- This topic has 6 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
Grant did indeed suffer terrible causalities. But I don?t think he deserves the label of ?butcher? that's he's often given. Grant lived in a time when the defense had significant advantages over the offense. It was much easier to hold a fortified position than it was to take one. (Look at the causalities Lee suffered while on the offensive at Gettysburg. He lost 10,000 men in a single charge and 1/3 of his army perished in that battle. For me, this illustrates the advantages that went to those defending a set position. It?s no wonder that at Gettysburg that Longstreet wanted Lee to take a defensive position and force the Union to attack him.)WWI saw similar causalities without the winning generals being labeled ?butchers.? The trench warfare of the Civil War was in many ways a prelude to WWI. So while Grant certainly suffered great losses I think labeling him a butcher is unwarranted.Grant was a different general in the West than in the East. I think part of the reason was that in the West he had much better subordinates. The Army of the Potomac was filled with incompetent, political appointees. Grant certainly did not move his men around the chessboard they way Lee did, but in the West Grant?s tactics included more than frontal charges. In the East, however, because of the incompetence of his subordinates Grant?s only option was a frontal assault. (I think part of Grant's greatness was understanding the limitations of the Army of the Potomac and still finding a way to defeat Lee.)On more than one occasion Grant is remembered as lamenting the loss of life he witnessed. Grant?s tactics were similar to those of other Civil War generals and he was far from the only general to suffer great casualties. So while Grant suffered terrible causalities I don?t think he merits the label of butcher.
I don't think Grant should be labeled a butcher. He used tactics that reinforced his numerical advantage and depth of resources. Those who tried to outwit or out manuever Lee did poorly.Grant deeply regreted the Cold Harbor losses. He said that was a mistake.As was stated ,the offense was at a disadvantage against a well entrenched defense.Grant simply did what was necessary to end the war. Maybe by doing so he actually saved lives.I do fault him for ending prisoner exchanges and allowing the POWs held in the South to endure more hardships. He thought that the additional drain on already low Confederate supplies would weaken the Confederates even more. Probably did but the POWs endured starvation conditons(as did the guards)
I do fault him [Grant] for ending prisoner exchanges and allowing the POWs held in the South to endure more hardships. He thought that the additional drain on already low Confederate supplies would weaken the Confederates even more. Probably did but the POWs endured starvation conditons(as did the guards)
I was under the impression that Grant ended the prisoner exchanges becuase the South refused to exchance black union soldiers. (Some were returned to slavery and I think some were excecuted.) I think the South was also guilty of some other "irregularities" (like allowing Southern soldiers to fight when they hadn't been properly exchanged.)If somebody's memory is sharper than mine on this point I hope they'll post.
Grants plan was war of attrition, he knew he could outlast Lee in both man power and resources…Now if only he could get it done before the people in the north grew tired of the bloodshed and called for a truce.
No Grant was not a butcher. He and Sherman understood that in order to win the war with the South, they had to make it as horrible as they could for the Southerners. To do that, meant to engage the enemy wherever he could be found and to relentlessly pound them until they could take no more. Their tactics won the war whereas their predecesors were too worried about losing men or being outmaneuvered by Lee. MacCllelan created the Army of the Potomac and its bureaucratic structure and discipline, but he failed to get past the fear of taking huge risks that could get his beautiful creation bloodied up. Grant didn't create the Army of the Potomac, but he sure knew how to use it for what it was designed for.
well i think yes and no. no because well he was a soldier who was doing his duty..but shermern HE IS THE DEVIL
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
