Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Historians have debated this question for over 142 years. The Question is: Who was the better general Grant or Lee?
If you thinks about it there is truly no debate!
But first lets look at a few thing all well know facts:
1) Leading successful Military campaigns:
Gen. Grant: Vicksburg Campaign
Overland Campaign
Gen. Lee: None!! only to unsuccessful raids into the North costing him more then he gained.
2) Remarkable military achievements
Gen. Grant: Successfully cut his supply lines and fought five engagements(won all five) in his adversaries own backyard then led a successful siege on Vicksburg. The Vicksburg campaign is consider one of the most remarkable military campaigns in history.
Gen. Lee: No remarkable achievement on this scale. His two attempted campaigns ended in failure. He never won an engagement in his adversaries backyard only met defeat.
Gen. Grant: He changed warfare with the concept of "Total War". He introduce modern warfare to our world. He is considered the first modern general.
Gen. Lee: No grand new war concepts but he was the master of napoleonic warfare and he did introduce trench warfare only because of Gen. Grants pugnacious.
3) Winning with a inferior forces:
Gen. Grant: As far as I could tell never had the opportunity to fight a superior force.
Gen. Lee: He fought numerous times against superior force and won until Gen. Grant.
What is there to debate? Gen. Grant easily out preforms Gen. Lee during the civil war. He won a hard fought one on one contest with Gen. Lee.
All I see is historians in love with this romantic image of Gen. Lee and ignore some simple facts that Gen. Grant by most measures was the better general.
Historians have debated this question for over 142 years. The Question is: Who was the better general Grant or Lee?
If you thinks about it there is truly no debate!
But first lets look at a few thing all well know facts:
1) Leading successful Military campaigns:
Gen. Grant: Vicksburg Campaign
Overland Campaign
Gen. Lee: None!! only to unsuccessful raids into the North costing him more then he gained.
Seven Days, Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville.
The Overland Campaign -Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and 50,000 casualties- I would not necessarily place in the successful category for Grant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5fish
2) Remarkable military achievements
Gen. Grant: Successfully cut his supply lines and fought five engagements(won all five) in his adversaries own backyard then led a successful siege on Vicksburg.
His forces were defeated in a previous attempt against Vicksburg (Chickasaw Bluffs, Dec. 1862).
In the Siege of Vicksburg (May-July 1863) Grant was defeated in three assaults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5fish
Gen. Lee: No remarkable achievement on this scale.
Surrender of 15,000 Federal troops at Harper's Ferry to Stonewall Jackson (part of Lee's forces).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5fish
3) Winning with a inferior forces:
Gen. Grant: As far as I could tell never had the opportunity to fight a superior force.
...yeah...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5fish
Gen. Lee: He fought numerous times against superior force and won until Gen. Grant.
What is there to debate? Gen. Grant easily out preforms Gen. Lee during the civil war. He won a hard fought one on one contest with Gen. Lee.
Not exactly one on one-
............................Grant.............Lee. ....
Wilderness..........US 101,895......CS 61,025
Spotsylvania.......US 100,000......CS 52,000
Cold Harbor.........US 108,000......CS 62,000
What if the numbers had been reversed?
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Gen. Grant: As far as I could tell never had the opportunity to fight a superior force.
Grant was actually outnumbered in the theater when he crossed the Mississippi in the Vicksburg Campaign. It was his maneuver and strategy that kept the confederate forces from uniting.
Seven Days, Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville.
The Overland Campaign -Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and 50,000 casualties- I would not necessarily place in the successful category for Grant.
His forces were defeated in a previous attempt against Vicksburg (Chickasaw Bluffs, Dec. 1862).
In the Siege of Vicksburg (May-July 1863) Grant was defeated in three assaults.
Surrender of 15,000 Federal troops at Harper's Ferry to Stonewall Jackson (part of Lee's forces).
...yeah...
Not exactly one on one-
............................Grant.............Lee. ....
Wilderness..........US 101,895......CS 61,025
Spotsylvania.......US 100,000......CS 52,000
Cold Harbor.........US 108,000......CS 62,000
What if the numbers had been reversed?
The Overland campaign ground up 30,000 of Gen. Lee's men as well. Gen. Grant's basic plan was to grind Gen. Lee down and achieved his basic desire. Gen. Lee could not replace his loses as Gen. Grant could.
Those battles you mention of Gen. Lee's were not Campaigns only battles.
Chickasaw Bluffs was an early attempt by Gen. Sherman and well before Gen. Grant cut his supply line and won five battles on unfriendly soil. Vicksburg fell to Gen. Grant.
They met on the battle field and Gen. Grant won in the end even if the odds were against Gen. Lee.
Seven Days, Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville.
True for Seven Days, close enough for Second Bull Run, but Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville were reactions to the campaigns of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
The Overland Campaign -Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and 50,000 casualties- I would not necessarily place in the successful category for Grant.
It resulted in Lee and the ANV being kept on the defensive, off the initiative, and pinned against Richmond with nowhere to go, leading to their surrender at Appomattox. That's successful for any objective observer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
His forces were defeated in a previous attempt against Vicksburg (Chickasaw Bluffs, Dec. 1862).
So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
In the Siege of Vicksburg (May-July 1863) Grant was defeated in three assaults.
Who surrendered to whom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Surrender of 15,000 Federal troops at Harper's Ferry to Stonewall Jackson (part of Lee's forces).
But nothing in the placement of troops or tactics in taking the garrison determined by Lee in any way. Lee sent Jackson to Harpers Ferry. Jackson did everything else.
Incompetent analysis. Lee was in his own territory, so he would be able to gain reinforcements easier than the AoP. Additionally, Lee fought on the defensive, behind entrenchments. Standard doctrine indicates that the attacker would need about a 4-1 advantage to be successful.
Your numbers may be off.
"According to Lee's returns for April 20, the Army of Northern Virginia had 63,984 soldiers. Additional troops straggled in daily. By May 2, Lee had managed to assemble a fighting force of about 65,000 soldiers. This was considerably more than he had wielded at Antietam, about the number with which he had won his victory at Chancellorsville, and ten to fifteen thousand fewer than he had with him at Gettysburg." [Gordon C. Rhea, _The Battle of the Wilderness, May 5-6, 1864,_ p. 21]
"The Army of the Potomac's consolidated morning report for April 30, 1864 listed 99,438 soldiers 'present for duty equipped,' including 73,390 infantry, 12,444 cavalry, 10,230 artillery, and an assortment of engineers and provost guards. The 9th Corps returns showed 19,331 men ready for battle. All told, Grant was prepared to move against Lee's 65,000 veterans with a combined force of nearly 120,000 combatants." [Ibid., p. 34]
But a competent analysis requires that we go further than a mere surface look at the numbers.
Recall first of all that confederate returns counted only combat soldiers, not support soldiers such as soldiers detailed to provost duty or to duty as teamsters, and Federal returns counted all soldiers, not just combat soldiers.
"Raw numbers, however, did not tell the whole story. Compared with the South, the North's manpower pool was nearly inexhaustible, but trained veterans were a precious commodity. Unlike the rebels, Meade's men were soldiers not for the war's duration but for three years only, and many of them had volunteered in 1861. As the spring of 1864 began, Meade faced the prospect of setting out against Lee with an army that was disintegrating from under him. The replacement conscripts by and large had little aptitude or desire for soldiering. Meade's army of volunteer veterans was losing not only its accumulated experience but also the noble motivation that had helped it survive adversity and make success a realistic prospect.
"The important question was how deeply the Union army's shift in composition had weakened its fighting capacity. Some units were more affected than others. The 9th Corps' roll listed as 'present equipped' over nineteen thousand men, for example, but of those only six thousand were seasoned troops. Excluding 'worthless bounty jumpers and such trash,' one commentator figured Meade had no more than sixty-five thousand veteran infantry, which taken with Burnside's 'good soldiers' gave Grant something like seventy thousand dependable men to throw against Lee. Assigning green recruits--'pigeons for Lee's veterans to shoot at,' one soldier later called them--to newly formed regiments rather than to experienced units magnified conscriptions deleterious consequences. After factoring in some elusive but important variables--the spirit of Lee's army and the Confederate practice of placing new troops in experienced regiments, to name but a few--Grant's touted edge in numbers began to appear less imposing." [Ibid., pp. 34-35]
To call either "best" is fun fodder for discussion, but I don't believe the question can be conclusively decided.
If you go directly to the bottom line. It was under Grant's leadership that the war was won. He did, however, have a few things going for him that Lee didn't. Lee did keep the war going well past the time a lesser man would have tossed in the towel.
Grant had a bit of luck in the early years in that he faced some substandard generals. Lee did, as well. By the time they faced each other, the Confederacy was all but used up. I can see no basis for comparison.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Well, but we have to have some fun on this forum. Obviously the best basis for a comparison is the Overland Campaign. Grant v. Lee....Grant eventually wins, but at what cost?
It takes Grant better than a year to get into Richmond! Weren't we bemoaning McClellan for being slow!
Since it took Grant so long to get there, I give the award to Lee.
Well, but we have to have some fun on this forum. Obviously the best basis for a comparison is the Overland Campaign. Grant v. Lee....Grant eventually wins, but at what cost?
It takes Grant better than a year to get into Richmond! Weren't we bemoaning McClellan for being slow!
Since it took Grant so long to get there, I give the award to Lee.
Overland Campaign is a good comparison and Gen Lee had some incredible moments during the campaign. In the end Gen. Grant achieved all his goals.
You talk about the cost. The Overland Campaign is the prelude to WW1. It is the first modern military campaign in history.
All from the mind of Gen. Grant. and Gen. Lee's solution entrenchment.
The historical record is clear. Grant fought against the best generals and all the major armies of The Confederacy.
Grant captured three armies, including the Army of Northern Virginia, and defeated the Army of Tennessee (the only army he didn't capture, they retreated too fast, and Grant was sent east to deal, once and for all, with Lee.
The only major confederate army general that Grant did not defeat in battle was Johnston, who made it a point to not face Grant, even while Grant's Army was taking Vicksburg and Pemberton's Army.
Wherever Grant went, success inevitably followed.
Well, but we have to have some fun on this forum. Obviously the best basis for a comparison is the Overland Campaign. Grant v. Lee....Grant eventually wins, but at what cost?
It takes Grant better than a year to get into Richmond! Weren't we bemoaning McClellan for being slow!
Since it took Grant so long to get there, I give the award to Lee.
Your reasoning makes no sense. Grant took Richmond against an army of veterans that was well entrenched in works that for the most part weren't there when McClellan had control.
When concerned about cost, don't forget if you were a soldier in the ANV, your odds of being killed or wounded in battle were higher than if you were a soldier in the AoP.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Lee/Grant- What Debate? 
Linear Mode
