Grant and Lee

Aug 2006
What do you think would have happened in the American Civil War if Grant and Lee had both been assigned the head of their respective armies from the very beginning? I think neither would have given in and it would have been a very blood affair from the start. Lee would still have won great victories as he did at Cold Hrbor but then so would have Grant and Grant still would not have turned tail and run like so many other Union Generals. Also, Antietam would have been a different story as well....maybe.

What do you folks think?


Historum Emeritas
Jun 2006
The key at the outset of the war was training the armies. This is something Irvin McDowell wasn't worried about at the start and marched a green army to invade a state. Given the battles that Grant fought, the obvious obective would be to lay seige to Richmond. But, without him in the west it's uncertain how the war would go there. I don't think Lee would be hasty at the outset, as Beauregard was. His primary objective would have been to secure what the south had, and make sure they can hold them. It's hard to say what would happen. I think it is safe to say that at least the Union army would have been better organized on the field, and I believe Grant would have been pretty aggressive to bring a swift end. I say the war would have never left Virginia if they took command at the start.
Jul 2006
Vancouver Washington
The fact of the matter is, Grant was winning far more important victories, starting in 1862, in the west. In fact the grand goal of the US government was the Anaconda plan, to choke off the CSA, and it worked like a charm.