Grant US Grant ethics?

[uaskme]

Force Advantage was more like 7 to 1. Beginning 64 Confederates had Conscripted everyone that the could. So battlefield and sickness losses couldn't be replaced. Federals increased immigration last 2 years of the war to pre war levels. Forced and recruited Blacks. They were able to retain their Force levels in VA and GA at 2 to 1+. All of this don't reflect the advantage the Federals had in logistics, material and being able to financially support their Army, ie, could pay them.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Are you really going to argue that today's History Depts. are full of unbiased actors?

Professional historians have their careers and reputations to consider, so that would be motivation to write accurate history. Or they could fall back on something like the Abbeville Institute and write for the true believers.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Force Advantage was more like 7 to 1. Beginning 64 Confederates had Conscripted everyone that the could. So battlefield and sickness losses couldn't be replaced. Federals increased immigration last 2 years of the war to pre war levels. Forced and recruited Blacks. They were able to retain their Force levels in VA and GA at 2 to 1+. All of this don't reflect the advantage the Federals had in logistics, material and being able to financially support their Army, ie, could pay them.

There's no shortage of excuses. The simple fact is that Grant won the war, and Lee went home defeated.

 

[RobertP]

Professional historians have their careers and reputations to consider, so that would be motivation to write accurate history. Or they could fall back on something like the Abbeville Institute and write for the true believers.

The overwhelming evidence shows they work in an echo chamber where tenure tracks and and peer acceptance require pushing the narrative. Surely you know this.

 

[uaskme]

There's no shortage of excuses. The simple fact is that Grant won the war, and Lee went home defeated.

Facts lost on a Grant Worshipper. Hilarious how some bang on the Lost Cause and bloviate on every morsel of the Northern/Federal narrative which is full of pure propaganda. Analysis at about the High School Level.

 

[uaskme]

Here is a good article on the War Grant started with the Lakota. Details Grants's lying. Using the Federal Government for his own Political and personal purposes. Going behind Sherman's back to another Racist, Sheridan. Manipulating his crooked cabinet members. When he colluded to deceive Congress and the American People. Don't see much remorse or care of Ethics in this one.

Ulysses S. Grant Launched an Illegal War Against the Plains Indians, Then Lied About It

The president promised peace with Indians — and covertly hatched the plot that provoked one of the bloodiest conflicts in the West

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[DanSBHawk]

The overwhelming evidence shows they work in an echo chamber where tenure tracks and and peer acceptance require pushing the narrative. Surely you know this.

Oooo... "The Narrative."

Sounds like a conspiracy.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Facts lost on a Grant Worshipper. Hilarious how some bang on the Lost Cause and bloviate on every morsel of the Northern/Federal narrative which is full of pure propaganda. Analysis at about the High School Level.

The Grant-bashers don't have the best record dealing with facts.

 

[archieclement]

There's no shortage of excuses. The simple fact is that Grant won the war, and Lee went home defeated.

No one has denied that.....so a rather false argument, also flawed in that's not the measure of military acumen though. Again historians certainly note great generals fought for losing sides. Why they always include Lee.

Burnside, McClellan, Pope, and Hooker all also won the war. Does not equate into greatness however of generalship at all.

The excuses seem to just be coming from you, as you certainly haven't provided any example comparable to Chancellorsville. Suggesting numbers don't matter in war is a rather absurd excuse....or perhaps you believe southerners were just innately better soldiers.........

Grant was certainly a good and competent general, that's not derogatory at all. However doesn't place one at top of a list of greats. A good example of Grant fighting a comparable foe was day one at Shiloh, and he is slightly bested, to turn it around required additional reinforcements for day 2 to where it was no longer comparable. Competent? Certainly, perhaps other then being surprised, but somehow exceptional such as beating a force twice your size........no.

 

[DanSBHawk]

No one has denied that.....so a rather false argument, also flawed in that's not the measure of military acumen though. Again historians certainly note great generals fought for losing sides. Why they always include Lee.

Burnside, McClellan, Pope, and Hooker all also won the war. Does not equate into greatness however of generalship at all.

The excuses seem to just be coming from you, as you certainly haven't provided any example comparable to Chancellorsville. Suggesting numbers don't matter in war is a rather absurd excuse....or perhaps you believe southerners were just innately better soldiers.........

Grant was certainly a good and competent general, that's not derogatory at all. However doesn't place one at top of a list of greats.

Actually, winning wars is the measure of military acumen.

I've made zero excuses. Grant won the war. That's just history. Any list of the greatest US generals includes Grant. Some lists include Lee. But anyone who claims that Lee was a great general and Grant not a great general, is just showing they don't really know what "great" means as it relates to the military.

 

[archieclement]

Actually, winning wars is the measure of military acumen.

I've made zero excuses. Grant won the war. That's just history. Any list of the greatest US generals includes Grant. Some lists include Lee. But anyone who claims that Lee was a great general and Grant not a great general, is just showing they don't really know what "great" means as it relates to the military.

Winning a war is measure of the nations, not of the individual generals.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Winning a war is measure of the nations, not of the individual generals.

Nope. It's the commanders that are remembered throughout history. Napoleon, Caesar, Frederick the Great, Alexander, Duke of Wellington, Ulysses Grant, Eisenhower, etc.

 

[Belfoured]

No one has denied that.....so a rather false argument, also flawed in that's not the measure of military acumen though. Again historians certainly note great generals fought for losing sides. Why they always include Lee.

Burnside, McClellan, Pope, and Hooker all also won the war. Does not equate into greatness however of generalship at all.

The excuses seem to just be coming from you, as you certainly haven't provided any example comparable to Chancellorsville. Suggesting numbers don't matter in war is a rather absurd excuse....or perhaps you believe southerners were just innately better soldiers.........

Grant was certainly a good and competent general, that's not derogatory at all. However doesn't place one at top of a list of greats. A good example of Grant fighting a comparable foe was day one at Shiloh, and he is slightly bested, to turn it around required additional reinforcements for day 2 to where it was no longer comparable. Competent? Certainly, perhaps other then being surprised, but somehow exceptional such as beating a force twice your size........no.

"Burnside, McClellan, Pope, and Hooker all also won the war."

I'll have what you're having .... While we're at it, Pillow, Floyd, and Polk all also lost the war. Must have been those overwhelming Yankee advantages in men and materials.

 

[archieclement]

"Burnside, McClellan, Pope, and Hooker all also won the war."

I'll have what you're having .... While we're at it, Pillow, Floyd, and Polk all also lost the war. Must have been those overwhelming Yankee advantages in men and materials.

Certainly winning a war only reflects on the nation winning, as it likely has it share of stinkers, just as the losing side can have great ones.

Certainly as far as the Union win, the numbers game suggested they would as they had over 3-1 advantage in citizens to draw from. As well advantage in industry, rail, and navy. Advantages shared to many of our wars, making fair comparisons rather hard.The only real surprise is it took as long as it did.

 

[Belfoured]

Certainly winning a war only reflects on the nation winning, as it likely has it share of stinkers, just as the losing side can have great ones.

Certainly as far as the Union win, the numbers game suggested they would as they had over 3-1 advantage in citizens to draw from. As well advantage in industry, rail, and navy. Advantages shared to many of our wars, making fair comparisons rather hard.The only real surprise is it took as long as it did.

"Certainly winning a war only reflects on the nation winning".

I think you know better than that. Otherwise, so much for guys like Nimitz and Eisenhower - they could have been replaced by Hart and Fredendall and we'd still get VE Day and VJ Day. I understand that it fits the Grant Narrative but that doesn't make it correct. The side with the advantages can still screw up. See the AWI. One can credit Lee with being a competent CO who positively influenced the outcome of battles and can do the same with Grant. Both be true. They're not mutually exclusive, although some folks seem to have a need to think they are.

 

[archieclement]

"Certainly winning a war only reflects on the nation winning".

I think you know better than that. Otherwise, so much for guys like Nimitz and Eisenhower - they could have been replaced by Hart and Fredendall and we'd still get VE Day and VJ Day. I understand that it fits the Grant Narrative but that doesn't make it correct. The side with the advantages can still screw up. See the AWI. One can credit Lee with being a competent CO who positively influenced the outcome of battles and can do the same with Grant. Both be true. They're not mutually exclusive, although some folks seem to have a need to think they are.

Again having the advantages certainly increases chances of winning, especially for a competent commander. As it's a numbers game.

Winning when one has marked advantages does not indicate greatness however. It's the outcome that should be expected if the commander is competent. Certainly don't disagree an incompetent commander can negate the advantages they hold.

The reason we don't often lose militarily, is because we choose to overwhelm enemies. Certainly viable strategy when has all or most the advantages, nothing particularly exceptional to it though. And all it really requires is competent commanders.

Why it hard to compare, because to have any real validity, one compares similar situations/conditions, not mismatches in strengths that are not remotely similar, such as 2-1 to 1-2.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Why it hard to compare, because to have any real validity, one compares similar situations/conditions, not mismatches in strengths that are not remotely similar, such as 2-1 to 1-2.

It's especially hard to compare if you don't take into account who's attacking and who's defending, and the strength of defensive works. A 2:1 advantage is not much against dug-in defenders.

If Lee had actually been a great general that could win when outnumbered, he was free to come out of his works at any time and fight Grant in the open, toe-to-toe.

 

[archieclement]

It's especially hard to compare if you don't take into account who's attacking and who's defending, and the strength of defensive works. A 2:1 advantage is not much against dug-in defenders.

If Lee had actually been a great general that could win when outnumbered, he was free to come out of his works at any time and fight Grant in the open, toe-to-toe.

So wait now it's a numbers game? But only when it suits you?....

Having a 2-1 advantage is an advantage regardless of attacking or defending.

Again absurd, if Grant had provided an opportunity Lee likely would. Again no one has suggested Grant wasn't competent.

Great would suggest exceptional, such as Lee at Chancellorsville, or Napoleon at Austerlitz, overcoming superior armies. Not seeing that in Grant, perhaps you have more an overly inflated view of the Confederate army then I do.

 

[DanSBHawk]

So wait now it's a numbers game? But only when it suits you?....

Having a 2-1 advantage is an advantage regardless of attacking or defending.

Again absurd, if Grant had provided an opportunity Lee likely would. Again no one has suggested Grant wasn't competent.

Great would suggest exceptional, such as Lee at Chancellorsville, or Napoleon at Austerlitz, overcoming superior armies. Not seeing that in Grant, perhaps you have more an overly inflated view of the Confederate army then I do.

I didn't say it was a numbers game. Numbers don't mean much on their own, especially if the defender is dug in.

"If Grant had provided an opportunity Lee likely would." Was Lee waiting for an invitation?

 

[archieclement]

I didn't say it was a numbers game. Numbers don't mean much on their own, especially if the defender is dug in.

"If Grant had provided an opportunity Lee likely would." Was Lee waiting for an invitation?

Lee being also a competent commander, with actual exceptional past performances, would been waiting for a misstep. Why he had defeated larger armies with exceptional victories.

Which again no one has suggested Grant was incompetent, with a marked advantage in troops he pushed, then wore Lee down. Certainly a competent performance, I would have no issue at all saying a good performance. But not seeing exceptional to suggest great.

If you suddenly think numbers do matter, how exactly was Lee a threat to suggest anything out of the ordinary in the outcome? As he had half the forces Grant had.

Again simply not being as incompetent as Pope, Burnside, ect, doesn't indicate anything other then actually being competent. Doesn't alter he actually had the advantage all along, which isn't really exceptional.