Grant Ulysses S. Grant: Overrated or Underrated?

Actually no. The goal was Lee's Army.
But if the goal was to damage Lee's army, then the best place to do it is as far north as possible, which is Spotyslvania; if the goal is to entrap Lee's army, then the best way to do it is to present such a threat to Richmond (a threat to which it must respond) as to pin it to the defence of Richmond.

Regardless of its numerical strength, the Confederate army would be incapable of sustaining a serious offensive north of the Potomac (and indeed north of the Rapidan) once Richmond is under Union control; there's simply no viable supply lines.

What this means is that the best way to ensure that Lee's army will be fought on terms that are not Lee's is to go after Richmond intelligently.
 
But if the goal was to damage Lee's army, then the best place to do it is as far north as possible, which is Spotyslvania; if the goal is to entrap Lee's army, then the best way to do it is to present such a threat to Richmond (a threat to which it must respond) as to pin it to the defence of Richmond.

Regardless of its numerical strength, the Confederate army would be incapable of sustaining a serious offensive north of the Potomac (and indeed north of the Rapidan) once Richmond is under Union control; there's simply no viable supply lines.

What this means is that the best way to ensure that Lee's army will be fought on terms that are not Lee's is to go after Richmond intelligently.
I think Grant's predecessors learned the hard way that merely presenting a threat to Richmond, and then sitting back and letting Lee take the initiative, was a losing proposition.

Better to keep Lee on his heels, by maneuvering and attacking him, so that he could not take the initiative.
 
Last edited:
Grant's reputation is not dependent on the Overland Campaign. Its dependent on finishing the war in March and April of 1865. He had the US Army ready to do what had never been done in that war: follow a demoralized opponent until the opposing army disintegrated.
The lives saved, and the money saved, by not letting the war drag on into summer were the reasons the country was grateful to him.
The second thing he did was that he did not instate a proscription list after the murder of Lincoln. And he was tempted, with at least with respect to the Confederate officers.
 
Actually it was to take Richmond. How do you destroy an army? How did Napoleon do it? He destroyed the base of operations of the enemy army. Indeed, Grant was trying to get Richmond, which would lead to the destruction of Lee's army. Simply hammering Lee's army a la Spottsylvania showed itself to be a recipe for the destruction of Grant's army.

Take Richmond, take Petersburg, sever the railroad connections between the two, interpose the AoP between Lee and Richmond, there are obviously multiple ways of accomplishing the same objective of cutting Lee off from supplies as long as it leads to the destruction of his army. But taking Richmond and then not destroying Lee's Army wouldn't have been good enough. Hence why destroying Lee's Army was the main objective, not taking Richmond. Richmond/Petersburg was a means to an end, and Grant really couldn't care much less about possessing them except that it made the boss and public happy.
 
Just thought of one other aspect of Grant that was truly great, and perhaps the greatest form of greatness (to be horridly redundant)...and that is the compassion and generosity he displayed toward the armies he vanquished at Vicksburg and Appomattox. In both cases, he had waged long, exhausting efforts against stubborn foes and he treated them kindness and respect. With Grant, unconditional surrender did not lead to retribution but rather a gentle letting down. I have to believe this did much to mitigate animosity at the conclusion of the war.
Thank you for mentioning this. I do think that his behavior when victorious is a true reflection of his character.
 
Thank you for mentioning this. I do think that his behavior when victorious is a true reflection of his character.

Actually he did this for purely operational reasons. In both cases he didn't want to get bogged down with the prisoners whilst he turned to face another threat (Joe Johnston in both cases).
 
Thank you for mentioning this. I do think that his behavior when victorious is a true reflection of his character.

I think one of my favorite bits after Appomattox was the telegram he sent to Stanton: "General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia this afternoon on terms proposed by myself. The accompanying additional correspondence will show the conditions fully." Can you imagine anyone else sending such a brief, non-self-congratulatory message after winning the single greatest victory of the entire war? This is what they call, "pure Grant".
 
Yes, there is. We have the official returns. They might not conform with your desires, but that is not the fault of the numbers.

Yes and we also have the official reports of the confederates on the Peninsula, and specifically at Yorktown. We can consider them 100% complete and accurate.
 
I have enjoyed and been instructed by the close analysis of these battles.

When talking about "overrating" and "underrating" we have to ask ourselves who is doing the "rating?" What are they rating and why? Grant had two sides of his career of national importance, his leadership in the war and the presidency. His "raters" in the 19th century fell into two camps, North and South. In the North(in this case), any prominent person has detractors and supporters. In the South, defeat had to be explained and excused.

In more recent times, the reputations of Civil War military leaders rise and fall with the reputation of their cause. As the Confederacy has become less admirable, its defenders have lost admirers. As the Union cause has gained reputation, its champions have gained admirers. I think this has happened with Grant.

Our current culture, which considering alcoholism a disease rather than a moral failing, Grant's drinking becomes a part of his story, not a smear.
 
any prominent person has detractors and supporters
This is true, and why it's so interesting to see the different perspectives on Grant and how they may have changed, ultimately changing his 'rating'.

I think the issue of seeing 'drinking' or alcoholism as other than a moral failing may influence some of the opinionators, though I still wonder to what extent Grant's drinking was actually a problem during the period of the CW. The fact he had a 'watchdog' in Rawlins could appear to make it worse than it actually was ... considering the ideal was temperance at the time. And, I hadn't known this earlier, but Grant had taken an oath not to drink prior to this. So, any drink could be seen as an issue. I may have to link an older thread on the issue (I'm sure there are some) as there's no doubt many arguments have been made either way on this one.

Still underrated in my opinion, btw. And I'm going to add his magnanimity upon surrender of the opposing armies to the reasons why (as another poster pointed out earlier). I believe he took his lead from Winfield Scott on this one and I've always admired him for it. Someone else pointed out 'he had to let them go' (or parole them) as he couldn't take them all prisoner, but he still could have humiliated them, and he didn't. That is the mark of a true leader in my mind.
 
Back
Top