"Grant, President and General, Gets a Day in Ohio" Topic
66 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Pages: 1 2
Editor in Chief Bill | 05 Jan 2023 8:11 p.m. PST |
…Beginning next year, April 27 will be celebrated as Ulysses S. Grant Day in the iconic Civil War general's home state of Ohio, after legislation creating the recognition cleared the Legislature Dec. 14 and was signed by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine on Monday… Military: link |
Grattan54 | 05 Jan 2023 8:19 p.m. PST |
Long overdue and well deserved. One of greatest generals and a Saviour of our beloved Union. |
Legionarius | 05 Jan 2023 8:35 p.m. PST |
I read his memoirs. Grant was a great man, a great American citizen, and a great soldier. His statue will stand through the centuries. |
Mr Elmo | 06 Jan 2023 4:55 a.m. PST |
There is no way we should be honoring slave holders, especially those who admitted they were not abolitionists. Grant, Jefferson, Lee, the whole lot needs to be forgotten. |
Murvihill | 06 Jan 2023 5:40 a.m. PST |
Grant only owned one slave for less than a year before manumission. Not really fair to lump him in with southern plantation owners. |
Brechtel198 | 06 Jan 2023 5:44 a.m. PST |
Grant was a great general, and along with Lincoln, the savior of the nation. He was relentless and his Vicksburg campaign was brilliant. His string of victories in the Western Theater was the harbinger of doom for the South. His campaigns in the East in 1864-1865 were relentless and led to the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia and Lee's surrender, effectively ending the war. His handling of the surrender was honorable and fair to Lee's men. He is iconic and definitely deserves the late honor being given him in Ohio. |
35thOVI | 06 Jan 2023 8:00 a.m. PST |
@Legionarius and Brechtel. " His statue will stand through the centuries." I have come out and continue to come out against monument removal. I believe once you start, it is a slippery slope that will never end. If you remove 1, you might as well remove all, as someone will find a reason to demand the next and the next be brought down as well. I believe we are seeing that now with statues other than Confederates being removed, damaged or hidden. Grant is not immune. We have had his statue toppled in 2020. We have had his and Lincoln's statue removal being discussed in Chicago. We had a demand to have his tomb in New York City removed. Indigenous groups are demanding His statue be removed due to his association with the subjugation and removal of Indian people. In NYC it was about some anti Jewish order he issued during the Civil War, I believe. In Chicago it was he and Lincoln and their relationship to the plight of the indigenous people. "And few readers may remember that three years ago a small movement called for the destruction of Grant's Tomb because of General Orders No. 11, which banned Jewish residents from Grant's military lines in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi in December 1862. Although Grant later apologized for the order, the fury in 2017 was large enough that historian Jonathan Sarna wrote a passionate op-ed against the tomb's destruction.[8]" Even the great Frederick Douglass was not immune, and his statue too was damaged. Although I believe that was in 2020. "Frederick Douglass denigrated the Indian nations of the West by arguing that while Blacks achieved the "character of a civilized man," backwards-looking Indians were not prepared for "civilization" and viewed "your cities . . . your steamboats, and your canals and railways and electric wires . . . with aversion."[11]" I believe Grant was a great general, (his time as president, not as good), plus he is from Ohio. He deserves his statue and accolades. But when you demand statue removal elsewhere, that there is no guarantees that the destruction will not move on to those that "you" believe in. Public Monuments and Ulysses S. Grant's Contested Legacy – The Journal of the Civil War Era link Subject: Chicago monuments controversy: What's wrong with statues of Honest Abe? link |
GamesPoet | 06 Jan 2023 8:59 a.m. PST |
Sometimes I wonder if folks read the articles that the links go to, or maybe just the headlines, or maybe with the comments made, the articles are being read, yet not being fully digested. |
Mr Elmo | 06 Jan 2023 10:20 a.m. PST |
Grant only owned one slave for less than a year before manumission. Not really fair to lump him in with southern plantation owners. Records seem to indicate he used 3: one he owned and two he paid for their labor (presumably to the owner, not the slaves). Records also show Lee owned one slave. He was also in charge of the Custis estate which had slaves. He did not own those and even so all were freed in 1862. It's not like he held on to them until Appomattox. But I get it: Grant = Good General = Good Slave Owner. Lee = Bad General = Evil Slave Owner. There is no comparison, Lee was the better general and got the mostest with the leastest. All Grant had to do was throw bodies into the grinder and he gets honored for that. Slave owner? Yeah, but the good kind. |
Au pas de Charge | 06 Jan 2023 10:31 a.m. PST |
Well since Frederick Douglass is a crowd favorite around here, there's this interesting article on monuments; especially the Chicago Lincoln one: link It's interesting that US monuments were criticized at the time and in years close to their erection. It makes one wonder if Confederate statues were ever dared criticized at the time they were erected. It's an error to conflate confederate monument removal with hooligans vandalizing statues or political activist groups advocating for statue removal based on a minority grievance. This isn't a case of leaving the confederate statues in place because they're coming for your statues next. Whereas other persons in US history exhibit both talents and flaws, Confederate statues are per se offensive on public property. In any case, don't know how some think they can put a stop to people criticizing statues. It's a matter of Free Speech. The only remedy is for education and push back about the virtues of leaving a monument in place or by updating the space with a new, improved monument. Sometimes it makes a person wonder if the concern isn't simply over change of any sort. It could be that we are due for new Grant and Lincoln statues.
A note about those who believe that removing statues are erasing history.That sort of propagandist soundbite can be dispelled by asking oneself, did the CSA attempt to erase our history (and our country)? If the answer is yes, then if we survived that war, we can certainly remain in tact, and informed, as a nation after some statues are removed. |
Au pas de Charge | 06 Jan 2023 10:43 a.m. PST |
@Mr Elmo Well, read Frederick Douglass' opinion on Grant in the linked article above. And, since Frederick Douglass is a fan favorite in these parts, consider his read on Lee, Confederates the ACW monuments in general: During the Decoration Day ceremony on May 30, 1871, at Arlington National Cemetery, Douglass continued to remind the nation that the war had been fought over slavery. He also made clear his thoughts that rebel soldiers — who had fought for slavery — should not receive the same honors as Union soldiers — who had fought for their nation and for liberty and justice.
Douglass also warned of the "Lost Cause" mythology developed after the war that the rebels had been fighting for states' rights, not to preserve slavery. And he challenged the laudatory obituaries about General Robert E. Lee in 1870 and opposed any monuments honoring Lee or supporting the Lost Cause interpretation. link |
Grattan54 | 06 Jan 2023 11:37 a.m. PST |
Lee did more than set them free. In the will he was to set them free. Instead, he held on to them as long as he could and then took it to court to throw out the will so he could keep them. He was also a hard master that used whipping as punishment. Grant was given one slave and immediately set about freeing him rather than sell him and make much needed money of him. |
Ferd45231 | 06 Jan 2023 12:51 p.m. PST |
+1 Grattan. Douglas Southall Freeman documents the will issue in Vol. 1 of his biography of Lee. H |
GamesPoet | 06 Jan 2023 2:12 p.m. PST |
Mr. Elmo wrote … …There is no comparison, Lee was the better general and got the mostest with the leastest. All Grant had to do was throw bodies into the grinder and he gets honored for that … Hmmm … over the course of Lee's campaigns he had 209,000 casualties, and this was around 20%. Meanwhile over the course of Grant's campaigns he had 154,000 casualties which is at about 15%. Meanwhile, Lee lost when it counted the most … Antietam vs. McClellan, Gettysburg vs. Meade, and the Overland Campaign vs Grant. Grant won time and time again, accepting surrenders of three CSA armies at Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, and Appomattox, the only Civil War general other than Sherman to accept any. No doubt that Grant and Lee were both aggressive generals, except Grant won in a direction in line with the US Government's desires, while Lee acted as if he needed to win in the north. Lee's failures in the north doomed even being able to obtain a tie in the south. Grant kicked proverbial you know what in the west, saved another Union army in the middle, and finished off Lee's remaining force in the east, while Lee sustained all his casualties in one theater, conducted such a defense vs. Grant that one can only imagine what he might have been able to do had Lee not lost the 55,000 more casualties than Grant across the scope of the war, including greater losses versus his Union opponents from Lee's frontal assaults at Malvern Hill, the latter days at Chancellorsville, and the 2nd and 3rd days at Gettysburg. Lee's complete failures to achieve the results he was looking for strategically from his northern aggression campaigns in 1862 and 1863, instead acquired greater losses than the CSA could afford, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, and no ability to obtain European assistance for their defense. If the "mostest with the leastest" includes Lee losing the war, and Lee having greater casualties than Grant, I'm not sure how that can be reconciled with Lee being a better general, yet maybe I'm missing something. |
donlowry | 06 Jan 2023 6:27 p.m. PST |
Thank you, GamesPoet, you just saved my blood pressure! |
Brechtel198 | 07 Jan 2023 5:55 a.m. PST |
Grant was a war-winner, Lee an excellent tactician with little strategic sense. His two invasions of the North were little more than raids and his defeat at Gettysburg ruined the offensive capability of the Army of Northern Virginia. Grant more than proved himself in the West, methodically defeating his opponents in repeated campaigns. Vicksburg and Chattanooga solidified his military reputation. |
donlowry | 07 Jan 2023 10:03 a.m. PST |
If we only raise statues or dedicate days to people who are perfect, we sure won't have many. |
Ferd45231 | 08 Jan 2023 4:55 p.m. PST |
Thank God! I will be cast in bronze or chiseled in marble. H |
Brechtel198 | 09 Jan 2023 5:27 a.m. PST |
Lee was the better general and got the mostest with the leastest. All Grant had to do was throw bodies into the grinder and he gets honored for that. The constant denigration of Grane as a 'butcher', et al, is a product of the Lost Cause mythology. Of all the army commanders on both sides during the war, Lee had the highest casualty rate by percentage of any of them. Lee is overrated and his performance, or lack of it, as an army commander is partially a product of the Lost Cause mythology. As for the Lost Cause 'material' itself, this quote might be of assistance. It is from The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History, edited by Gary Gallagher and Alan Nolan, 29: '…the Lost Cause legacy to history is a caricature of the truth. This caricature wholly misrepresents and distorts the facts of the matter.' |
Tortorella | 09 Jan 2023 5:50 a.m. PST |
Grant's reputation suffered for decades before a series of new bios helped undo the characterizations of being drunk and a butcher. Has anyone read last year's bio of Lee by Allen Guelzo? I have it on a list of books to read. Hoping for a balanced account. |
Marcus Brutus | 09 Jan 2023 6:21 p.m. PST |
I think Grant and Lee were both great generals. I just finished reading Steere's "The Wilderness Campaign". I think Lee showed why he was the true master during these few days of battle. Still, I think it is a bit unfair to hold Grant responsible for the tardiness of the Army of the Potomac. And of course Grant, unlike every other AoP commander, didn't fall back at his first nose drubbing with Lee. And that made all difference. I agree that Grant doesn't quite deserve the butcher label. Lee was determined to bleed the North dry at any cost in order to change the political landscape and defeat Lincoln. It was Lee who determined the severity of the fighting in 1864/65. |
Marcus Brutus | 09 Jan 2023 6:38 p.m. PST |
GP, you can't draw inferences between Lee and Grant as commanders by comparing the Eastern and Western theatre casualty numbers. That would be like suggesting that Rommel was a better commander than von Manstein by comparing casualty rates in 1943 between North Africa and Russia. Context matters greatly. Actually, Lee did need to win in the north and he knew it. The most important element in a northern victory by Lee was international recognition by Britain and France. Had Antietam or Gettysburg been a big Confederate win there was a reasonable hope for such recognition. Of course, the Lost Order and the ability of the AoP to concentrate at Gettysburg frustrated Lee's plans but the underlying strategic goal guided Lee's decisions. I think Lee knew that the CSA needed a win at Gettysburg and he took the appropriate risks for such a win. Again, you have to consider Malvern Hill in the context of the culmination of the Peninsula Campaign. Lee was rightly convinced that he had the AoP in a bad state. One more hard push and he might be able take out the main Union army. Had he won big at Malvern Hill that ACW was probably over. In the end, of course, the AoP held together. But considering the six previous days it wasn't a reckless decision to make by Lee in going for broke at Malvern Hill. The South was always faced with high risk propositions but I think a more cautious strategy would have automatically led to defeat. |
KimRYoung | 09 Jan 2023 7:31 p.m. PST |
It was not the decision to attack Malvern Hill, it was the failure of Lee to actually see that the attack was coordinated and make adjustments as the battle proceeded. His belief that confederate artillery could weaken the union line was totally bungled as the guns went into action piecemeal and were wreaked as fast as they went into action by union massed fire. The confederate reserve artillery was never issued any orders and sat uncommitted. Lee was not personally on the battlefield either to witness what was going on, and the uncoordinated infantry attacks that went forward despite the guns having no effect against the union lines, were hopelessly cut down. Lee would pretty much make the same mistake again a year later with a similar result. Kim |
GamesPoet | 09 Jan 2023 8:47 p.m. PST |
I think Grant and Lee were both great generals. I don't. I just finished reading Steere's "The Wilderness Campaign". I think Lee showed why he was the true master during these few days of battle. Still, I think it is a bit unfair to hold Grant responsible for the tardiness of the Army of the Potomac. And of course Grant, unlike every other AoP commander, didn't fall back at his first nose drubbing with Lee. And that made all difference. True master? He lost the Overland Campaign. Besides, Meade didn't fall back either, and while being inadequately pummeled by Lee's frontal assaults at Gettysburg on July 2nd and July 3rd. I agree that Grant doesn't quite deserve the butcher label. Lee was determined to bleed the North dry at any cost in order to change the political landscape and defeat Lincoln. It was Lee who determined the severity of the fighting in 1864/65. If Lee thought that way, then he failed. I can't say Lee didn't contribute to the situation with the Overland campaign, except Grant still won. GP, you can't draw inferences between Lee and Grant as commanders by comparing the Eastern and Western theater casualty numbers. I didn't. The tally was across the full scope of the war, and I wrote as much. Plus it wasn't just a presentation of numbers, it was even a presentation of percentages. However, there will always be folks who disagree, particularly those who choose to walk the path of sympathy for the leaders of the CSA, such is life. Actually, Lee did need to win in the north and he knew it. The most important element in a northern victory by Lee was international recognition by Britain and France. Had Antietam or Gettysburg been a big Confederate win there was a reasonable hope for such recognition. Of course, the Lost Order and the ability of the AoP to concentrate at Gettysburg frustrated Lee's plans but the underlying strategic goal guided Lee's decisions. I think Lee knew that the CSA needed a win at Gettysburg and he took the appropriate risks for such a win. What Lee had to do was keep his army in the field, and once he moved into the north, of course he had to win there. However, Lee didn't win against McCellan, nor Meade, and suffered a significant reduction in the AoNV's officers and troops, while growing his casualty rate, plus Lincoln's emancipation proclamation being delivered, and no international recognition. Again, you have to consider Malvern Hill in the context of the culmination of the Peninsula Campaign. Lee was rightly convinced that he had the AoP in a bad state. One more hard push and he might be able take out the main Union army. Had he won big at Malvern Hill that ACW was probably over. In the end, of course, the AoP held together. But considering the six previous days it wasn't a reckless decision to make by Lee in going for broke at Malvern Hill. I have considered this, and Lee made a mistake in throwing his army against the Unions in a frontal assault which wouldn't be his last mistake. All the ifs, buts, and maybes that can be provided are pure speculation, and the fact still remains, he blew it at Malvern Hill. The South was always faced with high risk propositions but I think a more cautious strategy would have automatically led to defeat. I've not advocated for a cautious strategy from Lee, although even when he was aggressive, he repeatedly lost when using frontal assaults, including significant levels of casualties that he really couldn't afford to lose, and his approach, no matter how anyone wants to characterize it, still at a minimum helped lead to the war being lost by the CSA. Meanwhile, Grant's approach, while helping to accomplish Winfield Scott's overall strategic goals, helped lead to the war being won for the USA. |
Marcus Brutus | 10 Jan 2023 7:50 a.m. PST |
GP, Grant won against Lee primarily because he had a 2 to 1 advantage in pretty much every military asset. I notice that you completely ignore the disparities for resources between the two sides. Of course, he lost the Overland campaign. Had he won it would have been the more surprising result. In fact, there was no reasonable expectation that he could win in 1864. Your assertion of command merit whether it is based on pure numbers or percentages is still ludicrous unless it is based on context. You numbers above are meaningless. What Lee had to do was keep his army in the field, and once he moved into the north, of course he had to win there. However, Lee didn't win against McCellan, nor Meade, and suffered a significant reduction in the AoNV's officers and troops, while growing his casualty rate, plus Lincoln's emancipation proclamation being delivered, and no international recognition. In your typical fashion you ignore the facts of the campaign. How was Lee supposed to know that McClellan would find the Lost Order? Other than this one fact Lee would have accomplished his goals and reconcentrated to face the AoP. By the summer of 1863 the AoP had suffered major defeats at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville and was going through a command change when Lee advanced into Pennsylvania. Again, Lee took the gamble that the AoP would fail to move with the necessary alacrity to frustrate his strategic goals. It was a completely reasonable decision on his part. And disagree about Malvern Hill. Lee was still establishing his command and control over the Army of NV and the failure at Malvern Hill led to his first major reorganization of the army. Remember Lee was essentially thrown into command in the midst of an emergency with Johnston's wounding. His overall command leadership during the Seven Days was extraordinary. |
Marcus Brutus | 10 Jan 2023 7:56 a.m. PST |
When evaluating Malvern Hill one has to consider it is the context of the whole Seven Days and not as set piece battle on its own. The lack of context I think undermines the analysis of some here. But I agree, Malvern Hill was a mistake in the way it was executed. It was a rushed job. Lee's overall strategic goal was quite recognizable though and that is my point. |
Brechtel198 | 10 Jan 2023 3:39 p.m. PST |
It should be noted that the commander of the Army of the Potomac from just before Gettysburg to the end of the war was Meade. Grant was not the commander of the Army of the Potomac in 1864-1865. Grant was general-in-chief of the Union armies beginning in 1864. For the last campaigns to defeat the South, Grant chose to accompany the Army of the Potomac instead of one of the western armies. |
GamesPoet | 10 Jan 2023 4:36 p.m. PST |
GP, Grant won against Lee primarily because he had a 2 to 1 advantage in pretty much every military asset. I notice that you completely ignore the disparities for resources between the two sides. Of course, he lost the Overland campaign. Had he won it would have been the more surprising result. In fact, there was no reasonable expectation that he could win in 1864. Your assertion of command merit whether it is based on pure numbers or percentages is still ludicrous unless it is based on context. You numbers above are meaningless. Go slow, reread what I've written previously, and digest it. All of this has already been covered. I mentioned the idea of what Lee could do with 55,000 less casualties than what he accrued over the course of the war. Also, my assertion with the numbers wasn't about merit, it was a bit of info to counter all the crud that was initially portrayed by some of the original "Lost Cause" proponents regarding Grant being a butcher, as well as any of those current proponents who espouse the "Lost Cause" misinformation too. The idea that a claim is being made that this is some how "ludicrous unless it is based on context" fails to understand what I wrote. And as long as this idea of "context" is coming up, consider that had Lee not expended officers and troops in the frontal assaults that failed, and he did, then Lee could have had more men to keep the army in the field for longer. Instead, each of Lee's failed frontal assaults contributed to the overall loss of the war. Then to claim that the numbers are meaningless, that by itself shows that the broader picture I have pointed out has been missed, yet perhaps such comments aimed at me, without evidently understanding what I've written, are just due to one's sympathies for the leaders of the CSA. I realize it isn't easy to be inundated and subjected to the "Lost Cause" viewpoint, such is a difficult spot for humans to be. Then to be faced with the rebuttal to such repeated misinformation, it can take some time and energy to let it all sink in for a better understanding of the situation. However, I'm not convinced everyone is going to choose to accept such situations for what they are, because working against one's own preconceived notions requires good self-awareness and a willingness to learn new things, and that can be tough. I hope for success to those who give it a good go. What Lee had to do was keep his army in the field, and once he moved into the north, of course he had to win there. However, Lee didn't win against McCellan, nor Meade, and suffered a significant reduction in the AoNV's officers and troops, while growing his casualty rate, plus Lincoln's emancipation proclamation being delivered, and no international recognition. In your typical fashion you ignore the facts of the campaign. How was Lee supposed to know that McClellan would find the Lost Order? Other than this one fact Lee would have accomplished his goals and reconcentrated to face the AoP. in the summer of 1863 the AoP had suffered major defeats at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville and was going through a command change when Lee advanced into Pennsylvania. Again, Lee took the gamble that the AoP would fail to move with the necessary alacrity to frustrate his strategic goals. It was a completely reasonable decision on his part. And disagree about Malvern Hill. Lee was still establishing his command and control over the Army of NV and the failure at Malvern Hill led to his first reorganization of the army.
No, I have not ignored the facts of "the campaign", not Lee's failures at Malvern Hill, the last days of Chancellorsville, Antietam, Gettysburg, nor the Overland Campaign, particularly when it comes to the failed frontal assaults previously mentioned for at least 3 of those 5. And regardless of the ifs, buts, and maybes that are all speculation, I'm basing my comments on what seemed to actually happen. Using your example, it's ok that Lee reorganized the AoNV after Malvern Hill, except … he still failed with his frontal assault at Malvern Hill, and his actions afterwards were consequential, as are his actions when Malvern Hill occurred prior to the reorganization, one was worse than the other. Contrast this with Meade being ordered to lead the AotP before Gettysburg, revising the command structure at the top just a bit before engaging Lee, and successfully defeating the AoNV under Lee's command. This included Meade actively being engaged in the activities to repulse Lee's frontal assault on July 2nd, and the apparently worse attack by Lee on July 3rd. For fans of Lee, these kinds of things being pointed out can hurt the emotional attachment that some hold on to for the "Lost Cause" misinformation campaign that began immediately after the war, and which seems to be a response to the traumatic loss that the CSA suffered. Unfortunately the "Lost Cause" misinformation campaign still confuses some folks to this day. I feel sympathy for those that have been fooled by such a misinformation campaign, whether they are making an effort to get beyond it, or not. |
KimRYoung | 10 Jan 2023 6:11 p.m. PST |
Meade actively being engaged in the activities to repulse Lee's frontal assault on July 2nd, and the apparently worse attack by Lee on July 3rd. Well, actually when Meade's HQ at Leister Farmhouse was receiving damage from the Confederate bombardment July 3rd, he moved his staff and headquarters to Powers Hill (12th Corp HQ). By the time Meade returned to the point of attack, the charge was already repulsed. Kim |
Au pas de Charge | 10 Jan 2023 7:04 p.m. PST |
@Brechtel There is Lost Cause and then there is Lost-er cause. This vision has not only had 150 years to metastasize into concrete fact for fans of the CSA but the contemporary adherents think they're the ones espousing the universal truth and everyone else is either living in a blue pill fugue or are victims of Socialist/Liberal/Civil-Rights/Outside-Agitator propaganda. This article is an eye opener about how Woodrow Wilson helped jet fuel the Lost Cause narrative as a quasi mainstream one and explains why he deserves the moniker of Second Confederate President.
The article also discusses how those who give cover to favoring the CSA, do so under the ersatz platitude that they are being fair to both sides, when in fact, it is nothing more than lending neutrality to white supremacy. link |
Marcus Brutus | 10 Jan 2023 8:34 p.m. PST |
As far as frontal assaults are concerned isn't that a problem for attacking forces as a rule. By your own logic the attack on June 3 at Cold Harbor disqualifies Grant as a great commander. The AoP was pretty flat footed in The Wilderness and during the Overland campaign overall and some of the blame falls on Grant. But frankly, one can't command for 4 years and not have blemishes on one's record as a commander. As far as Lee goes many US army officers over the past hundred and fifty years have seen him as the greatest American commander of all time. Patton for one. And certainly Grant was frustrated by the enormous respect Lee enjoyed within the AoP during the 1864 campaigns. Surely that speaks volume for Lee's effectiveness as a general. |
GamesPoet | 10 Jan 2023 8:45 p.m. PST |
Meade actively being engaged in the activities to repulse Lee's frontal assault on July 2nd, and the apparently worse attack by Lee on July 3rd. Well, actually when Meade's HQ at Leister Farmhouse was receiving damage from the Confederate bombardment July 3rd, he moved his staff and headquarters to Powers Hill (12th Corp HQ).By the time Meade returned to the point of attack, the charge was already repulsed.
Yes, definitely. I miss typed my sentence, and it should have read with the word "before" inserted into it as follows, "Meade actively being engaged in the activities to repulse Lee's frontal assault on July 2nd, and before the apparently worse attack by Lee on July 3rd." I stand corrected, and my apology. As an aside, Meade apparently had been awake till sometime shortly after midnight between July 2nd and July 3rd. He awakened at 4am on July 3rd to the sound of 12th Corp artillery firing at the Confederate left flank. It seems he remained active from that point up until around lunch time when Gen. John Gibbon encouraged him to eat, and he did, before then moving off with General Warren to the 6th Corp headquarters on the north base of Little Round, and then to the summit where they observed a significant line of Confederate artillery pointed towards Cemetery Ridge. This confirmed Meade's suspicions on the evening of July 2nd regarding what he thought Lee might do on the 3rd. Then Meade and Warren returned, and were in conversation with General Hancock and other commanders, regarding the likely bombardment and assault that seemed to be in its preparations, when at about 1pm the cannonade began. The initial move out of Leister farm went to a barn, and then further back when it became evident that Confederate artillery over shooting the Union lines was also reaching that location, and so the headquarters was moved to Powers Hill. However, upon having reached the new location and finding the signal officer that was suppose to be there had left, Meade then returned to the Leicester farm to find 16 horses of the various staff officers littering the ground at the farmstead. Shortly afterwards Meade proceeded forward to determine what was occurring, and immediately began giving more orders, although by then the hour long Confederate assault had been repulsed. |
GamesPoet | 10 Jan 2023 9:03 p.m. PST |
As far as frontal assaults are concerned isn't that a problem for attacking forces as a rule. By your own logic the attack on June 3 at Cold Harbor disqualifies Grant as a great commander. The AoP was pretty flat footed in The Wilderness and during the Overland campaign overall and some of the blame falls on Grant. But frankly, one can't command for 4 years and not have blemishes on one's record as a commander. Nah, not my logic, but instead what my logic is being assumed or misunderstood or pretended to be. Regardless, Grant won the Overland Campaign, Lee surrendered, and the CSA as a nation wasn't much longer after that. Although now that Grant's only loss has been pointed out, how many losses did Lee have? Too many, and his frontal assaults, whether losing or not, cost him more men than he necessarily could afford to lose. Each time he decided to be aggressive, Lee had to win. Sometimes he did, sometimes he didn't, and his losses in the north seemed to be quite hurtful to the AoNV, and therefore the CSA as well. As far as Lee goes many US army officers over the past hundred and fifty years have seen him as the greatest American commander of all time. Patton for one. And certainly Grant was frustrated by the enormous respect Lee enjoyed within the AoP during the 1864 campaigns. Surely that speaks volume for Lee's effectiveness as a general. I don't see that. What I see is some U.S. commanders fell for the Lee mystique, and the "Lost Cause" false narrative, which is unfortunate. Patton can be mentioned, although I'm not familiar with what he said nor the context in which he was speaking, so the name dropping doesn't do it for me. Plus if Grant was frustrated about how Lee was viewed by some commanders, that obviously didn't prevent Grant from defeating Lee. |
Au pas de Charge | 10 Jan 2023 9:31 p.m. PST |
Frontal assaults were part of Grant's strategy, so was maximizing CSA casualties. Sherman and Grant basically figured out that you couldn't get through to the CSA on a reasonable level and had to grind them down. Lee's strategy to invade the North the 2nd time might've been inspired in a BOE sort of way but it is a bit alarming that he had to feel around blindly for the Union army, fight an uninspired series of sub battles and then order that last, useless assault. Considering all the mistakes he made and all the soldiers he lost, maybe Lee was actually still fighting for the Union? |
donlowry | 11 Jan 2023 9:54 a.m. PST |
I recommend Grant and Lee by British author (and major general) J. F. C. Fuller, an oldie but a goodie: link Also, The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant, by the same author: link "This analysis of one of America's greatest soldiers by one of Britain's foremost soldiers and military analysts of the twentieth century remains today one of the most incisive portraits of Grant's generalship ever written. It brilliantly refutes the notion that Grant relied only on brute force to achieve his victories, demonstrating instead the mastery of mobility, surprise, cool judgment, and strategic coordination that made Grant the premier Civil War general."--James M. McPherson, author of Battle Cry of Freedom "A classic analysis of U.S. Grant, Fuller's work makes a strong case for the general as the pre-eminent soldier of his era. It is essential reading for students of Civil War military leadership."--Gary Gallagher, editor of Fighting for the Confederacy |
Brechtel198 | 11 Jan 2023 12:40 p.m. PST |
I would use anything by Fuller with great care. He was careless of his historical facts and is far from the best historical source for this period or any other historical period. |
Marcus Brutus | 11 Jan 2023 6:51 p.m. PST |
ah, not my logic, but instead what my logic is being assumed or misunderstood or pretended to be. It seems rather that you are not applying your principles consistently. I think you are applying two different standards, one for Lee and the other for Grant which causes you to evaluate their respective command abilities differently. Regardless, Grant won the Overland Campaign, Lee surrendered, and the CSA as a nation wasn't much longer after that. So if I get this correctly, Grant is a great commander because he won and Lee is mediocre commander because he lost. I will admit your criteria for adjudicating command effectiveness is quite simple. By your logic Davis should have sacked Lee and replaced him with a better commander. I think Grant was a great general. It is because I think he was a great general that I also believe that Lee was a great general. Who else but a peer could have resisted Grant with his 2 to 1 advantage and spun out the Overland campaign for almost a year. We can debate Lee's aggression in 62/63 but there is no doubt that Lee was brilliant in his attempt to thwart Grant in 64. |
Brechtel198 | 12 Jan 2023 5:38 a.m. PST |
Lee was never the strategist that Grant became. Lee went south because Virginia seceded and that was as far as he could see-the Western theater was beyond his ken, even though after Gettysburg he sent Longstreet west. Meade and the Army of the Potomac with Grant accompanying them in 1864 kept Lee busy while the Confederacy fell apart behind him. Grant's Vicksburg and Chattanooga campaigns mark Grant as a strategist, as does the pursuit after Petersburg. Lee was an excellent tactician and counter-puncher, but he was no strategist. And he had no experience of an opponent of Grant's caliber. |
GamesPoet | 12 Jan 2023 6:24 a.m. PST |
When assumptions, misunderstandings, or pretendings, and for any number of reasons that seem just more of the same sympathy for the leaders of the CSA, sympathy that has been demonstrated on thread after thread of TMP, it's not surprising that accusations of not applying my principles consistently are going to come up. However, if inaccurate assumptions are being made, or the misunderstandings are continuing to occur, or pretending is going on in order to continue to hold on to the belief system that is the "Lost Cause", or a combination of those, then all my explanations are going to be seen for what some want to see. Its unfortunate that there seems to be pain being experienced over those cherished beliefs. It could make sense to pay attention to that human alarm system, and in essence stop the hand from touching a hot stove. At the same time, if there is a continuance to proliferate sympathy for the "Lost Cause" narrative, including and not limited to lifting Lee and Lee's multiple less than great choices into the altitude of greatness, then that could be seen as a continued choice to buy into the stories that were originally used to deal with the trauma of the loss, and attempt to maintain white supremacy over blacks one way or another. There could continue to be push back on such stuff accordingly. |
GamesPoet | 12 Jan 2023 7:49 a.m. PST |
So if I get this correctly, Grant is a great commander because he won and Lee is mediocre commander because he lost. I will admit your criteria for adjudicating command effectiveness is quite simple. By your logic Davis should have sacked Lee and replaced him with a better commander. The seeing of simplicity is an example that seems to show things are being assumed, misunderstood, pretended, or perhaps a combination of those. And another example … claiming my logic would have Davis replace Lee … lol. Just because Lee might have been the best the CSA had doesn't mean Lee was great, yet that could be stating the obvious. |
KimRYoung | 12 Jan 2023 8:41 a.m. PST |
How great were Hannibal, Pyrrhus, Napoleon and Rommel? They all ultimately lost. Here is one persons take on what makes a great commander: link Always an interesting debate. Kim |
Au pas de Charge | 12 Jan 2023 8:48 a.m. PST |
How great were Hannibal, Pyrrhus, Napoleon and Rommel?They all ultimately lost. It's because they ultimately lost that they are so interesting for "what if" study. Also, they might've lost but their strategy and tactics are still fascinating. By contrast, The allies against Napoleon might've won but for the most part their strategies weren't interesting and most of them were not memorable commanders. |
Brechtel198 | 12 Jan 2023 9:02 a.m. PST |
The allies against Napoleon might've won but for the most part their strategies weren't interesting and most of them were not memorable commanders. |
Marcus Brutus | 12 Jan 2023 9:43 a.m. PST |
Its unfortunate that there seems to be pain being experienced over those cherished beliefs. Your capacity for fanciful imagining GP seems inexhaustible. You imagine straw men and then think you accomplishing much by knocking them down. My assessment of Lee is based simply on the historical record. |
Marcus Brutus | 12 Jan 2023 9:47 a.m. PST |
Just because Lee might have been the best the CSA had doesn't mean Lee was great, yet that could be stating the obvious. On that we agree. There would have to be other criteria other than being the best of the available pool of commanders to be considered great. That same fair approach would also entail evaluating a commander by a criteria greater than a simple win/lose proposition. |
donlowry | 12 Jan 2023 9:48 a.m. PST |
Lee was a VERY good general, which means that Grant was too, and vice versa. Both had the advantage, in the first years of the War, of being up against rather mediocre opponents, nevertheless were up against challenging situations, terrain, etc. |
Marcus Brutus | 12 Jan 2023 9:52 a.m. PST |
Lee was never the strategist that Grant became. Lee went south because Virginia seceded and that was as far as he could see-the Western theater was beyond his ken, even though after Gettysburg he sent Longstreet west. Lee didn't become commander in chief of all CSA forces and essentially Grant's equivalent until February 6, 1865. To complain that Lee was never the strategist that Grant was is simply to ignore the respective roles that each commander played in their respective military. Davis was far more active in CSA strategy than Lincoln. Lee was an army commander, a while there is no doubt that Lee has some influence on CSA strategy it is not at accurate to suggest that he had the free hand that Grant did in 1864 or even in1863. |
Marcus Brutus | 12 Jan 2023 9:57 a.m. PST |
Lee was a VERY good general, which means that Grant was too, and vice versa. Agreed! I am currently reading Catton's "Grant Takes Command". This is a beautifully written book as many of you know so it is a delight to sit with. This is probably the 4th or 5th book I have recently read on Grant or one of his campaign's in the last year and I've really come to appreciate what he brings to military leadership. |
GamesPoet | 12 Jan 2023 8:21 p.m. PST |
I think Grant was a great general. It is because I think he was a great general that I also believe that Lee was a great general. Who else but a peer could have resisted Grant with his 2 to 1 advantage and spun out the Overland campaign for almost a year. We can debate Lee's aggression in 62/63 but there is no doubt that Lee was brilliant in his attempt to thwart Grant in 64. Glad there's agreement on Grant was great, wonderful. However, I don't know the answer to your "Who else …" statement. Does the history of the ACW provide other examples, one way or the other, of Confederate generals winning or losing such campaigns in a year? It does provide information, as an example on how other Confederate Generals had less casualties and percentages than Lee, although I realize this isn't something you're interested in using as part of an overall assessment, so I'm barking up the wrong tree, no doubt. However, all the "what about this" like statements in the world, aren't going to change the choices Lee made across the scope of the war that helped doom the CSA efforts to enforce their seccesion from the USA. Feel free to claim Lee was brilliant, yet whatever brilliancy existed, wasn't enough to get beyond Lee's own failures that helped lessen the likelihood of the CSA attaining its goals. Meanwhile, Grant and others succeeded in attaining the goals of the USA, through both tactical and strategic efforts that defeated Lee and others. Besides, I'm not sure there's even an interest in debating "62/63" with me, when the current notion is that Lee's "brilliancy" in "64" is a basis for saying Lee was great, and I've already pointed out how Lee's failed in "62/63", and how that seems to have effected "64". And then there's this … The seeing of simplicity is an example that seems to show things are being assumed, misunderstood, pretended, or perhaps a combination of those. And another example … claiming my logic would have Davis replace Lee … lol. Just because Lee might have been the best the CSA had doesn't mean Lee was great, yet that could be stating the obvious. Your capacity for fanciful imagining GP seems inexhaustible. You imagine straw men and then think you accomplishing much by knocking them down. My assessment of Lee is based simply on the historical record.
Unfortunately these are claims that haven't seemed to be backed up, yet I could be forgetting something, and when this happens (the unbacked claims, not the forgetting), then it seems to be deflection happening, which is particularly understandable if addressing other items that could be on topic isn't of interest. As well as the possibility of it being the result of assumptions, misunderstanding, pretending, or a combination. And this could all also mean that a projection of one's own behavior on to another is occurring. That's unfortunate, especially when such situations seem to be so far removed from the original comments. So here's a reminder … Keep in mind MB, that Mr. Elmo wrote earlier on this thread the following … …There is no comparison, Lee was the better general and got the mostest with the leastest. All Grant had to do was throw bodies into the grinder and he gets honored for that … My reply included comments on casualties for both generals, the battles Lee lost when it counted the most, Grant's accepting of 3 army surrenders including Lee's, mentioned both Grant and Lee were aggressive while Grant won in line with the USA's objectives, and Lee lost attempting to win in the north making it harder for him to win in the south when his casualty count from those defeats was as they were, and could have contribuited to him not even achieving a tie in the south, and meanwhile Grant won in the west, saved an army in the middle, and finished up Lee in the east, plus after giving some credit to Lee for his efforts against Grant, and pointed out the losses Lee had while using tactical frontal assaults time and time again that failed, and while Lee failed to achieve the strategic results that the south needed. By the way, that's a picture using 7 different items, maybe even 8 depending on how these are counted … lol, and these have been provided to give at least a partial big picture assessment. And then I wrote … If the "mostest with the leastest" includes Lee losing the war, and Lee having greater casualties than Grant, I'm not sure how that can be reconciled with Lee being a better general, yet maybe I'm missing something. It was shortly after that that MB's reply came regarding not drawing inferences from comparing casualties, Lee having to win in the north to gain recognition from England and France (which I'd mentioned as well), followed by speculation on what would have happened had he not lost, and blaming the losses of Antietam and Gettysburg on a lost order and the AotP being able to concentrate respectively (which was part of Meade's generalship and planning form when he took command), while also saying that Malvern Hill had to be placed in the "context" of the campaign. In essence, a reply to only 2 of these followed by speculating, the latter a typical way sympathizers of the CSA seem to bring in non-historical comments to justify their opinions, and then followed by blame on items that weren't unimportant, although Lee still made choices that also helped lead to his failures as well, including at Malvern Hill. There was even reference to all the AotP commanders falling back, and thus I pointed out Meade had not. And shortly after that there was a comment on about my numbers being meaningless, which of course had already been addressed, and so I started using the words like assume, misunderstand, pretend, because that item and others had already been addressed, as I have pointed out above. And I was told I was ignoring facts, when in fact I'd pointed out multiple facts, and most of those hadn't seen a retort of any kind. Oh yes, there's was also some reply to me about how after Malvern Hill, Lee had reorganized the army, although I retorted the contrast with what Meade had done prior to Gettysburg, and Meade won vs. Lee's failures there, while at Malvern Hill Lee failed before he made a reorganization. Additionally I pointed out how those who sympathize with the CSA and believe the "Lost Cause" have it difficult in moving away from such things, and I have sympathy for them. (Except that doesn't mean I have to cave to them, haven't, and won't.) Then I started seeing accusations about my logic, and the pointing out of Grant's only loss at Cold Harbor. However, there was no reply to how many losses Lee had, and he had many (which although that wasn't something I mentioned in my first list of 7 or 8, it's another, now I'm at 8 or 9). Plus there was the typical "Lost Cause" narrative stuff about how other US commanders spoke highly of Lee, and the name dropping of Patton, and those received appropriate replies versus such sympathy for CSA, which I can repeat that too if desired. Then I was told I wasn't applying my principles consistently, that I had different standards, and that some how this was leading to MB's comments on Davis firing Lee, although none of this had explanations, and so I again referred to this crud coming up as more of the possible assumptions, misunderstandings, pretending, or maybe a combo. Additionally, things seemed to continue to point towards the CSA and "Lost Cause" sympathies shown on other TMP threads. And this now brings us full circle to the next claims already covered at the top of this post. MB … there's so many things inappropriate about how this has developed, its not easy to keep track of them all, and I probably missed more than one. And no matter how much stuff is thrown up at me, or me responding to yours, I don't expect that I'm going to change your belief system. And it is ok if yours is kept, such is life sometimes. However, if I'm going to get the claims thrown at me that I have, that are inappropriate, inaccurate, or both, whether it is "lost Cause" like stuff, or not, there seems to have been a bit of both here, then you're going to be responded to accordingly. I realize your not going to like it, not anymore than I'm going to like to deal with it, and both of us are going to experience some pain over such stuff, even if one of us is in denial about that. However, I'm only going to take responsibility for mine, and not yours, the latter are your choice. May your choices be courageous and wise. |
Marcus Brutus | 12 Jan 2023 8:46 p.m. PST |
I did a quick web search and typed in top ACW generals. First entry was the following. link Number 1 was Robert E. Lee and Number 2 was U.S. Grant. Now, GP if you want to argue that Grant is the superior commander, fine. I don't agree but I would respect your opinion. But to simply besmirch Lee's reputation in the manner you do is not only obnoxious but is also historically fatuous. You are being silly GP and you are showing that your bias blinds you to facts. Just to add, on the next entry link Lee is also #1. Again, you can stick with your idiosyncratic and what I consider ill informed opinion but you really stand outside the general historical consensus. And I should again add that Lee enjoyed the esteem of many US general officers from 1870 on. I would suspect that over the past 150 years Lee would be considered among US officers to be the preeminent American commander. |
Pages: 1 2
|