Litchfield enquirer., 1880-03-18
For the Enquirer. . NAPOLEON vs. GRANT,

General Grants military career has no doubt received it's full share of praise and censure from his critics, and I should not attempt to say anything but to answer few ideas con- tained in the prelude of recent lecture given by the Rev. Joseph Cook. The prelude en- titled "General Grant and Thlrd Term be gins by saying that "there are six reasons for pronouncing General Grants military career the most brilliant in history" MT. Cooks arguments against Third Term for the pres- dency are excellent. but his proposition that Grants military career is the most brilliant n history, seems to me untenable. But first, how shall we judge concerning a great mili- tary career? Is it the career containing the most unbroken success and numbering the most victories without weighing the odds or results2 Is it the career abounding most with deeds of personal bravery or exhibiting the most signal triulnphs over worst odds Or,
 finally, is it the career in which the magnitude of tine operations conducted, or the skill and intelligence of it's author, are preeminent that we should consider superior in brilisncy
 None of these examples present characteristics sufficient alone, but rather we should award the palm of superiority to that military career having the highest combination of at least all the above great qualities. I, for one, fail to discover in Grants achievements brilliancy rivalling Bonaparte's. As 8 general, Napoleon Bonaparte created modern war, was master of his art in all it's departments, and was wholly unrivalled in those great combinations which form the highest problems of military science. In victories he left such complete models to future generals that they have hard ly ever been equalled. Tactics and strategy received in him their highest development, and they marched with him hand in hand to pro- duce the greatest possible results. One great battle of Napoleon finished a campaign; the enemy defeated on the battle field was gener- ally cut of at the same time from his base or line of operations. In short Napoleon was the first general that taught the world both how to fight decisive battles. Wellington on the other hand owed his victories solely to his tactics, and the advantages of victory were circunlscribed and confined to the tactical suc- cess on the battle field. The allied generals were slow to learn and unable to compete with the great captain. When prolonged war had weakened the resources of France, and Europe was banded in vast numbers against him, their theory was not to fight, but to elude his grasp. In the final battle at Waterloo, Napoleon was overwhelmed by double his force, while thirty | only few miles away, did not stir or aid one particle to avert the defeat, through the inex- cusable blunder of their general.
 l Having now briefly dwelt on the greatest conqueror with which a modern general can be compared, let us turn to Mir. Cooks ''sx l reasons' and see if his views are correct This is the substance of what he says: Grant | successfully commanded million of soldiers for more than year. No other general, not excepting even Xerxes and Napoleon, ever successfully commanded million of armed men for equal period. Grant opposed his equals ln intelligence and military skill while Alexander, Cesar, and Napoleon for the most part opposed their interiors in these particu- lars. Gen Grant commanded an army extend cd over wider spaces than were ever covered before his day by an active armed force known to history. He acted on his own iudg- ment, without advice from any superior. His soldiers were more than three fourths of them taken into the army as raw recruits. He nev- CT failed.
 Without trying to enter into discussion of the merits and demerits of Grants entire war record, it will be sufficient for my purpose here to answer MT. Cooks argument in the main by comparing Grant with Napoleon. Gen. Grant was afforded goodly experience before he was called to the chief command of our armies. He served eleven years in the regular army after his graduation at West Point Two years of this was in the Mexican war, and he fought in every battle of any in- portance except Beuna Vista Then, when the Rebellion came, he had in addition three years experience as general before receiving supreme command. Assuming the direction of the war. he had at hisdisposal almost every- thing that even the most exacting wants of any conqueror could suggest. There was splendid army of veterans that only needed a littlereorganization to proceed against Lee and drive him south of Richmond. There too was one of the finest navies in the world, which by its exertions had already half conquered the Rebellion. He could choose his subordinate generals-men who had fought under him and proven their capabilities. Such are few of the advantages then possessed by General Grant. The Rebels had different ones on their part but not as great. Napoleon, it will be ] remembered, entered on his career, as the general-in-chief of over forty thousand men in northern Italy. He was only 26 years Of age, was raised directly from captaincy of artil- lery, to that command; was placed in the worst circumstances, and his previous experi- ence was nothing. His astonishing campaigns that followed find no superior in Grants achievements. Napoleon's military trumphs continued almost unabated during eleven of the eighteen years of his career, and the re- mander was by no means destitute of vlcto- ries. A large share of the time he command ed some 250, 900 soldiers When he undertook