A Victor, Not a Butcher: Ulysses S. Grant's Overlooked Military Genius

Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly well-done!
Review: Bonekemper follows in the shoes of JFC Fuller and T. Harry Williams who long ago argued that Ulysses Grant was the preeminent soldier of the Civil War. For nearly 100 years, the rise of the Lost Cause mentality has obscured Grant's true brilliance as a general and his great rival, Lee, has been elevated to near demi-God status. Bonekemper dispenses with such nonsense and shows, point by point, how Grant won the Civil War. He did so because he was a military genius and possessed rare gifts of stubbornness, intelligence, daring, patience and sheer nerve. The fans of Robert E. Lee will be reaching for their smelling salts when they pick up this tome!

The book is not heavy on statistics or details and those who dislike plodding military narratives will still find something to like here. Bonekemper's "Appendix I" is especially interesting, particularly for those who are familiar with Grant literature from the past. It's interesting to read his opinions on some of the recent spate of Grant biographers. Equally impressive is Bonekemper's list of Grant's "Attributes" which he lists in descending order. Among these are modesty, the dis-inclination to constantly demand reinforcements (which is what contributed to McClellan's downfall), and a stubborn tenacity. Bonekemper brilliantly refutes the tired old adage that Grant was a butcher who was injudicious with the lives of his men. Borrowing stats from McWhiney and Fuller, he clearly demonstrates that General Lee lost far more men in proportion than did Grant.

My only criticism is that Bonekemper inexplicably describes Grant as "an alcoholic." He should have known better, because it's simply untrue. Grant drank and imbibed too much early in his army career, almost always when separated from his much-adored wife. He also got drunk on occasion in the ACW, but it didn't interfere with his service career and was borne out of a need to be with Julia. No serious historian of the past 50 years has described Grant as an alcoholic and it's disappointing that Bonekemper follows suit. This is an odd inclusion, particularly when he states that "alcoholism made him a better general." This is a theory borrowed from McPherson and should have been omitted.

Aside from this small lapse, the remainder of the book is a grand exercise in proving what Grant students have long known: this man was one awesome soldier! Kudos to Bonekemper from proving this point so thoroughly.

Rating:
Summary: A Myth No More
Review: Historical myth, especially those connected to the Civil War, are not easily changed. Decades of authors have tried to embellish a myth until it is accepted as fact. Mr. Bonekemper does an excellent job of pulling together statistics, details and opinions concerning Ulysses Grant and then analyzing what these really mean. A case is meticulously built that Grant was a brilliant leader and apparently the only general who had an overall view of what needed to be done and how it would be accomplished. He not only understood the military actions needed on the battlefield but the political implications to Washington. Mr. Bonekemper refutes the myth that Grant was a butcher and shows how he generally minimized his overall loses by understanding the "big picture" and changing tactics when needed to overcome his opposition. The book is easy to follow and is highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Enjoyed this Book
Review: I found this book thoroughly enjoyable. While I never thought of Grant as a "butcher", it gave me new insight into his merits as a commander and a person. It brought out a number of things that I had read in other contexts relating to the failings of other civil war generals and highlighted the strengths of Grant in avoiding their problems.

It was easy to read and understand. I recommend it highly.

Rating:
Summary: Enjoyed this Book
Review: I found this book thoroughly enjoyable. While I never thought of Grant as a "butcher", it gave me new insight into his merits as a commander and a person. It brought out a number of things that I had read in other contexts relating to the failings of other civil war generals and highlighted the strengths of Grant in avoiding their problems.

It was easy to read and understand. I recommend it highly.

Rating:
Summary: A balanced, well documented review of Grants talents
Review: Mr. Bonekemper has again attacked a historical myth, this time that General U. S. Grant was a butcher who suceeded against Generral Robert E. Lee merely by brute force of arms and overwhelming numbers. This book builds a persuasive case that, at least im military matters, Grant was a able, even brilliant leader who understood his profession throughly and was attuned to the politicalconsequences of his actions on the battlefield as well. The book proves the case that Grant deserved to be treated more fairly by popular history, and at the same time is a good review of the essense of all of Grant's campaigns.

Rating:
Summary: A Victor, Not a Butcher: Ulysses S. Grant's Overlooked Milit
Review: Mr. Bonekemper has written an excellent book concerning Grant's military mind and how he was the architect of the Union's victory in the civil war. It is also an excellent book for all readers interested in the war between the states as it chronicles the major engagements and strategy's in a very organized timeline of the war. Very easy reading and exciting.

Rating:
Summary: A Modest Revision of History
Review: Perhaps it is the American tradition of rooting for the underdog. Perhaps it is the influence of movies like 'Gone With the Wind' that have created a golden image of the south (In spite of the South's Peculiar Institution - Slavery.) But for whatever reason, Robert E. Lee has been raised to almost God like esteem, while Grant has been considered a drunken butcher.

Of late, the reputation of Lee has suffered some. Incidents like Picketts Charge have been looked more closely in the reliaziation that Lee's most trusted Liutenant, Longstreet recommended against the Gettysburg campaign so heavily.

It is good to see that Grant is getting a new look. He led a masterful series of military campaigns, often over the objections of his superiors such as Hallack. And in the end, he won the war. Dr. Bonekemper does not go into the troubles Grant had as a civilian, either before the war or during his presidency. But after all, this is not a biography of Grant but a military history. Well done, well written, highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: A Genius Indeed!
Review: Sooner or later, a student of the American Civil War is confronted with seemingly irreconcilable portraits of Ulysses S. Grant. One paints Grant as something of a vicious dullard, capable only of bludgeoning his enemy to submission with the brute force of vastly superior numbers of Union soldiers. As this picture has it, he sacrifices needlessly the limbs and lives of Union men in repetitive, horrendously brutal attacks upon the cornered enemy who happen to be fellow Americans.

The other image is that of a military genius who prevailed through superior strategy and tactical prowess. Writers advancing this vision contend that Grant recognized and understood the need of the Lincoln administration for battlefield successes to retain popular support for the war effort and win the 1864 election. By focusing on Confederate armies instead of cities, goes this line, he achieved the necessary victories, ultimately bringing the war to a successful conclusion. In doing so, it necessarily follows, Grant succeeded where others had failed, saved the Union and avoided even greater numbers of battlefield deaths.

In "Victor, Not a Butcher" Ed Bonekemper does much to resolve these competing and conflicting images of Grant. Reciting Grant's Civil War record from Belmont to Appomattox, Bonekemper makes a forceful case that Grant was crucial to keeping the Union intact. Bonekemper demonstrates convincingly that Grant actually spent the lives of his men less freely than did his Confederate enemy counterparts. And he provides the numbers to support this assertion. Along the way, Bonekemper provides insightful analyses of the 1864 election and the treatment of Grant by other historians. The later, in particular, assists in understanding why and how these reverse portrayals of Grant developed over time and with the changing lens of historical perspective.

All in all, "Victor" is an enjoyable and thoroughly readable book. It is accessible by novice and expert alike. Both will benefit from Bonekemper's unvarnished recital of Grant's accomplishments and reverses. His unbiased conclusions are persuasive. This reader, for one, is convinced.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Overview of Grant's Civil War Career
Review: This is a well written book covering the campaigns and military career of U.S. Grant during the civil war.

Chapter 12 and the appendixes give a solid analysis of what made Grant a success and offers a great discussion of the attacks upon his record by his detractors.

Included within the book are statistical analysis demonstrating the losses suffered by Grant's armies were not out of proportion, especially when viewed in contrast to those suffered by Lee and his other opponents.

This book brings forth in a very readable style how and why Grant was a success as a general. It should be enjoyed by the novice and the expert on the subject of Grant's civil war career.

Rating:
Summary: To the victor goes the spoils
Review: Towards the end of the war Grant was losing 5000 troops per major engagment. Mary Todd Lincoln called him a butcher and wanted him removed. Abe wanted to end the war. Grant made no bones about his motive. To crush the south, and he did. I wonder if it was because he knew that sacrifice was necessary and with the Northern industrial complex behind the logistics and a draft in full swing (whew)... at that point Lincoln finally had a General who had the will to win at any cost. He could have won with one hand tied behind his back... the south was in poor shape. Yet Lee managed to give back worthily at just about every juncture, save Petersburg and the rear guard action into Appomatox. Was the book that good? No suprises here.