Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reaganator; Non-Sequitur

I know someone who is a big Civil War buff (I’m not particularly) who argues that Grant has gotten a really unfair rap on the “butcher” charge and that when you analyze all of the battles and casualty figures as percentages, etc. that Grant comes off just as well (maybe badly, depending upon your views) as Lee, a bit better in fact, and that Lee has simply enjoyed better PR.

Anyone know where to find that argument or the relevant stats? I know I’ve seen it before in an email years ago, I’ll try to find out more.....


30 posted on 05/22/2008 12:52:29 PM PDT by Enchante (Barack Chamberlain: My 1930s Appeasement Policy Goes Well With My 1960s Socialist Policies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Enchante
"Anyone know where to find that argument or the relevant stats?"

Check out these stats...

Civil War Battle Statistics

Note that at Gettysburg, where Lee was on offense, southern casualties were higher.

At, say, Cold Harbor, where Grant was on offense, northern casualties were much higher.

40 posted on 05/22/2008 6:34:51 PM PDT by BroJoeK (A little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: Enchante
We should also note: in a typical Civil War battle, each side lost more soldiers than the US has lost to date in all of Iraq.

And while we're at it, I recently had the opportunity to question the experts (Civil War park rangers) about civilian deaths. Typically there were few to none, with the total for the war less than 1,000.

In fact, the biggest single number of civilians who died happened during Sherman's march through Georgia, but it was not of white Georgians. It was freed slaves following Sherman's army, hundreds of whom drowned trying to cross a river where one of Sherman's generals had destroyed the bridge.

42 posted on 05/22/2008 6:43:53 PM PDT by BroJoeK (A little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: Enchante

It is interesting that this topic came up again. My thoughts when it comes to Grant and Cold Harbor -

Grant’s true strength was in that he never gave up. Shiloh was a good early example of this. There would be many more such examples before the war was through. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Grant never lost a battle through inaction or inactivity. Grant was not afraid to try different things until he found a winning combination and once he found that combination he held on with the stubbornness and unswerving focus of a pit bull.

Once Grant took over the Army of the Potomac he pursued the Army of Northern Virginia with a dogged tenacity which would not be denied. Cold Harbor was one of the few times where he was forced to admit that he could not win through sheer force of will. The other battles which eluded him were faced during his two terms as president.

It is important to note specifically what Grant admits to in his memoirs when he expresses remorse over Cold Harbor. He doesn’t admit that the battle should never have taken place. He doesn’t admit that the early charges where so many men fell were ill conceived and which he ordered over the objections of his commanders. The fact that some of his commanders were slow to act likely created a bit of doubt in Grant’s mind about whether the failure of the charges was due to the fact that his Army was incapable of taking the Confederate positions or whether the earlier failures were the result of a lack of well timed coordination.

What Grant admitted to regretting specifically was the last charge that he ordered. That final charge was ordered over a vehemence of his subordinate commanders which approached mutiny. He seems to recognize that the other charges were necessary for learning and understanding the situation, but the last charge did not serve any other purpose than to confirm the grim reality of the futility of the situation, and that his commanders had been correct all along.

Given the earlier failures of his commanders to coordinate their attacks properly, Grant could have taken this as his excuse for why he ordered that final charge thus passing the blame onto the shoulders of other. The fact that he didn’t do this is a great testament to Grant’s sense of honor and responsibility.

The Siege of Petersburg was approached in the same manner Grant approached his other battles. Grant slowly felt around for his opponents weakness extending his lines day after day till he finally found the point at which Lee could no longer hold on.


54 posted on 05/23/2008 9:40:50 AM PDT by contemplator (Capitalism gets no Rock Concerts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: Enchante
Lee has simply enjoyed better PR

You can say that again. Not only Lee but the entire Southern cause. The whole "Lost Cause" mentality all but relegated Grant to the dustbin of history while elevating Lee to a status of near-godlike genius. The fact of the matter is that both Generals were very good in their own ways.

Grant's approach to reconstruction after the war also doomed him in the PR department especially when the early-mid 20th century historians got through with him. Grant held firm against the appeasers who wanted to let the South work out the issue of race relations on their own. The appeasers eventually got their way. It was to cost not only Grant's reputation but the civil rights of African Americans for almost 100 years. It is very telling that after all of this time, Grant's standing in the Presidential rankings is finally being re-evaluated in a positive manner and his star is rising again.
56 posted on 05/23/2008 9:58:30 AM PDT by contemplator (Capitalism gets no Rock Concerts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: Enchante
"I know someone who is a big Civil War buff (I’m not particularly) who argues that Grant has gotten a really unfair rap on the “butcher” charge and that when you analyze all of the battles and casualty figures as percentages, etc. that Grant comes off just as well (maybe badly, depending upon your views) as Lee, a bit better in fact, and that Lee has simply enjoyed better PR. Anyone know where to find that argument or the relevant stats?"

Lee had a much higher rate of casualties among his troops than Grant. Grant's Vicksburg campaign was as tactically brilliant as anything Lee ever did and effectively dictated the ultimate outcome. Although some thought him "slow", Grant ended up writing the best book ever penned by an ex-president. In hindsight, what some people called "slow" was really just quiet, calm deliberation and calculation.

71 posted on 05/27/2008 1:33:03 PM PDT by joebuck (Finitum non capax infinitum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson