Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885)

Utterly unflappable, whether in victory or defeat. His victory on the second day at Shiloh after being defeated on the first day, the Forts Henry and Donaldson campaign and the Vicksburg campaign, showed his two main attributes as a commander: utter stubbornness, and a willingness to innovate. Alone of the Union commanders, including the political variety, he saw that the key to the South was not Richmond, but Lee himself, and he set out to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia. That he possessed overwhelming numbers is true, but such had been the case for Union commanders throughout the war, and none before him had made good use of them. As another reviewer has stated, a man of some integrity (despite the record of his cronies when he became President) and the generous surrender terms he agreed to with Lee went some way to assuring an orderly end to the conflict. Certainly not a great general, but the right man in the right place at the right time.

The best general overall during the Civil War. I rate him higher than Lee, because Grant was the only general on either side who conceived and carried out a war winning strategy in all the main theatres of battle. When Lee was asked to help save Vicksburg, he refused to allow his "Virginians" to be transferred and instead came up with invasion of Pennsylvania which resulted in the terrible defeat he suffered at Gettysburg which ended Conferderate attempts to invade the north.Those who always criticize Grant and praise Lee because Grant had more troops, don't realize it took a 3 to 1 advantage for an attacking army to defeat an enemy on the defensive during the Civil War. Lee, also had perfect terrain in Virginia for a defensive war but still lost. Edwin Bearrs one of the most renowned Civil War historians , said Grant's Vicksburg campaign was the better than Jackson's Valley campaign thus showing Grant's strategic and tactical greatness. He defeated Bragg at Chattanooga, and won at Sh... Read more

Understood from the start that The South have not got enough army and acted accordingly. Used a strategy that was bound to succeed in the end.

He gets a three for winning and that's it, not that great of a strategist or leader, he just won because the North had all the industry for weapons and three times as many people (even more if you dont count the slaves). All the good generals and leaders were in the south, honestly.

Really a mediocre field general, but like Eisenhower a good overall strategist..

A far better general then president. Won the war for the north because of his brilliant strategies.

Ulysses S. Grant's only tactic appears to have been attrition, and his army took massive casualties (eg Cold Harbor and the Wilderness). Sherman (the most hated man in the South) was a much better Union general and tactician than Grant according to my readings. While that may have been the only way for Grant to win, the great generals win with more tactics and smart risk taking, which means Grant's policy was due to his shortcomings as a general.

So the guy beat an army that was smaller, poorly supplied, starving, and poorly clothed with an army that was 5 times better prepared. the only reason I didn't give him one star is that it took a few generals who couldn't do it before he was selected. This eather shows the South's admirable determination or the North's incapability. I like to think both.

A GREAT GENERAL!!!!! Go union!!!!! AMERICA!!!!!

His methods were very much different in contrast to that of Robert E. Lee's. However, the tide for the Union clearly began to turn when he assumed command in 1863. His leadership led to the Confederate's surrender in 1865. His "Total War" policies and ruthless aggression during the war led to the Union's victory. An unknown fact about Grant is that he was a man of great integrity. He was much more unorthadox than General Lee, using questionable methods to achieve advancement in the war. After the war, President Johnson and others sought to put Robert E. Lee on trial for treason, but Grant threatened to withdraw from the United States Army if this was pursued. He was a man who respected the many talents of his opponent, and who can be thanked in large part for the Union's victory.

Same thing than with Patton, he never fought superior forces.

He had a load of personal problems, but he was the right man for the Union's situation. If he was the leader of the South, he would have failed miserably, but his type of fighting was what the North needed to finally end the war.

First and only Union commander in chief to defeat the South through and through.

THE UNION HAMMER! SCREW YOU LOKI13 Loki 13 does not realize that the pinkertons gave the union army bad information,such as was the case at Antietam where Mccelland thought he was out numbered thus didnt attack the Piper farm,with the 5th corps,The rebs would of been split in two! for Gods sake Longstreet himself had to man a battery at this point.Grant was ahead of his time and he had guts, taking huge chances during the Vicksburg campain.War is hell and so was the wilderness campain but he didnt quit.not bad for a store clerk. IM sure the confederates had spies.

A dishonourable bastard who took to hiring those Pinkerton Bastards to spy on the Confederates. He would never have won the war if he had fought honourably.