CivilWarTalk.com - A free and friendly Civil War community.
CivilWarTalk.com
The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk  

Go Back   The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk > The Backpack - Essential Discussions > Civil War History - Secession and Politics

Civil War History - Secession and Politics Was it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-22-2005, 02:46 PM
Sergeant Major (1750+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Yep, I agree, This interview doesn't even sound like Gen. R.E. Lee's manner of speech. And...as careful as Gen. Lee was post war, with his personal thought and recollection in regard to the war, I'd say this interview was Yankee ad lib City. Lee had one genuine focus in the post-year period: to educate the promising young men of the South as President of his University.
"Sir, if you ever again presume to speak disrespectfully of General Grant in my presence, either you or I will sever his connection with this University." [Robert E. Lee]


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Cash: In your wildest dream, Lee comes in second as America's Best General. ;-)
Lost Cause Mythology.

Those who actually know something about military affairs disagree. Between Fort Sumter and Appomattox only one person was able to capture an entire army--Ulysses S. Grant--and he did so three times. Grant's casualty rate was actually less than Lee's.

JFC Fuller said Grant was "the greatest general of his age and one of the greatest strategists of any age."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Place Gen. Lee with the same numbers of men & material as Gen. Grant; place both Generals & command swithin 20 miles of each other and stand back....way, way back!...and Gen. Grant would have quickly discovered a legitimate need to take a snort from Ol' Barleycorn; a sound miitary defeat!
"There is no difficulty in composing a final evaluation of Ulysses S. Grant. With him there be no balancing and qualifying, no ifs and buts. He won battles and campaigns, and he struck the blow that won the war. No general could do what he did because of accident or luck or preponderance of numbers and weapons. He was a success because he was a complete general and a complete character. He was so complete that his countrymen have never been able to believe he was real...Grant was, judged by modern standards, the greatest general of the Civil War. He was head and shoulders above any other general on either side as an over-all strategist, as a master of global strategy. Fundamentally Grant was superior to Lee because in a modern total war he had a modern mind, and Lee did not. Lee was the last of the great old-fashioned generals, Grant was the first of the great moderns." [T. Harry Williams]

"There was one Federal general whose name lends luster to the American soldier and to the American citizen, who is respected and revered by every fair indeed man, who understood the prowess of the Southern soldier, and who removed from the South the sting of defeat by the magic touch of his magnanimity in dealing with the vanquished. Grant was the genius of the war on the Federal side. He never made war on defenseless women and old men. He crushed the Confederacy with superior numbers, but he paroled and trusted the Confederate. He knew that if he put the Southern solider on his honor he would make a good citizen and that if the leaders were imprisoned, the Southern people would become a nation of bushwhackers. By that act he bound to him with hooks of steel the Southern hears, which his magnanimity won at Appomattox." [James ****ins, Army of Northern Virginia]

"Grant was necessary to bring the war to a close... his positive qualities, his power to wield force to the bitter end, much entitle him to rank high as a commanding general. His concentration of energies, inflexible purpose, imperturbable long-suffering, his masterly reticence, ignoring either advice or criticism, his magnanimity in all relations, but more than all his infinite trust in the final triumph of his cause, set him apart and alone above all others. With these attributes we could not call him less than great." [Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain]

"The strong and salutary characteristics of both Lee and Grant should live in history as an inspiration to coming generations. Posterity will find nobler and more wholesome incentives in their high attributes as men than in their brilliant career as warriors. General Grant's truly great qualities - his innate modesty, his freedom from every trace of vain-glory or ostentation, his magnanimity in victory, his genuine sympathy for his brave and sensitive foemen, and his inflexible resolve to protect paroled Confederates against any assault... will give him a place in history no less renowned and more to be envied than any other man." [General John B. Gordon, CSA]

"It will be a thousand years before Grant's character is fully appreciated. Grant is the greatest soldier of our time if not all time... he fixes in his mind what is the true objective and abandons all minor ones. He dismisses all possibility of defeat. he believes in himself and in victory. If his plans go wrong he is never disconcerted but promptly devises a new one and is sure to win in the end. Grant more nearly impersonated the American character of 1861-65 than any other living man. Therefore he will stand as the typical hero of the great Civil War in America." [William T. Sherman]

"Criticism cannot deprecate the really great qualities of General Grant. His task was one to tax a Bonaparte. He had determined, unflinching courage and he adds to the laurels of Lee. No other Northern general could have accomplished more against the genius of a soldier. It was Grant, who, in the face of the gravest difficulties, won the war. He deservedly ranks among the greatest of Americans." [Theodore A. Dodge]


And it's too bad that today's southerners who profess to honor the confederate soldiers of the 1860s don't follow the lead of those same soldiers of the 1860s in their appreciation for a truly great man:

"As to my own fate, I know not what is in store for me. I believe the politicians in Washington are bent on the most extreme measures, and if they have their way will stop at no humiliation they can heap on me. My sole reliance is on General Grant. I have faith in his honor and his integrity as a soldier, and do not believe he will permit the terms of my surrender of the parole given me, to be violated." [Robert E. Lee, May, 1865]

"Lee was correct in trusting General Grant, because at that time, Stanton and President Johnson were intending to put Lee under arrest. But Grant declared to Johnson that if any Federal official molested Lee, then he would surrender his commission in the United States army. I have always felt that General Grant should be entitled to the gratitude of all Confederate soldiers for this act." [Joseph E. Johnston]

In 1869, some members of Congress wanted to put a massive painting of Lee surrendering to Grant in the Rotunda of the Capitol. They visited Grant, who was President-elect, to gain his approval. Grant, who was usually calm, got upset and said, "No, gentlemen, it won't do. No power on earth will make me agree to your proposal. I will not humiliate General Lee or our Southern friends in depicting their humiliation and then celebrating the event in the nation's capitol." This immediately ended any discussion of the painting.

"In common with most Southern soldiers, I had a very kindly feelings towards General Grant, not only on account of his magnanimous conduct at Appomattox, but also for his treatment of me at the close of hostilities. I had never called on him, however. If I had done so, and if he had received me even politely, we should both have been subjected to severe criticism, so bitter was the feeling between the sections at the time. General Grant was as much misunderstood in the South as I had been in the North. Like most Southern men, I had disapproved the reconstruction measures and was sore and very restive under military government; but since my prejudices have faded, I can now see that many things which we regarded as being prompted by hostile and vindictive motives were actually necessary, in order to prevent anarchy and to insure the freedom of the newly emancipated slave.

"I had strong personal reasons for being friendly with General Grant. If he had not thrown his shield over me in 1865, I should have been outlawed and driven into exile. When Lee surrendered, my battalion was in northern Virginia, a hundred miles from Appomattox. Secretary of war Stanton invited all soldiers in Virginia to surrender on the same conditions which were offered to Lee's army, but I was excepted. General Grant, who was then all-powerful, interposed, and sent me an offer of the same parole that he had given Gen. Lee. Such a service I could never forget. When the opportunity came, I remembered what he had done for me, and I did all I could for him." [John S. Mosby]

"The facts of my calling upon Grant in 1885 at Mt. McGregor were these: I wanted him to know the Confederate soldiers appreciated his conduct at every surrender during the war, and after the war in Reconstruction days." [Simon Bolivar Buckner]

"No man could be thrown in for any length of time with Grant, without admiring him with all his abilities and respecting him. He was with all his abilities one of the simplest, most confirming and trustful of men. The greatest mistake the Southern people ever made was not realizing that is they had permitted him, he would have been the best friend they had after the war." [John Wise, CSA, Recollections of Thirteen Presidents

Regards,
Cash
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-22-2005, 04:13 PM
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 572
Default

Cash,

Now that was an impressive post, mate! I would truly love to have a free two week pass to your personal library; being privy to both books and cyber articles. Geeez...some people are fortunate! Good reading there, Cash! And you are right, I really don't know that much on the subject but I do try my best. ;-)

I didn't say that I hated Gen. Grant, nor do I think he was a bad general. Gen. grant was a brilliant logistics/strategist expert, but fortunately had a large & steady line of supply. And Gen. Grant could certainly afford to give Lee liberal surrender terms at Appomattox Court House. To end that war, Grant would have probably offered Lee more, if it had been needed. Personally, I admire Grant for showing kindness. This portrays inherently good manners & a fine upbringing. Gen. Sherman sure could have taken some good pointers from Gen. Grant on civility & manners, IMHO. (I think the so-called alcoholsism w/Grant was probably a bunch of hype, personally, & I was just playing along with the 'ALL truthful' 'pure gossip.' ;-) I said given a level amount of supplies, supply lines and men, that Gen. Robert E. Lee would have defeated Gen. U. S. Grant in a shorter amount of time that Grant took to overwhelm Lee & the ANVa. With his given handicap in logistics, personal health and shortage of men, Lee turned out some stunning victories in a 3-1 odd disadvantage. Just imagine if Lee had Grant's resources! However, like it was said, we'll never know for certain. And this is a fact. You take Grant, I'll gladly take Lee!

Sincerely,
Rob Adams
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-21-2005, 03:55 PM
Private (25+ posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Neshoba Co., MS
Posts: 165
Default

When asked who was the greatest soldier under his command at Appomatox, 1865, Lee replied,"A man I have never seen, sir. His name is Forrest."
I agree.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:13 PM
First Sergeant (1000+ posts)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,450
Default

I think that Appommatox showed both Lee and Grant at their best, not as generals, but as men.

The question of who was the superior general can generate reasoned opinion, but given the disparity of resources between the two, it can never be answered fully. If the situations were reversed, would Grant do better against Lee, than vice versa?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-22-2005, 06:44 AM
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 572
Default

Dear Matthew,

You brought forth an interesting concept.

I believe that the roles of Generals's Lee and Grant, if reversed, would have had a very similar historical record; that of kindness and respect with digniy.


Given the "disparity of resources" with Gen. Grant holding the majority, I'd speculate a similar outcome of the results upon Gen. Lee holding the majority of resources, and maybe a shortening of duration of the war. Northern apathy toward the war in 1864, just before the Presidential election being my reasoning.

Alabaman

Last edited by Alabaman; 12-22-2005 at 06:48 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-22-2005, 12:57 PM
Sergeant Major (1750+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,395
Default

People who talk about the disparity of resources tend to focus solely on Grant in the Overland Campaign and seem to not even realize Grant had a pretty good record of success in the West. In his Vicksburg Campaign, Grant was actually outnumbered in the theater and it was through his skill at maneuver and deception that he kept the confederate forces from uniting against him. In the Overland Campaign people tend to forget that Grant was not in command of the Army of the Potomac--George Meade was. Grant set the overall strategy, but the choice of tactics was Meade's. People like to point to Cold Harbor to criticize Grant, yet they don't seem to be aware that it was George Meade who planned and conducted that battle and it was Grant who put a stop to it. There are those who misquote Grant's memoirs and claim he admitted Cold Harbor was a mistake on his part. If you read what he actually wrote, he does no such thing. There is a reason why 9 out of 10 historians polled by North and South Magazine picked Grant as the number one general of the war, and that is because he was. This is not to take anything away from Lee, who was a great general in his own right, but Lee was a close second to Grant. The four books on the Overland Campaign by Gordon Rhea do us a great service by dispelling many of the myths surrounding that campaign.

Regards,
Cash
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-22-2005, 02:57 PM
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 572
Default

Cash,

I see your point in regard to dispairity of resources and of Gen. Grant's war record. But, allowing Gen. Lee the vast resources of his opponent, we could only speculate as to the outcome one way or another. Gen. Lee, being placed 2nd and as an inferior to Grant, in your opinion and the opinion of magazine writers are no more accurate than mine or anyone elses. Gen. Lee did not win the war and therefore is victim to the 'victor takes all' theory.

What I interpreted as Matthew's core speculative question is whether Gen. Grant would have performed as well given the same resources as Gen. Lee held. I may be wrong?

Alabaman
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-27-2005, 07:31 AM
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 572
Default

Would anyone like wish to continue forth Scone's post of the 'Lee interview,' under this one?

I still don't believe this interiew was entirely valid. This Chaplain probably took the liberty to visit Gen. Lee, a very famous man at this time, and while he was in Lee's viciniy, but the interview proper seems ad lib. I don't think the Chaplain lied but 'filled in' the recorded conversation with his own words.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-27-2005, 07:34 AM
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 572
Default

Would anyone wish to continue forth Scone's post of the 'Lee interview,' under this one?

I still don't believe this interiew was entirely valid. This Chaplain probably took the liberty to visit Gen. Lee, a very famous man at this time, and while he was in Lee's viciniy, but the interview proper seems ad lib. I don't think the Chaplain lied. For example: his recorded statement of Lee regarding Davis and others being responsible for the war.

Alabaman
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-27-2005, 09:47 AM
johan_steele's Avatar
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 3,979
Default

Cash puts forward a valid point, Look to the Vicksburg campaign. IMHO the most brilliant of the War; it threw aside all the established rules of a campaign. It was taking chances on a level never equaled and when looked at in context is an unparalleled marvel not because it was so audacious but because it was so succesful.

Grant was significantly outnumbered in the Vicksburg campaign yet at every engagement he was able to bring to bear superior numbers. The South has no equivelant to the Vicksburg Campaign.

Lee was a great tactical general... actually I won't go that far. He was competant and against incompetance that carries a lot of weight. His greatness ends at his tactical skills; he was totally out of his element in a startegic environment.
__________________
Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Back to top
Bringing the American Civil War to Life. Copyright © 1999 - 2008, CivilWarTalk.com. Site Version 4.3
The American Civil War | Forum | Resource Center | Image Gallery | Links | Site Map | XML | Donations