On what do you base your assertion that the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia was as strong in the spring of 1864 as it had been in the spring of 1863. Do you think it was stronger for having lost Stonewall Jackson? Dorsey Pender? John Bell Hood?( severely wounded at Gettysburg and never really the same) Do you think that the 28,000 irreplaceable casualties sustained at Gettysburg made it stronger? In Pickett's division alone,of the 13 colonels, 7 were killed and 6 were seriously wounded. Two of the three brigadier generals (Armistead and Garnet,both fine commanders) were killed.In truth,the Gettysburg campaign destroyed the last offensive striking power of the ANV. It was, from that point on, a one dimensional force, that is: defensive.
After Gettysburg, no longer would the Union Commander(whoever it might be) have to fear a Confederate counterstroke such as those delivered at Second Manassas and Chancellorsville.
The army Grant faced had fewer than 55,000 men to his army of 120,000. How in the world can you say that it was "certainly as strong as the year before."
"He took a bloody nose"
Correction,my friend. Grant did not take a bloody nose. His troops did. In the first month of the spring 1864 campaign,he lost over 50,000 men, half as many as the Army of the Potomac had lost during th previous 3 YEARS of the war. Mary Lincoln called him a butcher and opined that she could fight an army as well herself.
"Grant won many of his victories against lesser men."
That's true in a sense. But he won ALL of his victories against lesser armies. He had superior numbers every time. You can't personify these things unless you want to even the odds. Grant did not personally win any battles.The Union Army did and, under Grant, they took horrendous casualties to do so. A great general does not turn in long casualty lists. Lee can be faulted too in this regard for his bloody frontal assaults during the Seven Days and at Gettysburg,but he can be excused as well because he felt the imperative to drive the Yankees away from Richmond and to win the big victory on Northern Soil,respectively. There is no way to excuse Grant's excesses in the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor,unless he was waging a war of attrition (2 yankees sacrificed to kill one rebel). And waging a war of attrition does not qualify one as a great commander. Especially against an Army that has no offensive striking power. Had Grant faced the ANV at its height, with Longstreet and Jackson, and had he prevailed, he would perhaps deserve the praise you heap upon him. Had he faced Jackson, it is just as likely that his predictable tactics would have resulted in the demise of his army. He was willing to commit his army totally, unlike the previous Union Commanders, who were concerned(and justifiably so) with Jackson's Corps. Had Grant charged into Virginia and begun his flanking maneuvers, he might have found that a confederate counterstroke by Jackson would have bloodied more than his nose.
"Put Forrest in command before Sherman or Grant and he would not have done any better"
Of course, this is pure speculation. I, and many military historians, think that Forrest was one of the very few authentic military geniuses produced by the Civil War. At Chickamauga, for example, do you doubt that Forrest would have pursued the Army of the Cumberland, which was in disarray, and retaken Chattanooga? Forrest was exasperated with Bragg and pleaded with him(as did Longstreet) to pursue Rosecrans, but Bragg did nothing.
"From a strategic standpoint, he accomplished very little"
If, by that, you mean he did not defeat Union Armies numbering 70-80,000 men, you are right. No one could do that with 3500 cavalry. But, if he had been given an Army of 40,000, it is entirely likely that he could have slowed, if not reversed, the Confederate disasters in the West.
Lee took 57,500 men into the field at Chancellorsville. He took 62,000 into the Wilderness. Losses in commanders were high on both sides during the period. It wasn't the loss of commanders like Pender and Armistead that put the ANV into a defensive mode, it was the actions of Grant and his unwillingness to let Lee rest and regroup. As a result, Grant paid a high price. That was true on both sides during the war. In 1862-63 the confederate army was on the offensive in 6 of the 9 major battles. Two of the six were clear confederate victories (Chancellorsville and Chickamauga) and one (Seven Days) was a strategic victory. In those 6 battles, confederate casualties outnumbered Union casualties by a rate of 3:2. Were Lee and Johnston bloody butchers? Does this mean that they weren't great commanders? Or was if forgiven because they won? Likewise when Grant was on the offensive his causalties were much higher than Lee's. But in the end he won.
Had Grant faced the ANV at its height, with Longstreet and Jackson, and had he prevailed, he would perhaps deserve the praise you heap upon him.
McClellan faced the ANV at its height, with Longstreet and Jackson, and he won. Meade faced the ANV at its height with Lee and Longstreet, and he won. Lee lost against lesser commanders. Grant didn't.
But, if he had been given an Army of 40,000, it is entirely likely that he could have slowed, if not reversed, the Confederate disasters in the West.
To use your own words that is pure spectulation. The history of the war is replete with examples of men who were outstanding division commanders but failed at corps commands, or who were great corps commanders but who were not up to running an army. To say that Forrest would have made a mark running an army is pure guesswork.
Not exactly. During the Ft. Donelson campaign, he attacked a roughly equal force that was in a very strong position and defeated it quickly.
During the Vicksburg campaign, as others have pointed out, he was in hostile country, had no line of supply and was between two armies which between them outnumbered him significantly.
As Sherman said, he had put himself into a position that an enemy would have manuevered for a year to get him into. Yet he pulled it off. It was the riskiest and boldest campaign of the entire war.
When you really examine this campaign, it was probably the most brilliant of the war, with the exception of Jackson's Valley campaign.