Most underrated president in american history

[Karlifornia]

Al Gore.

I mean, the man invented the internet for crying out loud.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Despite his boldness at Vicksburg, he still outnumbered Pemberton. And even then, he only succeeded in starving him out.

As for his Presidency, the buck stops with him and Johnson when it comes to reconstruction. I could go on, but like you said, we both probably have better things to do.

Wow, the brilliance of the Vicksburg campaign was that the Confederacy did not have fewer troops in the theater. Grant was worried that if the Confederate generals united, he would be hard pressed to defeat them all.

Chattanooga was another brilliant battle that he won, and what about his bold strokes at Fort Henry and Fort Donaldson that opened the way into the heart of the South?

He most definitely was not a mediocre general, and many of the foremost thinkers in strategy such as Fuller and Hart rank him very highly among generals, he is considered the first "modern" general.

[Logan]

David Palmer.

Definitely not Charles Logan.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

I would like to hear someone's take on Reconstruction, in one of my African American History classes at OSU I think the professor said something like Johnson abandoned the newly freed slaves and she basically had negative views on him. I dont exactly remember but I think it was something like he went against Lincoln's plans for radical reconstruction. Maybe I have it wrong but if someone has time I would appreciate your opinion and/or clearing up this issue for me.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by WebEwbank

Hard to believe that no one so far has picked Harry Truman.

A combat soldier (artillery captain) in WWI, he was a failed businessman and later went into politics for the highly corrupt Pendergast machine in Kansas City.

BUT as a sentor he investigated corrpution in WW2 defense contracting, aving up to $15 billion, even though the President was from his own party. When he inherited the Presidency himself after FDR's death, he made the tough decision (correct, in my view) to drop the A-bomb on Japan twice.

Domestically he strengthened social security, worked for full employment, slum clearnance and public housing. He also moved Omar Bradley into the VA, where Bradley did a ton for the millions of returning veterans.

Abroad, he created the Truman Doctrine to oppose the Soviets in Turkey and Greece and launched the Marshall Progam to rebuild Europe. He managed to keep the Korean War from going nuclear and affirmed the power of civilian control when he fired the popular but megalomaniac General Douglas MacArthur.

Not hard for me to believe. Truman consistently ranks high on most every list I've ever seen rating presidents. He was ranked 5th in the link given in this thread. Hard for me to call him underrated.

As for Grant and his general abilities others have mentioned, I think some people need to revisit some Civil War Material.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

No offense intended (truly), but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I don't have the time right now to devote to this subject, but trust me, I'd like to discuss it further.

I don't and I won't. FN is simply a f'n moron. So there.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by TheOhioStateUniversity

I would like to hear someone's take on Reconstruction, in one of my African American History classes at OSU I think the professor said something like Johnson abandoned the newly freed slaves and she basically had negative views on him. I dont exactly remember but I think it was something like he went against Lincoln's plans for radical reconstruction. Maybe I have it wrong but if someone has time I would appreciate your opinion and/or clearing up this issue for me.

Anybody who thinks that Lincoln was going to be a hard lined radical in Reconstruction and not lenient hasn't done their research:


1. During his Presidency, Lincoln vetoed a proposed Reconstruction plan passed by radical Republicans. (Wade-Davis Bill)

2. Lincoln proposed, near the start of the war, a very lenient Reconstruction plan, which ultimately his own party did not approve.

3. There are numerous letters and parts of his speeches where he advocates a swift return to good standing as long as certain rights, like voting, are given to freed slaves. He did not believe in vengeance.


Neither did Johnson, btw. Johnson was one of the few southern politicans who did not join the south in their secession, and he condemned them for it. One of the problems the North had with Johnson was that he was Southerner in charge of Reconstruction. Imagine that. Right after a people rebell against you and you fight a bloody war, one of them becomes your President and is in charge of bringing back the rebels, and he is more lenient than many are clamoring for. That is a political challenge so tough that its no wonder Johnson had difficulty.

-Anxiety

[Abe Sargent]

Dola - for more information about Lincoln and what he would've done under Reconstruction, look a the Wade-Davis Bill he vetoed:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade-Davis_Bill


-Anxiety

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by TheOhioStateUniversity

I would like to hear someone's take on Reconstruction, in one of my African American History classes at OSU I think the professor said something like Johnson abandoned the newly freed slaves and she basically had negative views on him. I dont exactly remember but I think it was something like he went against Lincoln's plans for radical reconstruction. Maybe I have it wrong but if someone has time I would appreciate your opinion and/or clearing up this issue for me.

I don't think it YOU that have it wrong. They teach a lot of crap in colleges, esp. being filtered from on viewpoint or agenda (red or blue, black or white, or what have you).

The Johnson Years basically boiled down to whether you let the Southern Democrats become representatives or not. Under the guise of the 14th Amendment, the political ploy by the too-powerful Sen. Thaddeus Stevens was to ensure he had the deck stacked for the Radical Reps and against the Southern Dems (by imposing strict, unconstitutional conditions for their re-admission). Johnson tried to stop him and restore the balance of power but he lost the will of the people in the tug-of-war. That does not make Johnson underrated, imo, for he really did not know how to effectively govern and form a much-needed coalition. That was Lincoln's genius, despite the odds against him.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, one must also distill among the garbage that gets heaped at the Radical Republicans who are portrayed as evil incarnate who just wanted to go horrible things just for spite. The thing that gets lost in all of this is that Radical Republicans were very, very strong for equal rights for blacks. They really wanted Civil Rights given to blacks and even overrode Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, one must also distill among the garbage that gets heaped at the Radical Republicans who are portrayed as evil incarnate who just wanted to go horrible things just for spite. The thing that gets lost in all of this is that Radical Republicans were very, very strong for equal rights for blacks. They really wanted Civil Rights given to blacks and even overrode Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

It wasn't "equal" right but "more" rights. As an abolitionist, I strongly favor that war and total destruction of the Southern economy to make emancipation mean something. Much of the post-Lincoln Radical Rep agenda was motivated by spite in the occupied territories of the South and freed slaves were used as a pawn to further their agenda of ensuring a stacked deck because there were many other pro-Radical Rep agendas than the black votes. While I think the reason, for the most part, was right, the methods were wrong because in the end, it pretty much reversed itself (with the Jim Crow laws and societal enslavement). While I did not read the article linked above, I have always believed that if they didn't try to build up so much animosity during the Johnson term, the reconstruction may have gone a little bit better. Or something like that.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Thanks, Ive always been intrigued by that period of time.

[amdaily]

Without a doubt, Polk.

[clintl]

Leaving out the recent presidents (and I'm going to define that as post-Nixon) on that Historians Survey, none of them jumped out at me as being particularly underrated. Most of the rankings seemed to fit reasonably well.

However - Lyndon Johnson at #10? That's way overrated by the historians, IMHO.

As for public perception - I would agree with Polk. I think the historians had Polk in pretty much the right spot, but that's a period of history that I don't think the public thinks much about.

Andrew Johnson - sorry, but he was pretty close to as ineffective as any president in history.

[Warhammer]

I would say Polk. I would say not only was Johnson overrated, but Kennedy was as well. I think a lot of the reason why Kennedy is so lionized is that he died in office, and he represented the hopes and dreams of that generation. I do think Kennedy is in the top 15 though. Wilson is another one that I think was overrated.

My top 5, not that anyone asked:
Lincoln
Washington
TR
Truman
Reagan

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It wasn't "equal" right but "more" rights.

Oh PLEASE! This has to be backed up by something more than your statements, its just so ludicrous! The Radical Republicans were very progressive on race, but not so much that blacks were to be given more rights than whites. Not every white was tarred as a Confederate officer (and thus stripped of the oppertunity to run for office). They may have been given more rights than former Confederate officers or those who refused to swear allegance to the US, but the goal was equal rights to all other whites.

While I think the reason, for the most part, was right, the methods were wrong because in the end, it pretty much reversed itself (with the Jim Crow laws and societal enslavement). While I did not read the article linked above, I have always believed that if they didn't try to build up so much animosity during the Johnson term, the reconstruction may have gone a little bit better. Or something like that.

Seeing how the Klan began in 1866, I think the only thing that could be done to create equality was to crush the South. Jim Crow laws would have happened even under Lincoln's plan for reconstruction, and probably quicker. In one of Grant's best acts, he crushed the Klan in 1870, but it shows how the South wasn't simply going to say, ok you guys won, free the blacks if we were nicer.

[ISiddiqui]

And some of the Radical Republicans were very interesting figures in history. Here is what wiki has to say on Thaddeus Stevens' death:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens

Thaddeus Stevens died at midnight on August 11, 1868 in Washington, D.C., less than three months after the acquittal of Johnson by the Senate. The public expression of grief in Washington was second only to that following the death of Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Stevens' coffin lay in state inside the Capitol Rotunda, flanked by a Black Union Honor Guard from Massachusetts.

Twenty thousand people, one-half of whom were free black men, attended his funeral in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He chose to be buried in the Schreiner-Concord Cemetery because it was the only cemetery that would accept people without regard to race.

Stevens wrote the inscription on his head stone that reads: "I repose in this quiet and secluded spot, not from any natural preference for solitude, but finding other cemeteries limited as to race, by charter rules, I have chosen this that I might illustrate in my death the principles which I advocated through a long life, equality of man before his Creator."

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Thanks Isiddiqui very interesting, Ill have to read up on him.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And some of the Radical Republicans were very interesting figures in history. Here is what wiki has to say on Thaddeus Stevens' death:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens

That is interesting. Good find!


-Anxiety

[Buccaneer]

Imran, you misread and I didn't make the statement clear. When I said "more rights", I meant more than what they had before (not more than equal). In that society, there was no way they were going to get equal rights enforced, even if they had it on paper. Northerners, as well as Southerners, viewed the freed slaves with contempt (except for a few token do-gooders, as long as they had the few articulate ones to point to) and no way were they going to have rights to employment and property in competition with the whites, esp. the immigrants that were pouring in. They allowed them to set up their own communities, churches and businesses as long as they didn't compete with the whites. The Radical Rep favored segragation as long as they could play their political games.

[Schmidty]

Thanks for all the great info in this thread. It's been great to read.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Imran, you misread and I didn't make the statement clear. When I said "more rights", I meant more than what they had before (not more than equal). In that society, there was no way they were going to get equal rights enforced, even if they had it on paper. Northerners, as well as Southerners, viewed the freed slaves with contempt (except for a few token do-gooders, as long as they had the few articulate ones to point to) and no way were they going to have rights to employment and property in competition with the whites, esp. the immigrants that were pouring in. They allowed them to set up their own communities, churches and businesses as long as they didn't compete with the whites. The Radical Rep favored segragation as long as they could play their political games.

Sorry... now I understand what you say, but I disagree with your end analysis. In all of US history, I think the Radical Republicans were with the Founders in that their main aim was a moral one over a political one (though both had political aims, I'm not saying that wasn't there). Yeah, the Radical Republicans wanted to keep Republican majorities in Congress, but IMO, they probably would have sacrificed that if they could guarentee equality for blacks. Sumner, on his deathbed, whispered to those there to make sure to pass his Civil Rights Bill. Stevens, as I've pointed out, wanted to be buried in the only mixed race cemetary in his hometown. I think we've become very cynical due to modern politics, but I do not think the Radical Republicans necessarily deserve such cynicism.

I don't think they'd favor segregation at all in the slightest. The Liberal Republicans probably would (who outnumbered the Radicals), but not the Radicals, and at the very least not the leaders of the Radical Republicans. They also realized that the only way to get equality for blacks was to destroy the South and then rebuild it because the unequalness was embedded in the society.

[larrymcg421]

While Johnson was a southerner that didn't support secession, it had nothing to do with his views on blacks. He detested them, and didn't support any kind of rights for them whatsoever. He abhorred slavery and the civil war because he thought it was nothing but poor southern men fighting for the rich plantation owners.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

While Johnson was a southerner that didn't support secession, it had nothing to do with his views on blacks. He detested them, and didn't support any kind of rights for them whatsoever.

"He vigorously suppressed the Confederates and spoke out for black suffrage, arguing, "The better class of them will go to work and sustain themselves, and that class ought to be allowed to vote, on the ground that a loyal negro is more worthy than a disloyal white man." [Patton p 126]"

This was in 1862. Before Lincoln even took a stand in the Emancipation Proclaimation.

-Anxiety

[Abe Sargent]

Additionally;

"Second was the issue of which blacks should be given the right to vote. The conservatives believed none of the slaves had the experience to make them good voters. The moderates like Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson wanted some to get the vote, especially army veterans. Thus Lincoln proposed giving the vote to "the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks." [Gienapp, p. 155]"


-Anxiety

[ISiddiqui]

And of course the radicals wanted all to get the vote .

[Abe Sargent]

Some more info:

"The Radicals said the only way to get experience was to get the vote first, and they passed laws allowing all the male freedmen to vote. In 1867, African American men voted for the first time"

This was the Radical view, whereas Lincoln and Johnson more moderate, wanting to grant suffrage to lesser numbers, as quoted above, beliveing that freed slaves should get education before being able to vote.

In 1873, "Many local black leaders started emphasizing individual economic progress in cooperation with white elites, rather than racial political progress in opposition to them, a conservative attitude that foreshadowed Booker T. Washington. [Foner pp 545-7]"

And then, of course:

"Booker T. Washington, who grew up in West Virginia during Reconstruction, concluded that, "the Reconstruction experiment in racial democracy failed because it began at the wrong end, emphasizing political means and civil rights acts rather than economic means and self-determination."


-Anxiety

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And of course the radicals wanted all to get the vote .

Of course they did. Note it was absolutely in their political best interest to keep power by having a hwole new class of voters voting their way. Take a look at the radical bill that Lincoln vetoed that I linked to earlier to see what they really wanted. 50% Oath of Fealty from voters, and those who fought in the Civil War were unable to swear the Oath. Many states would be unable to meet that criteria because over half of voters fought in the war and would be unable to swear the Oath. Crazy


-Anxiety

[ISiddiqui]

Having their moral beliefs coincide with political gain is no vice. Of course blacks would vote Republican because, after all, who freed them? However, that should not be confused with the Radical Republicans only wanting to give blacks the vote because of that. The radicals strongly believed in equal rights for blacks, which made them a minority even among Republicans.

And the Wade-Davis Bill was only an angry response to Lincoln's 10% Plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_plan

After the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln brought up his 10 percent reconstruction plan. It decreed that a state could be reintegrated into the Union when 10 percent of its voters in the presidential election of 1860 had taken an oath of allegiance to the U.S. and pledged to abide by emancipation. The next step in the process would be for the states to formally erect a state government. At that time, Lincoln would recognize the purified regime.

Congress reacted sharply to this proclamation of Lincoln's. Republicans feared that the planter aristocracy would be restored and the blacks would be forced back into slavery. The unhappy Republicans then pushed through Congress the Wade-Davis Bill.

Also recall, that the Wade-Davis Bill was passed in 1864, before the Civil War ended (and Lincoln's 10% plan was proposed as the Civil War was ongoing). This was BEFORE the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed, leading to realistic fears of backsliding. Also it must be pointed out that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were wholeheartedly pushed by the Radical Republicans. The 13th for many years by some radicals.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Having their moral beliefs coincide with political gain is no vice. Of course blacks would vote Republican because, after all, who freed them? However, that should not be confused with the Radical Republicans only wanting to give blacks the vote because of that. The radicals strongly believed in equal rights for blacks, which made them a minority even among Republicans.

And the Wade-Davis Bill was only an angry response to Lincoln's 10% Plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_plan



Also recall, that the Wade-Davis Bill was passed in 1864, before the Civil War ended (and Lincoln's 10% plan was proposed as the Civil War was ongoing). This was BEFORE the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed, recall, leading to realistic fears of backsliding.

I agree completely. I never said that they did it sollely for political gain, because there is no way of knowing so that would be bad history. I merely pointed out that there was significant gain to be had.

And your pointing out the Ten Percent Plan is just further evidence of my point that Lincoln was no radical. He was a moderate. Only Lincoln could pull it off, however, for the time demanded no moderation. Even the Emancipation Proclaimation didn't free all slaves, just those in the rebelling states. Other states still were allowed to have slaves (I beleive they were Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland, but I don;t remember for sure)

-Anxiety

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I don't and I won't. FN is simply a f'n moron. So there.

Right... I'm the moron who disagrees because a general with superior numbers and better equipment SHOULD win a war, and not necessarily being praised just because his predecessors lost their lunch to superior Confederate tacticians.

Grant changed the way that wars were fought, with quick strikes, unrelenting attacks, and coordinated campaigns encompassing several theaters of combat - but he also had the resources to do so.

Honestly - do we praise Schwarzkopf for crushing Iraq in Desert Storm? We shouldn't - he just did his job. He had a vastly superior force, and anything short of what he did would have been unacceptable.

I think Grant pretty much falls into the same category. He did his job well - but to me, a great general is one who manages victory when nothing but defeat seems possible. That was hardly the case with the Union, and if you really disagree, you're the f'n moron.

[larrymcg421]

"Of all the dangers which our nation has yet encountered, none are equal to those which must result from success of the current effort to Africanize the southern half of the country."

http://www.juntosociety.com/uspresidents/ajohnson.html

Johnson attacked anti-Catholic prejudice and championed religious freedom but filled his own political speeches with vile racist language against blacks.

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/chron...s/johnson.html

Like most white Southerners of his time, Johnson was a racist who believed whites should have firm control over society and government.

http://www.appomattoxcourthouse.com/...ntjohnson.net/

[ISiddiqui]

No one is saying Lincoln was a radical. Yes, he was a moderate, and it is my contention that getting shot was the best thing for Lincoln's 'legacy'. Lincoln would have had some contentious times with his Congress. Thaddeus Stevens was just as popular as Lincoln, if not more, before the assasination. Lincoln, however, could, and had, worked with the Congress. It wouldn't have been even half as acrimonious as with Johnson (and Lincoln probably wouldn't have pardoned so many Confederate Officers).

However, I think Lincoln's plan for reconstruction was flawed and off base. If it had succeeded, I doubt we'd have a 14th or 15th Amendment. At least not until, perhaps, 100 years later, if that.

just those in the rebelling states

Not even that far. Just in the rebelling AREAS... areas of former Confederate states that had been taken over by Union forces were not required to free their slaves. It was a good political move by Lincoln to not alienate the places already conquered while trying to mess up areas yet to be conquered... and keep the Brits and French out of the war.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

to me, a great general is one who manages victory when nothing but defeat seems possible.

Guderian wasn't a great general to you? How about Napoleon? I find that your view is not the prevalent one. Generals who introduce innovative tactics or strategy are considered 'great generals' by most military historians. Grant's techniques have led him to be considered as the first 'modern' general and I think would qualify.

As the military history, J.F.C. Fuller says about Grant:

"the greatest general of his age and one of the greatest strategists of any age."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not even that far. Just in the rebelling AREAS... areas of former Confederate states that had been taken over by Union forces were not required to free their slaves. It was a good political move by Lincoln to not alienate the places already conquered while trying to mess up areas yet to be conquered.

True, and I don't want to do the research but I wonder if WV would have counted then or not.

-Anxiety

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Guderian wasn't a great general to you? How about Napoleon? I find that your view is not the prevalent one. Generals who introduce innovative tactics or strategy are considered 'great generals' by most military historians. Grant's techniques have led him to be considered as the first 'modern' general and I think would qualify.

As the military history, J.F.C. Fuller says about Grant:

"the greatest general of his age and one of the greatest strategists of any age."

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant

I really don't know much one way or another here, but isn't this going a little overboard? Or is really considered a better General than Lee and one of the greatest of all-time?

[Izulde]

Monroe 7th in International Relations? No way. He's in the top 3. I can definitely see the case being made for FDR and GW going 1-2, but none of the rest of them top Monroe for the #3 IR spot IMO.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

I was beginning to change my views about Johnson until larrymcg421's quotes. They seem to be contradictory to the ones Anxiety supplied. Is there any clear picture on his views and attitudes?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I really don't know much one way or another here, but isn't this going a little overboard? Or is really considered a better General than Lee and one of the greatest of all-time?

My mind is a little fuzzy on this and I can't check it because I am at work, but Fuller felt that Lee was a good general, but he did not know how to exploit any of his victories. He was also scathing in his critique of Gettysburg where Lee did not rein in Stuart.

On the flip side, Grant wanted to push on south after Fort Donaldson, but Halleck wouldn't allow it. He wanted to push on after Vicksburg, but Halleck split up the army. It wasn't until after Chattanooga that Grant was able to do what he wanted and allow Sherman to march into Georgia, and even that was a delayed for a while.

Grant knew what his advantages were and what he needed to do to win the war. So he pushed that advantage. He was also able to adapt, after Cold Harbor, which he admitted was a mistake, he swore he would not send his troops in unsupported frontal assaults again.

Lee had no clear idea of what he needed to do to win the war. He also never won a battle in which he was on the strategic offensive during the entire war. He won battles on the tactical offensive, but never the strategic offensive.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Monroe 7th in International Relations? No way. He's in the top 3. I can definitely see the case being made for FDR and GW going 1-2, but none of the rest of them top Monroe for the #3 IR spot IMO.

I think FDR is the most overrated president in history. Yes, he is a top 10 president. However, if he is rated 1 or 2 in International Relations, he is way too high. Read Fuller's Military History of the Western World (I think that is the title) Vol. 3 and see where he absolutely lambastes FDR regarding the Big Three conferences and giving up Central Europe to the Russians. He has a good point because if we had gone into Berlin and Prague which we could have, the Cold War would have been altogether different and more in our favor...

Again, as I mentioned before, I think this is a reflection of the historians taking the survey. Their father's generation revered FDR as the one who got us out of the depression. He deserves a lot of credit for that, but some of his conduct during and leading up to WWII is questionable. Heck, you want to talk about someone engineering a war, it is FDR. We were basically at war with Germany in the summer of 1941 in the Atlantic, firing on and being fired at by submarines. I agree with what he did, but he did everything he could do to get us into WWII.

[Buccaneer]

I won't go so far as saying Grant was the greatest general of all even though he may have been the most intelligent general in American history. Lee had one brilliant gift: to be able to anticipate the weaknesses of his opponent. That right there can win many battles for you. But Lee's weakness were 1) he couldn't adapt to the new style of warfare that the Civil War brought with its technologies (he fought in the Napoleanic style) and 2) he wouldn't strategize outside of his theatre. By the time Lee learned what Washington learned after the the NY battles (that smaller force must fight on the defense), it was too late. Both generals had their strengths and weaknesses but overall, Grant knew what it would take to win (having superior resources does not guarantee victory, i.e., Amer Rev) - from gaining strategic points early on in the war and from coordinating multi-theatre offensives later in the war.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Lee had no clear idea of what he needed to do to win the war. He also never won a battle in which he was on the strategic offensive during the entire war. He won battles on the tactical offensive, but never the strategic offensive.

That was the exact point I was going to make. Lee was a great tactician in battle, but not a partically good strategist. Grant, OTOH, was good in both aspects. He was probably the best strategist of the Civil War (maybe Winfield Scott was his equal, but Scott never saw the field) and had the first coordinated assault over multiple theaters of battle in the Civil War as part of his strategy. He also showed himself to be a pretty good tactician in Vicksburg and in his manuvering in the Overlands Campaign (though Cold Harbor was a horrid mistake... but Grant recovered from that and resolved to manuver around Lee into better position instead of retreating as previous Union commanders would have done).

[Neon_Chaos]

Probably Lyndon B. Johnson.

[wade moore]

Every now and then you guys make me realize my idea that I'm a Civil War "buff" is not even close to true...

I love reading these discussions between the real buffs...

[WSUCougar]

Grant’s brilliance as a military commander can be seen on multiple levels. As a grand strategist, he grasped what was necessary to defeat the Confederacy as an entity and then put the required assets into place to do it. That was by no means as simple as it sounds.

As a campaign strategist, his Vicksburg and Overland campaigns are widely regarded for their brilliance and are still used as examples in military education. To say that the capture of Vicksburg was only the result of superior forces and ended only with the starving out Pemberton’s garrison is, frankly, ignorant. Read a few of the excellent campaign histories available on the subject and then get back to me. As for the Overland Campaign, Lee himself recognized that it was only a matter of time once Grant’s strategy began to unfold. Plus it’s imperative to keep in mind that one of Grant’s primary objectives in that campaign was to pin Lee’s army down and bleed it while Sherman undertook his operations in the deep south. Toss in the operations to capture Forts Henry & Donelson, and the Chattanooga campaign (turning disaster into victory), and you’ve got a pretty damn successful strategist.

Tactically, I think Grant’s best asset was his ability to rapidly respond to the ever-changing situations on the battlefield with a clear sense of what had to be done. His orders were prompt and clear. His awareness and “vision” of the battlefield, the terrain, and the positions of the armies was at times almost spooky. When problems arose – usually due to the blunders of inferior subordinate commanders – he plugged the gaps, rallied his troops, and salvaged success from disaster. Fort Donelson and Shiloh are the two obvious examples, but Champion Hill (Vicksburg campaign) is another one. In the east, Spotsylvania was a near miss (almost blind luck that Lee was able to grab the town before Grant’s troops got there), and trace Lee’s breakout attempts during the siege of Petersburg to see how well Grant responds to those.

Finally, he was never daunted by the threat of defeat. He was not afraid to lose. When rebuffed, he continued to press on toward the overall goals of the campaign or the war as a whole.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by TheOhioStateUniversity

I was beginning to change my views about Johnson until larrymcg421's quotes. They seem to be contradictory to the ones Anxiety supplied. Is there any clear picture on his views and attitudes?

Not really.


-Anxiety

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by TheOhioStateUniversity

I was beginning to change my views about Johnson until larrymcg421's quotes. They seem to be contradictory to the ones Anxiety supplied. Is there any clear picture on his views and attitudes?

That's the ironic thing about Johnson's presidency. He was expected to act one way, but then he flip-flopped on the key Reconstruction issues. Thus the impeachment proceedings.

[Wolfpack]

I'll step into the fray a little since the thread has successfully veered into Civil War discussions. I'm somewhere between Coug/Bucc and FN. IMO, Grant was a great strategist, but seemed occasionally lacking on the battlefield itself. He could recognize what his goals were and what steps he thought he needed to take, but his results occasionally were a mess. He also had a tendency for being sucker-punched (Shiloh, Chickamaugua) when he wasn't ready for it.

Vicksburg is probably his best campaign as he managed to successfully outflank his opponent from an unexpected direction (floating past Vicksburg and then invading interior Mississippi from the southwest), then winning a succession of battles that bottled up the opponents in the city.

As for his Overland campaign, his grand design was brilliant on paper (three-pronged assault in central Virginia, the Shenandoah Valley, and the Peninsula), but was not very well handled, mainly due to the commanders and the command structure imposed. Remember, Grant was not actually in direct control of the Army of the Potomac when Lincoln elevated him. He was at a higher position and Meade was still commander of that army. Problem was, Burnside and his 9th Corps couldn't be part of that structure because Burnside technically outranked Meade, so Grant kept the two forces split and tried to manage both to bad effect. Combine that with the fact that just about every corps commander in the AoP was worthless during the campaign (along with Sigel screwing up in the Valley and Butler screwing up down on the James) and the results were lost races to critical junctions (Wilderness, Spotsylvania) , bloody assaults that were ineffectual, and missed chances (because Lee himself was also making mistakes). Grant also didn't do a very effective job managing Sheridan and his cavalry, which he almost allowed to work too independently as a raiding force rather than a recon force, which might've saved him some grief at critical points.

Still, Grant was not a "butcher" as had been much characterized. Grant always sought to maneuver Lee out of position and it was Lee who managed to keep up and usually forced battles when Grant didn't want them. Once the conflagrations erupted, Grant wasn't given to half-measures, though, and tried slugging it out, usually with bloody results and not much to show for it. Still, he recognized that time and numbers were on his side, so he was willing to keep maneuvering, looking for that battle that would finally break everything open, though it never came and eventually resulted in the stalemate at Petersburg.

[WSUCougar]

Interesting comments, Wolfpack.

One minor quibble: Grant was not in command at Chickamauga. That was the Army of the Cumberland, under Rosecrans and - famously - Thomas (The Rock of Chickamauga).

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Interesting comments, Wolfpack.

One minor quibble: Grant was not in command at Chickamauga. That was the Army of the Cumberland, under Rosecrans and - famously - Thomas (The Rock of Chickamauga).

Right, right. For whatever reason, I always put Chick/Chatt together so I tend to think the players were the same on both. Still, he did take a beating at Shiloh because he wasn't ready for it. Could also argue that Wilderness was a similar sucker punch because Grant was too busy trying to get through to think that Lee was going to suddenly drop on his flank and bust him up like he did.