Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
After his numerous successes in the West Grant won the war in the East by FIGHTING the War and not individual battles. He knew what his assets were and he USED them. He ground down Lee and the Confederates with his strengths.
He refused to be deterred by any battle defeat and concentrated on the BIG picture, which was his job as Commander of the entire theater. He refused to retreat and lick his wounds like all his predecessors had done. He used the numerical and technological advantages the North had and forced the Army to fight on.
The Confederate Army was exausted before Grant took over. Though he did not return to DC after the wilderness there was really no need to. Defeat of Lee's army was a guarentee for whomever took charge at that point. Though Vicksburg was a work of art.
I keep on wondering why folks think Lee could have achieved anything at Gettysburg but different kinds of disaster.
Actually, General Thomas destroyed two armies in the filed. I forget the first time, but the second time was at Nashville.
And Starkey forgot about Chattanooga, which was where Grant took on the problem faced by Pemberton in Vicksburg, and defeated the besieging forces and chased them away.
All Lee had going for him was berserker courage and quality engineering. Grant would never have caused anything remotely like Antittum and Gettysburg Lee built his glory on a huge pile of corpses from the Seven days onward. Grant build this victories on strategic misdirection and speed.
Getteysburg would have been a different story if Confederates took the high ground which was certainly in their grasp. But the fella that replaced Jackson was not a Jackson himself and didnt have the understanding of Lee's incredably vague orders. Of course, Lee's orders are alway circumstantial and up to the initiative of the commander in the field.
Lee was the best or the Civil war would have been over so much faster.
Grant was next IMHO because he actually implemented a winning strategy
Sherman would have been next because his tactics caused the war to end earlier by breaking the confederacy's back.
It's part of why Lee is the greatest of them all. He did it without resorting to the tactics that Sherman then perfected.Lee was the best or the Civil war would have been over so much faster.
Grant was next IMHO because he actually implemented a winning strategy
Sherman would have been next because his tactics caused the war to end earlier by breaking the confederacy's back.
Lee's and Jackson's leadership were the only ones that stood the test of time. Of course, Lee could have never been a Sherman because Lee gave strict orders to not burn, loot, rape, and pillage.
I keep on wondering why folks think Lee could have achieved anything at Gettysburg but different kinds of disaster.
Actually, General Thomas destroyed two armies in the filed. I forget the first time, but the second time was at Nashville.
And Starkey forgot about Chattanooga, which was where Grant took on the problem faced by Pemberton in Vicksburg, and defeated the besieging forces and chased them away.
All Lee had going for him was berserker courage and quality engineering. Grant would never have caused anything remotely like Antittum and Gettysburg Lee built his glory on a huge pile of corpses from the Seven days onward. Grant build this victories on strategic misdirection and speed.
...agreed.
Yep. heard that too. But he also was fully conscious of the horror he was committing. I think that really messed him up come the end of the war.I'm related to Sherman.
I heard he was an asshole.
Same here. McClellan was too unwilling to scuff his spit-polish army to get them into a real fight and had a general strategic cowardice.I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......
Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.
Both Grant ad Shermen have a lot of blood on their hands.The best tactical general was Stonewall Jackson.
The best operational general was U.S. Grant, the only general to kill a major enemy army in the field (Lee), and the only one to defeat a major enemy army in the field and drive it into fortifications and kill it (Pemberton).
The best strategic general was Winfield Scott who developed the Anaconda plans for defeating the CSA (blockade and capture of the Mississippi River).
General Grant got to clean up General McClellan's scraps and he rode that all the way in to the White House. I wouldent have contributed Lee's surrender to Grant. If Lee had won Getteysburg and for some odd reason the war continued, Grant would have been no match for Lee. Furthermore, if Grant had control of the Army before Gettysburg he would have been thrown under the bus in defeat just like every other northern general. Grant was about as good as a commander as he was president. And yes this is taking in to account Vicksburg.
Both Grant ad Shermen have a lot of blood on their hands.The best tactical general was Stonewall Jackson.
The best operational general was U.S. Grant, the only general to kill a major enemy army in the field (Lee), and the only one to defeat a major enemy army in the field and drive it into fortifications and kill it (Pemberton).
The best strategic general was Winfield Scott who developed the Anaconda plans for defeating the CSA (blockade and capture of the Mississippi River).
General Grant got to clean up General McClellan's scraps and he rode that all the way in to the White House. I wouldent have contributed Lee's surrender to Grant. If Lee had won Getteysburg and for some odd reason the war continued, Grant would have been no match for Lee. Furthermore, if Grant had control of the Army before Gettysburg he would have been thrown under the bus in defeat just like every other northern general. Grant was about as good as a commander as he was president. And yes this is taking in to account Vicksburg.
Both Grant ad Shermen have a lot of blood on their hands.General Grant got to clean up General McClellan's scraps and he rode that all the way in to the White House. I wouldent have contributed Lee's surrender to Grant. If Lee had won Getteysburg and for some odd reason the war continued, Grant would have been no match for Lee. Furthermore, if Grant had control of the Army before Gettysburg he would have been thrown under the bus in defeat just like every other northern general. Grant was about as good as a commander as he was president. And yes this is taking in to account Vicksburg.
SHILOH
Grants disposition of forces was a joke. Instead of having his forces dug in he had them in in tents like a Sunday at the fair. Sherman was in fault too. It was here though that Grant did show his leadership in battle. He recieved a couple of minor wounds and was seen all over the battlefield.
I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......
Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.
I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......
Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.
Grant was an innovater for sure. The (former?) alcoholic was the first American general to purposely make war on civilians. If the Union didn't win he would have been tried as a war criminal. Grant authorized the devistation of the Shenandoah Valley in Va. where Blue clad terrorists were authorized to burn barns and loot homes for provisions (and valuables). In other areas Grant authorized his mentally unstable (insane?) general Sherman, who apparently thought he was God's terrible swift sword, to order civilians to evacuate Atlanta while they burned the city to the ground. Grant authorized war crimes that would not be tolerated in any other conflict in US history.
