Basically any general who had the Northern armies and was willing to attack, attack, attack was going to win. Grant understood that the key to winning the war was destroying Lee's army and ability to fight.
Mary Todd Lincoln was insane- and you better look at Lee's casualty rates. Lee's reputation as a genius should have been settled at Gettysburg, but the Civil War is the one notable exception to the victors writing the history.
At Shiloh, He was only evenly matched towards the end of the day... not from the onset.... and then day 2 when almost every other general would have retreated, he knew he did have numbers and attacked... at least he didnt invent 30,000 imaginary soldiers to talk himself out of attacks like others did...
It wasn't just her, there were plenty more calling him a butcher as well. As far as Lee goes, Gettysburg was his mistake, kind of like Grant at Shiloh and Cold Harbor. But let's get 1 thing very clear here, Lee drove McKellen off the peninsula won at 2nd manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Cold Harbor etc.....all while being outnumbered under equipped. He should have taken more casualties Grant commanded the largest most well equipped army IN THE WORLD. Lee commanded shoeless starving soldiers and it still took grsnt over the year to outlast Lee. Grant only won when he had a massive advantage of men and material. There was a reason why Lee was Lincolns first choice. Along with General Scott, his only rivals were Jackson and Albert Sydney Johnston.
Find a quote from someone who knew him- a general or private- who fought with or against him. You keep writing about Shiloh as if it was a rebel victory- Grant won Shiloh.
Any successful general from that time period was a butcher, there was no other way at that time.
From any time period, really- which is why singling out Grant is unfair, and by the standards of his day untrue
That's quite a stretch. He was given one man servant by his father-in-law whom he freed.
Grant understood what was needed to win. Exactly what he did. He made mistakes, who didn't? He corrected his mistakes, like at Shiloh, and then pounded them. At Shiloh Grant was the only Union General who would not have surrendered the field after the first day. Lee was the butcher of his men, and he knew he couldn't get many more. Was Lee great at the 7 days? No he butchered his army. Was he great at Chancellorsville, no he butchered an army which couldn't afford to lose men, most by attacking. As Longstreet said, more great victories like Chancellorsville and we've lost the war.
It would be if Lee would have succeeded at Gettysburg and gone on the offensive the first couple of days. But the troops were tired, hungry, and it was hot. And he didn’t have Jackson or Stuart. Had he succeeded, he would have taken Harrisburg although he probably couldn’t have held it long. Public opinion up north would have plummeted nevertheless. Lincoln probably would not have been re-elected. Oh history’s “what if’s”?
Hard to go on the offensive the first day when most his army was 30 miles from Gettysburg. Ewells corps was there the first day but he sent Earlys division to Wrightville to capture the bridge over the Susquehanna which had already been destroyed and Rhodes division was at Carlisle.
Grants stock rose when Vicksburg surrendered. July 4th, one day after Gettysburg.
Robertson is considered an expert on the subject....plus there is not an unbiased source out there to post. He separates the war itself which boiled down was fought over slavery and what individuals fought for such as Robert e. Lee which was to defend Virginia...there 4eally isn't any debate over those facts.
I will take the word of Lee and Longstreet over MT Lincoln.
The quote was meant to show that quotes for either side can be found. However That does not change the fact that Grant only won when he outnumbered his opponent which is not the case with Lee he won battles while outnumberd many times. Grant did however realize that his strength was numbers and used that to his advantage. And I'm hoping this movie shows that, and doesn't turn into a propaganda show like say gods and generals. Which only did a good job portraying Jackson and to a certain extent Lee.
Perhaps so, but Grant was on the attack. And in the Civil War era, this required a larger numerical advantage (remember what happened at Gettysburg when Lee was in the attack) than Grant typically had available. And don’t forget what happened in Western Theater. Grant was far from perfect. But he was a great general and indispensable to the Union cause.
I hope your spelling of "McClellan" is not representative of your knowledge of the Civil War.
No buell won shiloh....like I said grant could not and did not win unless he outnumbered his enemy....1st day evenly matched he got taken to the woodshed. Buell shows up he now has damn near a 2 to 1 advantage and he magically starts to have success.
Lee should have a higher casualty rate...thats the whole point grant understood that he could take many many more casualties than lee and win.. Lee had significantly less men and his men could not be replaced. The south in general had a horrendous casualty rate. I
Lee was outnumbered at Gettysburg as well....I could go all day about the mistake of the Gettysburg campaign. In the west he was a fighter....thats what set him apart, at shiloh he got bailed out by buell and Vicksburg he tried to take by frontal assault but failed and settled on starving them out
wait-- I thought Lee was a "precision saber" (your term) now somehow he "should" have a higher casualty rate? And Grant was the butcher?
Lee was not exactly a Saber when he did not hold the high ground at Gettysburg. He was kind of butcher like in that battle. There are a lot of factors that go into who wins a battle.
What Civil War battle was won by an attacking general who did not have numerical superiority? The only one I can think of is Lee at Chancellorsville. I am not sure what your comment out Buell at Shiloh has to do with my comment that attacking generals were butchers.
Agree, Lee had two major advantages along with his own military mind, other than Gettysburg, he was fighting a defensive war and he had superior generals under him. Jackson may have been the best General in the war.
