deadkenny

I think they're both better than that!

oshron

lol, sometimes theres just too much of it for me to really care ill try to look it over some other time, but i stand by my opinion: grant was good, lee was better, but grant was also lucky

avon

And both have, um, certain qualities. I'd sit in at one but phone order from the other. Never vice versa though!

That's where all those boring 'compare and contrast' questions that they made you do in school come in handy. Ever notice that you have to appreciate the qualities of both elements in those questions?

sculptingman

while I agree in principle... in fact the distinction is moot.

Grant Beat Lee Strategically.

Lee was a great tactician.

Grant was not just the guy who had the mostest.... with each and every promotion to command a larger portion of the Union forces, Victory, and gain followed... not just against Lee, but against every commander Grant faced, and against every commander the men he chose to lead armies faced.
Military Success followed Grant wherever he went, and he spread that success by identifying and promoting the men who, like him, understood the modern battlefield and the strategic situation.

Shiloh is Grant's perfect example.
It does not matter that he was badly mauled the first day... he had made provision for reinforcements... and when they arrived he immediately went back on the offensive.


Lee is over rated because he faced timid and uncommitted men.

In the beginning the union command structure was littered with the kind of armchair generals like McClellan, who were very good at polishing brass, but did not have the stomach for hard truths of battle.

That the Union Army Failed to pursue Lee after Gettysburg is a perfect indictment of the vacillating lackluster leadership that the Union was saddled with.


Sorry. No matter what... Grant beats Lee, just as Grant beat every other guy he came up against.

He was tested over 4 years of relentless campaigns.

The men in command at the END of a war are the men that passed that trial of fire.

And if you want to understand how big a deal Grant was... look into the things that Lee had to say about him after the war.
For the few years he lived.... Lee would never suffer another man to insult Grant in the slightest regard.

deadkenny

You mean like Grant?

DIVUS IVLIVS

No, I think that Sculptingman refers more to the types that Lee faced up until he had the misfortune to run into Meade at Gettysburg, which pretty much marked the beginning of the end for the AoNV. It could be said that Meade was the first truly quality Union general that Lee ran into - the man undeniably had his faults, and his lack of vigorous activity after Gettysburg was indeed quite terrible, but he would for the rest of the war show himself to be a solid if unspectacular subordinate under Grant,his abilties more lying in his being an able tactician than any sort of strategic genius.

deadkenny

If that is what he meant to say, then perhaps that is what he should have said?

As I've already pointed out, Lee did face Grant during a lengthy campaign. The results were battles such as Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor. Otherwise Sculptingman's argument amounts to little more than 'The USA defeated the CSA so Grant is better Lee'. I do not accept that argument.

DIVUS IVLIVS

If that is what Sculptingman had meant to be the main thrust of his argument then perhaps that is what he should have made clear was the main thrust of his argument?

I think that what he was saying actually ran alongside the more specific lines of "Grant defeated Lee in two campaigns, the overland campaign and the Appotomax campaign, Grant had superior resources but Lee was in a superior position, Grant defeated Lee because he outperformed him as a strategist and tactician, Grant outperformed Lee, Grant was better than Lee". Or something along those lines.

Your argument seems to be that "Lee managed to draw Grant into some highly costly but inconclusive actions that nonetheless fitted into Grant's overall strategy (with the exception of Cold Harbor, which was Grant's worst moment in the Civil War), therefore, despite the fact that Grant's maneuvering and his overall strategy showed a far more sophisticated grasp of warfare than Lee possessed, Lee must have been better than Grant". I do not accept that argument either.

Back on what was originally quoted, I think that we both know that Sculptingman was referring to the generals that Lee faced prior to Gettysburg, which was when his greatest victories were all achieved.

deadkenny

Your 'paraphrasing' of Sculpt's argument seems much more convincing. Perhaps he should hire you as his ghost writer.

Regarding the rest, we've been over it. Grant outnumbered Lee by 2-1, was much better supplied, yet in each case failed to outmanoeuvre Lee and eventually 'bulldozed' him out of his positions, suffering much heavier losses (almost 2-1). Even the otherwise highly 'pro-Grant' Fuller agrees regarding Grant's 'tactical failings' (did you read the brief paragraph from Fuller I posted?). Even Grant himself admits as much regarding Vicksburg and Cold Harbor, in his own memoirs.

p.s. I just noticed that you've changed your avatar. Does this mean you're going to start arguing in favour of Lee? Then I have to start arguing in favour of Grant?

sculptingman

Is that supposed to be an argument?

Lincoln was replacing Generals all thru the Civil war, until he gave it all to Grant.

Even after Victories, the early Union commanders would sit and lick their wounds.

Contrast that to Grant at Cold Harbor.
He was savaged at Cold Harbor... and STILL he advanced his line the very next day.

Lee, and the others all suffered from the "glorious battle" delusion.... they thought war was all about the battle.

Grant and Sherman understood, when no one else did, that any individual battle is meaningless in the larger scheme. It is the OBJECTIVE that matters and the objective is to prevent your enemy from acting, and keep him REacting. You keep pressing him, and pursuing him, do not give him a moment's respite, until he is cornered, or worn to the point of ineffectiveness.

It was not Wellington that defeated Napleon at Waterloo... it was the decade of relentless battles and the attrition of long term war that set Napoleon up for that eventual failure.

What Grant did in the swamps along the mississippi is what REAL war is all about.

You can lose every single battle and still win a war.

The General who understands that is the better general.

They guy who will be setting terms of surrender at the end.


Sherman and Grant, between them, invented modern warfare.
What they did is what has been copied by every successful campaigner on earth ever since.