Year: 1877




The Tribune on Sunday, informed
the country that Grant never lost
battle. AS Grant was licked at
Belmont, and again at Shiloh, and
suffered two disastrous repulses in
his assaults in May, 1868, before
Vicksburg, it is seen that the Trib-
une's assertion is somewhat at vari
ance with the facts. The strategist
of that sheet also asserts that
Grants theory was that a battle
should always cost the enemy more
than it cost him." and yet it is the
fact that just the reverse is the
truth. Grant was always willing to
lose three men in order to kill one
Of the enemy, basing his willingness
upon his celebrated utterance that
his "cat's tall was the longest"
Had Grant not been possessed of
more than twice as many men as
Lee, the latter might have taken
Washington in place Of the former
taking Richmond. 1t was four to
one that drove Lee back; and even
then Richmond would scarcely have
been taken had not Sherman COM
menced moving from the South.
Grant was not a strategist in any
sense of the word. Ali he knew of
war was to keep hammering"
away, conscious only Of the fact
that in the end superiority in mum
bers and in supplies must give sue
cess. In truth, our late war, outside
ofSherman's Atlanta campaign, had
very little strategy in it. In nearly
all other instances 1t was simply
game OF give and take, in which,
mol gameness, but weight had the
best of it.


AS to just how the people Of Eu-
rope will receive Grant, there is
room for question. Won Moltke is
credited with saying that our war
was simply mad contact of two
armed mobs. Always except Sher-
mans movements, that is pretty
much all there was of it. The sol
diers OF Europe will certainly look
on Grant with curiosity as man
who lost more lives and accom-
plished less for the sacrifice than IN
any war known to history. They
certainly cannot have any admira-
tion for his military genius, for the
reason that they will not be apt to
regard mere stolidity. mere willing
ness to lose three men to kill one of
the enemy, as any evidence of abili-
ty. He will undoubtedly attract
much attention; but, as sand, it will
be rather curiosity than anything
else. Grant, as shown by history,
lacks in all the purely intellectual
qualities of a first class soldier.
He has no culture to Recommend
him in other respects. 1t is a very
well known fact that the men with
whom he has associated since the
war, who have been his friends and
intimates, have not been men noted
either for their social, moral, or in
tellectual worth. Hence Grant has
not had the opportunity which is
afforded by contact with the more
refined elements, to acquire polish.
He is as yet uncouth or nearly SO,
as when he left his tannery at Ga
lena to take charge of an Illinois
regiment.


A man who has no reputation as
a great military leader; who is lack
ing in polish and social excellence,
can not expect to attract coInph
mentary attention from the people
of portion of the globe which con
tains the irst military captains, the
first statesmen, and the social de-
velopements of the world. Nor
will Grant be likely to receive at
tention as an x-President. In Eu-
rope, compliments, like gratitude,
are restricted to a lively sense of
favors to come. That Grant has
been powerful is of no account, so
long as, at the present time, he is
only private citizen.


In short, it is difficult to see
wherein either Mr. Grant or this
country will be flattered or benefit
ted by his European trip. With
reference to the dignity Of the lat
ter, and possibly also of the former,
it would perhaps have been better
had he concluded to retire to Gale
ma, and give Europe the go-by.