U. S. Grant

Alright, enigma, your definition of "brilliance" obviously doesn't match mine. Grant showed no brilliance in his Virginia campaign, he merely showed persistence, which was his main tribute.

One thing that cannot be denied, is that Grant showed great innitiative and a use of sound tactics in his Vicksburg campaign; had the war ended there he might even be remembered as a military genius. However, he took a steep dive as soon as he stepped foot in Virginia. Why was this? One reason that occured to me, was that in the West, Grant was fighting a mobile war, and he managed to use the rivers to his advantage. This allowed him to use a basic, overall strategy, and avoid tactics, which we can see he was weak at by his later encounters with Lee. Was this because the situation required more daring, and therefore called upon his "hidden genius?" This is possible, because in Virginia, he had every advantage, only it wasn't as mobile a theater. Some might even say that had Lee enjoyed all of the advantages that Grant did, he wouldn't have been forced to make risks which led to 'brilliant' victories. And that in the West, Grant was forced to take chances that showed his strategic daring. But by outnumbering Lee, Grant wasn't forced to take risks in Virginia, which led to his adaption of a bull-headed approach, which in turn needlessly wasted the lives of so many of his men.

Gen. Lee, I like the comparison to chess, although I would have stated it differently. It's more like, Grant is represented by the full army on one side, and Lee by the king, three pawns and a rook and knight on the other. In a series of, say, 6 games, Lee wins all six, but finally loses all of his pieces besides his king, and therefore is forced to surrender. That, I think is a better representation of the situation.

General Stuart wrote:

Alright, enigma, your definition of "brilliance" obviously doesn't match mine. Grant showed no brilliance in his Virginia campaign, he merely showed persistence, which was his main tribute.

One thing that cannot be denied, is that Grant showed great innitiative and a use of sound tactics in his Vicksburg campaign; had the war ended there he might even be remembered as a military genius. However, he took a steep dive as soon as he stepped foot in Virginia. Why was this? One reason that occured to me, was that in the West, Grant was fighting a mobile war, and he managed to use the rivers to his advantage. This allowed him to use a basic, overall strategy, and avoid tactics, which we can see he was weak at by his later encounters with Lee. Was this because the situation required more daring, and therefore called upon his "hidden genius?" This is possible, because in Virginia, he had every advantage, only it wasn't as mobile a theater. Some might even say that had Lee enjoyed all of the advantages that Grant did, he wouldn't have been forced to make risks which led to 'brilliant' victories. And that in the West, Grant was forced to take chances that showed his strategic daring. But by outnumbering Lee, Grant wasn't forced to take risks in Virginia, which led to his adaption of a bull-headed approach, which in turn needlessly wasted the lives of so many of his men.

I knew I wouldn't get away with that. What I meant was that he was the most "brilliant" for the North. In other words, the best the North had to offer. Why? He was the only one who could get the job done. And also, about the fact of great human loss of life, yes he did do that, but it seemed to be the only thing that worked against Lee. And, talking about loss of life, comparing the ratios I found that 16.36% of the Union's force perished while 24.28% of the Confederate's force perished. So, basically per capita the Confederates lost more men than the Union did. And ultimately, if you want to point fingers, look at who started the war (who seceded from the Union and who gave the first orders to attack? That would be the South).

Just a little fact here. Maybe way off topic, but interesting. I read a book one time saying that the amount of Confederates lost per capita during the War, transpossed (sp?) onto WWII would have been 3 MILLION.

Just thought that was interesting. Carry on Gentlmen.

Civility_C wrote:

Just a little fact here. Maybe way off topic, but interesting. I read a book one time saying that the amount of Confederates lost per capita during the War, transpossed (sp?) onto WWII would have been 3 MILLION.

Just thought that was interesting. Carry on Gentlmen.

Any way you look at it, it was a lot of people. In fact, from what I have learned, if you combine all American causalties from all the other wars that Americans have fought in, that number still does not add up to the amount of casualties in the Civil War.

enigma7patriot wrote:

General Stuart wrote:

Alright, enigma, your definition of "brilliance" obviously doesn't match mine. Grant showed no brilliance in his Virginia campaign, he merely showed persistence, which was his main tribute.

One thing that cannot be denied, is that Grant showed great innitiative and a use of sound tactics in his Vicksburg campaign; had the war ended there he might even be remembered as a military genius. However, he took a steep dive as soon as he stepped foot in Virginia. Why was this? One reason that occured to me, was that in the West, Grant was fighting a mobile war, and he managed to use the rivers to his advantage. This allowed him to use a basic, overall strategy, and avoid tactics, which we can see he was weak at by his later encounters with Lee. Was this because the situation required more daring, and therefore called upon his "hidden genius?" This is possible, because in Virginia, he had every advantage, only it wasn't as mobile a theater. Some might even say that had Lee enjoyed all of the advantages that Grant did, he wouldn't have been forced to make risks which led to 'brilliant' victories. And that in the West, Grant was forced to take chances that showed his strategic daring. But by outnumbering Lee, Grant wasn't forced to take risks in Virginia, which led to his adaption of a bull-headed approach, which in turn needlessly wasted the lives of so many of his men.

I knew I wouldn't get away with that. What I meant was that he was the most "brilliant" for the North. In other words, the best the North had to offer. Why? He was the only one who could get the job done. And also, about the fact of great human loss of life, yes he did do that, but it seemed to be the only thing that worked against Lee. And, talking about loss of life, comparing the ratios I found that 16.36% of the Union's force perished while 24.28% of the Confederate's force perished. So, basically per capita the Confederates lost more men than the Union did. And ultimately, if you want to point fingers, look at who started the war (who seceded from the Union and who gave the first orders to attack? That would be the South).

ha, alright enigma, so you knew that Grant in reality didn't show any "brilliance." But what you followed that with didn't make sense; 'brilliant' is an adjective, and therefore usually not used as a form of comparison....if you were trying to compare Grant to other northern leaders, than you might have used "better." Just a suggestion.......

And as to your statistics there on loss of life, you didn't specify at all; did the stats represent the whole war? Or just one theater? Were these the stats of the '64-'65 Grant-Lee campaign, which is our topic (as far as I know lol), or all north-south losses in Virginia? Please specify, because that was very vague and therefore meaningless.....

Ok enigma... Grant may needlessly waste thousands of lives to end the war quicker and Sherman may kill and burn to save the loss of life..... Ok... That means that Sherman is "saving" lives and Grant can killing more and Grant is killing more so that the war will end sooner... So the ultimate objective is to win the war sooner..... Not saving lives?

well said, Lee. But I've already stated my opinion that Sherman's actions prove that his main goal was not to end the war with all possible haste, but to inflict maximum damage on the Deep South, and the innocent people in it, even if it meant lengthening the war.

you're right Stuart! And that's a good point, General Lee...it seems like Grant just fell apart as soon as he came east...

Here's a little something about Grant.

It was Grant's understated brilliance that won The Civil War. With the Mississippi River heavily fortified, Grant sidestepped the Rebels by travelling up the Tennessee and Cumberland River, capturing Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, the first major Union victory. His stubborn defense at the Battle of Shiloh turned defeat into victory. After freeing the Mississippi River of Confederates at Vicksburg, he rescued the Army of the Cumberland at Chattanooga before continuing east to assume the role of General-in-Chief, U. S. Army. His orders to his subordinates were simple:pursue the Rebels wherever they went and destroy them. He engaged the Confederates repeatedly, fighting a war of attrition (The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and Petersburg) with Lee until the end of the war.

Wow, that's some spin on the facts there Oppie. Don't get me wrong, in the end, Grant got the job done. However, he did it in a pathetically simple-minded way, one that lost him entire armies of men in casualties. The wide-spread warfare of the West seemed to have suited Grant, and this becomes more obvious as we see the results of Grants close-quarters "war of attrition" with Lee. Need I mention that, Wilderness, Spotsylvania CH, the North Anna, and Cold Harbor were all Confederate victories, and some near-union disasters? Grant committed more blunders in the 40 days than McClellan did in his whole carrear, and that's saying something. However, Grant had the tenacity to stay where he was, in spite of the defeats, and simply call for reinforcements to make up for his losses in dense-headed assualts whose main purpose were to keep the innitiative.

Be quite Stuart I found that info on a civil war site so I posted it.

I knew that, you don't have a third-grade spelling level, there's no way you could have done that. Plus, it's very typical for yankees to just post something that they didn't even think of, but just found on the internet (i.e., plagary). And about the "spin," you obviously got that off of a very pro-Grant site. Besides, "the winners write the history books."......and the suckers listen.

The Opposition wrote:

Be quite Stuart I found that info on a civil war site so I posted it.

um, oppie, you spelled 'quiet' wrong, just to let you know...your way would usually mean "quite," as in, "very much so." You know? But what I think you meant to say was "quiet," as in "be silent." And the links kind of give it away that it's a copy, so, just to let you know....


just messin' with you dude, we all misspell, at least when we were in 5th grade.....lol

You know, for an advocate of Grant, I say it was his simple mindedness that won the war. Every one else was trying elaborate plans and Grant just got his men on the march to where he needed to go. He didn't mean to kill thousands. As a matter of fact he detested it. But, he wasn't about to stop when he got going. His theory was, if you can't outmanuver, out bleed them, outnumber them, outshoot them. Drive them into the dust with man power. Especially when he reached Virginia. Vicksburg and Chattanoga he put in alot more strategy then he did anywhere else.

Ok so why (if he didnt kill thousands) did 60,000 die at Petersburg? That is the same amount that was in Lees ENTIRE ARMY!

Diseas and snipers. Seriously though, those things can take a bite.

Oh Is that historical fact or a guess or just something from a yankee Civil war site? lol (not to point fingers Oppie jk)
Your friend General Lee

No.Playing Star Wars Battlefront II.

Oh.... that even better

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Oh Is that historical fact or a guess or just something from a yankee Civil war site? lol (not to point fingers Oppie jk)
Your friend General Lee

Whatever, I got that off of an unbiased site. LOSER:afro:

You're getting pretty desparate, aren't you Oppie? Well, your post speaks for itself lol.

General Stuart wrote:

You're getting pretty desparate, aren't you Oppie? Well, your post speaks for itself lol.

Dont make me hurt you.

[quote="General Stuart"][quote="enigma7patriot"]

General Stuart wrote:

ha, alright enigma, so you knew that Grant in reality didn't show any "brilliance." But what you followed that with didn't make sense; 'brilliant' is an adjective, and therefore usually not used as a form of comparison....if you were trying to compare Grant to other northern leaders, than you might have used "better." Just a suggestion.......

And as to your statistics there on loss of life, you didn't specify at all; did the stats represent the whole war? Or just one theater? Were these the stats of the '64-'65 Grant-Lee campaign, which is our topic (as far as I know lol), or all north-south losses in Virginia? Please specify, because that was very vague and therefore meaningless.....

And, actually I said he was the most brilliant for the North. Meaning that he was the best the North had to offer. I understand the confusion - I accept the blame. And perhaps the "adjective" (you learn something new every day don't ya) wasn't the proper one. And why was he the most brilliant for the North? Because he was the one who got it done...

And on my statistics...perhaps you neglected to read one, tiny word in their - force. The entire force of the Union, and the entire force of the Confederacy ( and if I need to put it into baby language, during the whole civil war). Next time you try to slam me, at least read my post.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Ok enigma... Grant may needlessly waste thousands of lives to end the war quicker and Sherman may kill and burn to save the loss of life..... Ok... That means that Sherman is "saving" lives and Grant can killing more and Grant is killing more so that the war will end sooner... So the ultimate objective is to win the war sooner..... Not saving lives?

Yes, the sooner you win the war, the more lives you save. Because you will have prevented more bloodshed in the following months to come. And maybe, just maybe, had the South not seceded, none of the bloodshed would've ever occurred.