Happy April 9

Imo, Grant is the single most underrated and underappreciated figure in American history. Also the most interesting case study for American historiography.

Best short biography is

American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant
by Ronald C. White Jr.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
Imo, Grant is the single most underrated and underappreciated figure in American history. Also the most interesting case study for American historiography.

Best short biography is

American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant
by Ronald C. White Jr.
Click to expand...

Underrated? Nah. Whoever was In his shoes would had gotten the same outcome.
 
quote-if-you-see-the-president-tell-him-from-me-that-whatever-happens-there-will-be-no-turning-ulysses-s-grant-11-57-05.jpg
 
Krgrecw said:
Underrated? Nah. Whoever was In his shoes would had gotten the same outcome.
Click to expand...

It took the union years to get a general running the Grand Army. Anyone with a moderate amount of history knows it took a competent general. Sure the Union would have won eventually, but the opinions on the war could have switched. Had the Army of the Potomac not been ran like fools for years, the Civil War would have been over much faster.
 
I had known General Lee in the old army, and had served with him in the Mexican War; but did not suppose, owing to the difference in our age and rank, that he would remember me, while I would more naturally remember him distinctly, because he was the chief of staff of General Scott in the Mexican War. When I had left camp that morning I had not expected so soon the result that was then taking place, and consequently was in rough garb. I was without a sword, as I usually was when on horseback on the field, and wore a soldier’s blouse for a coat, with the shoulder straps of my rank to indicate to the army who I was. When I went into the house I found General Lee. We greeted each other, and after shaking hands took our seats. I had my staff with me, a good portion of whom were in the room during the whole of the interview. What General Lee’s feelings were I do not know. As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassible face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it. Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter, were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.
 
nsacpi said:
https://www.historyonthenet.com/comparing-grant-and-lee-a-study-in-contrasts

It took a certain amount of perspective (in the form of 50 years and some non-American historians) to properly begin the process of appraising Grant and Lee as generals.
Click to expand...

One of the problems with a lot of treatments of each man is that they're in books with the point of these books being to sell. If you wrote a book saying "Lee and Grant were generals of their time that made some brilliant and some foolish moves" you wouldn't sell many copies. You need to either paint Grant/Lee as a hero or as a villain or your books aren't going to sell well.
 
striker42 said:
One of the problems with a lot of treatments of each man is that they're in books with the point of these books being to sell. If you wrote a book saying "Lee and Grant were generals of their time that made some brilliant and some foolish moves" you wouldn't sell many copies. You need to either paint Grant/Lee as a hero or as a villain or your books aren't going to sell well.
Click to expand...

There is also the statistical or moneyball approach to evaluating generals. I linked this a while back in another thread. As a rule, I think every country's historians bring a bit of baggage to writing about their own country. Better to read what the fereiners think. They are less likely to have an axe to grind.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/best-generals-ranked-by-statistics/

Btw I don't think there is much doubt that Napoleon was the greatest military genius of all time. But he left his country in tatters! I have an ancestor who was slightly intertwined with him. He was allegedly part of a plot to assassinate Napoleon. He was sent into exile for it. One of the lucky ones. Most of the others were executed.
 
Last edited:
striker42 said:
I cannot even begin to imagine how you'd moneyball generals.
Click to expand...

The basic approach is to compile data on the forces each has at his disposal and also take into account which one is attacking and which one is defending. From that you formulate probability of winning. Let's say the odds are 70% General A wins the battle in question. If he wins then he gets a +0.3 and the other guy gets a -0.3. If he loses he gets a -0.7 and the other guy gets a +.7. Rinse and repeat for the rest of his career. It's a kind of Wins Above Replacement level concept, similar to baseball.
 
Last edited:
There is that annoying nickname a LOT of his troops called him, especially in the last year to year and a half of the war....."Grant the Butcher". That's probably just a misunderstanding though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top