Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MAC
Originally Posted by copperking81
Originally Posted by MAC
There were very few generals in that time that were better at fighting a defensive campaign than Lee. However wars are not won on defense, they are won on offense. Grant was an offensive genius,he knew he had to keep constant pressure on Lee and keep advancing no matter how bad the casualties were. Doing this wore Lee down, didn't allow him to resupply, regroup or rest..


No. Just no. That's akin to saying Georgy Zhukov was a genius.

Not quite but nice try. Here's the historical fact: Until Grant took over it was common practice for the opposing armies to disengage at the end of a battle and go lay up to lick their wounds, resupply and regroup. This allowed Lee time to control when and where the next engagement would be and allow him to get set before the Union forces could. Grant said the hell with that and kept constant pressure on Lee to put Lee off balance. Grant knew they would take casualties but he knew by shortening the war he would be saving lives in the long run. So he never gave Lee the respite he was used to. This immediately made Lee fight Grant's war and not his war. Once Grant put the pressure on and didn't let up, Lee was finished.

As I noted, invest a little time are read Grant's memoirs to see how the man thought. It's too bad that Lee never penned his memoirs. Some of his letters and interviews have been published after his death but he never wrote actual memoirs.


Hmm... can't say I've ever met someone that cited pioneering the strategy of unrelenting frontal assaults, as genius. Grant was aggressive, as was Zhukov in the exact same way.



Grant's genius was strategic, not tactical.

With superior numbers of troops (and more importantly the ability to replace casualties, which the South could not) and weapons the end result was the same.


“Factio democratica delenda est"