Claymore
Active member
Many people seem to believe that Grant was one of the worst Generals of the American Civil War. I personally cannot understand this. I mean after all, he could boast of having accomplished something that no other Civil War General could - the destruction/surrender of 3 armies! It seems to me that the typical impression of Grant is that of a butcher (indeed this is one of the nicknames given to him) meaning that he frequently and foolishly wasted the lives of his men. One would only have to point to his campaign at Vicksburg to see that this was simply not the case. Grant (as it seems to me) was one of the only Generals on the Union that realised the South could not win a total war. He also saw that to continue to fight the war in the east the way it had been fought previous to him would cause ruin to the Union and South alike. One also cannot argue that he hated the south as he fought for General Lee's freedom against President Johnson after Lincolns death - to the point of nearly resigning his commision. I believe that Grant was a gifted General (although by no means my favorite of the war) and a honorable man.
Those of you that disagree (I know there are probably many of you) give me your reasons.
For good references on Grant, read Bruce Catton's series on the Army of the Potomac, Grant's memoirs, James Macphereson's "Battle Cry of Freedom", and if you're looking online, check this site out:
http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/
Those of you that disagree (I know there are probably many of you) give me your reasons.
For good references on Grant, read Bruce Catton's series on the Army of the Potomac, Grant's memoirs, James Macphereson's "Battle Cry of Freedom", and if you're looking online, check this site out:
http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/