A Confederate General in Lee's Army Shares the Opinion of U.S. Grant's Leadership in 1864 

Grant was like a dog on a bone. He worked it adjusted, worked it some more.. he didn’t quit.

I read in one of Shelby Foot's books that after the Battle of the Wilderness when the troops were mustered to march they all cheered when the order came down to march south and not north like all the previous generals had done. Before Grant all the generals would just go back home after a battle to lick their wounds and get ready to do it again which had proved to be a failed strategy over and over again. Apparently the troops knew this before the generals did.

The South disliked Grant partly because he had been unknown to them. Mainly though, it was because Grant fought the war brutally. He did this, not because he was a brute but because he knew that savagery reduced the cost (in blood and treasure). Grant's ratio of losses (154,000:191,000) is a statement of real achievement, even more so in attack.

I think the proper Lincoln quote: “I cannot spare this man. He fights! Grant’s Vicksburg Campaign should have gotten more notice from his adversaries. A real consideration for the Overland Campaign was Lincoln’s need to show results to the North leading up to the 1864 Election.

Grant's victory at Vicksburg is considered by many historians to compare with anything Alexander the Great did. It's considered one of the great strategic and tactical victories of all time. BTW, Grant's troops suffered fewer casualties, numerically and by percentage, than Lee's. While fighting an offensive war. If Lee was such a genius, he would have known that all he had to do was defend until the North got exhausted. The Vietnamese understood that.

The key to Grant's success is that he did not fear Lee. He understood Lee's strategic weaknesses. and how to exploit them ... Grant was a tactician. His campaign in Vicksburg was a masterpiece of the principle of meeting and defeating fragments of your enemy before he was able to consolidate numbers against you. After Grant's final incursion into Virginia with the Army of the Potomac, his signature maneuver became evident. Usually conducted at night after a battle, to pull the army out of their lines from one end, march behind the other lines, and head south on the available roads outside the reach of the rebel defenses. In that way he peeled off the entire army, unzipping its lines from left to right, or right to left, onto a flank march to which Lee had to react, instead of dictating the issue as he so often had done. Now, Lee had to contend with the one general he had feared from the start, the one he had hoped to avoid, the ONE who understood him.

Apparently, Grant and Lee both had more qualities than were seen by the opposition. In fact, those fighting with them saw a bit more. In Grant's case, one of those views came from William Tecumseh Sherman. He once wrote that he was "a site smarter than Grant...but where he beats me and the rest of the world: he doesn't care a damn about the enemy when out of his sight. Just the thought of the enemy out of my sight scares me like hell!"

The confederate general quoted reminds me of what an Alabama football player said after losing to Michigan in the playoffs this year, " They didn't beat us. We beat ourselves. " Nah, you got beat and outcoached.

I agree with General Law 100%. Grant's true mark of greatness was his willingness to stick to what he knew was a long term winning plan in spite of all the criticism and bitterness directed at him.

Isn't it interesting that Grants critics are always pointing to Cold Harbor as evidence that Grant was a butcher, and that he "learned his lesson" there, but they seldom if ever compare Grants losses at Cold Harbor with that of Lee's at Gettysburg. How many charges into a well entranced, superior force that held the high ground did Lee order over three days? How many men did Lee lose in those three days? Did Lee "learn his lesson" in those three days? When we look at the results of these two battles, what was the out come of the two battles? In both cases, the South withdrew. That's right, after Cold Harbor the CSA didn't "hold" Cold Harbor, they retreated from it as they continued to be out maneuvered and pressed by Union forces. McPherson states: In that [Cold Harbor] attack, ordered by Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, fifty thousand Union soldiers uffered seven thousand casualties, most of them in less than half an hour. For this mistake, which he admitted, Grant has been branded a 'butcher' careless of the lives of his men, and Cold Harbor has become a symbol of mule-headed futility. At Gettysburg, Lee's men also sustand almost seven thousand casualities in the PIckett-Pettigrew assault, most of them also within a half hour. Yet this attack is perceived as an example of great courage and honor. This contrast speaks volumes about the comparative images of Grant and Lee, North and South, Union and Confederacy

Armies typically lose more troops on offense than they do on defense. Grant almost always played offense. He deserves far more credit than he receives. He was no butcher.

To me, Grant compares with Soviet WWII General Zhukov, in that his strength was in understanding the big picture, and managing a large force. We have to remember, Lee was a great tactician, and Grant had to attack Lee, and Lee's forces were often behind solid defensive works. Also, the Army of the Potomac had a really sorry record up to that time, and wasn't a match for the Army of Northern Virginia except in manpower and supplies. So Grant pressed the only advantage he had. Just like Zhukov did in WWII. Up to that time, every time the Army of the Potomac was defeated, they went home and regrouped. Grant decided that they could reinforce and resupply where they were, and he knew he would eventually win if he simply did not admit defeat.

A point to remember from an Honorably Discharged Veteran of the US Army, is that when you're talking casualties, you're talking about men's lives. It mays sound cool but if it's your life or the life of a family member, it really means something.

No battle is more misunderstood than Cold Harbor. It was bloody, but no more bloody, percentage-wise, than Malvern Hill or Pickett's Charge- and it proved to Lee that he could never divide his forces to trick Grant as he had tricked Hooker, and the fact that Grant could sustain losses on a scale that Lee could never hope to inflict on Grant's army convinced Lee to retreat to the works of Petersburg. The campaign of 1864 convinced Lee that his only hope was to dig in and hope for a miracle.

The wilderness campaigned showed Lee, grant was coming for him 🙏🏽🔥🏆👍🏼🙌🏾❤️💔

Grant was a winner who knew what had to be done and how to do it.

Grant fought with what he had. He pressed his advantages and used his forces as they should been used. He understood what his strengths were and based on these strengths, he pressed them against his opponents. I believe his genius was the depth of his understanding of what he had and what his enemies had. Winning battles is only important if you win the war. Losing battles are painful, but these losses served to win the war. Winning the war is the only thing that matters in the end.

Your videos are top notch. It is so interesting to learn about the words of the men who were there.

Woefully wrong. Longstreet, Lee’s principal Lt knew Grant well from West Point and Mexico and was under no illusions. Lee, aware of how close to disaster he came in the Wildernness and Spotsylvania, quickly realized that “Grant was not a retreating man…The Army of the Potomac has a head.” It is amateurish for the blogger to ascribe to the entire Army of Northern Virginia the views of a single brigadier when the army’s leadership took a decidedly different view.

That's a great portrait of Grant. Never seen it before. Where did it come from? Read Grants autobiography a couple years ago. Frankly, the biggest takeaway was just how on top of Army logistics and organization he was in Virginia.

Relying on overwhelming force doesn't show a lack of strategy it is in fact a strategy. The same strategy we employed in the second world war. It would be great if one could win battles and wars without getting people killed but the world doesn't work that way,there were many in the south who acccused Lee of being a butcher.

What you’d hear coming from the bar when old cronies were commiserating about their glory days of defeat. “Sour grapes “

"This man understands the arithmetic," is what Lincoln said of Grant. It was a terrible arithmetic but it always is in warfare.

Twenty years is plenty of time for Law to rationalize his own failures. Law was an insubordinate officer having been placed under arrest during several battles.

Grant was a realist and saw the strategic advantages of the Union and used them to press home the drive for victory over Lee. He was out to win the war, not have his name glorified by clever maneuvers. How many would have been killed in a prolonged war which would have found him in periodic jousting-and-retreat with Lee Napoleonic style?

Quite a few insightful comments on this video. At Cold Harbor, Grant thought the Confederates were on the verge of collapsing and that he could break them. He misjudged but adjusted and continued to press on, unlike his predecessors.

Underestimating the Victor is a luxury that only the defeated know. Semper Fi!

From @TheByteknight, "Grant was smart enough to realize in order to win, the North would have to do a death grip on Lee's army and not let go, no matter how many casualties. " Is Pariah Putin seeing things this way in Ukraine?

Grant said that he had, almost a superstition, that from childhood that whatever he started, he must finish. He excelled at various subjects. He had a total visual understanding upon looked at various components of where his divisions were. Yes, his men loved him, because he never turned back. General Eisenhower said once that Grant was our greatest general. Anyone who says that he just used brute force is wrong. Ike mentioned Grant’s masterful strategies to get control of the Mississippi. He finally blocked the flow of ships and barges carrying cotton, destined for the hungry British cotton mills. Cotton paid for the Civil War by the South.

Unlike most of the Union generals, he was not afraid of his shadow, nor did he fear McClellans boogie men. He used his assets as necessary to beat his opponents.

Grant knew how to defeat Robert E Lee one of the Greatest American Generals that ever Live..Numbers and Dogged Determination

Grant's main talent was his stubborn nature. The Spring (or Overland) Campaign of 1864 shows that very well. Whatever Lee did, Grant just kept moving forward. Lee outfought and outsmarted Grant repeatedly but Grant didn't care. He fought it out along that line all summer and was determined to do so without regard to losing or winning individual battles.

Longstreet knew Grant and told Lee that "That man Grant will fight us everyday and every hour until the end of the war."

True that Grant was modern and forward looking.

He couldn't have cared less about opinions. Yours,mine or his enemies. All he did was win

I'm the sure they chattered all the way to Appomattox, when the chatterboxes fell silent. Success answers all critics.

Grant understood one war-winning concept - attrition!

Longstreet (Lee's #2) was perhaps Grant's closet friend in the army before the war. Longstreet let everyone know that Grant would never stop.

I heartily enjoy how many excuses Confederates have for the many times Grant was a spectacular General. It is almost aa string as their mental gymnastics claiming Lee was infallible. However, they do run afoul of Lee here, when they say Grant only won due to weakness if western forces that is because Lee did not reinforce them.

Grant mercilessly pounded Lee into submission. Lee had the advantage of fighting on the defensive and on his home turf. Yet Lee was bled dry. By 1865, it was just a mere question of time.

The moment he said Better known as the Overland Campaign. Uhh...No ,it it is better known as the Hammering Campaign. Grant's advance up the Tennessee River was by boat. His advance down the Mississippi past Vicksburg was also by boat.Except for them, EVERY Campaign was overland.

Grant could do the math. That's all Lincoln wanted: A general that could do the math.

Grant realized it was war of state against state not army tactics against army tactics

What's interesting to me is that this is written by a general who's army lost, but he says nothing about what they thought about losing, or how they tried not to lose. Nor does he say much at all about fighting Grant. How did he try to win? We don't know. How did Lee try to win? He will not say. What did they feel about Grant when they lost a battle? He's forgotten. Instead of critiquing Grant, or Lee, or the author try critiquing the article. If I were the editor I'd ask him what did you feel when you beat Grant and he moved left? What was the feeling about Grant when he besieged your army at Petersburg? When did you realize he was not like the other Army of the Potomac commanders? Did you think you would defeat him at the start of the campaign? Did your opinion change after the first three months?

BG Law? Never heard of him. US Grant...2x POTUS. I think that says it all.

No... Grant wasn't a brilliant tactician... at least, we would never know that becuase he never needed to be. Grant was a pragmatist with unending tenacity. He understood the math of the war... pure and simple.

The victory by the north in the Civil War was never a sure thing. For that Grant was the only Union general who could pull it out of the fire. If Lincoln had not been assassinated he would have been the first to credit the victory to Grant. It is not commonly appreciated what a different world we would be living in today, and not a better one by any means, but for Grant.

Longstreet knew Grant., Longstreet Robert E. Lees’s right hand man was cousin to Grant’s wife Julia. Longstreet attended their wedding in St Louis after the Mexican war. Joseph E. Johnston, Simon B. Buckner confederate officers were Pallbearers at President Grant’s funeral. He had the largest funeral procession even larger than President Lincoln. He was a war hero by all accounts. He was a decent family husband and father. He was soft spoken and quiet. Well read. He was considered a horse whisper ..he had that calm demeanor that horses respected it started when he was a toddler. He drank but he only weighed about 120 pounds during the Civil War he was only 5’8” tall. It didn’t take much to get him drunk. However he did not stay drunk constantly. He drank when his wife was not with him to calm his stress. She took care of his terrible headaches. She always had a way because of their closeness made him calmer She traveled with him always where ever he went. His staff loved her too. She would leave her children with Grants parents who lived in Covington Ky ..they attended school there. She was with him in the Overland Campaign, Vicksburg, Tennessee, many areas in the south one of his oldest boys travelled with him too. He smoked cigars ..people found he smoked them they sent him boxes and boxes during the war. He died of throat cancer. Mark Twain was a very close friend. Helped Grant publish his memoirs with a fair book deal. So his wife would be taken care of after his death at age 63. Before he died after his WH presidency him and Julia and the youngest son world tour Europe., Scotland, visited and had dinner with Queen Victoria. Visited Belgium, France, Italy, Russia, China’s emperor, Japan and its emperor, the Middle East Egypt. He was highly sought after to have him visit wined and dined treated like a hero all around the world. History tries to only remember in the south that classified him as a butcher. However Robert E. Lee and president Lincoln knew he would fight not run away and give up like the previous battles of the Potomac Union Generals. Lincoln was thrilled to have him…raised to him to head of all of the Union Forces in the end. A five star general which was only awarded to Washington, Grant and Pershing. It was actually a 6 star general without the extra star. Grant played a large part in the ending of the civil war. He was not a coward. He had many horses shot from under him during the war. Robert E. Lee surrendered after he ran Confederate President Jefferson Davis out of Richmond the capital. That was the worst blow for morale. All supply lines were cut rail lines had been destroyed by Sherman’s bow ties left where ever he went. The south fell under General Sherman and all of Grants’s Generals, Troops and officers. The confederate General Law and his retelling just had to make a non hero out of Grant. General Lee never said such things after the war about Grant. Grant let the Confederate soldiers keep their rifles and horses if they belonged to them. He would not let his union troops jeer are cheer the loss of Robert E, Lees troops out of respect. Lee tipped his hat at Grant before he rode away from Appomattox. He also got to keep his sword. Robert E. Lee was treated with respect and honor on the day of surrender by General Grant and his staff. What a butcher and dumb man only a jealous person remembers him with those words. War is hell and troops will die it is unavoidable.

Every commander who presses attacks, keeping pressure on the enemy, suffers great losses. Grant, , Ike, Patton, Chesty Puller, and others. A Total war strategy, a no holds barred grab'em by the nose, and kick em in the ass approach wears down an opponent who cannot resupply or recover from his losses, because of the constant pressure applied against him. That was the only way to beat Lee and the South. I'm a Southern Man, with Confederate family members who served back then, and a Marine Veteran, and I believe in that approach in war. You don't play the enemies game, and dance with him, you beat him senseless, harass him constantly, and never let up until he is dead or surrenders. Just as in the coming invasion of Japan in 1945, a commander has to ask himself, how many casualties will I sustain if I drag this out, against losses if I keep the pressure on, and do the hardest thing. To let Lee go, and resupply and maneuver at will, would have been far more costly. Timidity among previous commanders hadn't gotten the North anywhere, So Grant brought what he knew to the fight. Total war. He screwed up a time or two, he sure did, but, the strategy was sound.

The Southern generals fought the war like it was 1810. Grant, Sherman, Meigs fought the war like it was 1910.

The fact that nobody thought he was great was one of his strengths.

Grant was a great general,history constantly tries to f him over.

To all those who cite Cold Harbor as "proof" of Grant as butcher, there is a definitive reply: "The Vicksburg Campaign." He risked his army's annihilation as much as did Lee in before Antietam, while tying up and mystifying numerous Confederate generals and succeeding brilliantly. He was the only person who had a realistic grand strategy for marshalling all of the North's capabilities towards ending the war (and that arguably includes Halleck). Not even Napoleon, for all his gifts, actually displayed that kind of long-term vision over so wide an area (and yes of course the challenges were barely similar). Lee was at least as much of a butcher as Grant - Gettysburg day 3, for one example - but could afford the bill far less. Grant is my nominee for America's greatest solider.

Grant was smart enough to realize in order to win, the North would have to do a death grip on Lee's army and not let go, no matter how many casualties.

Any confederate general calling Grant a butcher should ask President Davis to look to the West toward General Hood. Hood was the epitome of a butcher and seemed almost to enjoy slaughtering his troops. Meanwhile Grants overall casualty rates in the western theater were minuscule considering how much fighting he did on the offensive. It’s a shame that so many still have this view of Grant as the butcher, he engaged Lee and latched on to the army of northern VA bringing the war to a close within 11 months of taking overall command. That constant pressure was deliberate and kept Lee from moving south to join Johnston in defeating Sherman. The last thing the North needed was Lee utilizing the interior lines of the south to reinforce one army, win a battle and then move all troops to engage Grant. Grant was Napoleonic in his generalship and we all owe him a debt in keeping this nation whole.

Grant saved the Union. End.

The Southern criticism of Grant was because they felt generalship was about gallantry and honor; whereas Grant fought the war as more of an administrator and coordinator. From the moment Grant started his Overland Campaign he maintained the initiative on all fronts, and denied the South's attempts to take the initiative from him. Grant grappled with Lee's army and ran it to ground. Grant forced Lee to fight the war on Grant's terms. The South could not realize how badly they were pinned because the war did not look like what they expected a war to be.

If you have read Bonekemper's book on Grant and Lee, Grant had a total casualty count, killed, wounded or captured, of 154,000 while inflicting 191,000 casualties on the South. Lee incurred 209,000 casualties while inflicting 240,000 on the North. I would point out that Grant fought a vigorous and aggressive war throughout the West, while Lee ignored the Southern Defensive strategy with two disastrous assaults on the North at Antietam and Gettysburg where he was lucky to save any of Army. Then he was fighting a defensive war on his home ground with excellent interior lines and the ability to mass his forces quickly for any threat. He still ended up with 55,000 more casualties. And Grant was the butcher?

Hard to imagine any real strategist criticizing a leader for recognizing the strength of his position, and utilizing it to achieve the objectives.

Grant was the first General to coordinate all Union armies working together at one time for an overall victory. No Confederate army could come to Lee's help due to being engaged in combat themselves. AND during the same time Sherman was marching through Georgia and the Carolina,'s. Grant saw the overall strategy.

A lopsided victory is "Pyrrhic" only if the "victor" can not sustain his losses and becomes successively weakened. For some things, like the invasion of hostile territory, asymmetrical losses are necessary when dealing with foes of similar technology. Grant, I think everyone will agree, used what he had very effectively and none of his battles even hinted at being Pyrrhic, even if the causalities were high. It is my opinion that ALL the Confederate "victories" were, in one way or another, Pyrrhic. To me it is so ironic that Southern officers would call Grant a "butcher" when the ordinary "Ruffians" in the Confederate armies had their lives squandered by their "Gentlemen" officers in many battles. If Grant was a butcher, who supplied the hogs?

Just as the Civil War was the transition into modern warfare, so too was Grant a transition to a modern general. Those demeaning him were judging him by standards rapidly becoming extinct. Perhaps Grant's greatest strength was his ability to appreciate his army's advantages and use them to their fullest rather than adhering to outdated theories of how a war should be fought. In the end, HE WON.

It’s bizarre that Law would characterize Grant as an unknown as Longstreet, his commanding officer, was Grant’s best friend at West Point. But perhaps I can suggest a reason. The unsaid thing is that Law had personal enmity with Longstreet who had removed him from command and actually arrested Law until the CSA’s general staff reinstated him. After the war Longstreet returned to Mississippi and was a supporter of reconstruction and civil rights for African Americans. Grant appointed Longstreet as customs collector in New Orleans and when local whites tried to stage an armed rebellion Longstreet put the riot down and restored the integrated government. In short, by 1884 Law had every reason to despise Grant and Longstreet.

Lee was probably the better battlefield tactician. Grant was the master strategist who saw the far broader picture. Omar Bradley put it well after the Second World War when he observed, "Amateur soldiers talk about tactics. Professionals talk about logistics." Or as George Patton once observed of one of his campaigns, "It wasn't the soldiers who were the heroes of that one. It was the men driving the ammo trucks down those sons-of-bitching roads day and night under artillery shells." While Lee was piling up glories in Mexico at the front lines, Grant was working in the quartermaster corps. What he learned there would later pay off.

Strategically Grant was a genius.He placed four armies in motion to negate the southern advantage of fighting on interior lines: Phil Sheridan in the Shanandoah valley, Benjamin Butler east of Richmond, William Tecumseh Sherman's movement to atlanta.

Lee butchered Pickets division at Gettysburg.

If memory from long ago is correct, T. Harry Williams referred to Grant as the "first of the modern generals". Grant pursued Lee similar to the U.S. taking it to Hitler in WWII-IMO.

Three armies surrendered during the Civil War. All three confederate, all three to Grant.

Bit of trivia, Grant held equestrian records that stood into the 20th century.

When Lee went on the offensive, notably, Malvern Hill, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, his looses were as bad or worse than Grant's. And he didn't have the resources to back up those losses. The Confederates may have thought Grant's success at Vicksburg was due to inferior opponents but the same could be said about Lee at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Nevertheless, Grant invaded the Mississippi hinterland south of Vicksburg with a tenuous supply line against two different armies with interior lines and technically superior numbers and he soundly defeated both of them. I'll take superior strategic understanding over tactical brilliance every time. Furthermore, Grant devised the overall strategy of late 1864 that slowly strangled the Confederate insurrection. Lee never gave a damn about anything but VA.

Grant understood that the more lightly equipped Southern Army was always going to be quicker and faster. How do you deal with that? Get up close and grapple with them; never give them room to maneuver. So he just went at lee. And in the end that was exactly what he needed to do. Grant understood that the south had to be BEATEN, not just defeated.

One of Grant’s greatest strengths (unlike most Northern generals) was his ability to stay calm under duress and keep the enemy under constant pressure. While if you where in his army, I’m sure it did feel like you where in the meat grinder and you didn’t get much rest, but he knew that this was going to end the war sooner.

interesting to hear the seeds of the lost cause being sowen. the caual dismisal of grant's accomplishments in the west are laughable.

What the South never “got” was that Grant was not Patton, he was Eisenhower. He wasn’t conducting a single enemy in a single place, he was fighting a NATIONAL STRATEGIC Campaign that few recognized as such. Basically, as Patton once alluded, Grant held Lee by the NOSE, in place, being the South’s strongest force, while he coordinated his death grip on the entire South with Thomas, Sheridan and, most of all, Sherman. The Anaconda plan strangled southern commercial existence while Grant coordinated and supplied FOUR ARMIES into the ULTIMATE STRANGLEHOLD, the end of Lee. Grant was so above all that went before that the always vocal, “lesser minds” had lots of bone headed, negative comments on Grant’s strategy, simply because their lack of brain density did, and DOES, make grasping his genius difficult to impossible TO grasp!

Grant was a great general. General Sherman push through South carlonia to the sea. Great work. ( army veteran vietnam).

Nonetheless from spring 1864 to the spring 1865 the Union armies were continuously on the offensive.

Grant won. Lee lost. This was, and still is, a good thing.

Their commentary on Grant is a good example of how so many in the AoNV failed to see the war as a whole.

Grant was a hammer and a bulldog. What made him different from other Union Generals is that he didn't let go of the enemy once he engaged him. After losing battles, other generals withdrew and licked their wounds. Grant, after a battle, regardless of the results, moved forward. He didn't want the blood that his soldier spilled to be in vain. His strategy, as he told Lincoln, was that the destruction of Lee's army was his goal and that wherever he went, he would also be there.

I forget the Southern officer, but as the war started, he told his fellow Confederates that the North had an officer, if discovered, would win the war. That officer was Grant.

People want to talk about Grant’s exceedingly high casualty rates, but from Wikipedia, “Throughout the Civil War, Grant's armies incurred approximately 154,000 casualties, while having inflicted 191,000 casualties on his opposing Confederate armies.” Somehow he gave better than he took. Law’s quotes come 20 years after the war, probably just after Grant’s death, when the Lost Cause propaganda campaign was beginning. Grant was the only general in the war that forced the surrender of multiple opposing armies. He placed himself between two armies in Mississippi, and defeated them both, even though he was outnumbered and in enemy territory. He was not cowed by Lee, and inflicted on Lee’s army a 46% casualty rate compared to his own 41%, in spite again being in enemy territory and for part of the time sieging prepared defenses (which favors the defenders). The facts just do not support the Lost Cause narrative.

I think I agree with everythjng Law said. Grant was competent and always did the sensible thing. His campaigns were all pretty straightforward, and he used his numerical advantage to great effect. (He never fought a battle with much worse than 2-1 odds). His rare qualities were his tenacity and his ability to keep his army cohesive and well supplied in all situations. In 1860s America, that wasn't a small feat.

So…Grant had superior forces and weaponry and used that to his advantage. And that made him a dumb general?

Grant’s WP classmates said he was the best horse trainer in the army. He lost his own mount in a card game on the way to Mexico but took on a wild mustang and had him as docile as any mount in just a few days.

One thing to remember is that Grant forced Lee to dig in and defend Richmond, negating Lee's mobility and natural aggressiveness and allowing the Union forces in the western theater to begin demolishing the Confederacy

The Confederates lost due to Federal superiority in terms of sea power, industrial output and population. Counterfactuals are fun but don’t change anything. At this moment in our history, it is good to remind people of the enormous suffering the Civil War brought. It is always those least likely to fight who advocate most loudly for war. It is the Soldier who knows the brutality of war, not the armchair generals.

Ironic to claim Grant had no grasp of strategy. Even Lee complained that Grant’s continuous flanking maneuvers (Cold Harbor being an exception) gave him (Grant) the strategic initiative, effectively fixing Lee in place and gradually backing him up toward Petersburg. And while Grant directed multiple armies in a coordinated approach, Lee refused to direct the other Confederate armies, even after being appointed to do so. So, Lee was the tactical master, but Grant mastered the big picture from the start.

I think Grant is one of history’s great commanders/Generals. He is right up there with the best. Grant during the war was often stymied by poor transport, poor communications and poor staff under and over him. He had to deal with the politics of those above him, and political Generals he couldn’t get rid of under him. The fighting at the Wilderness and Cold Harbor were bloody sure, and Grant did regret the latter deeply. But his movement South around Richmond which included a river crossing (can’t remember the name) nearly caught Lee flat footed. The generals under him flubbed the timing of the southern attack on Richmond, enough so that the Confederates managed to recover. Hence more months of siege/trench warfare that somewhat anticipated the first world war. It also wasn’t just the fight in front of him that Grant considered, he was also directing other theatres of the war, enough to thoroughly destroy the South’s ability to wage war as the other armies the South had. In many ways Grant was ahead of his time. As to that Confederate officers perspective, phooey! Many of his contemporaries underestimated him.

Confederate General Longstreet was Grant's Best Man at his Wedding. They were friends while they attended West Point at the same time. When Longstreet heard that Grant was promoted to Lieutenant General and took command of the Army or the Potomac, Longstreet told Lee that "He will fight you every day until the end of the war" So a few Confederate Officers knew about Grant. 🤨

A crucial point they overlook - Grant was constantly on offense throughout the war, and always found a way to win. Lee’s victories were always on defense. Whenever Lee attempted an offensive campaign, he got stomped.

In all of the portraits of Grant, including this one, you can see the eyes and look of a man that has seen much hardship and reverses in life. Grant well understands the difficulties and failures that happen and has great compassion for those who have struggled throughout their lives. Yet every time he was knocked down, including the last year of his life, he got up and carried on, doing the best he could with what he had. Grant is a personal hero for me and someone I try, in my own little world, to emulate.

Grant spent the entire war deep in enemy territory, attacking well-defended positions, and winning. Vicksburg was brilliant. Compare that to Lee, who went north twice and was beaten both times.

Both yourself and Gen Laws seem to exhibit a certain smug glee in denigrating U.S. Grant. Do you recall that at the time of appointment to Union command, General Longstreet told Lee, “I know this man well and we cannot afford to underrate him”. Lee was to say of Grant “ He will grab us by the leg and never let go.” Name any other general in all history who received the unconditional surrender of three major armies in the field. Casualties in the Army of the Potomac actually decreased under Grant’s command. Frederick the Great called Grant the greatest general of all time.

Calling Grant a "butcher" who only won by overwhelming force is a Lost Cause trope. Grant beat Lee just like we beat Germany and Japan in WWII. We overwhelmed them and then occupied them afterwards. Total victory. The Neo Confederates like their idols , would have you think this was a boxing match with Marques of Queensbury rules of chivalry that had to be adhered to. Well, your enemy always gets a vote and the commanders of Grant prior to that time did that but US Grant didn't. About a year after he took over the war was done.

Grant didn’t allow Lee freedom of operation or a rest. Lee was a master of maneuver while Grant grabbed a hold of Lee and refused to let go. This of course allowed Sherman greater freedom of operation. Attritional warfare isn’t often a pretty thing but his overall strategy was successful. Lee in the end was beaten

On the idea that the confederate leaders didn't know who Grant was-----At Appomattox when Grant met Lee, Grant told of meeting Lee at a staff meeting during the Mexican war and that he remembered Lee well and his appearance. However Lee said he remembers the meeting, but basically nothing at all about Grant including his appearance. Lee said in effect said, "Yeah I kind of remember a meeting back then, we had quite a few, but dude I can't remember a single thing about you personally, sorry." Actually that probably helped the union cause. On confederate generals saying Grant's reputation was a result of him fighting lesser or incompetent generals, well the same can be said of the confederate generals, they ALL got their reps fighting inferior federal generals-----that's how wars go. Good generals make good use of any advantage they have, the lesser ones don't.

The notion Grant took much higher casualties has been debunked.

Let's not forget that the Army of Northern Virginia didn't just up and decide to quit one day, it was trapped and forced to surrender. Grant had previously trapped and destroyed the Army of Mississippi, making him the only only commander of the war to annihilate an opposing field army, having wiped out two.

How could Union generals be unimpressed by the Vicksburg campaign?

Grant recognized if he refused to acknowledge defeat, he could keep his army in the field and on the attack. He ultimately denied Lee the ability to maneuver and, by staying in constant contact, forced Lee to stay engaged and lose men daily that he could not replace. Lee spent the remainder of the war being reactive to anything Grant did.