Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lee vs. Grant

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
    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.
    General Grant's strategy was very basic and straightforward-advance towards Richmond to keep General Lee fighting him in a war of attrition that the south could not maintain-while Lee was blocked to the East by the Union Navy and enveloped from the South by General Sherman who also destroyed General Lee's supply lines. All the brilliant manoeuvring by General Lee could not stop this, slow determined strangulation of the Army of Northern Virginia and the CSA Government in Richmond. General Grant's brilliant grasp of this strategy combined with his doggedness in the face of huge casualties doomed Lee to failure. Of course General Lee knew this, but he could not stop it, only delay its inevitable outcome. General US Grant was a humble man, who although heavily grieved and burdened by the huge losses sustained by the Army of the Potomac under his command, these losses never hurt his pride and caused him to give up like previous Union Generals who had lost against General Lee had done. General Grant was an unrelenting bull dog that got a hold of General Lee’s neck (threatening Richmond) and would not let go until General Lee’s Army was finished (at Petersburg and Appomattox Courthouse).

    General Lee had an uncanny ability to almost read the minds of Union Generals and defeat them repeatedly in a war of manoeuvre. With a few exceptions, General Joseph Hooker initially surprised Lee at Chacellorsville by outflanking him, but Lee turned on Hooker and defeated him in a brilliant counter flanking movement, at Antietam General McClellan heavily damaged Lee's army of Northern Virginia but Lee successfully withdrew his Army from near destruction, General Lee misjudged General Meade and General Reynolds in the Battle of Gettysburg but sill escaped back to Virginia despite heavy losses. General US Grant was different, because although General Lee could read every move Grant made, General Lee could not stop Grant, could not manoeuvre Grant into a trap. To many Union forces were either blocking Lee or closing in on him. The rabid Indian Fighter, General Sherman was ravaging the south while closing in on Savannah to cut Lee's final supply line. General Lee would not dare risk his army against the massed, overwhelming firepower of Union Navy by moving near the coast. General Lee could not afford to abandon Richmond to the Army of the Potomac, Union Navy and the Army of the James, by turning back towards Harpers Ferry to threaten Washington DC. All Lee could do is fight on Grants terms, until Lee ran out of manoeuvring space and supplies and was forced into a siege at Petersburg.
    Last edited by JMH; 18 Apr 07,, 06:26.

    Comment


    • #32
      bluesman,

      i think the crux of the argument here is whether or not grant could play the maneuver game as well as lee could. apparently grant was good enough so that lee did not dare play the game that he did with hooker. IIRC lee faced worse odds at fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, antietam. the differential in skill wasn't big enough so that lee could do what he did with every US general that came before grant: use the maneuverability to gain the initiative, despite greater opposing numbers. grant's development of a much higher tempo of operations screwed the ANV beyond repair.

      as for the vicksburg campaign, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it studied at west point as an example of maneuver ?? thought i heard that somewhere.

      in playing the "switch" game, i do wonder if grant, given the tactical geniuses of longstreet and jackson, wouldn't have whipped lee. the combination of their undeniable maneuver skills (and longstreet's urgings in gettysburg to outflank the federals would seem to argue that he was more comfortable maneuvering than lee) and grant's relentless ability to press the enemy...

      i don't think it is so forgone that lee would have won.

      in any case, i think this is a good quote now that i've said my piece (a bit too long, i'm afraid, especially for a military amateur like me ).

      Lee was the last of the great old-fashioned generals, Grant was the first of the great moderns.

      T. Harry Williams
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by astralis View Post
        as for the vicksburg campaign, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it studied at west point as an example of maneuver ?? thought i heard that somewhere.
        It is part of the atlas, http://www.dean.usma.edu/departments...war/index.htm; however, I was on exchange during that semester, so I don't know whether it was taught a decade ago. I'll see whether it's used now or not.
        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

        Comment


        • #34
          Having recently read a spate of books on the Civil War, I've revised my opinion and see Grant as the better of the two generals. Lee certainly had tactical and some operational successes, but bled his ANV to the point where Grant could simply attrit it to the end. On the contrary, Grant proved himself quite capable of maneuver warfare out west and finally developed a strategy that used Union resources to correctly attack the center of gravity of the Confederacy while demonstrating a keen appeciation of the operational art.
          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

          Comment


          • #35
            shek,

            watch out for the necro-lee

            what i find most interesting about the two commanders is how fast they both improved and became prominent in the spotlight. lee was not well-regarded prior to the peninsula campaign (which even then was marred by malvern hill).

            similarly, grant wasn't well-regarded prior to the battle of vicksburg.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              shek,

              watch out for the necro-lee

              what i find most interesting about the two commanders is how fast they both improved and became prominent in the spotlight. lee was not well-regarded prior to the peninsula campaign (which even then was marred by malvern hill).

              similarly, grant wasn't well-regarded prior to the battle of vicksburg.
              Lee was highly regarded prior to the Civil War and was offered the highest command in the US Army the day he decided to defect to the Confederate cause. However, his campaign to western Virginia was a disaster and his stock plummeted. On the other hand, Grant was barely able to garner the political patronage to become the colonel of a regiment, but after his initial victories along the Ohio, Lincoln recognized him as at least someone who would fight.
              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Shek View Post
                Lee certainly had tactical and some operational successes,
                And I think what can be added to that was the superb morale, and belief in Lee, of the ANV.

                Or as (IIRC) Shelby Foote said "There wasn't a man in that army that was going to say 'No Marse Robert, I'm not going to go take that hill'" (in this case, referring to the Union center on the 3rd day of Gettysburg)

                Originally posted by Shek View Post
                but bled his ANV to the point where Grant could simply attrit it to the end.
                And that was his downfall: The inability to comprehend that his incomparable Army of Northern Virginia would and could be defeated on the field of battle by the Yankees. Pickett's Charge is probably the famous proof of that.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                  And that was his downfall: The inability to comprehend that his incomparable Army of Northern Virginia would and could be defeated on the field of battle by the Yankees. Pickett's Charge is probably the famous proof of that.
                  Joe,
                  Even if you look at his great victories, the strategic success was muted by the casualties. Lee suffered 13,000K casualties at Chancellorsville, or nearly 25% of his force. Hooker suffered around a 14% casualty rate. His aggressive nature and continuous counterattacks, while making for a heroic narrative, hastened the day when Union superiority would become overwhelming. I think that while Pickett's Charge is certainly the most famous proof, looking at just that makes it seem as if it were an aberration. Instead, his casualty producing approach is constant, and Pickett's Charge is just one manifestation of that approach.
                  "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    shek,

                    However, his campaign to western Virginia was a disaster and his stock plummeted.
                    right, i was thinking of when he was called the "king of spades".

                    Even if you look at his great victories, the strategic success was muted by the casualties. Lee suffered 13,000K casualties at Chancellorsville, or nearly 25% of his force. Hooker suffered around a 14% casualty rate. His aggressive nature and continuous counterattacks, while making for a heroic narrative, hastened the day when Union superiority would become overwhelming. I think that while Pickett's Charge is certainly the most famous proof, looking at just that makes it seem as if it were an aberration. Instead, his casualty producing approach is constant, and Pickett's Charge is just one manifestation of that approach.
                    i think the idea is, what could lee have done better? i think lee was right in that he needed to win a major, strategic victory in the east to secure confederate independence, but he focused too much on locations (capture of washington/baltimore/philadelphia) instead of the AoP.

                    more seriously, jefferson davis probably should have taken more units from the west and sent them to the east, not the other way around, seeing as how the confederacy's only chance of winning the war was to beat the union politically.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      i think the idea is, what could lee have done better? i think lee was right in that he needed to win a major, strategic victory in the east to secure confederate independence, but he focused too much on locations (capture of washington/baltimore/philadelphia) instead of the AoP.

                      more seriously, jefferson davis probably should have taken more units from the west and sent them to the east, not the other way around, seeing as how the confederacy's only chance of winning the war was to beat the union politically.
                      First, it was politically infeasible for Davis to leave Confederate states uncovered given the state supremacy philosophy that was the justification for secession, so while I agree that it would have been beneficial, I don't think it was in the realm of the possible.

                      I'd agree that a major, strategic victory was required in the east, and he may well have crushed McClellan had it not been for the chance that his movement plans fell into Union hands. However, I think this line of discussion misses the thrust of the thread, which is Lee vs. Grant. Grant, I believe, demonstrated a superior operational art and a more keen sense of how to strike at the center of gravity of his opponent. While highly hypothetical, how would have the Peninsular campaign been conducted by Grant given his successes in 1862 out West? The criticisms about Grant that he simply brought greater resources to bear misses his operational skill (and Union advantages in numbers are constantly overestimated since the slaves that accompanied the ANV somehow never made the rolls).
                      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        shek,

                        Grant, I believe, demonstrated a superior operational art and a more keen sense of how to strike at the center of gravity of his opponent.
                        i agree-- this was one of the points i made with my earlier debate with bluesman, and that quote stating grant was the first of the modern generals.

                        grant could think strategically and plan relatively coordinated operations with sherman, while lee was in effect fighting his own war, with the western theater out of his purview.

                        but i think keith raised an interesting point. grant could (and did) out-campaign lee, but how about individual battles? the civil war was probably the last war where one devastating battle might have cost the entire war.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Shek View Post
                          Joe,
                          Even if you look at his great victories, the strategic success was muted by the casualties. Lee suffered 13,000K casualties at Chancellorsville, or nearly 25% of his force. Hooker suffered around a 14% casualty rate.
                          You know, that's so true and I've always looked at the casualty figures for the pre-Gettysburg battles and blanched when I saw the Confederate losses, thinking to myself "Yeah they won, but man those are some pretty steep casualties"

                          Seeing now the rate that you mentioned for Chancellorsville only confirms that.

                          Lee did win and nothing suceeds like success...but sooner or later you're going to have torn the heart out of your army.
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            So then, Lee=Pyrrhus?
                            I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              shek,



                              i agree-- this was one of the points i made with my earlier debate with bluesman, and that quote stating grant was the first of the modern generals.

                              grant could think strategically and plan relatively coordinated operations with sherman, while lee was in effect fighting his own war, with the western theater out of his purview.

                              but i think keith raised an interesting point. grant could (and did) out-campaign lee, but how about individual battles? the civil war was probably the last war where one devastating battle might have cost the entire war.
                              A devestating battle would have cost the entire war only if it meant political defeat at the ballot box in 1862 or 1864 or Southern recognition by Britain in 1862. It wouldn't have voided the will to fight on the part of Lincoln or removed the means to fight. As far as battles go, the only candidates that I see that were clear cut victories were Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancelorsville.

                              The question for me is what shines through here - the boldness of Lee or the incompetence of the Union command, and what are the impacts beyond the tactical victory? Fredericksburg is clearly a poor decision by the Union to assault a prepared defensive position with dominating terrain. Chancerlorsville is a feather in his cap, but how much do you associate with chance (i.e., the artillery shell that knocked out Hooker - to be fair, there are plenty of elements of chance in other battles that favored the Union).

                              In the end, I think it boils down to who brought home the bacon, and it wasn't Lee.
                              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                shek,

                                In the end, I think it boils down to who brought home the bacon, and it wasn't Lee.
                                sure, although i really wouldn't mind seeing a wargame where grant would switch sides with lee and see how it all plays out

                                actually, what i would be interested in knowing is how other nations view grant vs lee and their respective merits. col yu, any comments?
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X