The way Lincoln went through generals, there is enough evidence to argue that Grant simply came along at a time subsequent to a number of years of attrition. In other words, while he certainly wasn’t ignorant, he happened to be in the right place at the right time. If he was a genius, he would have also been a President with memorable accomplishments. Instead he was a one termer. He and General Sherman orchestrated Sherman’s “March to the Sea” which was a scorched earth policy that instituted a war on civilians in order to cut off supplies to the Southern armies. There was no Southern invasion of the North and there was little to no Southern support for it until Gettysburg. That only took place after Sherman’s March.
Grant served 2 terms
Only if you ignore his performance prior to that. Grant had commanded armies since the beginning of 1862, had outmaneuvered his opponents and captured two whole armies in the field at Fort Donalson and at Vicksburg, cut the Confederacy in half, and beaten every general Davis sent against him.
If he was a genius, he would have also been a President with memorable accomplishments. Instead he was a one termer.
Grant served two terms.
He and General Sherman orchestrated Sherman’s “March to the Sea” which was a scorched earth policy that instituted a war on civilians in order to cut off supplies to the Southern armies.
And your point is?
There was no Southern invasion of the North and there was little to no Southern support for it until Gettysburg.
You seem to be forgetting Lee's campaign in Maryland in September 1862.
That only took place after Sherman’s March.
Gettysburg was July 1863. Sherman's March was the autumn of 1864.
Lee had wanted to push north on several occasions before Gettysburg but had been unable to for one reason or another.
And the Union’s scorched earth policy was simply war at its ugliest, no different than the Allied bombings of Dresden or even the nuclear attacks on Japan. Sheridan was equally brutal in the Shenandoah.
But I agree Grant was in the right place at the right time. Once he assumed command of the Union forces, the war became less about tactics than arithmetic.
What if it was another Burnside or Hooker or Pope who "simply came along" in 1864? The war could still have been lost for the North.
Grant had a record of winning in the West and that indicated that he was a very good general indeed.
If he was a genius, he would have also been a President with memorable accomplishments.
I'd stay away from the "genius" thing, but it is clear that great ability in one field doesn't translate to success in a different field.
There was no Southern invasion of the North and there was little to no Southern support for it until Gettysburg. That only took place after Sherman’s March.
As Jim Comey might say, "Your historical compass is askew."