Grant Grant the "butcher".

[cash]

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].

Actually, Randall and Donald have been shown to be incorrect in their numbers. There are new studies that have found Lee's army to be much larger than originally thought, and found also that Lee received reinforcements during the Overland Campaign.

https://muse.jhu.edu/book/23061

 

[CSA Today]

Actually, Randall and Donald have been shown to be incorrect in their numbers. There are new studies that have found Lee's army to be much larger than originally thought, and found also that Lee received reinforcements during the Overland Campaign.

https://muse.jhu.edu/book/23061

Shown by whom – the likes of Alan Nolan, and Edward Bonekemper? For some reason, these so-called new studies invariably attempt to put the Federals in a more favorable light at the expense of the Confederates. I'm sure your "new studies" did show that Lee received reinforcements – I wouldn't be at all surprised at them showing Lee receiving as many or more than Grant.

 

[contestedground]

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?

This is no longer an argument based on facts or analysis. It won't matter how much of either you bring to the table. If someone's arguing from the heart or from prejudices or from some deeply-held bias, the best you can do is to show others how flawed their position is.

 

[contestedground]

Actually, Randall and Donald have been shown to be incorrect in their numbers. There are new studies that have found Lee's army to be much larger than originally thought, and found also that Lee received reinforcements during the Overland Campaign.

https://muse.jhu.edu/book/23061

Randall and Donald's a rather dated textbook that relied (as one might respect) on rather dated numbers. Even the textbook had been updated (Donald, Holt, Baker). I'm sure we'll hear that's revisionist PC history.

 

[CSA Today]

Randall and Donald's a rather dated textbook that relied (as one might respect) on rather dated numbers. Even the textbook had been updated (Donald, Holt, Baker). I'm sure we'll hear that's revisionist PC history.

I'm sure we will. Where did all this new found evidence come from anyway? Did some revisionist find it in a trunk in the attic? Did one of them have a revelation from heaven?

 

[shermans_march]

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?

Somehow I got my math wrong. The casualties of Battle of Spotsylvania Court House was 18,399, North Anna was 3,986, and Cold Harbor was 12,738. The total is 35,123. The total union casualties, which is debated among different sources, is about 55,000. So those 3 battles accounted for almost 64 % of the casualties. The battle of the wilderness with 17,666 when added to the 35,123 is 52,789, which is the majority of the overland campaign.

The term butcher in my opinion might only apply to the battle of cold harbor, since that is an instance were nothing could be gained by attacking since the works were too strong. Same can be said of Lee at Pickett's charge when giving out the butcher tag.

When you compare Lee and Grant overall in the war the picture is quite different:
Lee's army had 209,000 casualties, while he inflicted 240,000 casualties
Grant had 154,000 casualties, while he inflicted 191,000 casualties

Source
Bonekemper, Edward H. The Myth of the Lost Cause: Why the South fought the Civil War and Why the North Won. Washington DC: Regnery History, 2015. Print

 

[CSA Today]

Somehow I got my math wrong. The casualties of Battle of Spotsylvania Court House was 18,399, North Anna was 3,986, and Cold Harbor was 12,738. The total is 35,123. The total union casualties, which is debated among different sources, is about 55,000. So those 3 battles accounted for almost 64 % of the casualties. The battle of the wilderness with 17,666 when added to the 35,123 is 52,789, which is the majority of the overland campaign.

The term butcher in my opinion might only apply to the battle of cold harbor, since that is an instance were nothing could be gained by attacking since the works were too strong. Same can be said of Lee at Pickett's charge when giving out the butcher tag.

When you compare Lee and Grant overall in the war the picture is quite different:
Lee's army had 209,000 casualties, while he inflicted 240,000 casualties
Grant had 154,000 casualties, while he inflicted 191,000 casualties

Source
Bonekemper, Edward H. The Myth of the Lost Cause: Why the South fought the Civil War and Why the North Won. Washington DC: Regnery History, 2015. Print

I would put about as much credibility in a source by Edward Bonekemper as I would in a source by Daffy Duck.

 

[shermans_march]

I would put about as much credibility in a source by Edward Bonekemper as I would in a source by Daffy Duck.

Why? His book has excellent sources and is well researched.

 

[CSA Today]

Why? His book has excellent sources and is well researched.

Ye gads!

 

[shermans_march]

Ye gads!

Believe what you want to believe, though I'm not seeing anything refuting my claims.

 

[CSA Today]

Believe what you want to believe, though I'm not seeing anything refuting my claims.

With all this newly discovered and updated history, a body hardly knows who to believe next.

 

[WJC]

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."

It is not difficult for anyone to be "impressed with Lee's performance". His greatness speaks for itself.
But were his men more likely to become casualties than Grant's? The answer is yes.
Then why is Grant singled out as "the butcher"? The Lost Cause.

 

[CSA Today]

It is not difficult for anyone to be "impressed with Lee's performance". His greatness speaks for itself.
But were his men more likely to become casualties than Grant's? The answer is yes.
Then why is Grant singled out as "the butcher"? The Lost Cause.

If your army is outnumbered nearly two to one, you have to fight harder, you are more engaged and exposed. Even if your casualties are far fewer, the percentage is often higher especially if the army is only about half the size of the enemy. Just think if the situation was reversed and Lee had 118,000 men to 60,000 for Grant, given the man for man prowess of the Confederate army, Grant's army would likely have been annihilated.

 

[WJC]

Shown by whom – the likes of Alan Nolan, and Edward Bonekemper? For some reason, these so-called new studies invariably attempt to put the Federals in a more favorable light at the expense of the Confederates. I'm sure your "new studies" did show that Lee received reinforcements – I wouldn't be at all surprised at them showing Lee receiving as many or more than Grant.

Is it really fair of us to criticize sources without reading, analyzing them and comparing them to other sources?
Regardless, I believe we can agree that there was a lot of killing and maiming on both sides. No one had a monopoly.
The question @wausaubob posed still centers on the term "Grant the Butcher". Was Grant "a useless butcher"? Did the soldiers of the Union army view him as "a useless butcher? Where and when did the term originate?

 

[WJC]

If your army is outnumbered nearly two to one, you have to fight harder, you are more engaged and exposed. Even if your casualties are far fewer, the percentage is often higher especially if the army is only about half the size of the enemy. Just think if the situation was reversed and Lee had 118,000 men to 60,000 for Grant, given the man for man prowess of the Confederate army, Grant's army would likely have been annihilated.

A passionate defense of Lee. But it doesn't answer the questions about Grant the Butcher....

 

[cash]

Shown by whom – the likes of Alan Nolan, and Edward Bonekemper? For some reason, these so-called new studies invariably attempt to put the Federals in a more favorable light at the expense of the Confederates. I'm sure your "new studies" did show that Lee received reinforcements – I wouldn't be at all surprised at them showing Lee receiving as many or more than Grant.

Look at the link. I know it takes some effort, but try.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

With all this newly discovered and updated history, a body hardly knows who to believe next.

Absolutely right! I mean whatsup with all this newfangled history! Why people don't believe what Jubal Early and the boys wrote about the Wah is beyond me. Why wouldn't they be tellin the truth? Gotta watch out, somebody might have an agenda, esp. if its something ya don't wanna hear.

 

[cash]

Randall and Donald's a rather dated textbook that relied (as one might respect) on rather dated numbers. Even the textbook had been updated (Donald, Holt, Baker). I'm sure we'll hear that's revisionist PC history.

While I'm a big fan of the Randall and Donald edition [it was the first Civil War book I ever purchased, and it remains a treasured possession in my library], it is very dated. Let's see what the new edition says:

"In the month-long campaign from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor, Union dead, wounded, and deserted were approximately fifty-five thousand )of some 118,000 men present for duty), nearly as many as Lee's entire army of sixty-four thousand, which had suffered twenty-four thousand casualties. Grant, however, could find new, if inexperienced, recruits, and he had sufficient food and equipment. As a defensive accomplishment in fighting off superior numbers, the campaign stands as a significant chapter in Confederate annals. Later, Grant pointed out the enemy's advantage of fighting in familiar territory with short supply lines and concluded that 'all circumstances considered we did not have any advantage in numbers.' Nor did the Union general have the advantage of a coordinated series of successful movements against the Confederacy. Franz Sigel, one of the political generals chosen for his leadership of the German community as his tactical prowess, had been repulsed at New Market in the Shenandoah Valley, and although Benjamin Butler had landed his forces south of Richmond on May 5, he had failed to advance." [David Herbert Donald, Jean Harvey Baker, Michael F. Holt, The Civil War and Reconstruction, pp. 378-379]

 

[cash]

Somehow I got my math wrong. The casualties of Battle of Spotsylvania Court House was 18,399, North Anna was 3,986, and Cold Harbor was 12,738. The total is 35,123. The total union casualties, which is debated among different sources, is about 55,000. So those 3 battles accounted for almost 64 % of the casualties. The battle of the wilderness with 17,666 when added to the 35,123 is 52,789, which is the majority of the overland campaign.

The term butcher in my opinion might only apply to the battle of cold harbor, since that is an instance were nothing could be gained by attacking since the works were too strong. Same can be said of Lee at Pickett's charge when giving out the butcher tag.

When you compare Lee and Grant overall in the war the picture is quite different:
Lee's army had 209,000 casualties, while he inflicted 240,000 casualties
Grant had 154,000 casualties, while he inflicted 191,000 casualties

Source
Bonekemper, Edward H. The Myth of the Lost Cause: Why the South fought the Civil War and Why the North Won. Washington DC: Regnery History, 2015. Print

Personally, I don't find Bonekemper to be a good historian. I think JFC Fuller did a much better job seventy-two years before Bonekemper wrote.

 

[19thGeorgia]

Actually, Randall and Donald have been shown to be incorrect in their numbers. There are new studies that have found Lee's army to be much larger [?] than originally thought, and found also that Lee received reinforcements during the Overland Campaign.

https://muse.jhu.edu/book/23061

Wow. 400+ pages to determine that Lee's army was 66,000 instead of 62,000. I'm downright flabbergasted.

"Several conclusions can be drawn from studying the strengths and casualties of the Army of Northern Virginia during the Overland Campaign. First, it is apparent that Lee's army was stronger than has previously been believed. Its strength at the start of the campaign was about 66,000 men, or 4,000 higher than the traditional figure of 62,000."