Posted on 12/09/2002 7:48:26 PM PST by stainlessbanner
Union general called innovative and `every bit the match of Lee'
MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. - Ask any schoolboy and he'll tell you Robert E. Lee was a military genius while Ulysses S. Grant was a butcher, simply using the North's advantage in men and material to bludgeon the Confederates.
Not so, says historian Gordon Rhea, who has spent almost two decades meticulously researching and writing about the 1864 Overland Campaign in Virginia.
"There has been a shift in Grant's reputation in the past few years," Rhea says. "I think he has been painted into a corner of being a butcher, when in fact he was extremely thoughtful, very innovative and every bit the match of Lee."
Rhea, a lawyer who splits his time between South Carolina and St. Croix, has written four volumes of a projected five-book series on the pivotal Civil War campaign pitting the two generals.
He started writing the series in 1986 and the latest volume, "Cold Harbor: Grant and Lee May 26 -- June 3, 1864," was published this fall by the Louisiana State University Press.
The campaign was the string of battles over 46 days from the Wilderness until the armies got to Petersburg for what would be a 10-month siege.
Rhea, a Virginia native whose great-grandfather was a captain in a Confederate infantry, also disagrees with the conventional thinking that Gettysburg was the turning point of the war.
Although at Gettysburg Union troops turned back the Southern invasion, both armies had largely retooled by early 1864, Rhea says. The difference then was Grant had come east to face Lee after his victories in the West.
"The turning point of the entire Civil War would be when Grant took command. He had a completely different way of doing things," said Rhea, who holds a master's degree in history from Harvard.
In the war's early years, armies fought, disengaged for weeks or months, then fought again. Grant kept fighting, even after some battles other generals would consider defeats.
"He realized you had to attack the Confederates and keep fighting so they can't refit and organize," says Rhea, who adds Grant also coordinated attacks in the East and West so the Confederates couldn't shift men between the two theaters.
Grant also realized the object was not to conquer the South but to defeat Lee's army.
Much of Grant's reputation as a butcher stems from Cold Harbor, where Union troops repeatedly charged in unsuccessful attempts to dislodge heavily entrenched Confederates.
"The traditional picture is that he was a man who always made head-on attacks and didn't care how many men he lost," Rhea says. "He was actually a master of maneuver. He never made attacks unless he felt he had a reasonable chance of succeeding."
At Cold Harbor, Union forces were just seven miles from Richmond and Grant sensed Lee's army was quite weak. "There's a river behind Lee's army, so Grant realizes if he can break Lee at this point, that's the end of it," Rhea says.
The attack itself was handled by Grant's subordinate, Gen. George Meade, who won at Gettysburg but "botched" Cold Harbor. "Only about half the Union army moved forward. There was virtually no communication between units, and the ground was not reconnoitered," Rhea says.
Acutally, the only thing Grant could master is the bottle. Grant had the luxury of waiting, superior numbers, supply lines, etc. Rea's is a flawed comparison.
We do no dishonor to General Lee if we admit that Grant was a masterful general.
The idea of "Grant, the Butcher" was always nonsense. His predecessors expended 100,000 soldiers and accomplished nothing. Grant expended 60,000 and won.
If you look at Grant's participation in that war from the beginning, every place he went an unmistakable aura of competence permeated the ground. It's always been my impression that the US has produced some great warriors in its history. I don't think Grant needs to take a back seat to any of them.
However, he was the worst President we had for 100 years until we elected Carter.
Personally, I think the guy has got a valid point of view. Without herein refighting the entire campaign, Grant's determination to hold on to Lee's belt buckle, to continually flank to his < Grant's> left, and then to pin Lee into a defensive (immobile) siege position from the South, interdicting Lee's lines of communication and supply while Sherman et al mostly coordinated their campaigns with his, may not have been a brilliantly inspired strategy in the classical sense, but it ultimately proved to be a winner.
As for his presidency, I assume you are referring to the Union-Pacific and Whiskey Ring Scandals.
Grant realized the basic truth that great Generals from Alexander of Macedonia through Julius Ceaser to Napolean that lesser Generals think tactics great generals think logistics. He knew the Union had vastly superior logistics and when he was the Supreme Union Commander he coordinated his forces to eliminate the resupply of the South. In a sense he vindicated the original Annaconda strategy propounded by Winfield Scott.
After the Death of Thomas Jackson Lee's victories were very few in number. Robert E. Lee was a truly great General and a fine honorable man. U. S. Grant was also a truly great General and deserving of resapect as a fine and honorable man for his decisions at Appomatix Courthouse if for no other reason.
The scandals of his presidency in no way were a mark of any personal corruption on his part and this gentlemanis worthy of great respect.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
jeb stuart? did what then?
How did he do that from Tennessee?
The basic problem was that the defensive was getting constantly stronger in this period. This continued right up through 1918, when (semi) reliable tanks finally broke the battlefield wide open.
In the WBTS, both sides were attempting to use Napoleonic tactics against weapons systems closer to those of today than to those Napoleon faced.
The Vicksburg campaign is a classic in manuever. The Virginia campaign against Lee was just Grant pinning him against Richmond. Grant realized that Lee could never win with Sherman pinning down the rest of the South.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.