re: tGOAT American General U.S. Grant's memorial officially restored on the National Mall

quote:

---

And that he was a raging alcoholic.

---

More bullshite being repeated by people who really don't know what they're talking about

quote:

---

I just don’t consider a siege some kind of great tactical accomplishment.

---

1) You ignore the tactical moves that got the two armies to Vicksburg in the first place.

2) You ignore the strategic implications the fall of Vicksburg presented to the Confederacy. It was a worse overall defeat for the Confederacy than Gettysburg was.

quote:

---

You ignore the tactical moves that got the two armies to Vicksburg in the first place.

---

No, I’m not speaking on the process to get his troops to Vicksburg though, I’m strictly speaking on the actual Battle of Vicksburg itself.

For some reason I can’t copy and paste your other quote all of a sudden. No I agree with your 2nd post. That’s why I stated my post above, it was an enormous loss, which is why I understand Pemberton wanting to stay and still think Johnson should have helped him.

quote:

---

No, I’m not speaking on the process to get his troops to Vicksburg though

---

That's the most important part though. Those movements sealed Vicksburg's fate. The siege itself, once it got going, was anti-climatic and a foregone conclusion.

quote:

---

He seiged the Confederates with a shite ton more men than they had.

---

And? He only lost around 800 dead (with another 4000 injured) compared to 3000 Confederates dead (with another 3000 injured). It's not he was Vo Nguyen Giap with regards to his assaults and the use of his men. Grant, over the course of the war, lost only around 15% of his troops, compared to much higher percentages against other Confederate and Union generals. Because winning was so important, the nature of Grant's assignments required severe casualties, yet he generally inflicted higher casualties on his opponents than he received himself, time and again.

At Chickamauga, Grant rescued the Army of the Cumberland, organized reinforcements, broke out, and sent Braxton Bragg to Georgia, with 6000 total casualties. His entire Western Campaign, he lost 37,000 men while the Confederates lost around 84000. One would expect that Grant, as the attacking general, would have much higher casualties. There are more examples I could go into as he progressed further into the war.

quote:

---

had constant bombardments from the MIssissippi river and still couldn’t force out a starved, ragged out, low ammo, and much less soldiers confederate army. Until, they literally did starve out.

---

What do you think the point of a siege is?

I went back to another one of these threads we argued in and said it was 25,000 or more. So not sure why I got 20,000 in my head, you are correct on the #s

ETA: Actually I said 25,000 or less. So I was wrong then. But not as wrong as today, I forget #s sometimes

quote:

---

And? He only lost around 800 dead (with another 4000 injured) compared to 3000 Confederates dead (with another 3000 injured).

---

Well of course, like we said it was a siege. He bombed the hell out of the confederates for a long while. I wouldn’t expect the army doing the siege to have huge casualties

Sherman fan here.

"tGOAT" is a bit of hyperbole, but Grant does indeed deserve more credit than he has traditionally gotten.
He was an effective leader who was able to adapt strategy, tactics, etc to changing conditions and technology.

He also understood the halfass nature of his predecessors and that the vaunted Confederate leadership really just had had a handful of quality generals and the rest were bickering egos with mediocre ability.

He masterminded one of the 2 major victories that all but decided the war.

His effective adaptation included destruction of enemy civilian infrastructure and food supply, which certainly hurt women, children, and all noncombatants in the South (not limited to the white ones, either). That was something Lee was not willing to do.

Grant's presidency was really problematic in terms of corruption. Despite revisionist attempts at Reconstruction, it was full of overt graft, power abuse, and incompetent governance that was supported by the Grant administration. Much of the violence that stemmed from Reconstruction came from his direct patronage of abusive state "carpetbag" governments. Grant himself may not have committed graft, but he was aware of it all around him and did nothing.

Also, he was a full on believer in "consolidation of the West," at worst full blown genocide. At best, giving tribes a choice between permanent ethnic quarantine camps ("reservations") or extermination. Sherman, his top enforcer, openly wrote that the killing of tribal women and children was justified in the efforts to close the frontier.

SJWs tend to put their hands over their ears and go "LALALALALALA!" when confronted with facts about Grant and Sherman.

As military men, both were superb. As adapters and pioneers of the new Western paradigm in terms of military tactics, they deserve credit. Both were strong ideologues of Nationalism and forced unity. Without them, this nation would never have become the greatest nation in the history of humanity.

No civilization ever became great by being nice. Grant was not nice.

quote:

---

but Grant does indeed deserve more credit than he has traditionally gotten. He was an effective leader who was able to adapt strategy, tactics, etc to changing conditions and technology. He also understood the halfass nature of his predecessors and that the vaunted Confederate leadership really just had had a handful of quality generals and the rest were bickering egos with mediocre ability.

---

I think Grant is fine and at times I come on here and make an initial comment like in this thread to mess with OP. Grant actually was very respectful of Confederate generals even in their surrender. Hell even with Vicksburg he was after Pemberton surrendered.

Not sure what you mean by mediocre ability though, the generals the South had were the only reason the war lasted 4 years. You don’t take a rag tag army, blockaded, shitty weaponry overall, shitty navy at least overall, lack of food and clothes, trying to defend a pretty substantial territory and make the war go 4 years. Even in surrender most still having enough morale to want to keep fighting and disagreed with Lee surrendering to begin with, without have many top quality generals.