Switching Robert E Lee for US Grant

[JeffBrooks]

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 you're using the context of the Overland Campaign rather than the Vicksburg Campaign.

 

[Mdiesel]

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

Lee treated Davis like a mushroom.

Thanks, I'll have to check it out but honestly don't know if I'll agree with it. It's admittedly a revisionist look at Lee's generalship. I have to admit that I usually have a hard time believing one historian over so many others.

"Lee treated Davis like a mushroom."

LOL, That's awesome!

 

[18thVirginia]

I can't see Lee leading black troops.

I was thinking he would have had difficulty leading German, Irish, Norwegian, Northern urban troops. Lee didn't like Mexicans, didn't like Indians, didn't like people in St. Louis.

 

[K Hale]

I was thinking he would have had difficulty leading German, Irish, Norwegian, Northern urban troops. Lee didn't like Mexicans, didn't like Indians, didn't like people in St. Louis.

Would Lee mean as much to men who did not buy into the southern aristocrat thing?

Would they call him Marse Robert?

......No.

 

[StephenColbert27]

I think you're using the context of the Overland Campaign rather than the Vicksburg Campaign.

Agreed. Grant was far from a one-trick pony. His flexibility in both the Vicksburg and Chattanooga Campaigns demonstrate this.

 

[Mdiesel]

I was thinking he would have had difficulty leading German, Irish, Norwegian, Northern urban troops. Lee didn't like Mexicans, didn't like Indians, didn't like people in St. Louis.

But Lee did lead Germans & Irish & other immigrants. Those groups were represented in the Confederate Army just not in as high a % of troops as in the North... Which BTW had a higher % of just about everything.

Lee was a career military officer and would have commanded immigrants well in advance of the Civil War.

Would Lee mean as much to men who did not buy into the southern aristocrat thing?

Would they call him Marse Robert?

......No.

From what I've read there was plenty of bitterness among poor whites toward the rich & entitled. "Rich mans war, poor mans fight". A European commented on the stark difference between American soldiers & thier own (Fremantle?) in interacting with officers. In Europe the enlisted man who conducted himself as an American would, would have often been considered insubordinate & likely punished.

Soldiers want to follow a winner. Before they called Lee "Marse Robert" they called him "Granny Lee".

I agree that Northern troops
Would never have called Lee "Marse Robert". That's clearly southern parlance. They would have used a different term of adulation.

They called McClellan "Lil Mac" and genuinely loved the man, campaign outcomes not withstanding.

 

[K Hale]

But Lee did lead Germans & Irish & other immigrants. Those groups were represented in the Confederate Army just not in as high a % of troops as in the North... Which BTW had a higher % of just about everything.

Lee was a career military officer and would have commanded immigrants well in advance of the Civil War.



From what I've read there was plenty of bitterness among poor whites toward the rich & entitled. "Rich mans war, poor mans fight". A European commented on the stark difference between American soldiers & thier own (Fremantle?) in interacting with officers. In Europe the enlisted man who conducted himself as an American would, would have often been considered insubordinate & likely punished.

Soldiers want to follow a winner. Before they called Lee "Marse Robert" they called him "Granny Lee".

I agree that Northern troops
Would never have called Lee "Marse Robert". That's clearly southern parlance. They would have used a different term of adulation.

They called McClellan "Lil Mac" and genuinely loved the man, campaign outcomes not withstanding.

Well, first you say they want to follow a winner, then you say they loved McClellan, and all of it is somehow couched as pro-Lee and anti-Grant -- and Grant did nothing but win, despite his lack of a cutesy pet name.

This is why I stay out of what-if threads. They never make any sense.

 

[diane]

Well, first you say they want to follow a winner, then you say they loved McClellan, and all of it is somehow couched as pro-Lee and anti-Grant -- and Grant did nothing but win, despite his lack of a cutesy pet name.

This is why I stay out of what-if threads. They never make any sense.

What did Grant's men call him besides sir? I can't think of any nicknames they gave him - everyone else had one.

Just referring to Pat's remark about Lee not leading blacks - I don't think they would have been his first choice, either, but he was a career soldier and would have done it if ordered. (He did, however, have the ability to smoothly glide away from orders he disagreed with. Not sure how slick he'd be with Lincoln, though!) His thought about using them at the eleventh hour was to free up more white men, really. They could be horse holders or whatever. Don't think he ever thought of them as being real soldiers.

 

[StephenColbert27]

Part of the reason of an apparent lack of adulation for Grant is likely due to the fact that he changed armies relatively often, and thus did not have the time to endear himself to his troops. As compared to Lee, who commanded the same body of troops from Spring 1862 onwards. All of I have read about Grant indicates nothing but respect for him from the enlisted men.

 

[PeterT]

Part of the reason of an apparent lack of adulation for Grant is likely due to the fact that he changed armies relatively often, and thus did not have the time to endear himself to his troops. As compared to Lee, who commanded the same body of troops from Spring 1862 onwards. All of I have read about Grant indicates nothing but respect for him from the enlisted men.

And what did Lincoln say about Grant .... " I like this man...he fights".

 

[Mdiesel]

Well, first you say they want to follow a winner, then you say they loved McClellan, and all of it is somehow couched as pro-Lee and anti-Grant -- This is why I stay out of what-if threads. They never make any sense.

Clearly the Army who held McClellan in high regard didn't think of him as a loser, despite what we think 150 yrs later. They may have even felt pride that Antietam was a (tactical) Union victory.

BTW you were the one who claimed Lee lost due to lack of offensive planning. Well then doesn't the guy who beat him get any credit???? He should have destroyed Lee it's true (IMHO) but he could claim victory despite the fact Lee got way. We have 150 years of hindsight to guide our opinions, but those men in the ranks of the AOTP in thier time had different impressions from ours.

You said I was "Pro-Lee and Anti-Grant". Where have I critizised Grant in this thread?

We may disagree & maybe I am wrong, but I won't be rude...

 

[Mdiesel]

Part of the reason of an apparent lack of adulation for Grant is likely due to the fact that he changed armies relatively often, and thus did not have the time to endear himself to his troops. As compared to Lee, who commanded the same body of troops from Spring 1862 onwards. All of I have read about Grant indicates nothing but respect for him

Grant was praised as well, They said his initials, U.S. Grant stood for "Unconditional Surrender" Grant!

 

[StephenColbert27]

Grant was praised as well, They said his initials, U.S. Grant stood for "Unconditional Surrender" Grant!

Yes, but that was not what his troops called him. That was a nickname given to him by the public and the newspapers, not his men.

 

[K Hale]

Clearly the Army who held McClellan in high regard didn't think of him as a loser, despite what we think 150 yrs later.

He hasn't won any battles since then.

They may have even felt pride that Antietam was a (tactical) Union victory.

=draw

BTW you were the one who claimed Lee lost due to lack of offensive planning. Well then doesn't the guy who beat him get any credit????

Grant? Meade?

He should have destroyed Lee it's true (IMHO) but he could claim victory despite the fact Lee got way. We have 150 years of hindsight to guide our opinions, but those men in the ranks of the AOTP in thier time had different impressions from ours.

All they could see was what was in front of them; we have a better perspective.

You said I was "Pro-Lee and Anti-Grant". Where have I critizised Grant in this thread?

Your implication was, using your examples. Topic is switching Grant and Lee and what would be different, remember?

 

[diane]

One interesting aspect of Lee as Union general, his cavalry would not have been much at the beginning. He owed a lot to Stuart, who - as he famously said - never brought him a bad piece of information. Grant, on the other hand, would have him!

 

[hanna260]

One interesting theory someone proposed is that if Lee had been in charge at Bull Run, the battle, due to green troops, would have gone no better and Lee, with people already suspicious of him because he was a Virginia , would have been removed in disgrace.

I also think, to throw it out there, that Grant- who didn't suffer egos gladly- would have had a much harder time with the Army of N Va than the more diplomatic Lee did. I do think that Grant would have been a smart enough man to modify his overall strategy- I do think- in contrast to others views- that Grant would have taken the lesser resources into account and would not have relied on pounding the way he knew he could do commanding the Union army.

Of course this is all speculation.

 

[StephenColbert27]

One interesting theory someone proposed is that if Lee had been in charge at Bull Run, the battle, due to green troops, would have gone no better and Lee, with people already suspicious of him because he was a Virginia , would have been removed in disgrace.

I also think, to throw it out there, that Grant- who didn't suffer egos gladly- would have had a much harder time with the Army of N Va than the more diplomatic Lee did. I do think that Grant would have been a smart enough man to modify his overall strategy- I do think- in contrast to others views- that Grant would have taken the lesser resources into account and would not have relied on pounding the way he knew he could do commanding the Union army.

Of course this is all speculation.

Agreed. Grant and A.P. Hill would likely not have gotten along, for one. He might have had trouble with Longstreet, except of course for the fact that they were great friends. I'm not sure how he would do with Jackson. I also agree that Grant would have been able to adjust to not having overwhelming numbers. He recognized, even as a Union general, that he could not simply do frontal assaults all day and expect to win. Just look at the Chattanooga campaign. He spent most of the Campaign looking to go for the flanks (Lookout Mountain and Tunnel Hill). He only made the grant frontal assault with Thomas that broke the Rebel line by accident.