Grant Grant the "butcher".

[cash]

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

Gordon Rhea is the go-to source for the Overland Campaign.

 

[cash]

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.

Lee's men fought behind breastworks. They weren't exposed. The defense in the Civil War had the advantage.

 

[wausaubob]

Despite the story that Grant was given overall command, he was not permitted to recall Banks' Red River expedition.
Franz Sigel and David Hunter were allowed to continue to compile defeats in the Shenandoah Valley and Ben Butler did nothing more than take up space at Bermuda Hundred.
What happened by the time the war ended. The troops in Louisiana were transferred elsewhere. Canby relieved Banks.
Phil Sheridan was given the field command in the Shenandoah Valley and Grant gave him direct instructions, not filtered through the War Department, and General Terry was given command of the army portion of the 2nd attempt at Fort Fisher, with explicit instructions to "cooperate" with navy commander David Porter, at the expense of Ben Butler.
So despite the story, it looks like Grant and Meade were working under some material constraints, and the Overland Campaign as fought, was an attempt to proceed within those constraints. The casualties that occurred were caused by the fact that General Lee forced the fight in the Wilderness, and Grant and Meade wanted to fight the key fight before Lee had the advantage of the Richmond/Petersburg fortifications.
The casualties were high during the Overland campaign.
However the election was settled, Sheridan burned out the valley, Sherman captured Savannah, Terry and Porter closed Wilmington, NC as a blockade port, and Charleston was cut off.
After the 1864 election, neither time nor placating political personalities were factors, and the United States closed out the war much faster than anticipated.
The Confederacy did not get another Spring and Summer, they got a Winter and a couple of extra weeks.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Despite the story that Grant was given overall command, he was not permitted to recall Banks' Red River expedition.

He was permitted to, he just chose not to.

Franz Sigel and David Hunter were allowed to continue to compile defeats in the Shenandoah Valley

Sigel was defeated once and then Grant replaced him with Hunter. Hunter was more successful but couldn't take Lynchburg and left Washington exposed after which Grant replaced him with Sheridan. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

[CSA Today]

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?

By all means, especially when it sensationalists like Nolan, Bonekemper and David Williams.

 

[CSA Today]

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.

Yep, the Treasury of Virtue agenda comes quickly to mind.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Yep, the Treasury of Virtue agenda comes quickly to mind.

To yours... I have no doubt.

 

[Jimklag]

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

I have stood on trenches occupied by Lee's army in every battle of the Overland campaign, including the Wilderness where Lee was at his most aggressive. Throughout the campaign a large percentage of the movements made by Lee's troops were backwards.

 

[CSA Today]

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

Why should I trust Alfred C. Young's sources over an established Civil War historian like James G. Randall?

 

[CSA Today]

To yours... I have no doubt.

"The history of the United States should be written by a Northerner and from the Northern point of view...because the Northern point of view is, in the main, the correct view, and that, while sincerity must be allowed the Southern people and their leaders, "not one scintilla of justification for secession and rebellion must be expected. The South must acknowledge its error as well as its defeat."

Professor John W. Burgess, of Columbia University.

 

[cash]

Why should I trust Alfred C. Young's sources over an established Civil War historian like James G. Randall?

Young did painstaking accounting through the ORs and the returns in the National Archives. Randall did not.

 

[CSA Today]

I have stood on trenches occupied by Lee's army in every battle of the Overland campaign, including the Wilderness where Lee was at his most aggressive. Throughout the campaign a large percentage of the movements made by Lee's troops were backwards.

Just think how fast Grant's men would have gone backward had Lee had 118,000 and Grant 60,000. The Yankee rout at 1st Manassas would have been a kindergarten race in comparison.

 

[Jimklag]

Just think how fast Grant's men would have gone backward had Lee had 118,000 and Grant 60,000. The Yankee rout at 1st Manassas would have been a kindergarten race in comparison.

I was replying to your comment about how aggressive Lee was during the campaign.

 

[CSA Today]

Young did painstaking accounting through the ORs and the returns in the National Archives. Randall did not.

Did Young check both Confederate and Federal returns? Will you provide examples?

 

[cash]

Did Young check both Confederate and Federal returns? Will you provide examples?

Young's book is about the Army of Northern Virginia.

You can find some samples of his writing here:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807151726/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

 

[CSA Today]

I was replying to your comment about how aggressive Lee was during the campaign.

60,000 men inflicting 55,000 casualties on a 118,000 army. I'll have to say somebody in Lee's army was bloody well aggressive.

 

[Jimklag]

60,000 men inflicting 55,000 casualties on a 118,000 army. I'll have to say somebody in Lee's army was bloody well aggressive.

Or in trenches and fieldworks.

 

[CSA Today]

Young's book is about the Army of Northern Virginia.

You can find some samples of his writing here:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807151726/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

If you read the book you give the examples, I'm not going buy a book as questionable as this one until I know more. What are Young credentials? I can't find anything on him except that he wrote a book.

 

[cash]

If you read the book you give the examples, I'm not going buy a book as questionable as this one until I know more. What are Young credentials? I can't find anything on him except that he wrote a book.

I know it takes some effort to click on a link and read excerpts from the actual book, but if you do, you may be rewarded.

 

[CSA Today]

Or in trenches and fieldworks.

Are you suggesting most of the 55,000 casualties occurred attacking "trenches and fieldworks"? I doubt it, but if true you make an excellent case for Grant the butcher.