Started By
Message

re: Ulysses S Grant is the Undisputed GOAT US General

Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:55 pm to
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
95590 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:55 pm to
Probably only the 3rd best US General who became President (maybe 4th).

Washington? Did more with less than virtually any high level U.S. flag officer ever.

Ike? Certainly for the things that generals do - organize, plan, risk management, lead men, maximize gain while minimizing losses (the last a concept with which Grant was wholly unfamiliar), Ike was elite in world history, much less U.S.

Jackson? Was a nasty SOB, but was effective without all the resources available to Grant. I have them about equal 3a. and 3b. for "U.S. Generals who became President."

When you consider all American generals (including CSA giants like Lee and Jackson, among others), Grant falls much further to mid-pack. Hell, Grant might not even eclipse all other Union generals (e.g. Sherman), although obviously he was better than most.

MacArthur, Pershing, Patton, Forrest, Nimitz, Marshall, Hap Arnold, etc., we've had a shite ton of great generals/admirals.
Posted by RollTide1987
Baltimore, MD
Member since Nov 2009
71125 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:55 pm to
quote:

A much more massively industrialized Union with greater manpower was just waiting for a general willing to throw them into the fire.


Which is simply another way of saying Grant won the Civil War.

Posted by RollTide1987
Baltimore, MD
Member since Nov 2009
71125 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:57 pm to
quote:

It’s also why I mentioned Grant vs Jackson



Jackson was a corps commander whereas Grant commanded armies, theaters, and finally the entire war effort. You can't compare the two. I'd also argue Longstreet was a better corps commander than Jackson.
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
37488 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:00 pm to
I'm not going to get into it about Washington who lost a lot of battles as well. He was lucky to have Horatio Gates. What he did was to keep his army in the field and bleed the British. He lost at Long Island, New York, etc. But he kept moving.
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
37488 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:09 pm to
I know you keep maintaining that, but Grant would have starved out Pemberton no matter what. If Lee had moved South crossing the mountains he would have been really screwed. He would be walking into a huge army group that was well supplied and followed by a large Army of the Potomac. He would have gotten squeezed
Posted by ssgrice
Arizona
Member since Nov 2008
3205 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:09 pm to
quote:

Grant is one thing, but are we really going to sit here and try to glorify Sherman, who is famous for committing war crimes?

Coming from a Southerner, Sherman was a dick, but a very effective dick. War is war and the Civil War wasn't a police action even if it did pit brother against brother.

Patton, Washington, Bradley, Schwarzkopf, Jackson and a whole list of others before you get to Grant.
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
102634 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:32 pm to
quote:

When you have a massive numbers advantage with unlimited supplies and DGAF about casualties you tend to win


The Joseph Stalin strategy in WW2 as well. The Nazis were way more sophisticated and technologically advanced with better generals but the Soviets had too much disposable manpower and manufacturing capability to quickly churn out a bunch of cheap made tanks that they didn’t care if they lost
Posted by TigerAxeOK
Where I lay my head is home.
Member since Dec 2016
37938 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:32 pm to
Holy fricking wall of text!!!

Posted by Burt Reynolds
Monterey, CA
Member since Jul 2008
24555 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:37 pm to
quote:

Grant built his reputation beating shitty generals in the West.


Albert Sidney Johnston wasn’t a shitty general.
Posted by SirWinston
Say NO to War
Member since Jul 2014
104464 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:39 pm to
Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Patton were all way better than Grant and I’m not even a novice in military history
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
115293 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:42 pm to
quote:

But he did prove to be a shrewd strategist at Vicksburg.


With Johnston unable to provide troops and Pemberton fricking the neighbor's dog, how could he not?
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39817 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:43 pm to
You are largely correct. The sheer pace of operations Grant executed was impressive. Good write-up.
Posted by FredBear
Georgia
Member since Aug 2017
17408 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:46 pm to
The OP sure put in a lot of effort just to troll. Seems a stupid thing to do but I guess that's his speed
Posted by Strannix
C.S.A.
Member since Dec 2012
53710 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:54 pm to
Drunk and idiot
Posted by vl100butch
Ridgeland, MS
Member since Sep 2005
37068 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:55 pm to
quote:

Grant is one thing, but are we really going to sit here and try to glorify Sherman, who is famous for committing war crimes?




well for one thing, there wouldn't be an LSU without Sherman...who to you think gave the Pentagon Barracks to the university in 1873????

AND then the US Army fights like Grant and Sherman, they win!!!
Posted by aggressor
Austin, TX
Member since Sep 2011
9405 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:57 pm to
quote:

The colonists didn't fight the British at full strength.

Logistics and the British underestimated the war effort caused them to lose the war.



A big part of that was because of Washington though. He had to be extremely careful in engaging the British. He knew he could not just fight them openly on the field until the end. He wore them down as they assumed they could defeat the rabble that they considered the Colonists and he kept beating them very strategically and often by surprise. Then finally he waited for their big mistake and caught Cornwallis at Yorktown and it was over.

Washington also insisted on being the last soldier to get housed at Valley Forge. He used the arrogance of the British against them and won as a massive underdog. This from a man that was literally the richest man in North America at the time. His selflessness and statesmanship are still uparalleled.

Oh, and though he didn't technically accomplish his deeds as a US General, Sam Houston deserves some mention in this thread. Taking out Santa Anna at San Jacinto was absolutely masterful.
Posted by trinidadtiger
Member since Jun 2017
19961 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:58 pm to
I did enjoy how Grant's superior was so afraid of him that he kept sending notes to Lincoln about Grants drinking. After another victory by Grant in the west, and another derogatory note y his boss, Lincoln replied tartly "Given the fact he is the only officer winning battles, I suggest you ask him what brand he is drinking".
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39817 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:58 pm to
quote:

A much more massively industrialized Union with greater manpower was just waiting for a general willing to throw them into the fire.


Grant had a lower casualty rate than Lee over the course of the war. His work at Vicksburg certainly wasn't predicated on manpower alone.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39817 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 2:02 pm to
quote:

When you have a massive numbers advantage with unlimited supplies and DGAF about casualties you tend to win.


But Grant also molded those armies into fighting forces. He didn't inherit a well-oiled war machine in the Western Theater, nor did he in the Lower Seaboard Theater. And he had one of the lowest casualty rates of any general in the war.

Grant was really the first to understand how the telegraph and the train changed the nature of warfare. People lose that context for some reason, but taxing the South's supply lines through the sheer pace of operations was also a tactical and strategic move.
Posted by RollTide1987
Baltimore, MD
Member since Nov 2009
71125 posts
Posted on 5/19/21 at 2:04 pm to
quote:

Stonewall Jackson


I can't think of a more overrated and lionized Civil War leader than Stonewall Jackson. The dude was undoubtedly on the spectrum, was a hypochondriac, and always kept his plans secret from even his closest subordinates. This really hurt him on more than one occasion.

- At First Bull Run, where his reputation was made, he had the luxury of fighting on the defensive against a foe who attacked his line with one regiment at a time. Never once did McDowell manage to bring more than two regiments to bare against Henry Hill in a coordinated attack on the Confederate lines there.

- In his famed Shenandoah Valley Campaign, the one in which he became a legend, his primary opponents were political generals who didn't have a shred of military experience or training. He was outnumbered to be sure, but the men he was up against did not have the skills needed to coordinate and communicate due to the fact that they weren't professionals but politicians. It was still a brilliant campaign that managed to accomplish its objectives but consider his competition.

- Jackson really let the Confederate cause down in the Seven Days' Campaign. Had he been where he was supposed to be and when he was supposed to be, Lee might have come close to achieving the victory he was looking for against McClellan. At the very least, McClellan would have seen one or two of his very large infantry corps mauled by aggressive Confederate assaults. Instead...every single attack (bar the one at Gaines' Mill) was a defeat for the Confederacy due to Jackson's failure to be in position and to coordinate his attacks.

- Jackson maneuvered brilliantly during the Second Manassas Campaign but once the main battle got underway his failings as a battlefield commander were laid bare. He had a golden opportunity to destroy a large chunk of Pope's army on the battle's first day but poor coordination and battlefield tactics prevented him from doing that. On the battle's third day, when Longstreet counterattacked and routed Pope's army from the field, Jackson failed to support Longstreet's advance and thus the Union army was able to secure Henry Hill long enough to retreat successfully. Had Jackson gone in sooner, it might have been a different story.

- Jackson performed admirably in the Maryland Campaign. He successfully enveloped and captured the important town of Harpers Ferry and arrived in time to assist Lee at the Battle of Antietam. His wing of the army successfully parried attacks from the First, Second, and Twelfth Union Army Corps. You can't fault Jackson for his performance in this campaign at all.

- At Fredericksburg, however, Jackson was lucky he didn't blow the entire ball game. He failed to properly reconnoiter his own line and, as a result, failed to spot the gap in A.P. Hill's position. A Union division under George Meade was able to exploit this gap and cause some serious damage before reinforcements were able to drive him away. However, had William Franklin sent all 40,000 of his men forward as ordered by Burnside (instead of just Meade's division of 7,000), it could have been a bad day for the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

- Jackson was lucky to go out on top as his May 2, 1863, assault at the Battle of Chancellorsville has gone down in history as among the most famous actions in American military history. What people don't realize, however, is that tactically the assault did very little to alter the course of the battle. If anything, the attack ended up putting the Confederate army at a disadvantage as it failed to link up with the rest of Lee's army, thus dividing Lee's army precariously in two. The attack also put the Union army in a stronger defensive position.

It was JEB Stuart, and not Jackson, who was most responsible for saving Chancellorsville for the Confederacy. He took over after both Jackson and A.P. Hill went down and acquitted himself well linking up with Lee's wing of the army.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram