Anonymous ID: fbd235 Oct. 14, 2018, 1:16 p.m. No.3476117   🗄️.is đź”—kun

>>3476047

"Grant’s military reputation suffers from his reputation as president, which historically is regarded as one of the worst administrations of all. Grant’s haplessness as president has redounded to color his performance during the War. Grant’s personal charisma was never as high as Lee’s anyway; and he has been dogged by questions about his drinking. But taken on its own terms, Grant was an exceptional general of both theater commands, as in his siege of Vicksburg, and in command of all the Union armies when he came east. There was nothing romantic about Grant’s battles: he committed to a plan and then followed it through with an almost uncanny stubbornness. He saved the Battle of Shiloh after the Union line was shattered on the first day, reorganizing his forces and counterattacking. 'Whip 'em tomorrow, though' he remarked to Sherman at the end of an awful first day’s fighting; and he did. His seige of Vicksburg was a remarkable campaign of combined operations with the 'brown water' navy. And he was implacable in the final year of the war when he engaged Lee continuously from the Battle of the Wilderness to Appomattox.

"I think that Grant slightly shades Lee as a commander because in the last year of the War he managed all of the Union armies, including Sherman in the South and Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley. Grant served in the field, supervising Meade, who was still commander of the Army of the Potomac, but he had his eye on the entirety of the Union campaign. Moreover, Grant recognize the new reality of warfare: that the firepower commanded by each side was making a battle of maneuver, like Chancellorsville, impossible. Lee didn’t think much of Grant as a general, saying that McClellan was the superior foe. On the other hand, Lee beat McClellan. He didn’t beat Grant."

– David C. Ward, Senior historian, Smithsonian