On this date in 1865

[DiogenesLamp]

Still the worst war the US has fought.

And for the worst reason.

[Michael.SF.]

Given the resources of the North and the depletions of the South, Grants strategy did not require an astute military mind. Only one that recognized what it took to win, regardless of the loss of life encountered. They were expendable.

[BroJoeK]

Michael.SF.: "U. S. Grant as the most over rated General of the war."

If anyone must hold such a title, it would RE Lee, who lost as many battles as he won (Grant won all of his), and when on offense (i.e., Antietam, Gettysburg) lost more of his army (percents) than Grant.

And unlike Grant, who never did, Lee was always pleading for more men & materials from a population which could afford neither.

But Lee was a great general, just as good as that other great Virginian, George Thomas, the Rock of Chickamauga.

Michael.SF.: "General Sherman as the highest decorated War Criminal to not be charged."

Sherman committed no "crimes" against Confederates that Confederates had not already committed against Union citizens.
And unlike Confederate armies which grabbed every Northern freed-black they could for sale in Confederate slave markets, Sherman set many thousands of slaves free.

[jmacusa]

Lee and Davis should have been strung up for causing the costliest war in American history.

[Michael.SF.]

unlike Grant, who never did,

He never had to, as he had as many as he needed.

[rdl6989]

I hope it stays there, you never know anymore.

[rdl6989]

I think my favorite line from “Gettysburg” is when Lee (Martin Sheen) says “We move on the word of an actor?”. I just think it is unintentionally funny.

[hinckley buzzard]

Yep. Rat bastard traitors. And all their followers. The war has been over 150+ years. The slavers lost. Deal with it.

[Bull Snipe]

So did McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, Halleck, and a lot of other Union Generals that produced only marginal results.
Grant used the resources at hand to destroy 3 Southern Armies. Having the resources available to you and being able to use those resources to produce strategic victories are what distinguish Grant from all the rest.

[RedStateRocker]

I think Grant’s western river campaign was never really surpassed; careful, efficient, effective strangulation of the Confederacy along the Mississippi was not as spectacular as Gettysburg, and since it was far away it just didn’t seem to get the press and attention, but once the Confederacy lost the west I think the argument could be made they could never have won without actually taking Washington.

[Hugin]

U. S. Grant as the most over rated General of the war

Your assessment is wrong. Grant never lost a battle including when he deliberately put himself in the position of being surrounded, cut off and outnumbered in order to take Vicksburg. Without a doubt the first truly modern American general who understood how modern technology was changing warfare (along with perhaps Longstreet).

As for Sherman, he decided that destroying the property that sustained the armies of the South was the best way to end the war and stop the slaughter. It worked.

[Hugin]

Grant didn’t have big numerical advantages in the West. Even in the final campaign his advantage in terms of troops on the battlefield was not as great as generally supposed. Officially he had a 2 to 1 advantage but as he pointed out in his memoirs the north counted every person who worked for the Army of the Potomac, including civilian teamsters, supply clerks, etc. The South only counted soldiers in the field. He also had to leave the equivalent of a corps guarding his supply lines in hostile territory, while Lee’s supply lines were in friendly territory. So when the final campaign started Grant had about 80,000 men in the field while Lee had close to 70,000. He did have a big advantage in artillery, but in places like The Wilderness it couldn’t necessarily be brought to bear.

[Moonman62]

That statement tells us more about you than Grant or Sherman.

[Moonman62]

Your assessment is wrong. Grant never lost a battle including when he deliberately put himself in the position of being surrounded, cut off and outnumbered in order to take Vicksburg. Without a doubt the first truly modern American general who understood how modern technology was changing warfare (along with perhaps Longstreet).

...

When the war started Grant was a clerk in his father’s store and had to beg for a commission. In a few short years he became one of the most admired men in the world.

[DoodleDawg]

Still the worst war the US has fought.

There are a couple in the running for that honor.

[DoodleDawg]

U. S. Grant as the most over rated General of the war

And yet he beat every Southern general sent against him.

...and General Sherman as the highest decorated War Criminal to not be charged.

Matter of opinion.

[jmacusa]

Amen to that. Can you imagine if their side had won? We’d a Balkanized nation of God know’s what.

[BroJoeK]

Michael: "He never had to, as he had as many as he needed."

So did Lee, for a defensive war, think about it.
Many scholars argue Confederate could have won a defensive war meaning, make the Union attack you behind built-up defensive positions -- essentially what Lee did do after Gettysburg.
But they say Lee lost too many men in offensive forays like Antietam/Sharpsburg & Gettysburg.
So Lee should have mastered the art of defense sooner than he did.
It's what Longstreet urged on Lee at Gettysburg.

So let's do the kind of hypothetical counter-factual thought experiment Freepers love to consider:

Suppose, for sake of discussion, that in early 1861 RE Lee had accepted Scott's offer of command over Union forces, and suppose it was genuine, not half-hearted or cynical.
Then suppose another great Virginia general of the Civil War, George Thomas, had accepted command of Confederate forces.
Now which side would win?

I suggest to you that Thomas ("the Rock of Chickamauga") would have defeated Lee and won the Civil War for the Confederacy!
Why? Because Thomas was the perfect defensive general, better even than Longstreet, always cautious, never moved until ready.
Even more that "Stonewall" Jackson, "the Rock" stood solid in defense and would eventually have worn down the Union's enthusiasm for war and desire for victory.

Even a Union army directed by the brilliant RE Lee would have been chewed up & exhausted against the rock wall of Thomas' defensive strategy, resulting in Lincoln's reelection defeat in 1864 and a Democrat negotiated peace settlement.

What do you think?
Would anyone care to consider: what if Lee commanded Union forces and Thomas Confederates?
Would Thomas beat Lee?

[central_va]

IMO Longstreet was not a "defensive" General. He believed in maneuver warfare and pretty much invented the concept of mechanized infantry and quick moment of infantry/artillery over vast distances by train and the element of surprise. Now, all of those tactics can be used/applied in a defensive way or an offensive way. It just depends on the situation.

What he didn't think was wise were direct frontal assaults against fortified positions.

[RedStateRocker]

Interesting hypothetical.

I think that long-term, the sheer economic might of the union would have prevailed. The Anaconda strategy excited no one, but it would have slowly worked, particularly after Grant sealed things up in the west. Glory and skill on the battlefield are one thing, slow economic strangulation and superior production will tell in the end most of the time in my observation. Boring hypothesis on my part, I know.....