That is the traditional view of Grant, yes. Its also one that became entrenched in popular perception in no small part due to the propaganda of pro-Confederate revisionists, who labeled Grant as corrupt and a "butcher" who overcame the sainted Lee only through brute force.U.P. Cinnabar wrote: 2018-10-16 08:49pm Mediocre general, bad businessman, even worse President(the Tweed Scandal occurred on his watch).
In any case, it could be argued that neither his Presidency or his business history has much bearing on his qualities as a general, though I would also argue that as President, his (mostly) consistent support for Black civil rights in the face of great political opposition and a violent insurgency, and his record of appointing minorities to government office, outweighs his blindness to the corruption of some of his subordinates.
I'll grant you (no pun intended) his shitty business record. Man was a good soldier, and shit at more or less every other trade he tried his hand at.
Source on that being the only battle he planned himself? My impression was that he was fairly hands-off at Cold Harbor, while he had a more direct role in planning, say, the Vicksburg campaign.The one battle he planned himself, Cold Harbor, was an utter and complete disaster.
That said, I don't think anyone would argue that Grant excelled more as a strategist than as a tactician.
Hmm, this may be the first time I've heard of Rosecrans as a particularly brilliant general, but I'll acknowledge Rosecrans is not one who's record I am as familiar with, beyond his ultimate dismissal.Like Lee, his successes came from the abler generals under him(those mentioned in the post above, as well as Gilmore and Roscreans).
I would argue that the ability to staff and delegate effectively is one of the foremost qualities of a good general in a modern military.Like Eisenhower, later on, his genius lay in his staffing decisions, at least within the military.