I think Mikie has a good point.  The last year of the war in Virginia was a lot of trench warfare.  As soon as a new position was taken the troops dug in.   Grant tried to maneuver but Lee always beat him to the spot. Yet the circle around Richmond got tighter and tighter and the Confederate army grew weaker and weaker, but only because Grant stayed on the attack and would not let the Lee disengage.  I don't know what battlefield brilliance he could have used that would have saved Union blood without prolonging the war. 

I think you answered your own question. Grant attacked consequences be damned. Lee tried the flanks at Gettysburg and then sent Pickett to the center which as we know failed horribly. One mistake, not a war full of butchery. Lee surrendered to stop the killing of his men, not sure Grant would have done the same if the roles were reversed. That said, its once again conjecture and doesn't matter. I don't dislike Grant, I'm merely pointing out the facts of the matter. Many facts involving that war are overshadowed by politics and propaganda. Grant and Sherman, along with Sheridan and a very few others were the best the North had and were competent in their own way.    Scott

I tried to like all the posts on this string because they are all good, but I guess I'm limited on how many posts i can like. Can someone tell me what the rules are on that? 

Scott - I believe your arguments have much to back them up and I enjoy the debate.  You are not the first to call Grant a butcher especially after the Wilderness campaign and Cold Harbor.  But would Lee have done differently in Grant's shoes?  And for all his brilliance - and he was a brilliant strategist/tactician no doubt - war is butchery.  Lee was aggressive and would not have his victories but for the blood of his troops.  Was Pickett's charge not butchery?  Why does Lee get labeled a genius for marching in Pennsylvania and losing half his command and sending Pickett's men to death in an attack on a fortified position, while Grant gets labeled a butcher for putting constant pressure on the enemy because, as he and Lincoln understood, that was how to win and end the war.   

Hindsight is wonderful, and what-ifs can be fun. But under the circumstances, and with a new kind of war with new kinds of weapons, was there any other Union general that could have finished the war cheaper than Grant? I don’t think so.  mikie

You are welcome..happy to assist.

All kinds of ifs in the last two replies and that is not what happened. Whether Grant wanted to be a butcher isn't in question, the fact is, he was one, While it did lead to victory, it does not absolve him. As I said, he and almost all of the Union were out generaled by the South. Yes there were moments of brilliance and some competent leaders but with the numbers involved and the type of war being fought, the outcome were lackluster at best.    So, what If Grant were in the East in 61, what if he handled Gettrysburg or Antietam, or the Peninsula etc.... It would have meant that someone else would have been at Vicksburg or maybe Jackson wouldn't have been killed and none of that matters as it didn't happen and we will never know.   As for Patton, once again, look at North Africa and Sicily, yes he was generally better supplied but he was also stymied by his own command and even in Normandy his fuel was low and he was limited in what he could do. It was his planning and brilliance where he stood out in those early days, He took the fight to the enemy where he could and he produced results, but while he had more than the Germans in most supplies, he had less than Grant and his authority was never that of Grants. He was leashed by Ike, Bradley, and the British almost constantly.         I would put forth an if scenario on behalf of Grant though it doesn't matter in the least. If he had the depth of Division and Brigade commanders that Lee, Johnston, and Bragg had, then he may have shown true brilliance versus butchery. Bragg was awful, but he had good officers which helped with the successes he had...  Scott    

Your flag came before the "thimbles" and is consistent with an older flag. Washing a flag in bad shape can leave you with a pile of muck. I only do it by hand with a small amount of Woolite. Air dry.  

If Grant had been at Antietam, Lee and the Amry of N. Virginia would have been crushed.  Lee being allowed to move his tattered army away from the battlefield without being pounced and destroyed was a big missed opportunity for the Union.  McClellan even had Lee's battle plans.    Lee and Jackson were good generals and their exploits are legendary.  But when assessing their generalship, you have to take into account who they were facing.  During the Peninsula Campaign, McClellan was convinced that the South had an army twice his size and would not attack despite overwhelming superiority in men and material.  (One of my favorite stories of the war is how General MacGruder (i think that's name) marched his men in circles while in defensive lines outside Richmond to give the impression that great numbers of troops were arriving)    The same goes for the other Union generals who committed blunders that Lee took advantage of but should not have been committed by better generals.      As far as the siege of Vicksburg, Robert E. Lee would have done the same thing.   To think that Lee's brilliance could led to the capture of Vicksburg without a siege or at an earlier time gives him too much credit.  As for Patton, American troops received 8 pounds of supply for every one pound dedicated to the German soldier.   I believe it accurate to say that Patton had greater resources than his German opponents, especially given that 80 to 90 percent of Germany's military resources were dedicated to fighting the Soviet Union which was the main theater of war in Europe. 

Thank you very much! I really appreciate your help. I’m trying to identify the exact history and use of this tag, so your information about it being a Canadian Navy item is very helpful. Thanks again!