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

To: 11th_VA
depiction of Ulysses S. Grant (Tom Skerritt) as a “butcher”

Has there ever been any doubt that he was just that -- once he was in the East?

Granted his brilliant Vicksburg campaign showed true generalship.

But his campaign against the Army of Northern Virginia was in your face, full frontal, war by attrition. Utilizing sheer force of numerical superiority by willingly trading the lives of his soldiers for those commanded by Lee. And he make no secret of it.

11 posted on 09/30/2014 12:54:41 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: BenLurkin
Grant didn't have any choice: he had no maps of the area and faced the full hostility of a much larger population than in the West, and had inferior commanders. It was unthinkable that Grant could wage a war of maneuver in Virginia against Lee.

The soundest strategy was to head straight for Richmond and Petersburg knowing Lee could not abandon them and grind away at the Army of Northern Virginia until superior numbers of men and materiel won.

Grant knew that the surest strategy was simple, brutal, and effective.

17 posted on 09/30/2014 1:09:40 PM PDT by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connaît les siens")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
But his campaign against the Army of Northern Virginia was in your face, full frontal, war by attrition. Utilizing sheer force of numerical superiority by willingly trading the lives of his soldiers for those commanded by Lee. And he make no secret of it.

He also won. He latched on to Lee, forced him to retreat until he was bottled up in Petersburg. And then when Lee tried to break out in desperation, Grant tracked him down and forced him to surrender. I think that was the whole purpose behind the exercise, wasn't it?

22 posted on 09/30/2014 1:21:13 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

I have long argued that the War of 1861 was a transitional war in terms of strategy and tactics. It started out Napoleonic and ended up like World War I. General Lee was brilliant in terms of Napoleonic warfare while General Grant had more in common with General Pershing.


28 posted on 09/30/2014 1:34:37 PM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
But his campaign against the Army of Northern Virginia was in your face, full frontal, war by attrition. Utilizing sheer force of numerical superiority by willingly trading the lives of his soldiers for those commanded by Lee. And he make no secret of it.

And in a war that had gone on for three years at that point, Grant took just seven weeks to put it into an endgame that left Lee trapped and able to do no more than delay the inevitable. And once that inevitability became apparent, who becomes the butcher then?

30 posted on 09/30/2014 1:42:06 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("The rat always knows when he's in with weasels"-- Tom Waits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
Every side that wants to win needs a Grant and a Sherman.

Sherman was a Curtis Le May before there was an air force. He would have fit right in as a Mongol Khan.

98 posted on 09/30/2014 6:44:50 PM PDT by Theoria (I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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