Explanation: During the US Civil War, the great general Ulysses S. Grant would be placed in command of the Union’s armies during the later period of the war. General Grant has sometimes been maligned as a butcher by postwar slaver apologists peddling what has come to be known as the “Lost Cause” in historical academia, but the truth is very far from that. Grant’s losses were not greater than any other Union general’s, but his victories were far greater - because when he failed to take a position, he would simply attempt it from another angle.
This sounds simple, perhaps even deceptively intuitive, but it was also a risky strategy insofar as it required the morale and organization of the soldiery to remain high. Grant, who was attentive to the needs and feelings of the enlisted man, judged them correctly. After an especially brutal draw at the Battle of the Wilderness, the Union troops, having penetrated into Confederate-held land, were downhearted and convinced that, like after every other setback under other Union generals, they were going to give up their hard-earned gains and retreat to lick their wounds.
When it became apparent that Grant had given the order to penetrate deeper into Confederate territory instead (by a different route), the men cheered. They sang. They praised Grant’s name. By all accounts, they were thrilled after the brutal bloodletting to be led into more fighting - because it means that they and their comrades had not fought and died in vain.
Men do not want to die, generally. But perhaps even more than that, they do not want to die for nothing. Keeping up the fight even after heavy casualties is, paradoxically, sometimes better for morale than attempting to stem the losses.
also the idea that confederate generals were better strategists is an outright lie. they may have been better tacticians, using their troop movements in battles more effectively, but they were atrocious strategists, often engaging in pointless battles from a position of hubris that their superior plans would win the day. Grant understood the strategic advantages he had, and pressed them. he had the larger army, the superior industrial base, and more soldiers who thought what they were doing really and truly mattered. further, i am fascinated by grant’s writings pre and post war. he was a member of the fraternal order of odd fellows and seems to have tried to live through that lens of pacifist abolitionist ideals while still being a military commander. it seems to have been his view that the way to achieve peace and prosperity for the most people was to rip the bandaid off, send Sherman to the coast, and end the war quickly through decisive victories.
my read has been that general McClellan and general Grant loved their men and wanted what was best for them. McClellan prioritized keeping his men alive at the cost of loss after loss, Grant prioritized stopping all the killing as soon as possible by making attacks the confederates couldn’t survive long term. McClellan ultimately became a confederate tool, running for president, whereas Grant was beloved by his men for how much he respected them and listened to their needs. they weren’t in the south to fart around and lose like they had under prior generals, as you said. a great many of them loved america and detested tyranny. that their nation should be divided for the sake of prolonging the institution of slavery was doubly insulting for them. Grant gave them the hope that he believed that their work mattered, and that steeled their resolve as confederate resolve that this war mattered to anyone but the aristocracy deteriorated
I largely agree. Grant (and Sherman) saw war in truly strategic terms, making them the far superior generals, even if Grant was up against a skilled tactician, and Sherman had a tendency to plan ‘against’ himself by his own paranoia and emotional instability. It really is fascinating to see both men - in different terms - come to the same conclusions when serving together, and embark on a radically different prioritization of the war than previously.
One of the most underrated traits of Grant is exactly what Sherman lacked - reserve. One of my favorite quotes is Sherman rattling off a whole laundry list of military disciplines that Sherman feels he is the superior general in - and then names the one reason why Grant will always be the better general, and what Grant beat everyone in: grit. That Grant wasn’t shaken by what the enemy did or might do, while Sherman, by his own admission, fretted over it.
Another is during the Battle of the Wilderness, when a panicked Union officer came in talking about what Lee was going to do next (it would Destroy The Entire Army™ ). Grant just scoffed at him, told him that to hear some of the officers speak, Lee was going to do a double-somersault and land on both of their flanks at once; while what they all should be doing is worrying about what the Union forces should be doing next, not what the enemy might do later.
One cannot imagine a response like that from a worrier like Sherman - or McClellan. Lee’s menace was a powerful tool - Grant’s sheer resolve removed that tool from strategic consideration.
Funny enough, Sherman was radically calm even under fire. It wasn’t personal fear which shook him, but the fear that the enemy might be planning around his plans. “I know that you know that I know…”
The relationship between Grant and Sherman may not have won the war, but it sure didn’t hurt. They each formed a great deal of respect for one another and were able to balance each other out in terms of personality “deficiencies”.
After his successful “march to he sea” campaign, Congress was considering promoting Sherman to the same rank as Grant, who was currently struggling against Lee’s army in Virginia. Probably with the idea that Sherman would replace Grant. Sherman wrote to his brother, who was a senator, very politely telling Congress to fuck off because he was not interested in taking Grant’s job.
The relationship between Grant and Sherman may not have won the war, but it sure didn’t hurt.
lmao, funny enough, I read Grant And Sherman: The Friendship That Won The Civil War not that long ago
Sounds like something I’ll have to add to my reading list.
