Grant?

MGRamseur

Recruit
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
FlowerMound,TX USA
Country
llUnited States
I just finished Newt Gingrich's latest work "Never Call Retreat". Question? How may folks "and be fair you Southern boys!!" thought Grant was that good a general? or the circumstances and quality of his opponents contributed to his supposed operational and tactical ability. What I mean is if there had been a quality leader in the West to face him and Lee had the same army in 1864 that he had before the disaster of the Gettysburg Campaign would Grant have faired as well. Newt's books were good reading if you ignore some of the premises and simply enjoy the reading. I thought Grant like Napolean benefited MORE from the lack of qualtiy opponents than his own abilities.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2002
Messages
1,129
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Country
llUnited States
Gotta disagree here as I think Grant was brilliant. He recognized what it took to beat Lee and never varied from that course. From the moment that the Union Army marched onward from the Wilderness rather then back behind the Rappahannock to reform the course of the war was set. Out west Grant proved his mettle though it was more against terrain and weather then his opponents sometime. Everyone accuses Grant of just bludgeoning his way forward in the 1864 campaign but if you read enough you can see that if not for some of the incompetencies within his Corps Commander group he would have turned Lee's flank and gotten between him and Richmond. Yep, Grant made some mistakes but even he admits Cold Harbor was the biggest so he isn't any apologist either.
 

XRAY

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
308
Reaction score
2
Location
UK
Country
ll
I’ve found Grant a difficult General to study. He appears to have had many contradictions and stories of his hard drinking followed him to his grave.

Shiloh could well have been the end of him, but thanks to Sherman he lived to fight another day.

The best quote I’ve seen about him came from Lincoln as he fended off numerous demands for his removal “I can’t spare this man…he fightsâ€

In a way he reminds me a little of Blucher! (just my opinion :))
 

MGRamseur

Recruit
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
FlowerMound,TX USA
Country
llUnited States
Grant

I agree with the posts so far, but maybe for different reasons. Grant understood modern warfare and what it really meant. Campaigns had always been fought to lead to some eventual climatic battle. His reasoning was that campaigns were about a series of battles to be fought with the objective being the destruction of one side's ability to continue the campaign. This is what made 1864 and 1865 different. Lee could no longer perform brilliant maneuvers independently, because unlike previous leaders of the AOP he wouldn't break contact with the ANV. Grant was unwilling to back off after terrible losses and give either force a breather. This tenacious strategy earned him the title "butcher", but if you look at every modern war following the ACW that was fought on a large scale this was the strategy that worked.
 

MGRamseur

Recruit
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
FlowerMound,TX USA
Country
llUnited States
Grant

Rangerbooboo,

To start this post take into account I was born and raised in Muleshoe,TX:)My question is this then. Looking at Lee's options when the Wilderness Campaign began do you believe there was anything Lee could have done to effectively defeat Grant in total? I am of the opinion that all real options were gone. Did Lee conduct the campaign due to the restrictions placed upon him by the condition of his forces after the Gettysburg campaign or Grant's maneuvering which hampered his ability to go on the offensive. I have always been of the opinion that Lee's devestated officer corps and inability to replace losses with highly motivated recruits contributed to Grant's successes as much as anything. Lee's army was suffering from extraordinary battle fatigue and was very poorly led after the 1863 campaign. This fact combined with Grant's strategy reduced Lee's options to a minumum. So I am not certain if Grant was brilliant or just pragmatic. If he had attempted the same strategy against the same army Lee commanded before Gettysburg I am of the firm belief that Lee would have fought him to a standstill in Northern Virginia and he would never have advanced any further south.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
MGRamseur said:
So I am not certain if Grant was brilliant or just pragmatic. If he had attempted the same strategy against the same army Lee commanded before Gettysburg I am of the firm belief that Lee would have fought him to a standstill in Northern Virginia and he would never have advanced any further south.
But Lee did not have the same army as 1862 or 1863 so the point is moot. No General in history has ever had the troops he thinks he needs, the numbers he needs, the guns he needs,...and so on. They are judged by what they had to work with and how well the did with what they had. Grant examined his assets, compared them to his opponents and designed his campaign strategy based on the conclusions reached. Eventually Lee and the south could no longer counter that strategy and it led to the southern collapse. When one can no longer influence the actions of the opposition it is said that one has become strategically or operationally bankrupt and that is what happened to Lee and his army by the spring of 1865.

To say that Lee would have fought Grant to a stand still "if" is only guess work because there is no way to prove or disprove the argument. ;)
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
Location
Deep South, PL
Country
llPoland
Grant was a very good general. Brilliant? Maybe sometimes - especially during Vicksburg campaign when he decided to sever connentions with his base and to operate without a supply line (probably the boldest decision made in the war).

MGRamseur said:
Looking at Lee's options when the Wilderness Campaign began do you believe there was anything Lee could have done to effectively defeat Grant in total?
Taking Grant's character and simply numerical disproportion I think that total victory wasn't possible. The best what Lee could do was a bloody stalemate and hope that Joe Johnston would archieve a success against Sherman in Georgia (I think that war was settled there).

Despite severe shortages of food and material Lee conducted campaing vs Grant quite well. And ANV in 1864 was a formidable force, full of veterans (see evolution of Heth's division)
 

rahamy

HPS Games Forum Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
2,531
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia, USA
MGRamseur said:
... His reasoning was that campaigns were about a series of battles to be fought with the objective being the destruction of one side's ability to continue the campaign. This is what made 1864 and 1865 different. Lee could no longer perform brilliant maneuvers independently, because unlike previous leaders of the AOP he wouldn't break contact with the ANV. Grant was unwilling to back off after terrible losses and give either force a breather. This tenacious strategy earned him the title "butcher", but if you look at every modern war following the ACW that was fought on a large scale this was the strategy that worked.
And that's really the crux of it, he was out to win, at what ever cost and put an end to the war. If Mac would have fought that way in '62 the war would have ended then and there. With the resources Grant had at his disposal he was able to wage this kind of war longer than Lee & the South could withstand it.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2002
Messages
1,129
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Country
llUnited States
You have to remember that the AoP wasn't the same army in 1864 either as it was full of draftees, bounty men, and reserve units seeing the elephant for the first time. I think if Grant had been in the East in 1862 or 1863 then their wouldn't have been an 1864 campaign.
 

Coaling

Member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
I must agree with the basic sentiment of "The Purist" above . . . It has always been a habit of mine to rail against those who would fault a successful general his advantage in numbers, or munitions, or lack of opponents, etc. Citing Napoleon doesn't work, because he always said one of the best attributes a winning commander could have was luck.

Besides, if one takes away from Grant in the war's first years in the Western theatre because of his lack of talented opponents, then one must do the same for Lee in the East, mustn't one?

It's hard enough to win. Like said above in this thread: one may have stupid opponents, but one must still know how to beat them.
 

Admiral

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2004
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
Location
Ahhhs
Country
llUnited States
I sometimes tend to place at least some stock in an opponents opinion...

I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and never found [ Ulysses S.] Grant's superior as a general. Robert E Lee


 
Joined
Nov 4, 2002
Messages
1,129
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Country
llUnited States
Well that is a hell of thing to say about the guy who forced you to surrender in the end. Also, in my opinion you can make a bigger arguement that Lee was a product of the Union Generals rather Grant of the Confederate. And don't even get me started on Jackson.
 

Admiral

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2004
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
Location
Ahhhs
Country
llUnited States
Oh, I'm not sayin that what Lee said was true, but simply pointing out that Lee's opinion lends some creedence to the idea that Grant wasn't simply lucky, nor entirely the benificiary of circumstances beyond his influence.


I certainly consider Grant to be a fair bit above average, but would not place him in the upper-most tier of historical generals. The top 25%. Not the top 5% or even 10%. I place Lee at about the same tier. Actually above Grant - primarily because Grant sought the presidency & won. This cost Grant standing in my personal view of him. Of course I'm much enamoured with the often held Naval idea that politics is a no-no for a military man, so...

Once again - simply my own opinion as I am no authority.​

Lee's statement shows that, though defeated by him, he had considerable respect for Grant's ability - Lee knowing well the varied & sorted impediments & advantages each enjoyed in prosecution of their command engagements. Even when Lee himself would likely have acted far differently.

I await further discussion beyond what little value my opinion carries. It is by no means an analysis - simply based entirely upon Lee's generally expressed opinion. He certainly had many criticisms of his opponent.

Lincoln said it best in that "he fights". His actual prosecution & conduct leaves much to discuss...

Admiral​
 

november

Recruit
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Both Grant and Sherman rated Forrest higher than Lee.

Grant was a great general but just as important--maybe more important--was that he understood the nature of the war. Remember what Lincoln said about Meade after Meade issued his Gettysburg victory proclamation in which he praised the AOP for driving the invader from "our" land? I paraphrase, " When will these generals get it? The *whole* country is our land."
 

Dan_Dare

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Location
Sunshine Coast, Queensland
Country
llAustralia
Its possible that Lee had high praise for Grant because saying he wasn't much good would make Lee's defeat look bad. I'm just pointing out here that the logic of the argument about Lee's quote is flawed, not that Grant was a bad general.

In saying that Grant had all these things helping him along, like numbers and poorer opponents, I would add that a good commander will arrange for those things to be so where possible. "You need to get there the firstest with the mostest."

Not letting the enemy disengage and regroup is pretty good advice, that was not followed in many of the battles of this era, so for doing that alone you could rate Grant pretty high.
 

foster

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
Not to be a prat, but shouldnt this thread be under the civil war section? great debate by the way :thumup:
 

XRAY

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
308
Reaction score
2
Location
UK
Country
ll
I have to disagree Brian, I think the thread would fit well in either section of the forum. I for one who greatly enjoy playing HPS simulations, gain a better understanding of how the designers such as Rich H and Rich W decide on what attributes to give various leaders.
 

rahamy

HPS Games Forum Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
2,531
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia, USA
That, and if we move "all" historical discussions to the Civil War section, how will we increase traffic here? Would like to see the guys who just talk about the topic come in here a bit more to get into the games a bit...and having these types of discussions is the way to do it, IMHO.
 

Leftie

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
804
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
I agree. We need to get some more guys in the Napoleonic section too. For the next hour all the beer is on Rahamy...trust me guys, he won't mind:whist:
 

rahamy

HPS Games Forum Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
2,531
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia, USA
Drats! Just when I was getting my stock back up to a decent level again...ok, drinks on me. :toast:
 
Top