Switching Robert E Lee for US Grant

[Mdiesel]

I think the important thing would be making Grant a Southerner! I don't see how a guy from Ohio would be able to lead an army from Virginia no matter how talented he was. Lee was the axis the ANV turned on - without him they would not have been the army they were.

That said, I think Lee in command of the AoP would have been interesting to say the least. There would not have been the personality factor that was so important to the Virginians but the AoP knew a winning general when they had one.

Switching Grant for Lee is unconscionable IMHO. The Civil War is our American Iliad. Our warriors battled each other to a bitter end & along the way some became Heroes & mythological! (To the chagrin of some)

BTW fella's from Southern & Northern states did in fact fight for the other side... It was actually more common then one would expect!

 

[Mdiesel]

I think Grant would have seen exactly what he needed in subordinates in the ANV & would have jettisoned anyone he felt couldn't get the job done (unless politically restricted). His style was different from Lee no doubt, but he would have had no problem holding his own as commander of ANV.

BTW, Lee would have beaten the **** out of Grant with the better resources. That's not taking anything from Grant... It was a military numbers game. As long as Lincoln was determined to fight the South was going to be defeated, again IMHO.

What I've just said for Grant is just as valid for Lee. If Lee commanded the AOTP he would have handled his subordinates just the same as he did the ANV. And BTW I don't think anyone had more troublesome subordinates then Lee. He just handled them better.

 

[Jamieva]

Yeah....he jettisoned them out of his army ASAP

 

[kevikens]

Had Lee possessed the resources of the Union it would have been a shorter war. As for Grant, he was able to do a great deal, with a great deal, but heedless of the limited resources of the Confederacy he would have squandered its manpower quickly. I think another interesting supposition would have been if George Thomas had sided with the Confederacy and been given command of its Western forces, or alternately, if his decision to stay with the Union had given him command of the Army of the Potomac. Both possibilities are more plausible than the Lee-Grant juxtaposition and both considerable food for thought.

 

[Pat Young]

I can't see Lee leading black troops.

 

[BillO]

I'm not very sure the AotP had the corps commander level talent that could carry out what Lee would've wanted them to do. Hancock maybe but certainly not Warren. Warren would've drove Lee nuts.

Actually Warren was a very competent general with bad political connections. Very much like Longstreet. If Lee could manage Longstreet IMO Warren wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[BillO]

Yeah. Great topic to ponder. Lee with all the resources the North had might just have had the edge?

More a "what if" for me is if Grant had been in charge on the peninsula instead of McClellan ... The lives that might have been saved if the war had finished earlier. Probably had a forum on this already I guess.

Grant spent a lot more resources, men and time to get where Mac was earlier. The greatest difference between the 2 generals results were political and not military. Grant had the backing of the politicians who had the time since Mac to realize what it would take to finish the war.

 

[Jamieva]

Actually Warren was a very competent general with bad political connections. Very much like Longstreet. If Lee could manage Longstreet IMO Warren wouldn't have been a problem.

Warren needed a lot of hand holding. That wasn't Lee's style at all

 

[KansasFreestater]

If you switched each of these 2 generals into the others spot could either have succeeded or which would have done best.

I think US Grant would have fought boldly at the head of the ANV but burned through his resources too quickly and not been able to win consistently at a disadvantage of supplies and troop counts. But he would have fought aggressively enough at the early stages to have some victories. Then started being unable to cope because of his armies numerical inferiority. His very hard fighting would have reduced his numbers which he would not have dealt with as well as Lee.

I think Lee would have had trouble doing knew things. (to him) Like running the boats past Vicksburg or totally cutting off from his base. BUT I think he would have found ways to engage the Confederates that would have caused the war in the west to be even more Union won.

This is just for fun. Not to discount one or the other. They were both great generals. Grant worried little and planned to hit first and hardest. Lee was a skilled maneuverer and user of personnel.

No offense intended, Pete, but I think these are clichéd generalizations (pardon the pun!).

Antidote: Grant and Lee: A Study in Personality and Generalship, by J.F.C. Fuller

 

[K Hale]

I can't see Lee leading black troops.

What I can't see is Lee succeeding in enemy territory... because he never did. I think highly of Lee but the dude never had a plan on the offensive. Grant OTOH was made of plans on the offensive. He fought the whole war on the offensive, always in enemy territory, and had success after success after success. And I don't argue with success.

 

[StephenColbert27]

Grant spent a lot more resources, men and time to get where Mac was earlier. The greatest difference between the 2 generals results were political and not military. Grant had the backing of the politicians who had the time since Mac to realize what it would take to finish the war.

I disagree. Little Mac didn't have the guts to be able to lose the large numbers of troops necessary for victory. In spite of winning virtually every major engagement of the 7 Days, he allowed himself to become psyched out by Lee and driven away from the gates of Richmond. Given Grant's bite-and-don't-let-go mentality of the Overland Campaign, Grant would have succeeded where Mac had failed. Of course, I'm assuming that he has the confidence of the administration, which would have been vital considering the likelihood of the fighting being every bit a slaughter as the Overland Campaign.

 

[Mdiesel]

I can't see Lee leading black troops.

That an odd comment Pat, why not? It was the Confederate Government that prohibited enlisting blacks not Lee (as far as I know). With his limited resources I think Lee would have led any soldiers given him & been greatful!

BTW, Lee idolized George Washington & would have known Black soldiers served in the ranks of the Contenental Army. African Americans weren't restricted from the military until the 1820's or 30's (don't remember exactly). What was good for Washington wouldn't have distressed Lee either.... IMHO.

 

[Mdiesel]

What I can't see is Lee succeeding in enemy territory... because he never did. I think highly of Lee but the dude never had a plan on the offensive. Grant OTOH was made of plans on the offensive.

I'm sorry but Lee was extremely offensive minded. He was audacious in the extreme. If the man wasn't attacking its because of his armies limitations prevented from him doing so.

 

[K Hale]

Wasn't Lee one of the guys who finally got on board with the idea of black troops in the last five seconds of the war?

 

[Pat Young]

That an odd comment Pat, why not? It was the Confederate Government that prohibited enlisting blacks not Lee (as far as I know). With his limited resources I think Lee would have led any soldiers given him & been greatful!

BTW, Lee idolized George Washington & would have known Black soldiers served in the ranks of the Contenental Army. African Americans weren't restricted from the military until the 1820's or 30's (don't remember exactly). What was good for Washington wouldn't have distressed Lee either.... IMHO.

I'll take that under advisement.

 

[K Hale]

I'm sorry but Lee was extremely offensive minded. He was audacious in the extreme. If the man wasn't attacking its because of his armies limitations prevented from him doing so.

I'm not sorry, but Lee launched three plan-free offensive campaigns and all three were failures.

 

[Pat Young]

Wasn't Lee one of the guys who finally got on board with the idea of black troops in the last five seconds of the war?

He entertained it before that. Maybe around 10 O'Clock

 

[Mdiesel]

Grant spent a lot more resources, men and time to get where Mac was earlier. The greatest difference between the 2 generals results were political and not military. Grant had the backing of the politicians who had the time since Mac to realize what it would take to finish the war.

I think that McClellan didn't lose as many men as Grant during his advance on Richmond because Joseph E. Johnston retreated so readily. He even retreated at times & abandoned valuable equipment. Something no Confederate could afford to do! Lee was a different animal altogether & didn't mind getting in a dust up. It was always gonna be a fight with Lee...

 

[Mdiesel]

I'm not sorry, but Lee launched three plan-free offensive campaigns and all three were failures.

"Plan free offensive campaigns", I don't believe that's true. His objects where even spelled out in letters to President Davis. His objects had to be spelled out do Davis who always wanted to be kept in the loop.

 

[K Hale]

"Plan free offensive campaigns", I don't believe that's true. His objects where even spelled out in letters to President Davis. His objects had to be spelled out do Davis who always wanted to be kept in the loop.

This is a good read on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0471164011/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

Lee treated Davis like a mushroom.