Was he really a good general?
The North won so I guess.
Yes he was and a great president his only crime was offending the Jew when he ban them from entering the South, the Jew was the carpetbagging fucks taking advantage of the down trodden, sadly the Jew has a Monopoly on all major universities and the education system and through their they manipulate history to villiamize their enemies and propogate their usefully idiots like the nigger communists nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King...the Jew has been kicked out and banned from 60 plus countries 114 times...recently that number has tripped but of course we would never learn such truths through the education system...
>>3235300
when are you just going to admit that jews clearly have a superior IQ enabling them to obtain higher positions than white people
it's the same as whites being able to out compete blacks
>>3235186
Yes. People always knock him for the meat grinder that the fight in Virginia was, but to be honest, with the low amount of mobility that the two armies had in an era where you were still half living off of the land, combined with the difficulty in assaulting fortified positions, it's hard to see how he could have done much better, and he did paralyze Lee while other columns overran pretty much all of the confederacy.
Then you look at what he did over in the West, where he pretty much curbstomped everything that he went up against, and yeah, you can justify calling him a really good general.
>>3235186
He was the most important general since Napoleon. The only thing that came close to a peer in his time was Von Moltke the Elder, and Grant already understood why Von Moltke's son would lose.
He was apparently good enough
>>3235781
this post is embarrassing. He won a war against a separatist faction within your own country with a standing army that outnumbered them 2 to 1. Putting him in the same sentence as Nappy and Von Moltke is silly.
>>3235186
Yes
For all of the South's frothing lust for Lee, Grant thoroughly crushed him and his petty band.