Put differently, if he had the disadvantages of Lee, or if they had his advantages, his tactical mediocrity would have been a far greater issue. He was not going to defeat a superior force with the strategy and tactics he employed. He did a nice job with his end run around Vicksburg, but generally speaking, had significant advantages.

What makes him great more than anything else is how utterly incompetent his predecessors were in understanding their advantages.

never forget being stuck In that room for hours and hours one sunday afternoon and evening trying to pull a paper out of my ass that was due on monday…

it was during summer school, I got to enjoy a little extra time on the hudson after my freshman, sophomore and junior years – it’s humbling to meet your limitations so early in life…that morning a buddy of mine and myself dropped some acid a friend of mine sent in the mail…

spent most of the morning trying to maintain at sunday brunch at the thayer…thankfully another buddy of ours went along just to drink – he eventually had to get us out of there when the two of us couldn’t stop laughing…I remember at one time benny actually rolling on the floor…

after brunch we played frisbee for hours…then came paper time…one of the worst high come downs in history…it was so hard to focus and think…I just kept staring at lee and turning around to look at grant for hours without writing down shit…

Z-man:
I am also a Civil War buff. I disagree that Grant was a “great” general. I see him as a “very good” general with a “great” understanding of the math of the war, both strategically and tactically, and excellent feel for his commanders, his opponents and geography. He essentially boiled the Civil War down to a simple equation: we can afford to lose more men than they can, so keep on the offensive until you can dig in for a siege. He made some horrific tactical blunders that cost tens of thousands of lives (none worse than Lee’s blunder at Gettysburg, so there’s that) but he knew that it didn’t really matter in the long run.

We disagree on quite a bit here! First, I guess we’d need to try to decide what each thinks makes a general “great” rather than just “very good.” Grant was a brilliant strategist and operational commander.

Grant rose from total obscurity (he was out of the army before that and pretty much rejected by the US Army at the start) to being total overall army commander, in 4 years! He won on just about every level of command, even when he initially made a mistake (Shiloh). At Shiloh the guy rode around all over the battlefield, rallying troops and helping position units. That was probably the most “hands on” tactical performance by him.

His Vicksburg campaign is now rightly looked at as brilliant and is by no means an example of a guy just willing to sacrifice lots of men. It was daring, and he marched aggressively to defeat two separate CSA armies before they could combine (a classic Napoleonic strategy). He resorted to sieges when assaults did not work.

Yup, he ordered a couple of very bad assaults in the 1864 campaign against Lee, but he also completely took the operational and strategic initiative away from Lee whilst Sherman and Sheridan, at Grant’s direction, ripped the guts out of the CSA army.

Owen:
There were articles up yesterday about the passing of the last woman receiving a Civil War pension, which she was getting as the child of a veteran. Her father had remarried Late in lifeAnd had her at 84 or something.

Her father deserted from the Confederate Army on the march to Gettysburg. In the battle 734 of the 800 men in his regiment died.

(Edit: although that is what it said in the obituary it can’t possibly be true. It appears the number was much lower)

That’s quite a story! Fathering a kid at age 84 in the pre-PED era…that’s some longevity right there.

Her father deserted from the Confederate Army on the march to Gettysburg. In the battle 734 of the 800 men in his regiment died.

(Edit: although that is what it said in the obituary it can’t possibly be true. It appears the number was much lower)

I will give Grant this: if he was anywhere near as bad as his predecessors, it’s quite possible that Lincoln would not have won re-election and that the South would have either successfully seceded or maintained slavery as an institution. It is on that basis that I consider Grant worthy of his reverence. Just not as a genius military tactician.

I like Adams but I am looking forward to Tubman on the twenty. Just a small piece of symbolism at a time like this but not empty.

Same.

Adams and his son were the only presidents between the founding and Lincoln who were not either direct slaveowners or men acting in the interest of slaveowners so they get credit from me for that

This is a great point.

”The Federalists argued that the Sedition Act in reality expanded civil liberties. The act allowed “the truth of the matter contained in publication” as evidence in defense and gave the jury “

And everybody else recognized that it was about suppressing the speech and the vote of their political enemies. It made criticizing the government illegal. Outlawing free speech is not an expansion of rights, no matter what defense is allowed.

Is he as worthy of being on currency than Ben Franklin? Or Andrew Jackson? or Ulysses Grant? Or Alexander Hamilton? Certainly debatable.

Certainly more than Jackson, who was an absolutely terrible person. Much less than Franklin, who among other feats deserves it simply for inventing the flexible catheter. Less than Hamilton, since the Federalist Papers played a major role in getting the Constitution ratified and he saved the young nation’s finances, despite being a jackass. Same as Grant? That one’s difficult.

Owen:
I like Adams but I am looking forward to Tubman on the twenty. Just a small piece of symbolism at a time like this but not empty.

Agreed, although Douglass or MLKjr would also be fine choices. Tubman checks two important boxes, so there’s that.