Grant at Vicksburg vs. Lee at Chancellorsville

Very true. Overall, I rate Lee above Grant. Like many folks, I would rate Chancellorsville and Vicksburg as their respective commanders finest hour.

Knowing that I like Lee so much, that could taint my comparison. But in one way, it should be noted that Grant took months to capture Vicksburg and experienced several failures. But I'm not sure I would say one battle was better managed, just different.

Respectfully
 
The one thing that makes it difficult is that Chacellorsville was a large set piece battle... Vicksburg was a complete campaign. It's difficult to compare them.

I think I would agree w/ Admiral Porter and Lees finest hour.

Grant was in complete control being on the offensive forcing Pemberton to react to him, he held the initiative and kept it; he had a winter to plan the campaign and the ability to take advantage of his assets.

He had a similar situation w/ Lee at Chancellorsville in that he faced an opponent that was less than brilliant. Both men took full advantage of the situation and soundly whipped their opponent. Both made mistakes that if not made might have resulted in the utter destruction of their enemy and an even more complete victory. Both also made mistakes that if taken advantage of might have meant the annihlation of the their armies. Though, I think under the circumstances the bigger gamble was Grants simply because of the scope of the operations.

Lee was on the defensive, initially he lacked the initiative and in all honesty Hooker had a good plan. But Lee... audacity at its finest ripped the initiative out of Hookers hand and never let him have it back again. THe risk he took were no less than earth shattering. He took full advantage of the mistakes of his enemy and he gutted the AoP. The battle is full of "What If's" the Union had done this or that... but the reality is the Lee was in top form. But the reality also is that he faced a less than competant commander and he was superb. I think Chancellorsville is a fine example of a battle being won in the will. When a General thinks he is beaten; he is.
 
Grant - for all the reasons cited by Johan Steele. Chancellorsville was a victory won because Hooker lost his nerves not once twice. Reynold's 1st Corps was in position to roll up Stuart's left flank. However, permission was never granted to attack and Reynolds was frustrated. Lee had skill and luck. Grant had skill & grit. The latter's campaign was a feat that deserves greater attention.
 
IMO the best way to examine generalship is to see how they confront failure and weaknesses in their original plan. Since no plan goes as expected how did they snatch victory from defeat? As Army Commanders Lee and Grant had no equals as they were both able to neutralize impending disasters. The only real difference that I can see is that Grant was always on the offensive. Lee's offensive record is marginal but he did not have Grants logistical advantage either. So its hard for me to pick one over the other. After these two I would have to pick Sherman then JE Johnston.
 
Admiral_Porter said:
I see Vicksburg as the prime example of Davis' failure as commander in chief and Lee's tunnel vision.

Exactly. Davis asked Lee if he could transfer some troops to Johnston to help relieve Vicksburg. Lee instead began the ill-fated Gettysburg campaign. He wasn't going to give up any troops unless Davis ordered him to do so, and it wasn't until after the Gettysburg debacle when Bragg was on the retreat from Chattanooga that Davis finally ordered Lee to transfer Longstreet's Corps to Bragg.

No general is going to like having troops transferred to another commander, but a general who thinks on a higher level is going to realize the importance of viewing the entire war, not just his little part of it. Lee could never put his viewpoint above his little part of the war. Grant, on the other hand, saw the entire chessboard.

Regards,
Cash
 
I see Vicksburg as the prime example of Davis' failure as commander in chief and Lee's tunnel vision

Davis is largely to blame.

But Lee? That makes no sense. He was the commander of the ANV. Not only was it not his responsibility to dictate Western strategy, he had no power to do so.

Respectfully
 
But Lee? That makes no sense. He was the commander of the ANV. Not only was it not his responsibility to dictate Western strategy, he had no power to do so.

Lee had Davis' ear. While Vicksburg was in a crisis he convinced Davis to allow him to send 70,000 men on a pointless raid into Pennsylvania thining that somehow it would relieve the pressure on Vicksburg. It reminds me of Hood in 1864 who thought Sherman would follow him into Tennessee when Sherman had no thought of doing so and instead marched to the sea.

Even if Lee had won at Gettysburg the confederacy would still have lost Vicksburg and Chattanooga.

Compare this to Grant who continually asked Washington to order Rosecrans to attack Bragg so that he wouldn't send any reinforcements to Pemberton. Grant had no authority to order Rosecrans to move but he understood how another general's theater of operations influenced his own. Lee didn't understand this.
 
Lee's move north wasn't pointless. First off, the need to forage in new country was very valid. Moreover, he knew that the only chance for the South to succeed was to win on Northern soil. Which explains his willingness to attack at Gettysburg.

Now, I know that Lee did get involved slightly in the Tennessee operations. But I fail to see where it would have been his role to dictate policy in Mississippi. He had his hands full in Virginia. And Grant in 62 and 63 wasn't out winning the war in Tennessee....neither man at the time did shape events in theaters outside of their control, nor did they have the power to.

Respectfully
 
Lee's move north wasn't pointless. First off, the need to forage in new country was very valid.

Yes that is valid but Lee doesn't need an army of 70,000 men to do that. He could have easily sent 20,000 men west and still led his raid into Pennsylvania.

Moreover, he knew that the only chance for the South to succeed was to win on Northern soil. Which explains his willingness to attack at Gettysburg.

You can't expect to win when the rest of your nation is crumbling apart and other armies are being whipped.

Lets say he won at Gettysburg. What next? Wander around the Pennsylvania countryside? It is extemely unlikely that he would have captured either the AOTP or Washington and Vicksburg would still have fallen to Grant.

Now, I know that Lee did get involved slightly in the Tennessee operations.

Only after Davis ordered him to send Longstreet west and not because he wanted to.

But I fail to see where it would have been his role to dictate policy in Mississippi. He had his hands full in Virginia.

It wasn't his role but Davis had trust in Lee. Davis was preparing to send men west until Lee talked him out of it and instead permited Lee's foray north. Lee didn't have a direct influence over western matters but his buddy relationship with Davis gave him an indirect influence.

And Grant in 62 and 63 wasn't out winning the war in Tennessee....neither man at the time did shape events in theaters outside of their control, nor did they have the power to.

No they didn't but Grant better grasped the importance that another general's theater of operations influenced his own.
 
Yes that is valid but Lee doesn't need an army of 70,000 men to do that. He could have easily sent 20,000 men west and still led his raid into Pennsylvania.
Perhaps. But it seems to me that sending in a partial force would be inviting disaster.

You can't expect to win when the rest of your nation is crumbling apart and other armies are being whipped.
Well, Lee couldn't do much about that since he was in VA. He had an unappealing situation, and he did what he could.

Lets say he won at Gettysburg. What next? Wander around the Pennsylvania countryside? It is extemely unlikely that he would have captured either the AOTP or Washington and Vicksburg would still have fallen to Grant.

You must remember that Lee didn't want a battle at Gettysburg. Wasn't part of his original plan. He could see the handwriting on the wall...and knew his only chance, a very slim one, was to gain a victory on Northern soil. As much as I see Gettysburg as a mistake, I can understand what Lee was thinking at the impromptu battle.


It wasn't his role but Davis had trust in Lee. Davis was preparing to send men west until Lee talked him out of it and instead permited Lee's foray north. Lee didn't have a direct influence over western matters but his buddy relationship with Davis gave him an indirect influence.
Perhaps. But I suspect that Lee was too modest to exert influence in that matter.

No they didn't but Grant better grasped the importance that another general's theater of operations influenced his own.

I think Lee was more aware of the situation than you give him credit for. Like Grant, he couldn't influence them really. But he had an extended relationship with the Tennessee operations since Bragg wanted troops several times. Just not enough troops to go around.

Respectfully
 
Regarding: sending CS troops west:

Two times my ancestor's division, Cleburnes, in the Army of Tennessee was ordered away from the main army. Once, to help Gen. Longsreet at Knoxville (1863) and once to help in Mississipi (I think?) in 1864.

I'm recalling info from his war letters which were difficult to read, so please give me a break, :smile: ie..I'm rather lean on the facts but willing to learn.

In 1863, just before Missionary Ridge my ancestor in Cleburne's Division, AOT & others were ordered to board the train for Knoxville to reinforce Gen. Longstreet's Corps. Some troops had already left and my gggrandfather's regiment/div. were very close in doing so. The Union army threatened & Gen. Cleburne per orders given him stopped the transfer and quickly made ready for the Mission Ridge fight.

In 1864, just before the Atlanta Campaign began, my ancestor in Cleburne's Division DID board a train for Mississippi but was stopped in Atlanta, Georgia and moved back into Gen. Johnston's command and participated in the Atlanta fighting.

My point: Please forgive the slight Off Topic thought but I agree that CS Army troops were not utilized properly by President Davis. Whether Gen. Lee, who became Comdr. in Chief in 1865, was responsible...I don't know. Being totally unbiassed and frank, I believe Gen. Lee WAS caught-up in his own Virginia "chessboard" and made a strategic mistake in doing this. I have ALWAYS held belief that a distinction was made between Confederate Eastern troops & Confederate Western troops. The problem IMHO was pure bias. By which Confederate leader? Pres. Davis & Bragg were two peas in a pod. Gen. Lee was Pres. Davis' 'adviser' & confidant. Only once that I'm aware, were troops from Gen. Lee's ANVa sent west; this was just before Chicamauga in Sept., 1863; Longstreet's Corps was sent to reinforce Gen. Bragg's Aot.

I am, as everyone obviously knows, as true pro-confederate as one can be. But...Gen. Lee in my understanding, either did not see the whole scope of the war or was totally biased in thought regarding 'the west.' Vicksburg & the Mississippi R., Atlanta and Chattanooga were VITAL to my Confederate ancesors' success. Gen. Lee should have seen this importance and been mor proactive in his ways. I have always considered the CS Gov't and leaders (not all) as prejudiced and very biased towad the 'western' theatre. Gen. Grant probably would have reinforced western troops intermittently or as my former profession utilized, on PRN (as needed) basis, whereas Gen. Lee seemed stoic and unreasonable on anything outside of Virginia & northern territorial invasion.
I guess I'll take take much grief on this reply stating derogatory comment on Gen. Lee's generalship, but I have to be realistic. Was this Gen. Lee's fault? Gen. Lee DID have Pres. Davis' 'ear' in a military manner of speaking. The entire western theatre was TOTALLY defended by very brave CS soldiers and a small handfull of competent CS officers IMHO. The only exception to this was Chicamauga. <added..per edit..this Chicamauga reinforcement from Lee aided in a CS victory>

Sincerely,
Rob Adams
 
Again, I fail to see where Lee had the authority or necessity to dictate Western policy. Lee did have to deal with Tennesse policy with Davis since Bragg was always after his troops. But Davis never interpreted Lee's Western thoughts as ideas that should have been implemented...so, besides the fact that Lee had to place to interfer, Davis did hear a considerable amount of Lee's thoughts on shifting troops West...and the fact that he didn't do anything shows that Lee could not have somehow persuaded Davis to follow a certain course of action.

And of course Lee couldn't worry about Western strategy. What on earth would he do? He had Virginia to protect. The only reasonable intermingling with Western policy would be shifting troops...which he did. It would be great if Lee had an extra corps or two to alter Western strategy...but he didn't. Just not enough Rebs to go around.

Respectfully
 
Please forgive the slight Off Topic thought but I agree that CS Army troops were not utilized properly by President Davis. Whether Gen. Lee, who became Comdr. in Chief in 1865, was responsible...I don't know. Being totally unbiassed and frank, I believe Gen. Lee WAS caught-up in his own Virginia "chessboard" and made a strategic mistake in doing this. I have ALWAYS held belief that a distinction was made between Confederate Eastern troops & Confederate Western troops. The problem IMHO was pure bias. By which Confederate leader? Pres. Davis & Bragg were two peas in a pod. Gen. Lee was Pres. Davis' 'adviser' & confidant. Only once that I'm aware, were troops from Gen. Lee's ANVa sent west; this was just before Chicamauga in Sept., 1863; Longstreet's Corps was sent to reinforce Gen. Bragg's Aot.

I am, as everyone obviously knows, as true pro-confederate as one can be. But...Gen. Lee in my understanding, either did not see the whole scope of the war or was totally biased in thought regarding 'the west.' Vicksburg & the Mississippi R., Atlanta and Chattanooga were VITAL to my Confederate ancesors' success. Gen. Lee should have seen this importance and been mor proactive in his ways. I have always considered the CS Gov't and leaders (not all) as prejudiced and very biased towad the 'western' theatre. Gen. Grant probably would have reinforced western troops intermittently or as my former profession utilized, on PRN (as needed) basis, whereas Gen. Lee seemed stoic and unreasonable on anything outside of Virginia & northern territorial invasion.
I guess I'll take take much grief on this reply stating derogatory comment on Gen. Lee's generalship, but I have to be realistic. Was this Gen. Lee's fault? Gen. Lee DID have Pres. Davis' 'ear' in a military manner of speaking. The entire western theatre was TOTALLY defended by very brave CS soldiers and a small handfull of competent CS officers IMHO. The only exception to this was Chicamauga. <added..per edit..this Chicamauga reinforcement from Lee aided in a CS victory>

Very good post Alabaman.
 
Back
Top