U. S. Grant

This is where you dicuss Grant.

Tough crowd.

haha I'm guessing no one likes Grant?

Actually, I do. I wrote a report on him for my last year english class.

How can you like a guy who "won" the war, by simply overpowering his opponent with sheer numbers? If you read the battle statistics, it's pitifull how badly Lee was outnumbered, and the odds only increased as the war went on. Just before the Battle of Chancellorsville, Lee had an effective strength of around 50,000 men, including Longstreets men who were detatched to the Shenendoah Valley and south of Richmond, while Gen. "Fighting Joe" Hooker had at his command 168,000 men. Despite the odds, Lee went on to win one of his more brilliant victories of the war. How can you not root for a guy like that? Meanwhile, Grant, in just the summer of '64, versus Lee, loses almost 60,000 soldiers, through tactical blunders, and, for loss of a better word, stupid attacks that were exceedingly wasteful in lives. No wonder his nickname was "the Butcher". I mean, while you're out butchering lives, you might as well butcher the enemy, don't you think?

Your right there Jeb anyone who reads about the end of the war cant say that Grant tried to be very conservative on lives.

you mean "can't" right? lol I hope you did. But, ya, you can't.

Really sorry everyone.... I meant cant.... I now have it edited lol

no problem lol

A real victory is with minimal losses (From the Art of War by Sun Tzu)

Did you read 'The Art of War' Andro?

Well, what do you expect? Loseing few lives wasn't working. So, Grant just sent his men then.

General Stuart wrote:

Did you read 'The Art of War' Andro?

Sure did, one of my favorites even today.

And as for Grant...I'd say he might have as well sent his men into a slaughter house.

nice....I've never read it, but I should some time soon. And, nice one IBG. lol

I read Napoleon's Art of War. That is a very intresting read.

I must say that what I believe is if you can save lives waiting then you should do it unless there is some greater factor.

You know, you guys forget Vicksburg. Grant pulled that off with less then 10,000 casualties.

In my oppinion Grant was NOT a bad general, and made some very good calls. He simply made some mistakes. Like everyone does.

Yes but if one person makes less mistakes than another... You cant say that the person who made more was better just because he won with the help of 2-3 times the amount of men!

You guys Im sorry to say this but today I have totally amazed at some of the illogical things you have said. Like yous said of course everyone makes mistakes. Hitler made mistakes. Stalin made mistakes. Just because everyone makes mistakes doesnt clear you of the mistakes you made. Everone sins. that doesnt clear you of your sin just because "everyone does it."

Your flustered friend General Lee;)

General Stuart wrote:

How can you like a guy who "won" the war, by simply overpowering his opponent with sheer numbers? If you read the battle statistics, it's pitifull how badly Lee was outnumbered, and the odds only increased as the war went on. Just before the Battle of Chancellorsville, Lee had an effective strength of around 50,000 men, including Longstreets men who were detatched to the Shenendoah Valley and south of Richmond, while Gen. "Fighting Joe" Hooker had at his command 168,000 men. Despite the odds, Lee went on to win one of his more brilliant victories of the war. How can you not root for a guy like that? Meanwhile, Grant, in just the summer of '64, versus Lee, loses almost 60,000 soldiers, through tactical blunders, and, for loss of a better word, stupid attacks that were exceedingly wasteful in lives. No wonder his nickname was "the Butcher". I mean, while you're out butchering lives, you might as well butcher the enemy, don't you think?

Well, obviously none of the other strategies were working with the other Generals. Then here comes Grant, and guess what, he starts winning battles. Yes with great loss of life, but he won them. He mindset was "If I have 120,000 men and you have 60,000, and after the battle I have 60,000 and you have none - then I WIN." And he is absolutely right, cause if you don't have any men, then how can you defend your country? Not the most efficient strategy but it works, and up to that point no one had come up with a better one on the Union's side. Not to mention the fact that Lee was brilliant - something that the opposing side lacked. But they came up with a strategy that in the end crushed the south.

And you can't just vote for the guy that wins all of the victories. I mean, look at Washington. He lost most of the battles that he fought in but still managed to win the war. Sometimes you just have to work with what you got. The South had brilliance and good fighters, and the North had sheer economical strength - you have to use what you got. That is why I believe Grant was brilliant.

I guess he was brilliant:idea: in that he won:D:!: . But in one on one tactics.... Im afraid he would have been a failure. Its sorta like if I play a game of chess with you. You have all your pieces... I have a king, three pawns, one knight, and one castle. You cant call yourself a brilliant stratagist if you win. Why? because it was an unfair match. Now if I were to destroy half your army before I lost could I be called a brilliant stratigist?

Oh I think that even if you win by sheer numbers it is still a victory if the South had won by lack of numbers it is still a victory. I just can't see it as a real victory any which way as so many good and otherwise kind people were killed, homes burned, crops destroyed, lives shattered and hearts broken. I don't find it victory when people are laying on a battle field dying , crying for their mothers or wives, screaming in pain, and tormented for the rest of their lives by the memories of war. Do you really think that this people ever went back to leading a "normal" life. I know we are having generally a good time batting back and forth the ideas, but remember that in every case of war nobody ever stops fighting, even when the war is over.

Yes, you could be called a brilliant strategist. However, after all is said and done, you lost. Uneven, yes, but the fact is that I would win. And I do believe that Grant is brilliant - brilliant for the North. He knew that he couldn't outwit Lee, so why try? Use what you know and what you got - which just happened to be sheer economical force. The most brilliant tactician in the world - um no. Brilliant for analyzing what he had and didn't, and then using it to his advantage, yes.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Yes but if one person makes less mistakes than another... You cant say that the person who made more was better just because he won with the help of 2-3 times the amount of men!

You guys Im sorry to say this but today I have totally amazed at some of the illogical things you have said. Like yous said of course everyone makes mistakes. Hitler made mistakes. Stalin made mistakes. Just because everyone makes mistakes doesnt clear you of the mistakes you made. Everone sins. that doesnt clear you of your sin just because "everyone does it."

Your flustered friend General Lee;)

No you cant say that persn is better. I completely agree.

Thanks for the support in your last post Oppie. It is highly appreciated!