Switching Robert E Lee for US Grant

[peteanddelmar]

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.

 

[Jamieva]

I think Lee would've been more creative with his tactics then Grant was in the Overland just hammering away with frontal attacks. With a manpower advantage Lee would've looked for a flank to turn and end it.

 

[diane]

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.

 

[Carronade]

I think Lee would've been more creative with his tactics then Grant was in the Overland just hammering away with frontal attacks. With a manpower advantage Lee would've looked for a flank to turn and end it.

That's what Grant tried to do at each stage of the Overland campaign, but the ANV always moved just a little bit quicker - barely enough on a couple of occasions, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor. If we're just switching Grant and Lee, we might consider whether Lee could get that extra bit of performance out of the AofP and its commanders.

One of Grant's crucial mistakes was letting Sheridan take the army's cavalry on a private expedition, which stemmed from a spat between Sheridan and Meade. We might consider whether Lee would have handled that matter differently.

Lee and Grant both had a talent for assessing a situation realistically and developing strategies to deal with it.

 

[peteanddelmar]

What about Lee at and before Vicksburg the West? And Shiloh?

 

[matthew mckeon]

Either one could have defeated McClellan, Pope, Burnside and Hooker.

I think who Lee was, his reputation and family background in Virginia enhanced his standing both with his army and with the government he served. He was made to lead the ANV. But without the ability he demonstrated and successes he achieved, those facts wouldn't have counted for much.

Grant, IMO, seemed to master the logistics of maneuver, incorporating all the technology available in the war: railroads, steamboats and telegraph. He was able to sustain his troops moving and occupying CSA territories.

 

[matthew mckeon]

In short, they had different jobs to do. Both did them well.

 

[PeterT]

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.

 

[Georgia Sixth]

What about Lee at and before Vicksburg the West? And Shiloh?

If Grant had commanded the CSA army at Shiloh, they would have attacked on schedule.

 

[jackt62]

Interesting question about the role reversal. Grant was the superior strategist, and Lee was the superior tactician. Given that the Confederacy was already in possession of its territory and simply needed to hold it, the North was initially confronted with the more difficult job of defeating the Confederacy by undertaking a more assertive strategy. Therefore, Grant's strength suited Northern needs, whereas Lee's strength was appropriate for defending the Confederacy. So if the roles were reversed, would there have been a difference? Probably not, since the course of the war in terms of each side's respective economic, political, social, and military resources were what ultimately secured Union victory nothwithstanding the accomplishments of these two men.

 

[ivanj05]

If Grant had commanded the CSA army at Shiloh, they would have attacked on schedule.

Only if Grant had magic powers to summon dry roads from the ether. The man was known for pulling rabbits out of his hat, but that trick was probably beyond him.

 

[Carpetbagger]

Either one could have defeated McClellan, Pope, Burnside and Hooker.

I seem to recall Lee had some problems with McClellan (and Hooker) at Antietam.

What do you think their chances would have been against Meade?

 

[matthew mckeon]

I seem to recall Lee had some problems with McClellan (and Hooker) at Antietam.

What do you think their chances would have been against Meade?

Lee never enough problems with McClellan.

Well, at Gettysburg, Lee's attacks all failed, Meade and his corps commanders kept their nerve, and the soldiers fought hard. Grant would have tried to flank Meade, as he did with Lee. When he did this with Lee during the Overland Campaign, Lee and the ANV were nimble enough to block him. Whether the AoP of 1863 could have maneuvered to block a flank attack is an unknowable.

Lee was stuck with supplying his army with forage: he didn't have the luxury of time on the battlefield. Grant's men were supplied reliably no matter what, he did.

Whether Meade had the political capital and military skill to confront Lee in an Overland Campaign in 1864, and finally pin the Confederates against Petersburg and Richmond, I don't know.

 

[ivanj05]

The campaign in the fall of 1863 is probably pretty illustrative of how Meade by himself would have handled a campaign against Lee or Grant. Meade was willing to maneuver to try to gain position on his opponent, but the sort of massed frontal assaults Grant employed during the Overland Campaign were probably not in Meade's ballpark.

 

[Henry Whitworth]

While Grant might not have been as razor sharp and disciplined as Lee, he's always seemed every bit as creative to me. I think it's just often lost in the telling because we see it with hindsight and winning moves look obvious in hindsight.

Remember that Grant was forever being contradicted doubted and opposed by numerous commanders, subordinates, politicians, newspapermen and even poor Mary Todd Lincoln when the chips were down. He had to think creatively to navigate all of that to winning campaigns and to the top spot in Union command with the vision of how to win the whole thing. I think Grant was every bit the general Lee was. But reverse roles? That only works in a video game or moving carved pieces on a board. Because each man was so much a reflection of his respective society. The results Lee got from his commanders and his army were because he was Lee. They weren't going to follow a rumpled shopkeeper with the devotion and drive they dedicated to Robert E Lee. Every move each man took had a major human component. It wasn't boxes and lines they were moving around on a map.

 

[jackt62]

The campaign in the fall of 1863 is probably pretty illustrative of how Meade by himself would have handled a campaign against Lee or Grant. Meade was willing to maneuver to try to gain position on his opponent, but the sort of massed frontal assaults Grant employed during the Overland Campaign were probably not in Meade's ballpark.

Agreed. Look to the Mine Run Campaign in the fall of 1863. When Meade concluded that the Confederate defense line was too strong he called off the Union attack. I wonder whether Grant would have done the same.

 

[Boopsie]

Weird. I was going to sleep last night wondering nearly the SAME thing about swapping the genersls' characteristics etc and what its.....kewl

 

[Jamieva]

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.

 

[peteanddelmar]

I'm wondering about earlier in the war for each guy. And if you are trying to not just let the men switch you are overcomplicating everything.

 

[Georgia Sixth]

Only if Grant had magic powers to summon dry roads from the ether. The man was known for pulling rabbits out of his hat, but that trick was probably beyond him.

You're right about the rains. And I thought of that and remembered how Grant didn't let an ice storm slow him down on his move to Ft. Donelson. If Grant had gotten the Confederate army to Shiloh just one day sooner, that would have been decisive as Buell could not get there in time to save the broken army on the banks of the river.