Grant vs Lee - Perception or Deception

I can't get the Grant vs Lee thing straight. Never mind who wins what battles and who surrenders, Grant becomes a president and Lee an icon. I have come to admire Lee greatly while I hold Grant at arms length for some perception that he had less regard for the loss of life involved in this conflict.
Are my glasses 'rose-colored' or is this a reasonable view of the history?

I don't believe that Grant had less regard for loss of life, but IMO he understood that to win the war and prevent further loss of life, he had to be willing to accept casualties.
When he heard of the losses at The Wilderness, it was reported that Grant was found weeping in his tent, so the regard for life was there...
The biggest difference is manpower...Grant had the manpower to accomplish his goal (winning the war) and the ability to replace it, whereas Lee would never be able to readily replace his losses.

Rose colored. Grant and Lee commanded armies for about the same amount of time; Grant actually commanded one for about 5 or 6 months longer. Yet Lee had a larger number of casualties under his command in real numbers than Grant did, in spite of the fact that Grant consistently commanded larger armies. If anyone had less regard for the lives of their men then it appears to be Lee.

But the fact of the matter is both men were willing to sacrifice the lives of their soldiers to achieve victory. That doesn't mean they had less regard for their men, just that they did what generals had to do.

Lincoln called it the "terrible arithmatic". He calculated that if he could trade soldier's lives in battles with the Confederacy, on a one to one ratio, then in the end he would still have more men standing while the Confederacy had none. It wasn't a disregard for human life. Lincoln understood that longer the war took to be won, the more men would die on both sides. He kept searching for a general who understood this arithametic as well, and it was Grant who finally put it into practice, with a "full-court press" on several fronts.

By the end of the Overland Campaign, Grant had lost as many men in casualties (killed, wounded, prisoner, missing) as he had when he started the campaign. But Grant was able to make up his losses by reducing garrison commands and converting unused specialty troops (artillary, teamsters, even cavalry) into infantry. The Confederacy didn't have the manpower to match that, and would grow steadily weaker with each passing day.

It's not a disregard for human life. It's an understanding that the best way to save men is sometimes push for victory first, and take care of the wounded later. Every squad, platoon, and company commander has to learn this lesson, otherwise his unit would get bogged down trying to avoid getting shot, or caring for the wounded, and ultimately lose more men in the process.

Lincoln must have had some wicked arguments with his wife as I believe she called Grant an 'butcher with little regard for human life'.

Grant's stature as an icon has also been downplayed over the years. The truth was that he was far more admired in post-CW United States than Lee was, and not just among Northerners. Lee's stature as icon grew more since both he and Grant have been gone and the Lost Cause gained steam.

What KS said.

I think that in Ken Burn's " The Civil War" Shelby Foote mentioned Grant crying in his tent but as he said, the next day he was on the offensive again.

But what I have always wondered is when Lee knew that the cause was lost and still had to command men in battle (although at that point the siege of Petersburg had begun and his style of battle was completely nullified). It must have been very trying for him.

Attrition is what the strategy to simply trade lives is called. It's the policy we followed in Viet Nam and is the policy of Lincoln in the last years of the Civil War. It is the policy one follows when one doesn't know what else to do. Stubid then and stubid now.

Attrition works if you have the intestinal fortitude to see it through, it's not the best policy to be sure, but neither was the use of outdated tactics with comparitively modern weapons.

Great question! I think that by Petersburg he was merely in survival mode...and on a different scale, what about the men of his army? I'm sure that a good number of them realized that the war was lost by Petersburg, but kept on keeping on.

By the very nature of constantly attacking an entrenched enemy, Grant was bound to lose more men. Grant said, "at no time since the battle of the Wilderness did Lee leave his defenses far behind him". Lincoln told Grant to "chew and choke as much as possible, hold on with a bulldog grip". It wasn't a war of attrition. It was the only way to win. Lee knew at some point that to continue to fight was useless and would result in many more casulties. Grant did feel the weight of the loss of life as some have pointed out, especially at Cold Harbor. In his memoirs he said that he regretted the assult was ever made and that no advantage, whatever, was gained. I don't see where Grant or Lee as commanders responsible for so many lives, could ever take that duty lightly...

I don't beleve anyCivil War General hadas good an apeciation of the men who had carried the load and the hell of battle as Grant. He did not feed a battle after it became apparent that it couldn't succed. although at times his information was not good, and he didn't make the same mistake again.
His early and late war pictures sugest to me that he felt the responability of sending men to die. Fact of life you can't win a war, without men and inocent people getting hurt, and killed

I've always admired Grant the general and Lee. All commanders send their men to die if that is what they believe it takes to win. Don't forget Picket's Charge. Lee said it was his fault, but those men were no less dead.

I think the attraction to Lee (without a point by point analysis of Grant v Lee) comes from his natural charisma and his perceived moral uprightness. I have read about Union troops seeing him from a distance and asking Confederate prisoners who that man was and were told it was Robert E Lee. That is real charisma to stand out at a distance. When I look at pictures of Lee I see a gentleness or a softness in him. I dont get that when I look at pictures of Grant.

Lee was a gentleman, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, gentlemen don't always win.

I agree with your assessment. Had Sherman not been a part of the War, I'd say Grant is next in line as my least favorite general for the reason you stated.

But his legacy transcended the war itself.

Agreed...