Ulysses S. Grant

He was a true hero to people in the North.

I believe Sherman knew how important the Atlanta Campaign was and how good he had become as a general--all rather dramatic in terms of Sherman's victory, and his request, readily granted, for his toward Savannah.

Much is made of his march to the sea, the destruction of property across the state, but there is no record of Sherman's forces abusing the civilian population. For a couple of decades following the war, Sherman was not hated in the South. Confederate generals Simon Bolivar Buckner and Joseph Johnston were pallbearers at Sherman's funeral as they had been with Sherman at Grant's funeral.

It's was only as Jim Crow took hold that Sherman was hated by Southern whites. Segregationists deliberately and with calculation refought the Civil War with Sherman cast as the villain.

 

You have described Democrats very well. And worse, they still are racists.

 

I have been to Napa many times. I used to fly to the Napa Airport due to a restaurant there being good. I dated a woman that lived there. I have lived in the South and it was a Democratic party infested cesspool when I lived there.
Liberal does not mean Democrat. Democrats are extreme authoritarians as Biden keeps proving to America.

 

I'm also a neutral (not American), thanks for the kind words.

I think Sherman was sufficiently talented that he would have done well in any circumstance where he was given the position to do so, but his personal loyalty to Grant and Grant's reciprocation made him more effective. The march across Georgia that so badly damaged the Confederacy was a risky move. Grant saw its value despite the risk. Others might just have seen the risk, especially with Hood heading north.

Earlier in the thread some moron dismissed Grant's tactics as 'human wave assault', proof that the Lost Cause narrative really does make people dumb. Grant's campaigns were triumphs of movement & logistics. Sherman and Lee get most of the credit for being able to fight a war of movement, but the Vicksburg campaign was a triumph of mobile warfare, and no one on either side executed anything as large and well run as the 1864 Overland campaign. That it was ultimately unable to end the war immediately was more about the terrain and the ability of Lee to use it to his advantage than any failure of imagination on Grant's part.

As you say, Grant saw the impact of his decisions up close, agonized about them and was not ashamed to admit regret. While he made mistakes that cost lives, so did everyone. Lee, Sherman and a laundry list of lesser talents all got men killed to no good end at some point. The bigger the command, the more likely it would happen. Grant's infamous third attack at Cold Harbour was no worse an error than Sherman at Kennesaw Mountain or Lee at Gettysburg, and was arguably easier to justify than the latter.

There are arguments to be had about which ACW General might be better at a particular thing, but none combined everything as well as Grant. It takes no stretch of the imagination to see him as Supreme Allied Commander in WW2.

I feel like you were going somewhere interesting here. Feel free to complete the thought.

 

There were certainly isolated examples where individuals did awful things, and I seem to recall citizens of one of the cities in the Carolinas being very poorly treated for several days, but it was very much the exception. It bears zero resemblance to the claims of some Lost Causers, who refer to the Union Army as if they were Nazis. Curiously they seem less worried about Conferderate armies kidnapping black people to enslave or straight out murdreing black soldiers taken prisoner.

 

Nice try.

 

Sure, there are always some incidents... and I agree we don't see much concern about atrocities and crimes against blacks.

 

Not just blacks. Andersonville was a war crime too. Close to one in 3 prisoners died - higher than the death rate at most Soviet gulags.

 

Andersonville conditions were horrific. You're right--it was a war crime.

 

Executions for war crimes in the Civil war amounted to around 3 men.

Wirz was also not the only man executed for crimes committed in the American Civil War itself. Champ Ferguson, a Confederate guerrilla convicted by a Union military commission of killing at least fifty-three captured Union soldiers, and Robert Kennedy, a Confederate officer convicted of plotting to blow up New York landmarks, were both executed in 1865, though Kennedy was executed about two months before the end of the war.

https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org...xecuted-war-crimes-committed-during-civil-war

 

As long as you don't count the men that the Confederacy hanged for resisting conscription.

 

I also did not count if that happened to the yankee men.
Did only Union soldiers deserted the army?
After the Battle of Fredericksburg, when morale was low, the Union had to deal with 100 or more deserters daily. Some believe as many as one in five Union soldiers and one in three Confederate soldiers deserted their post during the war.

Civil War 150: Desertion in the Union Army | Fords Theatre
https://www.fords.org › blog › post › civil-war-150-desert...

The article includes a statement that it is believed that less than 150 union soldiers were executed for deserting.

 

I will consider that when you provide links to support yourself. As an estimate, how many do you think were hanged for resisting conscription? This is different than deserting.

 

Over 40 just in the city of Gainesville, Texas alone. And if it is different from deserting, why did you try to link it to deserting in your previous post? I haven't counted conscripts who deserted, but no, deserting as a conscript isn't always different from resisting conscription.

 

Thank you. I defer to your last post. I could not have said it better. I defer to your comments particularly the comparisons to Kennesaw Mountain or Gettysburg.

I tend to criticize him for certain things when corruption was going in when he was President not his military days if anything. His time as a military leader I think is something historians will debate over.

I was going to say Grant was classical in the sense of military tractics learned at West Point. You covered the points though particulary the comparisons to Kennesaw Mountain or Gettysburg.

I will always see Grant as a horseman-a military man planning everything from a mounted saddle. These kinds of leaders were into logistics, positioning, pivoting, estimating every damn inch of ground they took because everything was immediate, in their face and exploding.

I think we underestimate how compact and close the soldiers could become and end up in deadly hand to hand and how people like Grant seeing horses die would actually get moved by that. Its hard to explain a horseman soldier but they are like soldiers with canines. They feel their animals losses not just the soldiers they are with-its a double whammy.

In many respects I agree that he was his day's equivalent of Einsehower which is why I kind of equate Sherman to Patton. Grant to me was like Eisenhower and and Ombard Bradley rolled into one although comparing anyone to Patton I guess is dangerous other than I don't think Sherman agonized over his decisions like Grant did.

Sherman was like the tank he just was like a bull with his charges and onslaughts. A lot less strategy and a lot more brute overwhelming force. You need of course both bulls and chess players to win wars. Myself I just think Grant was under-estimated in how much planning he took when some find it tempting to call him cold blooded.

 

You might enjoy reading...



https://www.amazon.com/Sherman-American-B-Liddell-Hart-ebook/dp/B0022NGE80/ref=sr_1_1?crid=R3YWF0UZ5HR0&keywords=liddell+hart+sherman&qid=1617388117&sprefix=Liddell+hart+shermsn%2Caps%2C229&sr=8-1

Sherman was not a typical Civil War frontal attack type general.

"Patton, who considered Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and William Tecumseh Sherman his military heroes, quoted Sherman often and "even Patton's tanks were famously named for Sherman" (Von Hassell & Breslin, Sherman, 163). Patton "told his men that, of all American generals, he understood Sherman best… When he was in England in the days before his assignment to Normandy, the British biographer of Sherman, Liddell Hart, made it a point to meet Patton on two occasions to discuss Sherman's mobile and indirect brand of warfare." Liddell Hart recalled: "I think the indirect argument made some impression. At any rate, when I spent another evening with him in June, just before he was going over to Normandy, he was no longer talking about the 1918 methods, but on much bolder lines. The way that, after the break-through, he actually carried out his plans, in super-Sherman style, is a matter that all the world knows." Military scholars note that in Normandy, in fact, "Patton deliberately emulated the 'super-Sherman style' of grand flanking maneuvers to the rear as a result of following Sherman's march firsthand in Georgia." Patton famously traced the route of Sherman's March to the Sea, on foot and by car, before WWII. Other historians equally note the similarities between these two brilliant military leaders: "Both were dashing, brilliant in often unorthodox tactics… By VE-day Patton had fought through more than 1,000 miles of enemy an enemy-held territory. Sherman's march to the sea, then back northward, was slightly short of the 1,000 miles mark when the surrender was consummated at Appomattox'… both were deeply devoted to saving the lives of the men they led and ending quickly the war that they fought" (Hanson, Soul of Battle, 283-4)."​

https://www.baumanrarebooks.com/rare-books/patton-george-s-cox-jacob-b-cox-jacob-d-/march-to-the-sea/107525.aspx

Guarantee the Liddell Hart book will be very interesting.

Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Marshall, Patton, Eisenhower, Sherman, Grant, King... this country has been very fortunate to come up with the right leaders at crucial moments.

 

Thanks Langley for the heads up. I am actually going to get it and read it. I like reading military history and this is up my ally. I do not know too much about Sherman. This will be interesting. I must confess being Canadian Iread more about British, Israeli, French, WW2 American generals.

I find American history very interesting compared to some other countries.

 

It should be noted that both Grant and Sherman, despite their chosen professions, were both known for being terribly appalled at the bloodshed and deaths at least among their own troops. Sherman was known for covering his eyes when circumstances occurred that he happened to witness large numbers of his soldiers being killed. Grant had similar reactions and in fact would sometimes literally become sick at his stomach from witnessing any large scale bloodshed. Say what you will but neither were bloodthirsty.

 

That's a really interesting observation. I had heard that Grant was queasy around blood, and that Sherman was enraged by some of the actions of his soldier against civilians. I'd need to look more into Lee, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to find him in the same boat, though I've heard that Jackson was in favor of "total war."

 

You can be in favor of "total war" yet find the actual bloodshed to be appalling and/or disgusting.

 

In a manner of speaking . . . but in this case that would still require finding said bloodshed, even of non-combatant civilians, to be desirable, no matter how otherwise appalling or disgusting. Obviously.

 

Canadian history has been greatly influenced by events in the United States, especially the U.S. Civil War that moved Confederation along.

Liddell Hart is known more for his histories of WW1 and WW2. He wrote his book on Sherman in 1930 (or so) and commented that Sherman was the first modern general. He was impressed by Sherman's use of indirect attacks, multiple objectives, rapid movement, and quality logistics and engineering. Clearly, Liddell Hart was using Sherman to preview WW2.

Lincoln saved the Republic and Sherman saved Lincoln. Huge.

 

My interpretation of Sherman was his introduction of the concept of "Total War", i.e., the burning to the ground of cities was intended to create a psyhological effect from the sheer intensity of destruction to shorten the span of the war to prevent prolonged battles on smaller scales. In that sense I see him as the basis of the reasoning used for the dropping of the A bombs in WW2 in the sense they were borrowing on his "Total War" tactic to shock and awe the Japanese into immediate surrender to prevent otherwise prolonged and perhaps intractable continued war which may very well on Japan proper never have ended.

In that sense morally he is seen as a man of great destruction and brute force and ny many immoral but i t could be argued his tactics prevented more war and in the long run more deaths. Its a tactic using psychology of fear for sure but does it make Sherman an evil immoral man. I leave that to others. I personally believe when you get to his level, as a commander you know whatever decision you make innocent people will die and suffer and so some weigh their tactics and are willing to do unpopular things to prevent more loss of lives and are willing to exose themselves to ridicule because in their world, they are evolved further than that in terms of their sense of purpose.

I wonder though with narcissists like McArthur or Patton whether this can be said or did their personal egos flaw their judgements. Same criticism I would make to many British Generals during WW2 especially Montgommery, a vain egotistical man and as a Canadian we question whether Louis Mountbattan knew what he was doing with Dieppes.

In the US with my limited knowledge, I liked the tactics of people like Admiral Halsey, or Eisenhower's style
I am also a fan of the strategies used by Kiwis (New Zealanders), Aussies, Filippino guerillas, in the South Pacific.

 

To really understand Grant, you need to go much further back. Here is a very good article that tells of his efforts during his first tour in the Army. Although I have found a contradiction to a PBS program on the same issue. Ulysses S. Grant: Life Before the Presidency | Miller Center According to this article, it says that it was unclear why Grant resigned his commission in the Army. The PBS show stated that he was often caught drunk, or sleeping off a drunk, while on duty. He was given a choice of resigning or being court martialed. Understanding his failures and successes is the best way to understand the man.

From my studies, I find your analysis of his being honest and naïve to be right on the money. It should also be noted that Grant was from a northern family, but his wife was from a southern family. He lived for a good portion of his time prior to and during the early years of his marriage with her family. He father in law gave him one slave. He could have made money selling that slave, but set him free instead. That is a clear definition of a man that lives by a set of morals.

It is funny, but that message resonates with me. My Great Grandfather, on my mother's side was raised with a slave to take care of him. My Great Grandfather's name was Sam, and the slave's name was Isam. Upon the day of my his marriage, his father signed Isam over to him. The next day, he took Isam to the local courthouse and signed the paperwork over to free Isam. My Great Grandfather was forced to move away after there.

 

Sherman had nothing to do with beginning the concept of "total war". Arguably it began on a large scale with the conquests of the Mongols, who implemented the policy of massacring the inhabitants of cities that resisted them versus simply destroying cities once they were evacuated if they didn't resist.