Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

  1. #1

    Default Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.c..._grant_won.htm

    Here is a pretty interesting article justifying Grant's casualty rates and also making a strong case that it was Lee who was wrong. I admit I do not know much about US Civil War though I thought Grant's impressive Vicksburg Campaign seems to be overlooked by Grant's detractors. For argument sake what could Grant have done to lessen the casualties in Overland Campaign?
    Everything has its beginnings, but it doesn't start at one. It starts long before that- in chaos. The world is born from zero. The moment the world becomes one, is the moment the world springs to life. One becomes two, two becomes ten, ten becomes one hundred. Taking it all back to one solves nothing. So long as zero remains, one will eventually grow to one hundred again. - Big Boss

  2. #2

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    The Union press called him the Butcher because of the rate of losses that the AoP suffered after Grant took command of directing it. No one ever called Lee a butcher.




    Grant in overland with 118700 to Lee 64000, Grant lost 55000 to Lee 33600.


    Grant inflicted 28% whilst suffering 46%, Lee inflicted 85% whilst suffering 52%. Grant had a 185% manpower advatge, Lee had 54% of Grants manpower.


    Grants effiecency at inflicting losses was therfore -18% while Lee was +33%.
    Last edited by Hanny; July 03, 2015 at 09:41 AM.
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    The reason is that, in and of themselves, the causalities are pretty staggering. Between May 4th and June 18th 65,000 Union men were killed, which, to quote McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom​; "amounted to three-fifths of the total number of combat causalities suffered by the Army of the Potomac during the previous three years." Democrats began to call him a "butcher" for obvious anti-Administration reasoning. The point is however, the Army of the Potomac had inflicted a similar proportion of casualties upon Lee's smaller Army - around 35,000. To paraphrase McPherson again, Grant had; driven them South 80 miles, cut part of Lee's communications with the rest of the South, pinned them down defending Petersburg and Richmond (ruling out moves North by Lee such as in the Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns) and hurt the prestige of the Army of Northern Virginia. Grant had said "I am going through on this line if it takes all summer"; his plan was for a decisive campaign against the South, to finally draw Lee out of a war of maneuver and into a series of confrontations, knowing the North would have advantage under these circumstances.

    As for reduction of causalities, the exceptionally high rates were caused by the fact that Lee continually adopted strong defensive positions, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor, from which Grant was determined to dislodge him, it was an unavoidable part of his strategy of campaign - a war of attrition, the North with a clear advantage under such circumstances. One may criticize this plan of campaign but this was Union Policy towards the end of the War - Total War; as seen with Sherman's March to the Sea etc. Several assaults upon Lee's fortifications were poorly conceived, most notably the last assault upon Cold Harbor, as Grant said is his Memoirs: "I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made. I might say the same thing of the assault of the 22d of May, 1863, at Vicksburg. At Cold Harbor no advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained."
    When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

    - John Ball (1381)

  4. #4

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    Of course once you realise that the entire object of the overland campaign was to bleed out Lee, ( Grant could as had Mc ended up where he was by going by sea without any loss of life) add in that Grant was influential in the ending of POW exchange just before setting out, as they simply had to be defeated again in the field, and you see that reducing casualties was not what Grant was intertsted in.
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    To quote Grant on the POW issue: "It is hard on our men held in Southern prisons not to exchange them, but it humanity to those left in our ranks to fight our battles". Ultimately it was the policies of the Administration which blocked Prisoner exchange, the South being unwilling to trade black Soldiers on an equal basis; Benjamin Butler, appointed as a special exchange agent, wrote to the South that exchanges would be renewed when the Confederates would exchange all prisoners on an equal basis, he wrote: "The wrongs, indignities, and privations suffered by our soldiers, would move me to consent to anything to procure their exchange, except to barter away the honor and the faith of the Government of the United States, which has been so solemnly pledged to the colored soldiers in its ranks. Consistently with national faith and justice we cannot relinquish that position." In October 1864 Lee proposed an informal exchange of prisoners. Grant agreed if blacks be exchanged "the same as white soldiers". Lee responded "negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition". Grant closed communication, stating his "Government is bound to secure to all persons received into her armies the rights due to soldiers", and so closed the proposition.
    When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

    - John Ball (1381)

  6. #6

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    "It is hard on our men held in Southern prisons not to exchange them, but it is humanity to those left in the ranks to fight our battles. Every man we hold, when released on parole or otherwise, becomes an active soldier against us at once either directly or indirectly. If we commence a system of exchange which liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to fight on until the whole South is exterminated. If we hold those caught they amount to no more than dead men. At this particular time to release all rebel prisoners North would INSURE Sherman's defeat and would compromise our safety here." – General Ulysses S. GRANT, August 18, 1864.


    Grant wrote this in reply to General Benjamin Butler, Union Commissioner of Exchange who was seeking to get 30,000 union men out of Anderson, the CS were willing to exchange them and Grant wrote his reply. Basicly he would have to then fight them and wanted no part of that.

    Butlers excuse was that the CS would not recognise Slaves as soldiers, a choice that left Northern men to die when the CS said you can have them back without an equal number paroled, ( North gave back half the number of pows thandid the CSA) but the Governemnnt replied that this would require more ships than the governemnt could spare from mil operations.

    General Butler put on record the reason why General Grant and himself refused the OFFERto exchange: "Many a tribute has been paid to the soldier of the South by those for whom he fought, by those of the same blood and faith, by those who gloried in his splendid courage and pitied his terrible sufferings, but the highest compliment that ever was paid to the tattered and half-starved wearer of the gray was that of the Commander-in-chief of the Union armies who, in a council of war, took the ground that the Confederate prisoner was too dangerous to be exchanged."

    Charles A. Dana, U.S. Assistant Secretary of War, said after the war, "We think after the testimony given that the Confederate authorities and especially Mr. Davis (President Jefferson Davis) ought not to be held responsible for the terrible privations, suffering, and injuries which our men had to endure while kept in Confederate Military Prisons; the fact is unquestionable that while Confederates desired to exchange prisoners, to send our men home, and to get back their own men, General Grant steadily and strenuously resisted such an exchange."

    In Jan of 65 Grant was exchanging pows, 3000 a week sending back the sick and infirm, and holding onto the able bodied.


    Acording to the Constitution USSC Salves bearing arms were in servile insurection, not soldiers. Acoding to the law of the land the arming of slaves was a capital crime. Inciting them to insurection was a capital crime.
    Last edited by Hanny; July 03, 2015 at 11:41 AM.
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    The position of the Union that exchanges should take place on the basis of equal treatment to black and white Soldiers was established before Grant voiced his opinions on the matter to Butler. The policy was a following of the Union policy to use black Soldiers, Stanton voiced the policy to Major-General Butler in a letter of November 17th 1863: "It is know that the rebels will exchange man for man and officer for officer, except blacks and officers in command of black troops. These they absolutely refuse to exchange. This is the point on which the whole matter hinges. Exchanging man for man and officer for officer, with the exception the rebels make, is a substantial abandonment of the colored troops and their officers to their fate, and would be a shameful dishonor to the Government bound to protect them. When they agree to exchange all alike there will be no difficulty."

    When Grant became Commanding General he stuck to the Administrations policy, on April 17th 1864 he ordered: "No distinction whatever will be made in the exchange between white and colored prisoners, the only question being, were they, at the time of their capture, in the military service of the United States. If they were, the same terms as to treatment while prisoners and conditions of release and exchange must be exacted and had, in the case of colored soldiers as in the case of white soldiers."

    In January of 1865 the Confederates agreed to exchange all alike; and from then on, for the next three months several thousand a week were exchanged, until Appomattox.
    When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

    - John Ball (1381)

  8. #8

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    U. S.GRANT, Lieutenant General.Headquarters Army of the United States, In the field, CulpeperCourt House, April 17, 1864.General: Your report of negotiations with Mr. Ould, Confederate States agent, touching theEXCHANGE of ])risoners, has been referred to me by the Secretary of War, with directions toFURNISH you suchINSTRUCTIONS on the subject as I may deem proper.http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbo...1000785703/139

    Stanton gave to Grant the authority to do as he wished on the subject.We have Grants reason for choesing what action to take.
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    From link in post 1


    Finally, the respective casualty figures of these two generals contradict the myth about who, if either, was a butcher. For the entire war, Grant’s soldiers incurred about 154,000 casualties (killed, wounded, missing, captured) while imposing about 191,000 casualties on their foes. In all their battles, Lee’s troops incurred about 209,000 casualties while imposing about 240,000 casualties on their opponents. Thus, both generals armies imposed about 40,000 more casualties than they incurred. However, Lee, who should have been fighting defensively and preserving his precious manpower, instead exceeded Grant’s understandable aggressiveness and incurred 55,000 more casualties than Grant.


    He includes in Grants inflicted number the following number of pows, 28,000 at Apotomax, 27,000 at Vicksburg, 16500 at Donelson, so since they are not part of the butchhes bill, they have no place here. They are surrenders of entire armies. Removing them otoh shows Grant to inflicted 70,000 less, ie 121,000. lee lost 28000 less, ie 181,000, and since he combined Eastern and western numbers for Grant, thats 70,000 less for Grant overall.


    Grants inflicted 121,000
    Lee inflicted 240,000


    Grant lost 154000
    lee lost 181,000


    So his own argument which is that |lee was agressive and not good at it and should have stayed on the defensive) is without merit.


    He also forgets to mention that Grant outnumbered Lee by 180% in overland, Pemberton 230% in Vicksburg camapigns. When that is factored in we find Grant was highly inefficent at inflicting losses compared to Lee who was highly efficent.
    Book is poorly edditted, it tranposses casualty figures, over two whole pages, making the reader think Cold Harbour was a stunning success for Grant.

    Grant ws called a butcher because thats what he was, he earnt the name when he came east to face Lee.
    Last edited by Hanny; July 06, 2015 at 10:48 AM.
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Benjamin Franklin

  10. #10

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    A general point would be the use of modern weaponry and old timer tactics that didn't change much since the Napoleonic wars. The generals weren't prepared for that new kind of warfare and still resorted to mindless charges which ultimately led to horrendous casualties.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by abaris View Post
    A general point would be the use of modern weaponry and old timer tactics that didn't change much since the Napoleonic wars. The generals weren't prepared for that new kind of warfare and still resorted to mindless charges which ultimately led to horrendous casualties.
    A general point would be that the average range of a firefight in the WBTS, did not change regardless of the increased range of shoulder arms.https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&ty...2.hartwig.html
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by strategist.com View Post
    http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.c..._grant_won.htm

    Here is a pretty interesting article justifying Grant's casualty rates and also making a strong case that it was Lee who was wrong. I admit I do not know much about US Civil War though I thought Grant's impressive Vicksburg Campaign seems to be overlooked by Grant's detractors. For argument sake what could Grant have done to lessen the casualties in Overland Campaign?
    I think his frontal assault high causalities was the reason for the nickname.

  13. #13
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,444

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    But did he have a choice though when facing Lee? Would he have been capable of fighting Lee another way?

  14. #14

    Default Re: Why was Grant called the 'Butcher' when Lee had more casualties? Could Grant have lessen the casualties more if possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blastoise Groudon View Post
    But did he have a choice though when facing Lee? Would he have been capable of fighting Lee another way?
    After 1863, the Union knew the Confederates wouldn't be able to launch another major offensive, like the one they launched with Gettysburg. That, and the loss of Vicksburg, meant that the Confederates would be fighting primarily a defensive war from July 1863 onward, because of the loss of so many irreplaceable units and commanders. And when U.S. Grant was appointed General of the AotP, he knew by that stage of the war, it was just a battle of attrition; so when the Union began launching regular attacks into southeastern Virginia, any casualties sustained to defeat the Confederacy were seen as acceptable, however horrendous.

    Lee, stalwart as he was, was becoming weary at the prolonged nature of the war, knowing that whatever battles he could fight and win, was only delaying the outcome everyone knew was coming.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •