbor, Spotsylvania Court House, and Battle of North Anna all were fought with Lee behind defensive positions. 41% of Grants casualties occurred from those 3 battles. Lee's only real offensive in the campaign, that had significant casualties on the Union side, was Battle of the Wilderness.

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?

 

[KansasFreestater]

I don't see any sources that even mention this incident. Pure speculation in my opinion.

It would be doubly bad if true, since the War Department in April 1863 had specifically issued an order prohibiting the poisoning of wells. The order was issued in response to Sherman's report of Confederate poisoning of water sources during that same Vicksburg campaign.

 

[Bee]

Ed also mentioned something that makes Grant look very bad, but which, unlike the water-poisoning claim, is well documented: letting his dead and wounded men lie between the lines for three days without calling a truce so that they could be collected. Similar to Cold Harbor (although at Cold Harbor, I personally blame Lee as much as Grant).

We have some research to do....!