Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[O' Be Joyful]

Along with the pyromaniac Sherman

Source?

 

[Rebforever]

Source?

Shermans behavior! Duh!!

"
In May 1861, William T. Sherman was appointed colonel in the 13th U.S. Infantry, and was assigned command of a brigade under General William McDowell in Washington, D.C. He fought in the First Battle of Bull Run, in which Union troops were badly beaten. He was then sent to Kentucky and became deeply pessimistic about the war, complaining to his superiors about shortages while exaggerating the enemy's troop strength. He was eventually put on leave, considered unfit for duty. The press picked up on his troubles and described him as "insane." It is believed Sherman suffered from a nervous breakdown."

http://www.biography.com/people/william-tecumseh-sherman-9482051

"Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other."- Sherman quote.

 

[Jimklag]

Lol, according to Lee's quotes, I'm not the first to question Grant's performance.

In the Vicksburg campaign, Grant maneuvered his army in such a way as to keep two rebel forces separate, fought several battles (and won them all) and locked the larger of the two Confeferate forces inside its fortress at Vicksburg then proceeded to "out camp" the enemy until they cashed in their chips on 4 July. In the Overland campaign it took Grant just six weeks to maneuver the Army of Northern Virginia away from the Rapidan line into the Petersburg defenses and effectively remove that army's ability to threaten any major offensive action. In doing so, though his own casualties were high, he darn near bled the rebel army to death. In the Vicksburg campaign, until they settled into a siege, the two rebel forces were roughly equal in size to Grant's army. In the Overland campaign, Grant had greater numbers, but as one Union soldier said, "the rebel lines were always as long as ours." In the Union army, every living and breathing soldier was counted as present for duty whereas, in the ANV, they tended not to count support troops. In mumbers of men actually in the firing line there wasn't much difference between the two armies until very near the end. Grant's record, in short, was spectacular. He didn't win every battle, but he did win every campaign and captured three rebel armies whole along the way.

 

[Specster]

All outstanding quotes, but none of them answer my question. Did he ever win a battle where he didn't have overwhelming advantages?

I like the question but dont agree with the answer. He was very good in the West and he prevailed in the East where others had failed with superior numbers, weapons and supplies. After Cold Harbor Grant did not waste lives. Lee was entrenched until the spring of 65, and Grant was unwilling to send men to their deaths u-needlessly

 

[Jimklag]

I like the question but dont agree with the answer. He was very good in the West and he prevailed in the East where others had failed with superior numbers, weapons and supplies. After Cold Harbor Grant did not waste lives. Lee was entrenched until the spring of 65, and Grant was unwilling to send men to their deaths u-needlessly

The largest plurality Gran had over Lee was about 2:1. And that is, as I said previously, if you count every living and breathing soldier in blue. Considering he was always attacking and his enemy was always in fortified positions I think no-one would call this ratio overwhelming except for the lost causers. He did not have overwhelming numbers at Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga or Fort Donelson. Toward the end at Petersburg and Appomattox yes he did have a huge advantage due to heavy rebel desertion. Remember, these "huge numbers" included cavalry which I don't recall ever attacked a trench and large numbers of support personnel. Grant's 120,000 man army in Virginia was probably not much larger than 80,000 fighting men. I have no precise numbers but I doubt if Grant ever had much more than a 4:3 advantage actually on the firing line.

 

[Sid J.]

The largest plurality Gran had over Lee was about 2:1. And that is, as I said previously, if you count every living and breathing soldier in blue. Considering he was always attacking and his enemy was always in fortified positions I think no-one would call this ratio overwhelming except for the lost causers. He did not have overwhelming numbers at Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga or Fort Donelson. Toward the end at Petersburg and Appomattox yes he did have a huge advantage due to heavy rebel desertion. Remember, these "huge numbers" included cavalry which I don't recall ever attacked a trench and large numbers of support personnel. Grant's 120,000 man army in Virginia was probably not much larger than 80,000 fighting men. I have no precise numbers but I doubt if Grant ever had much more than a 4:3 advantage actually on the firing line.

The other part of the "numbers game" is that the ANV was close to being 100% veteran units in 1864. Ending of enlistment terms and soldiers returning home didn't happen in the CSA after the first year of the war. On the Union side however, rookie regiments were being shuffled in to replace veterans on regular basis, and veterans went home when their term was up, though many did re-up. I can't quantize this in the way the raw numbers can be quantized, but would anyone argue that a unit of 3 year veterans was not superior to a greenhorn unit two or even three times its size?

 

[Jimklag]

The other part of the "numbers game" is that the ANV was close to being 100% veteran units in 1864. Ending of enlistment terms and soldiers returning home didn't happen in the CSA after the first year of the war. On the Union side however, rookie regiments were being shuffled in to replace veterans on regular basis, and veterans went home when their term was up, though many did re-up. I can't quantize this in the way the raw numbers can be quantized, but would anyone argue that a unit of 3 year veterans was not superior to a greenhorn unit two or even three times its size?

Agreed. A significant fraction of Grant's troops were greenhorns and some of the veteran replacements were "heavies" who had been vacationing in the forts around Washington and were equally as green as the rookies. But even counting all those replacements as first class troops, Grant's advantage in numbers was never overwhelming.

 

[Specster]

The largest plurality Gran had over Lee was about 2:1. And that is, as I said previously, if you count every living and breathing soldier in blue. Considering he was always attacking and his enemy was always in fortified positions I think no-one would call this ratio overwhelming except for the lost causers. He did not have overwhelming numbers at Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga or Fort Donelson. Toward the end at Petersburg and Appomattox yes he did have a huge advantage due to heavy rebel desertion. Remember, these "huge numbers" included cavalry which I don't recall ever attacked a trench and large numbers of support personnel. Grant's 120,000 man army in Virginia was probably not much larger than 80,000 fighting men. I have no precise numbers but I doubt if Grant ever had much more than a 4:3 advantage actually on the firing line.

Absolutely. The rule of thumb is you need an numerical advantage of at least 3:1 when attacking a fortified position. Fortification have made all the difference in the world. Th at may be coming to an end due to precision air strikes, artillery and heavy ordnance strikes but sans those, you are going to get hurt as the Union was time and again in the ACW. When the shoe was on the other foot at Gettysburg, guess who won

 

[CSA Today]

I've always liked the late Brian Pohanka'scommentary:

"The South lost because it had inferior resources in every aspect of military personnel and equipment. That's an old-fashioned answer. Lots of people will be scornful of it. But a ratio of twenty-one million to seven million in population comes out the same anyway you look at it.

The basic problem was numbers. Give Abraham Lincoln seven million men and give Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee twenty-one million, and cognitive dissonance doesn't matter, European recognition doesn't matter, the Emancipation Proclamation and its ripple effect don't matter. Twenty-one to seven is a very different thing than seven to twenty-one."

Brian Pohanka

 

[Rebforever]

Agreed. A significant fraction of Grant's troops were greenhorns and some of the veteran replacements were "heavies" who had been vacationing in the forts around Washington and were equally as green as the rookies. But even counting all those replacements as first class troops, Grant's advantage in numbers was never overwhelming.

Hogwash!

 

[Jimklag]

Hogwash!

I beg your pardon? I haven't washed a single pig as far as I know.

 

[Schwallanscher]

I've all liked the late Brian Pohanka'scommentary:

"The South lost because it had inferior resources in every aspect of military personnel and equipment. That's an old-fashioned answer. Lots of people will be scornful of it. But a ratio of twenty-one million to seven million in population comes out the same anyway you look at it.

The basic problem was numbers. Give Abraham Lincoln seven million men and give Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee twenty-one million, and cognitive dissonance doesn't matter, European recognition doesn't matter, the Emancipation Proclamation and its ripple effect don't matter. Twenty-one to seven is a very different thing than seven to twenty-one."

Brian Pohanka

might have been worth consideration before starting the bloody mess, wouldn't it? was a certain jeff davies not minister of war and should have known about stuff like that?

 

[Jimklag]

might have been worth consideration before starting the bloody mess wouldn't it? was a certain jeff davies not minister of war and should have known qabout stuff like that?

Heck no! One southern man is worth ten Yankee hirelings - that is until we lose. Then that 10:1 became carved in stone and the myth of overwhelming numbers was propagated. No one among the lost causers ever mentions the southern advantages that, while not numerical, were real. Except for a couple of cases the south had the home field advantage. Throughout the war the south had the advantage of interior lines. In the east, the rivers are all barriers to the attacker causing him to have to "funnelize" his forces at fords and bridges, negating his numerical advantage.

 

[Rebforever]

I beg your pardon? I haven't washed a single pig as far as I know.

 

[Jimklag]

???

 

[johan_steele]

Hogwash!

Typical lack of substance...

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Shermans behavior! Duh!!

"
In May 1861, William T. Sherman was appointed colonel in the 13th U.S. Infantry, and was assigned command of a brigade under General William McDowell in Washington, D.C. He fought in the First Battle of Bull Run, in which Union troops were badly beaten. He was then sent to Kentucky and became deeply pessimistic about the war, complaining to his superiors about shortages while exaggerating the enemy's troop strength. He was eventually put on leave, considered unfit for duty. The press picked up on his troubles and described him as "insane." It is believed Sherman suffered from a nervous breakdown."

http://www.biography.com/people/william-tecumseh-sherman-9482051

"Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other."- Sherman quote.

I understand what you mean now, after I found this. Looney! Nutty as a praline.

1. 
   
   
   William T. Sherman‏ @March_totheSea 16 May 2015
   I'd like the confederacy to try and stop me. I'd like the union to try and stop me. With out the telegraph Lincoln won't know what I've done
   
   0 replies0 retweets0 likes
   
2. 
   
   
   William T. Sherman‏ @March_totheSea 16 May 2015
   Hahahahahahahha. they said I'm crazy I'm not crazy cause if I was crazy I'd have to be crazy so science proves you wrong nice try Sebastian.
   
   0 replies0 retweets0 likes
   
3. 
   
   
   William T. Sherman‏ @March_totheSea 16 May 2015
   So This guy calls me a lunatic and expects me not to rip his heart out.
   
   amateur. Kids don't forget to wear a coat it's a tad chilly out.
   
   
4. 1. 
      
      
      William T. Sherman‏ @March_totheSea 16 May 2015
      Jammin to Virgina Belle by Stephen Foster in my undies because I've been relieved of duty due to "allegations of insanity"
      
      #hatasgonnahate
   2. 1. William T. Sherman Retweeted
         
         
         Abraham Lincoln‏ @AbrahamLinc6 13 May 2015
         Make'em pee their pants Sherm. @March_totheSea
         
         0 replies1 retweet0 likes
         
      2. 
         
      3. 
         
         
         William T. Sherman‏ @March_totheSea 13 May 2015
         Ma bro Abe just gave me the okay on destroying everything you love and hold dear.. Stay in school kids.
         https://twitter.com/march_tothesea

 

[Rebforever]

Typical lack of substance...

No ****?

 

[Jimklag]

Typical lack of substance...

Easy now. I thought hogwash! was pretty appropriate. Now if he'd said balderdash! or poppycock! I might have been offended.

 

[atlantis]

Lee could have beaten Grant if he had abandoned Richmond in May/June and drawn him away from his supply base at city point. The key for Lee was not get pinned down in trenches but keep bleeding AOTP. Even the northern public had a breaking point.