Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[Mike Griffith]

Yes, we can play this game all day. All it proves is Lincoln was a politician and would say anything for political advantage. You can keep trying to put his halo on, but it always falls off if you read enough about the man.

To be fair, I think it must be said that if we judge Lincoln by the standards of his day, he was at the humane and enlightened end of the spectrum regarding slavery and civil rights. His views on slavery and blacks were certainly better than those of many Northern Democrats and Confederates. Lincoln's modern leftist and neo-Confederate critics like to quote Frederic Douglass's initial negative assessment of Lincoln's attitude toward blacks, but they usually fail to mention that Douglass later noted that Lincoln grew in this area and that Douglass came to think very highly of Lincoln.

Yes, judged by our standards in the 21st century, Lincoln would be excoriated for his views on slavery and civil rights, but that would be an unfair measurement.

 

[Schwallanscher]

To be fair, I think it must be said that if we judge Lincoln by the standards of his day, he was at the humane and enlightened end of the spectrum regarding slavery and civil rights. His views on slavery and blacks were certainly better than those of many Northern Democrats and Confederates. Lincoln's modern leftist and neo-Confederate critics like to quote Frederic Douglass's initial negative assessment of Lincoln's attitude toward blacks, but they usually fail to mention that Douglass later noted that Lincoln grew in this area and that Douglass came to think very highly of Lincoln.

Yes, judged by our standards in the 21st century, Lincoln would be excoriated for his views on slavery and civil rights, but that would be an unfair measurement.

where in that race would you place the csa govt

 

[civilken]

only the losing side could come up with so many excuses about how the individual who won didn't know what he was doing. Apparently he knew enough to end the war and I'm sure if Robert E Lee felt the same way he would not have surrendered I know this pains the Confederacy to know and he had more guns he had more men he had more food he had more generals he had more trains. And you know what else he has the willingness to never quit and he won like a rabid dog he never gave up if you beat him one way he came at you another way never quitting never backing down and once he started even Robert E Lee knew what was going To happen he realized she met a general like him who would not retreat.

 

[John Hartwell]

I'm sure that General Grant would be terribly humiliated to learn that there are people here who, from their years of training, and vast experience

in planning campaigns and leading triumphant armies, are "not impressed" with his generalship.

 

[shermans_march]

What I can't stand is that Northerners get on their high horse about slavery as if it were a moral issue.

If it was a moral issue, Lincoln would have never agreed to keep it where it was already legal.

A little research confirms that yes, slavery was the issue. But, it was an economic issue, it a moral one.

No one really gave a rip about the slaves. Not enough to actually pick up a rifle and fight over it.

So spare me with all the moral elitism.

He pledged not to interfere with slavery where it already existed because he felt that he had no right to, because it was stated in the Constitution that slavery was legal and as President he was required to uphold it.

Yes, most Northerners, other than the abolitionists didn't care much about the slaves. What they cared about was the spread of slavery into the territories. Roger B. Taney's rulings also worried many Northerners because his view was that slavery could not be banned within any state of the Union.

Read Road to Disunion Vol 1 and 2 by Freehling . It goes into great detail what caused the South to secede from the union. It covers the 1770s up to the Civil War.

 

[shermans_march]

Here are more of his quotes:

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery."

In his 1858 debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, Lincoln maintained, "And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

while debating Douglas in 1858, Lincoln declared the following: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races."

"I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes."

When addressing the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, Lincoln quoted the following: "There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…"

Indeed, his own words do reflect his views.

Here are more of his quotes:

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery."

In his 1858 debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, Lincoln maintained, "And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

while debating Douglas in 1858, Lincoln declared the following: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races."

"I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes."

When addressing the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, Lincoln quoted the following: "There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…"

Indeed, his own words do reflect his views.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery."

The war was fought to save the Union, but in order to save the Union slavery had to be abolished. This issue, above all else, was the cause of the war and preserving the Union with slavery intact would have solved nothing.

 

[shermans_march]

The Union included the institution of slavery as well. In fact, the Union added a slave state during the war (WV). The Union's most powerful general, Ulysses Grant, used slave labor. One of the Union's very best generals, George Thomas, was a slaveholder.



Well, actually, the Confederate Constitution allowed for the admission of free states to the Confederacy, banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery if they so desired (it merely prohibited the national government from doing so). And perhaps it should also be mentioned that only about 10% of Southern citizens owned slaves and only 33% of Southern families included slaveholders. Additionally, there were nearly as many free blacks living in the South as there were in the North.

And on top of these facts, there is also the fact that four of the 11 Confederate states strongly rejected secession when it was based on slavery and the tariff; they seceded over coercion, not slavery. Indeed, many scholars have documented that Union sentiment was strong enough in the Upper South that those states would have stayed in the Union if Lincoln had simply evacuated Pickens and Sumter and had refrained from coercion against the Deep South.

The reason the Confederacy banned the slave trade was to encourage Great Britain and France to recognize them. Evidence shows that they would have lifted the ban if needed. Sure about 33% of the confederacy's families owned slaves. That is quite a large amount. It is known that slaveholders lent out their slaves to poorer whites. Many poorer whites also aspired to become slaveholders with their own plantations one day. To the contrary many of the southern states, if not all, mentioned slavery or words equivalent to it, within their declarations of secession. They didn't secede over coercion, I'm not sure where you are getting that from. Commissioners for secession went throughout the Southern states during late 1860 and early 1861 using prejudices and fear tactics to convince southerners that Lincoln and the Republican part were going to ban slavery and destroy the nation. Some of border slave states stayed in the Union as long as the North didn't use military force against their sister slave states. Evacuating Fort Sumter, which was a federal fort, when the south told them to would have appeared weak the world and would have legitimized secession. Who are these scholars you talk about? I hope its not Dilorenzo, Marvel, or Kizer Jr.

 

[Captain Davis]

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery."

The war was fought to save the Union, but in order to save the Union slavery had to be abolished. This issue, above all else, was the cause of the war and preserving the Union with slavery intact would have solved nothing.

But it wasn't a moral issue, it was an economic issue. The Northern economy was suffering far more than the Southern economy. The North wanted their fair share and they wanted no competition moving westward.

This was about business not some moral enlightenment.

 

[shermans_march]

But it wasn't a moral issue, it was an economic issue. The Northern economy was suffering far more than the Southern economy. The North wanted their fair share and they wanted no competing moving westward.

This was about business not some moral enlightenment.

How was the North's economy suffering? The Civil war actually boosted the North's economy. It paved the way for the industrial boom of the late 19-early 20th with Carnegie and Rockefeller. Throughout the Civil War the South's economy suffered. The blockade of the south decreased exports and imports, except when blockade runners got through.

The Lincoln administration sold the abolishment of slavery to the Northern public as a military measure.

 

[Kenneth Almquist]

Here are more of his quotes:

Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.

That's a quote from James Mitchell (the Irish-born Methodist preacher), not Abraham Lincoln.

 

[frontrank2]

The original post about Grant being unimpressive reminds me of a football analogy. Eli Manning is the QB for the NY Giants. He has never led the NFL in any statistical category, except interceptions ( three times ). He's thrown at least 14 int's every year since 2005, except one. He was almost out the door in 2013 after throwing 27. But the drafting of Odell Beckham rejuvenated his career. His career passer rating is 83.7, far from being the best. However, he does have two Super Bowl rings and he defeated Bill Belichick both times! Nobody else can make that claim. Phil Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger and Tony Romo who were in the same draft have better stats, but I don't think the Giants would trade for either one. Grant was the right general at the right time who knew how to beat Lee.

 

[Captain Davis]

The original post about Grant being unimpressive reminds me of a football analogy. Eli Manning is the QB for the NY Giants. He has never led the NFL in any statistical category, except interceptions ( three times ). He's thrown at least 14 int's every year since 2005, except one. He was almost out the door in 2013 after throwing 27. But the drafting of Odell Beckham rejuvenated his career. His career passer rating is 83.7, far from being the best. However, he does have two Super Bowl rings and he defeated Bill Belichick both times! Nobody else can make that claim. Phil Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger and Tony Romo who were in the same draft have better stats, but I don't think the Giants would trade for either one. Grant was the right general at the right time who knew how to beat Lee.

But could he have defeated Lee with equal resources? It was less about Grant and more about how attrition depleted the Confederate force. I'm confident that Sherman or any competent general could have done the same thing.

 

[wausaubob]

It was a moral issue.
By 1862 they all knew.
Slavery had to be abolished, or there would be another war to abolish it.
The Emancipation Proclamation made the issue larger, and Britain backed away.

 

[Captain Davis]

It was a moral issue.
By 1862 they all knew.
Slavery had to be abolished, or there would be another war to abolish it.
The Emancipation Proclamation made the issue larger, and Britain backed away.

The Emancipation was a strategic maneuver by Lincoln to ensure that England stayed out of it.

And it had to be abolished because the business minded Republican politicians didn't want the competition moving westward.

 

[hanna260]

But could he have defeated Lee with equal resources? It was less about Grant and more about how attrition depleted the Confederate force. I'm confident that Sherman or any competent general could have done the same thing.

As I believe someone else has already pointed out to you, the attacking force generally needs a 3:1 advantage anyway. Grant was fighting a different war than Lee: he had to invade a hostile enemy territory, while Lee merely needed to defend it with fortifications, which required less men. Grant needing more men to defeat Lee had a lot to do with the Union being the attacking force.

 

[hanna260]

Getting back to Grant, I have always been a little bit baffled by people who seem utterly unwilling to concede that he may have been a good general. I'm certainly sympathetic to people who think Lee or Jackson or Sherman were better, but does it really say all that many good things about Lee and the Confederate force in the West that they ended up losing to a drunk butcher? (This isn't directed towards the OP or anyone in particular, just a trend I've noticed on places less informed than this forum.)

 

[OpnCoronet]

The Union included the institution of slavery as well. In fact, the Union added a slave state during the war (WV). The Union's most powerful general, Ulysses Grant, used slave labor. One of the Union's very best generals, George Thomas, was a slaveholder.
Well, actually, the Confederate Constitution allowed for the admission of free states to the Confederacy, banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery if they so desired (it merely prohibited the national government from doing so). And perhaps it should also be mentioned that only about 10% of Southern citizens owned slaves and only 33% of Southern families included slaveholders. Additionally, there were nearly as many free blacks living in the South as there were in the North.
And on top of these facts, there is also the fact that four of the 11 Confederate states strongly rejected secession when it was based on slavery and the tariff; they seceded over coercion, not slavery. Indeed, many scholars have documented that Union sentiment was strong enough in the Upper South that those states would have stayed in the Union if Lincoln had simply evacuated Pickens and Sumter and had refrained from coercion against the Deep South.

Does any of the above, have anything to say about my point that the southern soldiers fighting for home, family and country, were by that very fact fighting to preserve and protect slaver?


P.S. even if the north accepted the concept of slavery and condoned its existence, they would not sacrifice their country for it, but confederate would/

 

[Irishtom29]

But could he have defeated Lee with equal resources?

What does that matter? That he brought the available resources to bear shows his ability. He had a difficult job to do, went about it in a straightforward manner and accomplished it. Very Midwestern of him.

 

[shermans_march]

But could he have defeated Lee with equal resources? It was less about Grant and more about how attrition depleted the Confederate force. I'm confident that Sherman or any competent general could have done the same thing.

The problem was that not many generals either side, after inconclusive battle, would continue to pursue the enemy over and over again. I think Grant was the exception, Jackson might have been the other main one.

Again you would have to have to be very lucky or have a incompetent general on the other side to win a battle when you are on the offensive and their on the defensive with the same troop numbers.

 

[Captain Davis]

The problem was that not many generals either side, after inconclusive battle, would continue to pursue the enemy over and over again. I think Grant was the exceptional, Jackson might have been the other main one.

Again you would have to have a miracle or a incompetent general on the other side to win a battle when you are on the offensive and their on the defensive with the same troop numbers.

Shermans approach at Atlanta was very similar to Grants during the Overland Campaign.

Stall, flank, stall, flank

Eventually, the superior numbers prevailed.