Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-06-04
UPON WHAT DOES GRANTS MIA
e-ff TARY REPUTATION RESTe
From The New York World.


From the New York World.
If a backwoodsman should llse an ak 10
cut has crop of grain, instead Of sickle,
because the ak had rendered good service
in telling the forest that stood upon the same
ground the preceding year, nobody womb
be apt to think we'll Of his judgment in the
selection- of a utensil As we are net 10
have a war, there is less fitness inthe
selection of General than statesman as
a candidate for President Gen. Grant has
been nominated solely in consequence of
his military reputation. Waving, fertile
| present, the fundamental objection that the
instrument is not adapted 20 the proposed
use, and that the Presidency, during the
next term, viii afford no scope for the ex-
ertion of military talents, we challenge in
| qpiry into the grounds of Gen. Grants
lame as a soldier. We suppose some ofhis
friends will seriously maintain that he Is
| entitled to be called great General mere
ly because he has commanded great ar
mics, much less because he has exposed and
lost in battle great mnltitudes of men.
His reputation rests upon the fact that all
his campaigns have been successful. But
success against such adversaries as PILLOW
or Pemberton in the West is no very signal
proof Of abilities unless they commanded
greater forces, which they did not, Gen.
Lee was q more worthy antagonist; but
Gen. Lee was not conquered by fighting |
him, but by exhausting his resources. ~
i He stood on the defensive for nearly
year after Grant assumed command in the
East, although the Confederaey was even
then, when Grant crossed the Rapidan.
lettering and Well-nigh spent by three
years exertion in strenuous and UNEQUAL |
struggle. 1t is certainly just to credit |
Grant with the capture of lee; bnt there |
is q debit as we'll as credit side to the |
account What Gen. Scott called sthe |
economy of life by means of headwork, = |
will be sought for in vain in the campaigns |
OF Gen. Grant. His Successes have been |
Wonby prodigal expenditure of his soil |
diera. In his last and greatest campaign |
he Pitted an enormous army against a |
small one, and sacrifeedJ twice as many /
men as Gen. Lee had under his command, |
II is not Justice bat adulation, to praise |
him as if he had conquered an army as /
large as his own Il is not Justice but an /
attront to humanity TO give him as much /
credit as if he had achieved the same result |
without such wholesale sacrifices of men.
The following is an authentic statement of |
the respective forces and losses of Generals
Grant and Lee between the Rapidan and
the james: "a ...l-.f - ,t..s-
Grant on assuming command Nav A. |
1864, had of effective men besides the re- /
serve, when he crossed the Rapidan, 1885,
wv. ....LlsrI O. fr..cri8F -FUI G1 500 /
Lee at the same date had an effective
force of $4,000. t.F ti.eM a.it |
Grants requirements up 10 the battl
oil Gold Harbor, JaRe3 were 81 ,000 80,
Lees relniorcemenis up TO the same date
were 10 ,OOO. ia.o.f iasE ir.4i va T. .Hi l.
Grants total force, including reinforce
mems, was 222,0O0. afa8 ls.fl
Lees total force, including reinforce
menis, was 10000 f.f...l.a.., ,a...i
Returns to their respective governments
showed that when both armies had reached
the James, June 10, the number of Grants
army that had been put hOrs dH combat was
l9,000.f - o.. fil I.f d
Up to the same date, the number of Lees
men who had been put hors dt, combat was
10000. .l f.l tliuaa.l r.sIl IL
The two armies then met in front of
Petersburg u-.l. 81 s..'' a' $40
We have been at some pains to ascertain
and verify these figures and we yoUch for
their substantial accuracy. We shall take
good care that they do not escape ttenotiee,
nor slip the recollection of the country. We
eheerfnlly GOncede to General Grant the!
merit of success; but it is right that the
country should know the terrible cost at I
which that success was purchased. it-ni / /
The truesl test of military genius Is the /
accomplishment of the great results with |
slender means. We recall no instance 7
tnnless Grant be an instauce,) Of General
who established his title to be called great
otherwise than by succeeding against great
disadVantages-eit superior numbers |
or c0nsummate abilities in the commanders
opposed to him, OF formidable physical OBJ
stacles "A man does not prove that he
a giants strength BY ogermaster-.
ing an invalid or a cripple. A General |
does not establish his title to be considerediI
great by subduing an army one third as
large as his own, and losing five of his
men for every one that he disablss of the i
enemy. sd % ---As',
We have had some experience before ofi
running successful Generals as candidates.
for the Presidency, but their achieve /
ments were in this particulars great con-
Jackson won his brilliant victory at New
Orleans with 1000 men against British
army Of $4,000. General Taylor had but
6OOO men at Buena Vista, and the Mexi-
cans twice that number Gen. Scott had
5000 men at Cerro Gofdo, the Mexicans
$4,000. The splendid victory Of Contre-
ras was achieved by Scott with $500,
against 10000 Mexicans. General. Scott, |
in his report to the Secretary of War,
speaking of the battles in front of Mexico, |
said: "And assert, upon accumulated and
evidence, that in not one
of these conflicts was this army opposed by |
less than three and half times its num-
bers-in several of them by yet greater
excess" If it be said that Grant had dis
advantages of ground and position 10 en-
counter in advancing through an enemy's
country, the same is equally true of Scott,
who nevertheless with greatly inferior
advanced rapidly from triumph /
10 triumph, while Grant, operating with
superior Numbers, against a nearly ex.
hansted foe, required a whole wear to cap |