"Although a soldier by profession, I have never felt any sort of fondness for war, and I have never advocated it, except as a means of peace"
Gen. Ulysses S. Grant

How about a discussion of General Grants achievements, or maybe a comparison of tactics between Grant and Lee? General Grant was a man of few words, but when he spoke, people listened and took note of what he had said. His words were always direct, and perfectly reflected the situation at hand. They also revealed his inherent modesty, his clear head, quick perception and steadfast determination.

Gunny

Grant was glacial in his approach to war. What I mean by that was he was possessed of single mind and moved forward, regardless of the cost. Called a butcher, by his detractors, Grant realized his greatest advantage over Lee was his nearly inexhaustable manpower and material.

Battle after battle Grant sacrificed men to batter Lee into retreat. By the time of Appomatix Court House Grant had more troops in reserve units than Lee in his whole army.

Lee on the other hand was a tactician who nearly always had inferior numbers and yet pulled off great victories because his ability to strike his enemy in different locations with ferocity. When Lee was forced into a defensive mode at Petersberg you see his tatical prowess dissappear and he is pummeled.

The two great Generals of the Civil War - very different men, yet it was in the end the one with the mostest who prevailed.

Well said, Frank...
I think that Lee greatly underestimated our Army and Grant's determination for victory. Not saying that General Lee was not a good leader himself, and an excellent General, but I personally feel that going up against a man like Grant would not have been an enjoyable experience. I have studied both men's chronological tactics of battle, and both men made good battle decisions under each circumstance, but in the end, persistence and gut force and determination paid off for the North.
Gunny

"I don't believe in strategy in the popular understanding of the term.I use it to get up close to the enemy as practicable, with as little loss of life as possible. Then, up guards, and at 'em!"
General Ulysses S. Grant

Mark -
The Civil War has always been a favorite of mine.

So here is a bit of Civil War trivia for you.

Grant and Lee sat in the front parlor of McClean's house in Appomatix. They signed the instrument of surrender on a small round table. What happened to that table?

(Add the music from Jepordy here)

The answer is: George A Custer.

Phil Sheridan paid McClean Yankee gold for that table and then after penning a personal note to Custer's wife presenting her this table in honor of her husband's gallentry in bringing the war to an end.

Custer rode off back to his unit with the table balanced on his head.

Frank,
Thanks for the trivia! Good stuff... Pleased to hear that you're a Civil War man too. What most about this time period is most compelling to you? Personally, I find
the entire period fascinating.

Sincerely,
Gunny

Frank-- according to the Park people at Appomatix that story is horse hockey. Regardless, it is interesting sidebar. Obviously, you believe it is true. What does your source tell happened to the table? Custer and Libbie were childless so I do not think it is a family heirloom.
DJ

Isn't it also true that McClean moved to Appomattox to get away from way, having lived near Bull Run earlier in the war. So he was there near the beginning, and at the end.

I don't know much about Grant the soldier, but I do respect what he did at Appomattox, giving Lee and the Confederate army very generous terms, while others may have wanted to hang the lot of them.

Hi, That Grant was a butcher of men of that there is no doubt. His casualty figures, esp. when he was directing involved with the Army of the Potomac, shows this clearly.

Could Lee have beaten him? I would say that if they had met in the early part of the war, yes, Lee would have run cirlces around Grant. No doubt about it. By the time these two commanders finally came to grips in the Wilderness and started their slugfest that lasted till the spring of '65, the South already had the wind knocked out of it. This last year of the war is where Lee really shines as an army commander to last as long as he did in the face of such over-whelming odds that were laid against him and his nation.

When considering all the blunders and military block-heads that the Union was strapped with during this conflict it is really a wonder that the North did win in the end. Which is not to say that they South didn't have it's fair share of block heads. I'm thinking her of Braxton Bragg and Joseph Johnston here, not to mention Jeff Davis-- who would would have made a pretty darn good army commander, but did become a very poor president.

Luckily for the North it was blessed with one of the smartest men ever to occupy the White House, either in the past or in the future. What this man put up with in his own governmental peoples during these times was really something else.

Luckily for Grant he had good political backers to protect him during his early commands in the West and also Lincoln recognized early on the Grant was one of the few generals the North had that would fight, despite casualties inflicted or received.

Grant was not, in my way of thinking the best the North had during the war. I believe Sherman was the best, as with his "March to the Sea' he took the art of warfare to it's next logical step in taking war to the people instead of the enemy's armies. War is not a civilized sporting event, never has been and never will be. This is just how it is, everybody suffers. And those who suffer the most usually lose.

And to me Lee was not one of the best either, despite the hype of the "Lost Cause' and his elevation to a 'god-like' status by the Southerners after the War. (And Lee, if he had lived longer, would have been the very first to admit to this as well.) I would choose N.B. Forrest and Longstreet as the best overall commanders they had.

The biggest failing I can find with U.S. Grant was that he allowed himself to be pushed into the presidency by peoples who were going to use him in that office for their own selfish gains. He just wasn't cut out to be a politician. He should have told them like Sherman did. "If nominated I will not run, and if elected I will not serve." To me, this is the one outstanding thing I really like about Sherman. But then I'm not a fan of big government or politicians either. In fact, I rate them about 5 or 6 steps below what I generally think of lawyers. And that's pretty darn l-o-w.

Take care, Sgirty