Grant Grant the "butcher".

[CSA Today]

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).

Perhaps Grant's strategy was to "stink out" the Confederate defenders. The Confederates thought so.

 

[KansasFreestater]

Perhaps Grant's strategy was to "stink out" the Confederate defenders. The Confederates thought so.

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.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Grant's actual casualties were far greater than Lee's.

But during the rest of the war Lee lost more men than Grant.

Until the two faced off, Grant simply didn't loose men to the extent that Lee did.
(One reason is obviously that Grant fought fewer battles and they where generally smaller)

Grants worst fight (before coming east) was Shiloh with about 13k union soldiers lost.

Lee lost 23K at Gettysburg and 13K as Chancellorsville
And Lee lost about 20k during the 7day battles...
(more than Grant lost during the period the two armies was in daily combat at Cold Harbor)


The end result is that Lee lost more men, than Grant did. And Lee was in army command for a shorter period of time.
Now I don't think Lee should be called a Butcher, he was a good, but aggressive general.
But Calling Grant one, simply don't look at the bigger picture.

----
Obviously all comparison only make sense if we imagine that Grant was in command of the army of the Potomac from spring of 1864.

 

[KansasFreestater]

Obviously all comparison only make sense if we imagine that Grant was in command of the army of the Potomac from spring of 1864.

Yes, indeed. Meade is the invisible general that everyone forgets about. Grant gets all the credit for the AoP's successes, much to the consternation of Meade at the time and his supporters ever since. But it works both ways. Grant gets all the blame for Cold Harbor, when it was just as much Meade's fault.

 

[CSA Today]

But during the rest of the war Lee lost more men than Grant.

Until the two faced off, Grant simply didn't loose men to the extent that Lee did.
(One reason is obviously that Grant fought fewer battles and they where generally smaller)

Grants worst fight (before coming east) was Shiloh with about 13k union soldiers lost.

Lee lost 23K at Gettysburg and 13K as Chancellorsville
And Lee lost about 20k during the 7day battles...
(more than Grant lost during the period the two armies was in daily combat at Cold Harbor)


The end result is that Lee lost more men, than Grant did. And Lee was in army command for a shorter period of time.
Now I don't think Lee should be called a Butcher, he was a good, but aggressive general.
But Calling Grant one, simply don't look at the bigger picture.

----
Obviously all comparison only make sense if we imagine that Grant was in command of the army of the Potomac from spring of 1864.

You are confusing killed with total casualties. You are right to imply Lee was engaged in more battles than Grant, but in battles where Grant faced off against Lee, Grant's casualties were higher than Lee's – at least until April 1865.

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/bystate.htm

 

[thomas aagaard]

Iam not confusing anything. Casualties is just a useful method of counting how good a general is at preserving his army as killed is.

Seen across the entire war, Lee lost more men... and in a shorter period of time than Grant did.
And Lee lost more men during the 7 day campaign, that Grant did over a longer period of time where the two armies was in constant contact at Cold Harbor.

Why is Lee not also a butcher?

 

[JerseyBart]

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've read that and retreating rebel army did the same on the way out of Gettysburg. I think in the wells. Yuck on both.

 

[Lost Cause]

Grant had to be a "butcher" to defeat Lee.

 

[JerseyBart]

And Lee lost more men during the 7 day campaign, that Grant did over a longer period of time where the two armies was in constant contact at Cold Harbor.

Why is Lee not also a butcher?

Convenience and deflection...either both were or both weren't based on casualty numbers, percents and dragging a war out longer than it needed to be.

 

[jackt62]

As has been pointed out, Lee suffered greater overall casualties than Grant. Tagging Grant as the "butcher" was another unfortunate critique that his opponents leveled.

 

[Lost Cause]

As has been pointed out, Lee suffered greater overall casualties than Grant. Tagging Grant as the "butcher" was another unfortunate critique that his opponents leveled.

Many of his "opponents" were Union.

 

[jackt62]

Many of his "opponents" were Union.

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

 

[diane]

Grant did have a peculiar mindset when it came to the dead and wounded at Vicksburg - I think the Confederates were right and it worked. Pemberton did surrender shortly after, and he was the one who had to ask Grant to retrieve the wounded. Grant did the same at Cold Harbor and he and Lee went back and forth about it. It sounds petty and prideful but actually it was calculated. Grant wanted Lee to ask for a cease fire to get the men, and that was just about the same as admitting he was the one defeated. Lee was not defeated. It was important that Grant be the one to ask - he was the one who lost.

When you have two really good, really determined, really formidable generals fighting like Lee and Grant, there are going to be massive casualties. It seemed to people in the North that Grant was uncaring for the lives of his men. It wasn't that - it was that the AoP was an army and he used that weapon liberally, more so than any of his predecessors. Lee, for his part, had no choice. His army was never meant to sit and do no fighting - he had forged a fine weapon and he used it.

 

[Lost Cause]

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

At the time, understandable. Many in the North were war weary. A general comes east and the casualties significantly mount. Attitudes changed as the war came to a close.

 

[KansasFreestater]

Grant did have a peculiar mindset when it came to the dead and wounded at Vicksburg - I think the Confederates were right and it worked. Pemberton did surrender shortly after, and he was the one who had to ask Grant to retrieve the wounded. Grant did the same at Cold Harbor and he and Lee went back and forth about it. It sounds petty and prideful but actually it was calculated. Grant wanted Lee to ask for a cease fire to get the men, and that was just about the same as admitting he was the one defeated. Lee was not defeated. It was important that Grant be the one to ask - he was the one who lost.

When you have two really good, really determined, really formidable generals fighting like Lee and Grant, there are going to be massive casualties. It seemed to people in the North that Grant was uncaring for the lives of his men. It wasn't that - it was that the AoP was an army and he used that weapon liberally, more so than any of his predecessors. Lee, for his part, had no choice. His army was never meant to sit and do no fighting - he had forged a fine weapon and he used it.

Part of the dynamic at Cold Harbor was that in June 1864, the shadow of the impending elections, especially the Presidential election, hung over everything. Union victory depended on Lincoln's reelection, and Lincoln's reelection depended on army victories. That's why Sherman's taking of Atlanta later that summer was so crucial. Meanwhile, over in Virginia, Grant was determined not to let the Army of Northern Virginia have the opportunity to crow about a victory. Grant was mindful of the press, of Washington politics, and of his President's precarious situation. He was very loath to give even the appearance of defeat.

None of that was the case in 1863 at Vicksburg, so I can't come up with anything but sheer cussedness and exasperation after many months in Louisiana and Mississippi spent trying to crack the nut of Vicksburg one way or another.

 

[wausaubob]

Armies suffered casualties just by being in camp. Poor sanitation and poor nutrition "butchered" more soldiers than combat.
As for avoiding combat casualties, it generally just prolonged the war. The battles had to be fought, and they had to be fought savagely enough that both Confederate armies were crushed and Lee's army surrendered.
The cautious generals avoided casualties, but they would have also prolonged the contest. They were essentially leaving the fighting to someone else.

 

[CSA Today]

Iam not confusing anything. Casualties is just a useful method of counting how good a general is at preserving his army as killed is.

Seen across the entire war, Lee lost more men... and in a shorter period of time than Grant did.
And Lee lost more men during the 7 day campaign, that Grant did over a longer period of time where the two armies was in constant contact at Cold Harbor.

Why is Lee not also a butcher?

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.

 

[WJC]

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.

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.

 

[WJC]

Some might be interested in Professor Gary W. Gallagher's view on "Grant the Butcher". @Jamieva posted this video in the thread "Robert E. Lee and Loyalty". Gallaghers remarks on "Grant the Butcher" are just after the 58 minute point....
<

>

 

[KansasFreestater]

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.

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.