Thread: Lee vs. Grant

By inflicting disproportionate losses on the attacking forces,a la Fredricksburg or Cold Harbor,which Grant didn't offered him enough chances,or by maneuvering around the AOP,which Grant didn't allowed him at all.All Grant has to do is not to fight on Lee's terms.Grant did a lot more than refusing to fight Lee's battle.
I'm not Kron,but it happened I was around and happy to oblige,Sir

You're not helping me to see the error in his thinking.

I will spell out my thoughts here. Those who professed Lee to be the superiour General are rewarding Lee for delaying the inevitable loss. Those who professed Grant to be the inferior General are punishing Grant for not achieving his victory fast enough.

However, from the start, I don't care from hindsight or not, does and anyone doubt Grant could not have beaten Lee? I remind you before Grant, Lee has sent Union Generals with same resources fleeing from the field.

Grant saw his foe and knew how to kill him. Whether Lee saw Grant in the same light, I don't know, but I do know that Lee has absolutely no idea how to kill Grant.

And the Gentlemen, is all that matters.

Originally Posted by KRON1

Like US Grant didn't own slaves... well he did. He owned them until 1868 when it became illegal. Lee had his all gone before 1863 EP. Lee said slavery was a "moral and political evil" as early as 1856. Grant was just as if not more racist as people of his day,
Sounds racist to me to expel an entire race of people from serving in your department... lets not forget his policy of Indian extermination as president. The man was far more racist, and drunk, than the gentleman Lee.

I'll circle back to your flawed military analysis later, but since others have touched upon it, I'll write to this for now. Grant owned one slave, and manumitted him (and selling him, given his need for cash at the time, would have made Grant better off, but he sold him) prior to the Civil just as Albany Rifles spoke to. If you have evidence that US Grant, and not his father-in-law, owned slaves that weren't then given freedom until three years after the US Constitution banned slavery in the US, I'd suggest that you offer it up for scrutiny.

As to Lee speaking against the evils of slavery, let's place your extremely truncated quote into context:

Robert E. Lee's Opinion Regarding Slavery

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

Here's the play by play:

1. Abolitionists bad.
2. African slaves are better off under the enlightened Christian care of Southerners than otherwise.
3. "The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things."
4. God has a plan for the end of slavery, so sit on your a$$es and let his divine will run its course.
5. Abolitionists bad.

Number three is in quotes because Lee operationalized this:

Arlington, Bobby Lee, and the 'Peculiar Institution' - National - The Atlantic

I remained with Gen. Lee about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable was called in, who gave us the number ofl ashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to "lay it on well," an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.

Originally Posted by KRON1

LOL at Grant's magnanimity. The man who signed orders destroying crops, confiscating property, burning farms to leave the South's breadbasket in ruins. Biggest crock of the last two centuries. When Lee went to Maryland and Pennsylvania, he didn't do anything. Now that is magnanimous compared to US Grant. Every officer who went to West Point had fond feelings to fellow officers on the other side, they were friends who served together for years so that is no character call. Once Grant entered the presidency, he showed his true colors... corrupt, nepotism, incompetent drunk. Truly one of if not THE worst president this country has ever seen. The man doesn't compare on any level with Lee's character.

Presidential scholars/historians rank him right around the middle: Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to hard war, Lost Cause mythology greatly exaggerates what was considered normal practice in the Western way of war: The Hard Hand of War
My favorite mythology of this is the anecdote told by McPherson, where a SC local guide talks about how Sherman burned everything in his path and then in the very next sentence points to a fine example of antebellum architecture.

Now, GO#11 is unexcusable, even if it stemmed from a legitimate case of cotton traders, but it's interesting that despite this, Grant would win the overwhelming Jewish vote and would be the first President to attend mass at a synagogue. The latter two actions don't necessarily invalidate any anti-Semetic feeling, but surely they must speak to practical impact of his anti-semetism, if it did still exist by the time he was President.

Next, as a general statement about him being a racist across the board, I think his first inaugural speech covers his sentiment pretty clearly:

The Avalon Project : First Inaugural Address of Ulysses S. Grant

The proper treatment of the original occupants of this land--the Indians one deserving of careful study. I will favor any course toward them which tends to their civilization and ultimate citizenship.

The question of suffrage is one which is likely to agitate the public so long as a portion of the citizens of the nation are excluded from its privileges in any State. It seems to me very desirable that this question should be settled now, and I entertain the hope and express the desire that it may be by the ratification of the fifteenth article of amendment to the Constitution.

Lastly, you keep referring to Grant as a drunk. These were persistent rumors that didn't find their basis in fact:

Ulysses S. Grant and Drinking

Originally Posted by Mihais

By inflicting disproportionate losses on the attacking forces,a la Fredricksburg or Cold Harbor,which Grant didn't offered him enough chances,or by maneuvering around the AOP,which Grant didn't allowed him at all.All Grant has to do is not to fight on Lee's terms.Grant did a lot more than refusing to fight Lee's battle.
I'm not Kron,but it happened I was around and happy to oblige,Sir

The assault at Cold Harbor on 3 June only resulted in approximately 3500 Union casualties. Bloody, but certainly nothing near the notoriety that it gets. While in the "should of, could have, would have" category, the exact same assault, executed 24 hours previously might have shattered the ANV and won the war then and there. Poor engineer staff work on the part of Grant in guiding Hancock's Corps.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Grant saw his foe and knew how to kill him. Whether Lee saw Grant in the same light, I don't know, but I do know that Lee has absolutely no idea how to kill Grant.

Sir,

Lee danced to Grant's fiddle the entire time from Day 2 of the Wilderness on. In fact, Lee almost always misjudged what Grant was going to do. One of the few times that he did judge correctly, the movement to Spotsylvania Court House, Lee avoided disaster due to sheer luck - Anderson's Corps beat Warren to SCH only because of the forest fires in the Wilderness. Had it not been for that, instead of Union forces fighting piecemeal and taking losses against Anderson's Corps, it would have been reversed.

In any event, your point about Grant is spot on - while he proved that he could maneuver at Vicksburg, he employed operational art beautifully during the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns, snatching the operational and strategic initiative from Lee, and through the opening weeks of the Overland Campaign, his attrition of the ANV seized the tactical initiative from Lee as well. His strategic art was always beautiful, matching ends, ways, and means. On the other hand, Lee mismatched ends, ways, and means throughout his tenure in command of the ANV, offering a strategy that required means the South did not have - manpower in sufficient reserve.

Kron:

Every serious, well researched book on Grant, exposes the drunkard charge as false. Consequently, when someone accepts the charge as true, everything else they say about him is suspect.

You said Grant was drunk at the time of the battle of Fort Donelson. Contemporary accounts, disagree.

Rumors were rampant after the Battles of Forts Donelson and Henry and the Battle of Shiloh. "After the latter battle it was charged that General Grant was at his Savannah (Tennessee) headquarters, drunk, and so did not reach the battlefield until too late to prevent heavy losses the first day. The evidence submitted would, however, tend to refute these charges. Colonel S. D. Webster of General Grant's staff denied this report in a letter to Col. J. S. Stewart. He said: 'I breakfasted with General Grant. I went on board the boat, and rode with him to the field about half-past eight in the morning. I was with him all day. I lay down with him on a small parcel of hay which the quartermaster put down to keep us out of the mud, in the rear of the artillery line to the left. He was perfectly sober and self-possessed during the day and the entire battle. No one claimed he was drunk.' "

Ulysses S. Grant and Drinking

If you would like more refutation of the charge, go to the above site.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Kron:

Every serious, well researched book on Grant, exposes the drunkard charge as false. Consequently, when someone accepts the charge as true, everything else they say about him is suspect.

You said Grant was drunk at the time of the battle of Fort Donelson. Contemporary accounts, disagree.

I never said he was drunk at Fort Donelson, I said he was charged with drunkenness by his peers. There is no proof he was, or wasn't. What I did say was he committed dereliction of his duty by not being present at the opening of the battle, and failed to appointment an executive officer in command in his absence. Of that there is no doubt.

Originally Posted by Shek

Sir,

Lee danced to Grant's fiddle the entire time from Day 2 of the Wilderness on.

Sir, I cannot see how anyone can call the battle of the Wilderness a tactical victory for Grant. He didn't even want to go into the woods where his artillery would be less effective but Lee got him in there anyway. Lee grabbed the initiative and stopped that line of advance. He caused nearly twice as many casualties as he suffered. With only 60,000 left under his command, it should have been a rout of the ANV faced with over 100,000 federals. Would Grant have done the same in a reverse position against Lee... no chance.

Originally Posted by KRON1

I never said he was drunk at Fort Donelson, I said he was charged with drunkenness by his peers. There is no proof he was, or wasn't. What I did say was he committed dereliction of his duty by not being present at the opening of the battle, and failed to appointment an executive officer in command in his absence. Of that there is no doubt.

Kron:

I'll go along with your splitting hairs up to a point, but your just mentioning that he may have been drunk amounts to ignorance of the facts. For the record, the only peers who insinuated that he had a drinking problem were a couple of now obscure generals who lobbied hard to get a command that Grant was eventually given. None of his top commanders (peers as well) who were in constant contact with him, ever accused him of being drunk. As you know, one even went so far as to deny the rumors.

It's worth mentioning that the myth gained traction because of a letter his chief of staff, Gen Rawlins, wrote but never sent which expressed concern that Grant might "slip". This is often cited as evidence that Grant had a drinking problem. Rawlin's himself was a teetotaler who was deathly afraid that he himself might slip. You could say he was obsessive about it, and saw dangers everywhere. He later wrote that happily he never saw Grant drunk and, indeed, often saw him refuse drink.

In any case, your very first post outright accused Grant of being a drunk. If it was not at Fort Donelson, it must be elsewhere in your mind. If you are ill-informed on this, you could well be ill-informed about other things. I would have to agree with you that Grant did not pitch a no-hitter as a commander, but what general who tries often and by every means to win does not make mistakes? In the end, winning is what matters. He won, not Lincoln, who in fact told Grant he didn't want to know his plans; not Halleck, who had already proven ineffective; not Meade, who lacked an instinct for the jugular. Yes, Grant had manpower and material superiority at his disposal, but the Army of the Potomac had had manpower and material superiority for a long time before Grant took over and had been unable to use it effectively against Lee. It was Grant that took that superiority and made it work. How that makes him a lesser general, I don't understand.

Originally Posted by KRON1

Sir, I cannot see how anyone can call the battle of the Wilderness a tactical victory for Grant. He didn't even want to go into the woods where his artillery would be less effective but Lee got him in there anyway. Lee grabbed the initiative and stopped that line of advance. He caused nearly twice as many casualties as he suffered. With only 60,000 left under his command, it should have been a rout of the ANV faced with over 100,000 federals. Would Grant have done the same in a reverse position against Lee... no chance.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE SH!TTING ME! Do you even understand the concept of Operations? Grant lost tactically but his superiority of position forced Lee to retreat to consolidate his lines. Lee won a Pyrrhic victory but had to yield the strategic advantage.

You're grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by KRON1

Sir, I cannot see how anyone can call the battle of the Wilderness a tactical victory for Grant. He didn't even want to go into the woods where his artillery would be less effective but Lee got him in there anyway. Lee grabbed the initiative and stopped that line of advance. He caused nearly twice as many casualties as he suffered. With only 60,000 left under his command, it should have been a rout of the ANV faced with over 100,000 federals. Would Grant have done the same in a reverse position against Lee... no chance.

do the math

Lee- started with 61,025 men and suffered 11,125 casualties. 61025 / 11125 = 5.4 0r 18.23% of his force
Grant started with 101895 and suffered 17666 casualties. 101895 / 17666 = 5.7 or 17.337% of his force.

Lee suffered .9% more casualties than Grant in terms of remaining fighting power

Proportionally, Lee lost more of his army. The math is clear, as long as Grant keeps bashing away at Lee, the ANV will run out of men before the AoP, and the South will lose Virginia while Sherman was a demonstration that the South had already lost the deep south. Inflicting more losses on your enemy than you take is relative. In a battle of attrition you need to force your enemy to lose more of his army as a percentage of his total force than you do or you run out of troops first. Grant understood this and harnessed it to victory. If you add in the total number of federal troops vs Rebel troops on each side the loss count gets even more unbalanced for the South.

This is seen in the next battle at Spotslvania, where Lee now down to 52,000 effectives vs a nearly fully rebuilt AoP again did more total casualties, but again lost the percentage battle.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

YOU'VE GOT TO BE SH!TTING ME! Do you even understand the concept of Operations? Grant lost tactically but his superiority of position forced Lee to retreat to consolidate his lines. Lee won a Pyrrhic victory but had to yield the strategic advantage.

You're grasping at straws.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE SH!TTING ME! Do you even understand the concept of resources? One cannot say Lee was a lesser general because he had half the resources of his opponent yet still defeated them on most occasions. The discussion isn't who won, we know very well the South never had the resources to do it. The discussion is, who is the better commander. Lee commanded a small army of barefoot, half starved, unpaid farmers. Grant commanded a huge army of well equipped, paid and fed troops. That dimension cannot be left out of the analysis and to do so is grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by KRON1

YOU'VE GOT TO BE SH!TTING ME! Do you even understand the concept of resources? One cannot say Lee was a lesser general because he had half the resources of his opponent yet still defeated them on most occasions. The discussion isn't who won, we know very well the South never had the resources to do it. The discussion is, who is the better commander. Lee commanded a small army of barefoot, half starved, unpaid farmers. Grant commanded a huge army of well equipped, paid and fed troops. That dimension cannot be left out of the analysis and to do so is grasping at straws.

If you do the math, Lee lost. His handling of the ANV failed to find a solution to Grant's strategy. He was out generalled as proven by the math.