Lee vs. Grant

[astralis]

bluesman,

Give Marse Robert superior manpower, unlimited supplies, and a whole bunch of gunboats and ironclads, and I bet he'd prove my point for me.

lee had almost equal numbers to mcclellan in the seven day's battles, and at that point confederate supplies were not yet low. now mcclellan was a general who was certainly far inferior to lee; lee also had by far the better corps commanders.

given all this...those battles resulted in higher numerical losses for the confederates, and lee still could not completely destroy the army of the potomac. it's not clear to me that lee was as great a general offensively as he was defensively. is there any battles you could refer to that could show me i'm wrong? more than happy to take back me words and eat 'em.

this is not to take away lee's abilities as a commander, but what i don't find obvious is that he was necessarily superior to grant in every way. grant did what he did because he knew his strengths and he knew lee's strengths. he certainly wasn't just a mindless butcher swarming lee with numbers, as some have portrayed him to be.

[Amled]

... it's not clear to me that lee was as great a general offensively as he was defensively. is there any battles you could refer to that could show me i'm wrong? more than happy to take back me words and eat 'em.

Case in point, Gettysburg!
Certainly not Lee's finest hour.

[Shek]

Case in point, Gettysburg!
Certainly not Lee's finest hour.

While the end result doesn't change one bit, this book seems quite the intriguing read, Amazon.com: Lost Triumph: Lee's Real Plan at Gettysburg--And Why It Failed: Books: Tom Carhart, and offers the assertion that while Pickett's charge was a blunder in execution, it was part of a larger plan that didn't come to fruition. Instead, it was the boy wonder himself, Custer, prevented a coordinated attack from occuring by stopping Stuart, and attack that may have unhinged the Union lines and turned the tide in the battle. If anyone has read it, I'd love to hear their thoughts on the book.

[Bluesman]

bluesman,

lee had almost equal numbers to mcclellan in the seven day's battles, and at that point confederate supplies were not yet low. now mcclellan was a general who was certainly far inferior to lee; lee also had by far the better corps commanders.

Actually, McClellan had more men, and was defending. Attacking a superior force was VERY difficult, and McClellan was out-generaled all the way back to Malvern Hill. The campaign was a masterful destruction of an enemy plan. Also, one of those most excellent corps commanders was basically sleep-walking through the battles.

given all this...those battles resulted in higher numerical losses for the confederates, and lee still could not completely destroy the army of the potomac.

Higher losses are to be expected from the attacking force, and remember this: Confederate casualties didn't really balloon until the disaster at Malvern Hill. Until then, Lee was dealing a lot more punishment than he was taking.

it's not clear to me that lee was as great a general offensively as he was defensively. is there any battles you could refer to that could show me i'm wrong? more than happy to take back me words and eat 'em.

On the tactical or the operational scale? Because EVERYbody (except that buffoon Bragg) could be a great defensive general. But Lee had LOTS of spark in the attack. Even though he was a better counter-puncher than when on pure offense, he had MAD skillz on offense.

Seven Days' Battles. Lee attacked McClellan in a STRATEGIC defense of Richmond, but he was ATTACKING, and his enemy was fighting battles of position, and Lee managed to defeat him every single time but once.

Second Manassas. Lee was on the attack in each of the three echelons, and he absolutely destroyed Pope.

Antietam. Lee was on the strategic offensive, and fought a brilliant defensive action against an enemy so superior in every category but leadership that it's a miracle he wasn't annihilated on the spot.

Fredricksburg. Well, pure defense, so this one doesn't help my case.

Chancellorsville. But THIS onne DOES. One of the greatest battles in American history, and if this doesn't prove what a helluva general Lee was on the tactical offense, you can't be sold.

Gettysburg. Not Lee's finest hour, you may say, and I'd agree, while pointing out that it was dam' close, and four out of the seven Union corps were all but destroyed. They were so shattered that pursuit wasn't advisable nor even possible, though Lee was in grave danger of losing his defeated army in enemy territory and with a river to cross to safety.

Wilderness through Petersburg. Pure defense, usually. But at the North Anna, I am convinced that if Hill and Lee had been themselves and not so done in by fatigue and illness, a third and possibly two-thirds of the Army of the Potomac would've been destroyed, and that may have won the war. Certainly, there would be no more chances like it after that. It was the last time Lee would be able to take the ANV into a general attack, and we can all thank whatever luck the US has that he was sick, or he may have destroyed Grant right then and there.

So, for MY money, there is ample evidence that Lee knew how to attack and win on the offense, just as he was quite good at repulsing enemy attacks.

this is not to take away lee's abilities as a commander, but what i don't find obvious is that he was necessarily superior to grant in every way. grant did what he did because he knew his strengths and he knew lee's strengths. he certainly wasn't just a mindless butcher swarming lee with numbers, as some have portrayed him to be.

No, Grant wasn't 'mindless', but his casualty rates were absolutely insane. Lee was besting him even up until Petersburg, which Lee accurately predicted would become a seige (it did), and that the ANV would die there (it did).

My point remains: if Lee had Grant's means and mission and vice versa, the war would've probably ended soon after the Wilderness. Grant would never have withstood all of that unstoppable cavalry, the constantly turned flanks, the surprise attacks, and all of the things that ALMOST worked, but for Lee's mastery of Grant as a general.

[Bluesman]

While the end result doesn't change one bit, this book seems quite the intriguing read, Amazon.com: Lost Triumph: Lee's Real Plan at Gettysburg--And Why It Failed: Books: Tom Carhart, and offers the assertion that while Pickett's charge was a blunder in execution, it was part of a larger plan that didn't come to fruition. Instead, it was the boy wonder himself, Custer, prevented a coordinated attack from occuring by stopping Stuart, and attack that may have unhinged the Union lines and turned the tide in the battle. If anyone has read it, I'd love to hear their thoughts on the book.

Correct. There are so many, many close calls that the battle actually turned on the lucky breaks the Union got (oh, and one helluva lot of sheer guts and fighting spirit, too).

Time after time after time...the Gettysburg campaign was a series of completely improbable events and combinations of wildly unlikely things that when taken together, served to frustrate all of the strengths in the best army ever commanded by a master of tactical and operational art.

The Federals were just barely good enough and just barely lucky enough to come out winners. If they'd been just a little less of either, though...it's a Confederate win, and their independence would've been a fact.

[astralis]

bluesman,

but that's not quite a fair comparison. lee dusted mcclellan, pope, burnside, hooker, and meade. none of them, with the possible exception of meade, were anywhere close to competent when it came to leading an army.

grant dusted buckner, AS johnston, bureauregard, bragg, joe johnston. both johnstons were considered fairly competent.

and up until the wilderness campaign, grant was winning maneuver victories. the vicksburg campaign was IMO almost as masterful as the battle of Chancellorsville for lee- and honestly, if hooker had not been stunned by an artillery shell in that fight, he could have very well ruined lee right then and there. up until then, hooker had (surprisingly) been doing quite decently.

in any case, i'm not sure how good the wilderness campaign is in measuring the generals, especially on their aptitude for maneuver warfare. grant wasn't really looking to play that game. he knew lee's strength was in manuever, and he felt no particular need to play to lee's strength, when he didn't HAVE to.

instead, he did the eminently correct thing if one wanted to reduce risk and guarantee victory. he stopped lee's maneuvering, cold. lee's tactical victories were strategic victories for grant, because grant forced lee to fight and bleed. and worse, fight and bleed in a limited patch of ground, where the chance for a strategic victory by lee was close to zero. whereas lee was able to slip into the North on two occasions ahead of his northern counterpart, grant forced him into a defensive siege- ruining the south's most potent weapon.

so why try to look at grant's battles in the wilderness as a demonstration of his poor manuever skills? they might have been poor maneuver battles for grant, but grant's strategy and tactics were geared towards attrition. and he played a damned good game there.

if the situation was reversed, i doubt grant would have tried that same tactic and strategy. and the vicksburg campaign showed that he could play maneuver, too.

[Amled]

While the end result doesn't change one bit, this book seems quite the intriguing read, Amazon.com: Lost Triumph: Lee's Real Plan at Gettysburg--And Why It Failed: Books: Tom Carhart, and offers the assertion that while Pickett's charge was a blunder in execution, it was part of a larger plan that didn't come to fruition. Instead, it was the boy wonder himself, Custer, prevented a coordinated attack from occuring by stopping Stuart, and attack that may have unhinged the Union lines and turned the tide in the battle. If anyone has read it, I'd love to hear their thoughts on the book.

Picketts Charge wasn’t Lee’s only mistake.
A case could also (in 20/20 hindsight of course) be made that he was in error in not listening to Longstreet, and instead of a set piece battle at Gettysburg, to try draw out Meads AOP and out manoeuvre them.

Originally Posted by Bluesman
Time after time after time...the Gettysburg campaign was a series of completely improbable events and combinations of wildly unlikely things that when taken together, served to frustrate all of the strengths in the best army ever commanded by a master of tactical and operational art.

That’s the way I read it too.
A battle occurring where neither commanding general expected it.
Meade digging in along Pipe’s Creek, Lee still looking for a favourable location,
Then Heath sending Pettigrew to Gettysburg to confiscate the footwear located in the warehouses there. Having been informed that there were only light cavalry pickets in the area, Pettigrew running into the Iron Brigade, which lead to Battle of McPherson Heights etc., etc…

[Dreadnought]

I live not very far from some great places that go back to the Civil War. Namely, Gettysburg,Brandywine Battlefield and a few other spots. Myself and the mistress go out there a few times a year and join friends for the dinner/mystery/haunted walk thing on Halloween and just riding on the bike. I would love to bring a metal detector for a few days out there. There are many woods/trails along creek beds etc.that both Union and Confederate forces used to converge and retreat from around Gettysburg's battlefield that alot of people never knew of. They wont let you on the grounds with a metal detector for suveneer hunting but the woods, creeks and lowlands that surround the battlefield are no mans land.:)

[Bluesman]

bluesman,

but that's not quite a fair comparison. lee dusted mcclellan, pope, burnside, hooker, and meade. none of them, with the possible exception of meade, were anywhere close to competent when it came to leading an army.

grant dusted buckner, AS johnston, bureauregard, bragg, joe johnston. both johnstons were considered fairly competent.

and up until the wilderness campaign, grant was winning maneuver victories. the vicksburg campaign was IMO almost as masterful as the battle of Chancellorsville for lee- and honestly, if hooker had not been stunned by an artillery shell in that fight, he could have very well ruined lee right then and there. up until then, hooker had (surprisingly) been doing quite decently.

in any case, i'm not sure how good the wilderness campaign is in measuring the generals, especially on their aptitude for maneuver warfare. grant wasn't really looking to play that game. he knew lee's strength was in manuever, and he felt no particular need to play to lee's strength, when he didn't HAVE to.

instead, he did the eminently correct thing if one wanted to reduce risk and guarantee victory. he stopped lee's maneuvering, cold. lee's tactical victories were strategic victories for grant, because grant forced lee to fight and bleed. and worse, fight and bleed in a limited patch of ground, where the chance for a strategic victory by lee was close to zero. whereas lee was able to slip into the North on two occasions ahead of his northern counterpart, grant forced him into a defensive siege- ruining the south's most potent weapon.

so why try to look at grant's battles in the wilderness as a demonstration of his poor manuever skills? they might have been poor maneuver battles for grant, but grant's strategy and tactics were geared towards attrition. and he played a damned good game there.

if the situation was reversed, i doubt grant would have tried that same tactic and strategy. and the vicksburg campaign showed that he could play maneuver, too.

Hey, if you're trying to talk me into believing Grant was a great commander, you can stop now: I agree.

My point is a narrow one: would Lee have beaten Grant worse than Grant beat Lee if they traded armies? I don't have any doubt about that, and if they'd traded PLACES - Grant as ANV commander, Lee as Union general-in-chief, with personal command of the Army of the Potomac - it would've been even more severe.

Did Grant know what to do to defeat Lee? Obviously, he did. But his casualties approached a war-losing level, and I just don't think Lee would've had anything like the difficulty nor the losses nor would've taken as long to whip Grant, were he in his counterpart's seat.

Lee's instrument and the support behind it were inadequate to defeat Grant's resources, and Grant himself led well enough to make the outcome more-or-less inevitable. But I rate Lee much, much higher in his abilities as a commander, and the Federal forces were SO much higher, that, instead of the '64 campaign and then the grind of the Petersburg seige culminating in the only way it could've in late spring '65...it would've been over before the leaves turned color in '64. And a lot more Yankee soldiers wouldn't have died.

There; that's my point. It has nothing to do with whether Grant was a winner; he was. (Althought I absolutely disagree that the Vicksburg campaign was masterful, as Grant had almost no limits on his manueverability, but Pemberton DID, and Pemberton managed to hash up what few opportunites he did have, and remember: Vicksburg fell after a SEIGE, an unbreakable, fully-supported and long SEIGE; nothing too artful about THAT.)

Grant's strength was a will to win, an ability to go on after being frustrated, the knowledge that an army isn't whipped until it and its commander THINK they're whipped. And he never thought he was completely defeated. Checked? yes, temporarily; stopped? yes, temporarily; gathering strength, yes, but when he was ready to go on again (and that day was coming, usually quicker than his enemy thought it would), on he came, and God help his enemy, because he wasn't going to get Grant off his back unless he completely destroyed Grant's army. Which never happened, and that's why Grant was a winner.

But as far as Grant stopping Lee's manuever ability, well, if YOU or I had been blessed with as much incredible cavalry as Grant had by that time, you or I could've done the same. And remember, Lee ALMOST whipped him EVEN THEN. If the two close calls out in the Valley had tipped just a BIT more in the Confederate's favor...watch out. Lee would've been right back in the '62 paradigm: a victorious lieutenant rampaging up and down the Valley, destroying or out-manuevering Grant's hapless commanders, while the politicians stripped off his best forces to deal with the emergency, rescue their beaten armies, protect Washington, etc.

But Lee was so hopelessly short of supplies, horseflesh, men, and rail support...there was simply no way to keep an army on its toes and as lightning-quick as it used to be. But EVEN THEN, what was done to stave off a super-equipped and massive and determined and, by this time, experienced enemy force, Lee was doing an OUTSTANDING job of holding off a terrific enemy general.

And I don't think Grant could've done as well in that situation, that's all. ESPECIALLY if the enemy commander was Robert E. Lee.

[Julie]

Lee and Grant both attended and graduated West Point. Lee graduated 2nd in his class, Grant graduated middle of his class.

Lee fought Grant ferociously in Virginia, I believe, because it was Lee's beloved homeland. Lee surrendered April 9 when his men were near starvation.

[Dreadnought]

Alot of people still dont realize that the grounds that Arlington National Cemetary stands on was originally Lee's home.;)

[JMH]

As for Lees Home at Arlington Cemetery, after the Civil War Ended one of Lee's daughters returned to see her childhood home. She was so horrified and troubled by the thousands of white crosses of dead soldiers buried on her fathers land around her families home that she left and never returned. No Lee family member has ever moved back into the Lee Family House at Arlington since the Civil War.

[Bigfella]

As for Lees Home at Arlington Cemetery, after the Civil War Ended one of Lee's daughters returned to see her childhood home. She was so horrified and troubled by the thousands of white crosses of dead soldiers buried on her fathers land around her families home that she left and never returned. No Lee family member has ever moved back into the Lee Family House at Arlington since the Civil War.

My understanding is that the establishment of the National Cemetary at Arlington was the decision of the Union Quartermaster General. I think that his own son had been killed by this point, so he decided to take revenge on the man he blamed for this - Robert E.Lee. Obviously he was successful.

[JMH]

American Civil War

By 1864 General Sherman’s capture and burning of Atlanta, General Grants capture of Vicksburg, Admiral Farragut’s capture of New Orleans and the Union Navies close blockade of the south from Virginia to the Texas/Mexican border left the south cut in half, bankrupt and starving. This was the fruition of General Winfield Scott’s 1861 Anaconda plan to strangle and divide the south. By this stage of the Civil War, only with merchant raiders at sea, the stalemate in Northern Virginia and the repulse of Union gunboats in the ill-fated Red River campaign in Texas were the Confederate States of America successful.

On the International front, the alliance between Russia and the USA successfully thwarted any British and French Plans to rescue the CSA from its now certain defeat. The Czar of Russia despatched two Russian Naval Squadrons, one to New York and one to San Francisco in a show of force against Great Britain, after a plea for help from President Abraham Lincoln. The Royal Navy had concentrated a large Naval Force off of the coast of Northern Mexico, while the French Army engaged in an ultimately futile campaign to Capture Mexico City (the Mexican Army fought the French Army to a halt and the French retreated after bitter hand to hand fighting on the outskirts of Mexico City). After the French defeat in Mexico, combined with Russian Navies show of force, the British hesitated and than cancelled their plans to attack the USA which were to land troops at Yorktown, Virginia and attack the Union Navy to break the blockade of the CSA. The thought of fighting Russia and the USA at the same time, while allied with the recently defeated French was too much for Great Britain. If, in 1863 and 1864 Great Britain had attacked the USA, World War I would have happened in 1865 rather than 1914. Initially the war would have been between Great Britain, CSA, France vs. Russia, Mexico and USA, eventually Prussia, Austria, Italy and Spain would have been drawn into the conflict as well.

In the overall Union Strategy of 1864-1865 Grants 1864 and 1865 campaigns in Virginia where to hold Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in Virginia by threatening Richmond. Meanwhile General Sherman dealt the death blow to Confederate States of America in his march to the sea. General Sherman’s Army destroyed everything, in a swath of destruction 60 miles wide and 300 miles long, from Atlanta to Savannah. It was this march to the sea that ended the American Civil War, without this destruction of the South the Civil War probably would have changed into a guerrilla war and lasted another 5 to 10 years until 1870 or 1880. In the last two years of the Civil War (1864 and 1865), General Grants Army was the hammer and General Sherman's Army and the Union Navy formed an anvil and General Lees Army of Northern Virginia was crushed between them at Petersburg. Without any supplies, guerrila war was hopeless, so General Lee when surrounded at Appomattox Courthouse, surrendered, ending the horrific American Civil War.

[Bluesman]

By 1864 General Sherman’s capture and burning of Atlanta, General Grants capture of Vicksburg, Admiral Farragut’s capture of New Orleans and the Union Navies close blockade of the south from Virginia to the Texas/Mexican border left the south cut in half, bankrupt and starving. This was the fruition of General Winfield Scott’s 1861 Anaconda plan to strangle and divide the south. By this stage of the Civil War, only with merchant raiders at sea, the stalemate in Northern Virginia and the repulse of Union gunboats in the ill-fated Red River campaign in Texas were the Confederate States of America successful.

On the International front, the alliance between Russia and the USA successfully thwarted any British and French Plans to rescue the CSA from its now certain defeat. The Czar of Russia despatched two Russian Naval Squadrons, one to New York and one to San Francisco in a show of force against Great Britain, after a plea for help from President Abraham Lincoln. The Royal Navy had concentrated a large Naval Force off of the coast of Northern Mexico, while the French Army engaged in an ultimately futile campaign to Capture Mexico City (the Mexican Army fought the French Army to a halt and the French retreated after bitter hand to hand fighting on the outskirts of Mexico City). After the French defeat in Mexico, combined with Russian Navies show of force, the British hesitated and than cancelled their plans to attack the USA which were to land troops at Yorktown, Virginia and attack the Union Navy to break the blockade of the CSA. The thought of fighting Russia and the USA at the same time, while allied with the recently defeated French was too much for Great Britain. If, in 1863 and 1864 Great Britain had attacked the USA, World War I would have happened in 1865 rather than 1914. Initially the war would have been between Great Britain, CSA, France vs. Russia, Mexico and USA, eventually Prussia, Austria, Italy and Spain would have been drawn into the conflict as well.

In the overall Union Strategy of 1864-1865 Grants 1864 and 1865 campaigns in Virginia where to hold Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in Virginia by threatening Richmond. Meanwhile General Sherman dealt the death blow to Confederate States of America in his march to the sea. General Sherman’s Army destroyed everything, in a swath of destruction 60 miles wide and 300 miles long, from Atlanta to Savannah. It was this march to the sea that ended the American Civil War, without this destruction of the South the Civil War probably would have changed into a guerrilla war and lasted another 5 to 10 years until 1870 or 1880.

And what was your point? I mean, we all appreciate the history lecture, but it doesn't bear on the question we're discussing.

That's not a snark, by the way: I'm just not getting what you're trying to add re: the relative merits of Grant and Lee.