How did American (both confederate and union) generals during

>>2062102
Fare*

>>2062116
whoops

>>2062102

Hard to calculate. A general works through a tool in the form of his troops. There's only so much you can accomplish with rabble, and rabble is what most of them had to work with through most of the Civil War, what with there not being a standing American army, and most troops being fresh conscripts or militias from dozens of different states with all the communication problems that brings.

>>2062102
Stonewall and Lee were god-tier, Grant only won because he could throw innumerable Irishmen at Confederate lines as cannon-fodder, Sherman is a different story.

Guy burned his way through the South, destroying not just manpower but morale. I'd love to see the Grand Army of the Republic led by Lee as Supreme Commander, with Stonewall, Sherman, and Longstreet as field commanders take on any Euro army and absolutely wreck them. Maybe even JEB Stuart leading a cavalry detachment to harass Euro supply lines.

>>2062140
> t. Confederate
Grant was fine. Good. Maybe not amazing like Lee, but he didn't have to be with how impotent the south was.

>>2062146
Grant was mediocre. The Union was plagued by poor to mediocre leadership throughout the war. See McClellan, Burnside, Meade.

This isn't Confederate revisionism, it's pretty widely agreed on. The Union won because of manpower, logistics, and equipment. The most poorly equipped Union soldier was still better equipped than your average Confederate.

The only thing the Confederate's had going for them was their leadership. If they were so "impotent," why didn't the Union stomp them in a year or two?

Put Grant in Lee's shoes and the Confederacy would have been extinguished in an instant. You cannot gloss over the fact the Union lacked quality leadership throughout the war.

>>2062174

Not him, but when you note that Grant stomped over everyone except Lee, it's kind of hard to call him mediocre. The Western Front was one long string of Grant kicking the shit out of people, at least until he got reassigned to Virginia.

>>2062185
I will concede on your charge of Grant's success in the West. He was truly a force of nature there. However, when you look at Union casualties under Grant against Lee, it's quite astounding. Perhaps mediocre was a strong word, but he was by no means as prolific as a Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc.

>>2062174
> The most poorly equipped Union soldier was still better equipped than your average Confederate.
False, and in fact, about opposite for the foray half of the war. The South arranged early on to buy modern British firearms. The Union did not, mainly on account of the head of provisioning being a veteran of 1812 and point blank refusing to 1), buu British guns for the union, 2) buy british guns to keep them out of Confederate hands. The Confederacy closed the deal and had better small arms for the first half of the war.

Likewise, they had the majority of the pre-war (ie, trained) army soldiery and leadership.

Union had cruddy military leadership for the majority of the war, but Grant was quite passable. To say otherwise is bitter wishful thinking of a booty blasted loser going, "you think you're so good because you're winning, but you aren't! You aren't even good!".