[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: fb-ulysses-grant-2.png (508 KB, 1200x1200)
508 KB
508 KB PNG
I always hear how Grant was a alcoholic mediocre general who carelessly threw his troops lives away. How could a guy like that do in 1 year what the generals before him couldn't do in 3 with the same resources and against the same opponent?
>>
>>12671900
Grant was a class act and had general Lee come visit him at the White House as President. I respect him
>>
Confederate propaganda, same as the Nazis who claim the USSR just careless threw troops' lives away to justify losses.
>>
>>12671900
Arguably, he has been the subject of character assassinations recently, but I find it funny he expelled the jews.
>>
>>12672160

Except the Soviets actually have excuses for their initial poor performance (Stalin's purges, being caught off-guard, losing nearly all of their major industrial centers in the first few months, etc.) and the Yankees don't.
>>
>>12672207
The CSA took nearly the entire decent officer corps of the USA with them, leaving only Grant and Sherman as the North's only good generals.
>>
The Civil War was full of incompetent commanders on both sides (just look at the Western theater if you don't believe Dixie had their own share of retards), to be fair none of them were trained or experienced with the type of war the Civil War was becoming as it was basically the first modern war and most American military figures really only had experience dealing with border problems and small numbers of troops.

Grant had the revolutionary insight of keeping his forces concentrated and consistently focused on their objectives. It was his sublime genius that realized the North could use their advantage of having more troops and materiel and better supply lines as an advantage which is why his command was typified by the North just marching aggressively at strategic objectives and Southern armies, daring them to engage in a relentless meat grinder campaign they just couldn't win. Really though he was just a competent commander that was proficient with grand strategy and army administration and understood that the North's advantage was just having more of everything and how to use it.
>>
>>12671900
Grant took fewer casualties and inflicted more casualties on the enemy than Lee did.
>>
>>12672207
Well for starters, the Union army at the start of the civil war was miniscule, because at the time America was still a minor regional power located on the ass end of the planet from the rest of the "civilized" world. Basically the union had no manpower to march south and conquer the new CSA.
>>
>>12672224
>Grant took fewer casualties and inflicted more casualties on the enemy than Lee did.
>>
>>12672223
>Grant had the revolutionary insight of keeping his forces concentrated and consistently focused on their objectives.

How the fuck is that revolutionary? Hasn't that been the key to successful armies since the beginning of time?
>>
>>12672290
Yes, that's the entire point - before Grant Northern commanders largely just didn't consolidate their forces and were often wishy-washy in their decision making out of fear of fucking up.
>>
>>12672207
Who cares, it's pretty unpredictable. At the end of the day, the north still won, and all you can do is cope because white supremacy lost.
>>
>>12672345
every prominent northern figure was a white supremacist
>>
File: grant.png (2.18 MB, 1696x958)
2.18 MB
2.18 MB PNG
>>12672278
>>
>>12672223
>The Civil War was full of incompetent commanders on both sides (just look at the Western theater if you don't believe Dixie had their own share of retards), to be fair none of them were trained or experienced with the type of war the Civil War was becoming as it was basically the first modern war and most American military figures really only had experience dealing with border problems and small numbers of troops.
>i have never heard of the american-mexican war
why do the biggest fucking morons talk with the most self-confidence?
>>
File: VGH YANKEE MORTARS.jpg (229 KB, 1300x1153)
229 KB
229 KB JPG
grant understood the strengths of the north and utilized them well: lots and lots of artillery. He was successful because he would force sieges and trench warfare in which the overwhelming INDVSTRIAL MIGHT of the north could shell the confederates to pieces.
>>
>>12672278
>(estimated)
Kek they definitely lost more than they could keep score of.
>>
>>12672431
>atun shei films
>>
>>12672160
The Grant was a butcher meme came from Lincoln and his own men lol.
Lee and Longstreet were actually the most prominent defenders of Grant because he was so friendly to the South and saw them as fellow Americans returning to the fold.
>>
>>12672431
>years active as General
>4
>1
>>
>>12672160
>Confederate propaganda
thats cope, the south have had basically no sway over the country since the war. even the dunning school originated in the northeast
>>
>>12672345
>you can do is cope because white supremacy lost.
both sides were white supremacist
>>
>>12672449
The U.S. suffered 6,000 casualties in the entirety of the Mexican-American War. The Battle of Antietam inflicted twice that number in one day, and that's not even including the Confederates. The two wars were completely uncomparable.
>>
>>12672640
It's almost like you don't have a legit answer to hard facts.
>>
>>12673253
Today, people are filled with utter contempt towards the South, which is predictable given most people today have immigrant ancestry rather than colonial/native/slave ancestry. Back then though it was a different picture, the North and the South were of the same blood. LARPers today can't grasp that reality.
>>
>>12671900
>Mediocre General
The Siege of Vicksburg objectively disprove this, Grant was cunning, tactical, and understood the importance of manuever as well as supplies. When Vicksburg surrendered the South lost the Misisipi and their biggest manifacturing city it was a devastating blow.

>Throw his troops lives away.
Those were the Overland campaign and Petersburg siege and he defeated the Army of Northern Virginia and secured Washington, a feat which 4 Generals have failed repeatedly (Lincoln Complain to Mcgee that he let Lee go in Gettysburg, which were true it wasn't a major defeat just a retreat, think Borodino), he had much more industrial capacity, manpower, and better supply line, he can tank his defeat Lee had to retreat which lead to Peterburg siege, which lead to the his defeat.

All Grant had to do was wait, with Sherman laying waste to North Virginia and the South cut of in the Misisipi it was just a matter of time.

>Alcoholic
Yep.
>>
The North had practically every advantage imaginable, yet the generals that Lincoln consistently fired hardly pushed their advantages because they did not want a high causality rate on their record. Only Grant and Sherman understood that they needed to push hard into the South to end the war quickly, no matter how many of their own men would end up dying.
>>
>>12673052
don't forget henry adams being butthurt that someone who wasn't a scion of a rich, well connected boston family became president
>>
>>12673373
They had a dogshit officer Corp and much lower quality, less motivated troops. Those are massive disadvantages
>>
>>12672207
The fact that the Soviet Union recovered and overall gained from the world war is amazing
> inb4 "lend lease"
Even with lend lease helping it, its still an extraordinary effort to recover from the biggest military invasion in modern history
>>
>>12672449
> american mexican war
Theres a big difference between the American Civil War and the American-Mexican war. Namely, the disparity in quality of the belligerents' armies
>>
>>12673646
balanced by huge advantages in manpower, materiel, naval supremacy, and logistical aptitude that the us government always had.

i do agree that to many people avoid the human element because they don't want to acknowledge that great man theory/history has merit. i know i'd feel a lot better with marsh rob, crazy ass stonewall jackson, and longstreet leading me into battle than whatever dipshit with sideburns comes out of washington, dc with some fresh stars on his collar.
>>
>>12673657
would have been way more rad if the us were smart and cut the cord in early 42 saying they had to focus on the war with japan and the build up for d-day. thanks fdr.
>>
>>12672160
Spbp
>>
>>12671900
>threw his troops lives away.

This was purely and simply an unavoidable aspect of the nature of the warfare during this period, a certain amount of men are going to be essentially sacrificed, that's just always going to happen, you have to send men forward into gunfire, it shouldn't take a genius to realize there will be losses no matter what, win, lose, or draw.

The only difference between Generals is whether they win, lose, or draw. They all spend troops, it's whether they buy anything with all that blood or just spill it all away for nothing.
>>
File: George-B.-McClellan.jpg (51 KB, 627x521)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>12673718
or you can be this dumbfuck from new jersey
>>
>>12673731
non-American here, what's the deal with this guy?
>>
>>12673752
Hilariously cautious general who was convinced that the Confederate army was way bigger than it actually was and spent of his command crying to Lincoln that he needed more men
>>
>>12673765
Cool, thank you
>>
>>12673768
No problem I guess. McClellan does get some credit for training the army of the Potomac into a real fighting force from a mix match of greens but he was a poor general. He wasn't the worse though, pic related led the union into a battle that went so poorly that he withdrew from the field openly weeping
>>
Before Grant faced off against Lee he had rekt the CSA in the western theater, opening up the Mississippi and slashing through huge expanses of rebel territory. At Fort Donelson and Vicksburg he bagged tens of thousands of prisoners while taking minimal casualties, by using deception, maneuver, logistics and naval forces. He relieved the siege of Chattanooga and turned it into a rout for the Confederates. You could say that the south had retard generals and scarce resources in the west but after Grant left the scene they inflicted some embarrassing losses on the Union in 1864 like Brices Crossroads and the Red River Campaign.

The “Grant the Butcher” meme comes from the Overland Campaign, where he was going up against the Greatest General Ever, in a war where a dug in army with secure flanks could sit back and play turkey shoot, yet Grant forced him into a siege at Petersburg and eventually won the war. With the numbers and resources the Union had by 1864 maybe anyone could have won but his western campaigns in the early half of the war were brilliant.
>>
This seems like a good place to ask, what would have happened if Lee and Grant had switched places? Lee is in command of the Union Army and Grant in command of the Confederates? Could Grant have salvaged the Confederate cause or would he have ultimately suffered the same fate as Lee?
>>
>>12672431
oh no no no lee bros
>>
>>12674288
Probably have suffered the same fate, plus a scenario were Lee stays means Virginia likely didn't attempt to leave meaning the South would have been even more crippled
>>
File: AverageYank.jpg (150 KB, 768x1024)
150 KB
150 KB JPG
>>12672345
(you)
>>
File: 1589224997351.gif (740 KB, 416x498)
740 KB
740 KB GIF
>>12674288
leading the confederate army is kind of a dogshit job. you need to have continuous smashing tactical victories to keep the pressure on the political leadership of the north. that's why lee was so fucking aggressive as an army leader because the confederacy wasn't going to win a protracted war of attrition.

confederate grant would have to hope that absolute retards were running the mississippi and trans-mississippi theatres so he could keep the river open for as long as possible. he'd either have to actually make the invasion of maryland or pennsylvania work. i don't know how you'd do it, but you'd have to find a way to sack cities and fend off the hundreds of thousands of additional conscripts sent after you with no supply line, or you turn to washington, dc and try to attack the most heavily defended city in the world at the time.

or, you get lucky like lee did during mid 1864 and keep fighting delaying actions without ending up at a siege like petersburg, which will break your army because you simply don't have the men or materiel to breakthrough/defend against union trench warfare.
>>
>>12672207
>the Yankees don't.
Most of them were retards.
Grant and Sherman carried the Union hard.
>>
>>12672345
>the northern whites were totally anti-racist and believed in the exact same leftoid things i do guiz trust me
Northerners only had a problem with secession, they took away slavery just as punishment for the rebels.
>>
>>12671900
He understood that he had more men than the confederates had bullets and exploited this fact with a cold ruthlessness that no other general could stomach
>>
>>12672160

SPBP

We saw this wholesale bashing of Grant after the Democrats returned to power in DC and during the "Lost Cause" movement under Woodrow Wilson. Southerners have a huge amount of vitriol towards Grant not only because he delivered the Union to victory, but because during his tenure as President he crushed the power of the Klan.
>>
>>12673810
Burnside was also the one who ordered his men to charge into an open crater at Petersburg, which predictably resulted in the Confederates surrounding the crater and slaughtering them. Dude was completely useless.
>>
From the 1910s through the 50s Southern historians were dominant in academia and wrote a lot of obviously slanted narratives about the ACW (Bruce Catton as a Michigan native was a notable exception). From there many of the memes about Grant being a drunk and Sherman's army being like the Einsatzgruppen were born.
>>
>>12674288
Would they have been in the same theaters as their opposites? Would Confederate Grant in the west been able to hold onto a couple of river forts and not concede most of Kentucky and Tennessee in early 1862, or get his troops moving in a timely manner for the short distance from Corinth to Pittsburg Landing, or not chase his tail like a retarded kitten until he’s besieged at Vicksburg?
>>
>>12671900
>I always hear how Grant was a alcoholic mediocre general who carelessly threw his troops lives away.
What? Have you actually studied Grant's military history, Grant was considered an excellent general.
>>
>>12672258
>because at the time America was still a minor regional power located on the ass end of the planet from the rest of the "civilized" world.
And because we had this notion back then that standing armies stood in opposition to long-term liberty so while we always had a fairly strong navy (because ships take a long time to build), our armies were tiny prior to WW1.
>>
>>12674288
I don't see a scenario where the North doesn't ultimately win thanks to having the industry and numbers
>>
>>12672331
Because they had Lincoln breathing down their fucking necks pushing them to hurry up and go get smashed so he could have something to show the fucking newspapers.

McClellan knew what to do and how to train AND lead an army, he said the army wasn't ready and needed more time to prepare, and Lincoln took that army away from him and proceeded to absolutely RUIN it and then call for more conscriptions to ruin another army and another after that.

Hey, major brainwave RETARDS, maybe McClellan knew more about military matters than Lincoln did! Maybe McClellan would have won the war with one army in a year and half as opposed to what Lincoln did, which was to sacrifice multiple armies and eventually, finally manage to outbleed the South four long years later.

That's what happens when you have political leaders trying to demand military leaders give them a military solution to a political problem.
>>
>>12679460
based McClellan appreciator
>>
>>12679520
His officers and men all LOVED him and they respected him and they were loyal to him, and that's the mark of a great leader.

There is nothing written about what effect having their beloved and trusted leader fired and disgraced and his incompetent replacement appointed by the Ape-man in the White House.

Nothing is written about it, you have to read between the lines.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.