I think People voted for Grant because he was a popular hero for winning the war and did not have any obvious objectionable qualities. I am not sure that this made him good presidential material. It does take a certain amount of administrative ability to run a large army, but unlike Washington and Eisenhower and even Taylor, Grant did not have a long distinguished military career.
General Henry Halleck was general in the Civil War that was noted for being very prepared and good at defense. He was not overly aggressive. He was once General Grant's commanding officer. However once Grant became successful, he was able to work well with Grant.
"Point" and "General" should have given you a pretty good clue there. Grant attended the United States Military Academy at West Point.
"General Grant is a great general. I know him well. He stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk; and now, sir, we stand by each other always."- William Tecumseh Sherman, asking not to be promoted to Lt Gen to rival Grant in 1864
Because Sherman had proved himself a competent General who had given good service to Grant. They were also good friends. In his memoirs, Sherman said "He stood by me when I was mad. And I stood by him when he was drunk."
The Republicans did not want US grant to run for president for a third term Grant is said to have thought about it, but the scandals during his administration made the idea impossible. Hayes was a good choice for the Republicans. He was wounded three times as a Union general and had been active in anti-slavery politics before the US Civil War. Also, Hayes was the sitting governor of an important state, Ohio. He won the presidential election against the Democrat candidate Samuel Tilden from New York.
In general yes, but it depends on the material, the thickness, and the weave.
Grant is a good name
General Grant became Presid ent in 1868. He was not a politician which is why his presidency was marred with corruption and other problems. His main flaw was that he treated the presidency like a military group. Meaning he trusted his cabinet who were a bunch of snakes.
In 1864, General in Chief US Grant's plans for the capture of Richmond had the advantage of an exterior line assault, which normally was a disadvantage. With that said, exterior line weaknesses were potentially overcome by the 30,000 troops that were under the command of Union General Butler. Butler was defeated by General Beauregard with fewer troops. Butler was never a good general and Grant made an error by entrusting him with a crucial part of his plan.
After the Union disaster at the Battle of Chickamauga, the US Department of War gave US Grant the authority to retake Chattanooga from the Confederates. Crucial there was the replacement of General Rosencrans with General Thomas as commander of the Army of the Cumberland. US Grant had a hand in this change change and thereby increased his confidence in a Union victory.
Well that's really a matter of opinion. For the North Sherman and Grant were both good generals- but Lee is probably commonly considered to be the best general of the war.
Good question. The battle was won by the Army of the Potomac, commanded by General George Meade. It was accompanied by the Union General-in-Chief, U.S. Grant, travelling in a mobile HQ. The issue of which General technically won the battle is debatable. Some say that Meade, not Grant, should have taken Lee's surrender.