Lee surrendered to Grant a hundred and thirty seven years ago today, at Appomattox Courthouse, effectively ending the War Between The States. This site describes the events leading up to that final capitulation. I'm struck by the professional tone of the letters between the two generals, in the days prior.

This is one of the reasons that Grant was a great general. He was always a clear communicator, and his letters to his officers had the same clarity--describing exactly what was to be accomplished strategically, without necessarily dictating how, leaving that instead to their initiative.

Also, to put this event in context of current events, consider, as we mourn the loss of some three thousand dead.

That war killed over six hundred thousand Americans on both sides. And this was when the country only had a total population of about forty million. Losing the equivalent today, percentage wise, would be like losing four or five million people, mostly men in arms.

I have issues with that. Grant had his points but is style was get a hammer beat your enemy if it breaks get a bigger one repeat until enemy dies.
Attrition! This sadly was policy for every war until Vietnam. In Vietnam the Army did not have the luxury of endless bullet stoppers and began real look in changing that policy.

Grant was a good leader in the sense of the style of relation to his men. Something seen in many famous American generals since.

Actually, deaths in the ACW were over 620 thousand, or three hundred thousand on --each-- side. Also I believe your pop stats are a bit low -- I think the North had some 34 million, which is leaving the South out of it altogether. I could look it up, but its late.

Great post.

It is kind of hard to criticize Grant's tactical and strategic shortcomings, since the Civil War was the first "modern" war. First in that war included the repeating rifle, the gatling gun, iron hulled ships and subs. Some were on a limited basis, but the implications of a semi-automatic rifle when you were used to a reload cycle of 30 seconds to a minute are astounding. And Grant's philosophy can be better summed up as refusing to retreat. It broke the moral of the soldiers to have to take the same ground several times. If you look at his battles, that was where he lost a lot of men. When the normal general would have retreated to fight another day. That was exactly why he was promoted in the first place. It sure wasn't his sterling career, political contacts and placement at West Point.

On an unrelated matter, how much exactly do we owe in reperations then? Do we get to subtract the price of the dead from the amount owed, kind of like a down payment. At $100,000 per life lost (using 300,000 dead) that comes out to $30,000,000,000 before interest calculations. I say the debt is paid.

Yes. Grant was successful because he was willing to accept the loss of troops and keep moving, rather than falling back and licking wounds. At the Wilderness, after losing a tactical battle with twice the casualties, he continued forward, and the men cheered, because they finally knew that they were being led by someone who would ultimately end the stalemate and defeat the enemy.

But I think that he regretted Cold Harbor, a presage of the trench slaughter of World War I, to the end of his days.

I've just finished Jay Winik's civil war saga "April 1865, The Month that Saved America", and highly recommed it to your readers. Mr Winik tells a moving tale of how differently the war could have ended.

Importantly, it was Grant's (and Lincoln's)generous offer to Lee in defeat that probably prevented the southern forces from escaping into the wilderness and turning the war into guerilla warfare. Grant's forces showed Lee's army great respect at Appomattox. Appomattox and the defeat with honor presented there was the beginning of our great countries healing.