Grant vs. Lee: Who was Better?

#1

Pepe_Silvia

#mikehawk
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
21,875
Likes
41,854
#1
Just a debate for the history buffs out there.

Between Grant and Lee, who in your opinion was the better commander?
 
#6
#6
Lee was better. He was offered command of the union army before the start of the war and refused and resigned his position as head of West Point. Lee graduated 2nd in his class without a single demerit. Something which will probably never be done again. Grant graduated close to the bottom of his class and was completely out of the army when the war started.

Grant was a smart man, I give him credit, Lee was just in a class by himself.
 
#8
#8
Lee was an unreal commander, but his age and laissez faire leadership style doomed him at Gettysburg. He was a defensive genius and hated the offensive, but weaponry and tactics dictated that bent.

Grant simply got done what he was told to get done. How do you argue that there were issues with Grant's command ability, strategy or execution.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
Everything being equal, grant wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against Lee.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Why? In the Civil War, the guy on the defensive had an enormous advantage. Grant overcame that with a total war approach, which was the strategy he sold to Lincoln. He was the only commander to have any success on the offensive. It's hard for me to believe that people forgive the Gettysburg disaster.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#12
#12
If Lee would have had the same resources and manpower grant had, I'd give grant less than a 3% chance at winning a war against Lee. Too bad we can't set that up and see what would happen. Just my 2 cents of course.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#13
#13
Given equal resources, I see now way Grant could have beaten Lee. Lee outmaneuvered and outfought Grant in Virginia.

Grant must be given credit for recognizing the North's overwhelming advantage in resources and using that to his advantage. And, ultimately, he vanquished Lee.
 
#14
#14
Most of Grant's success I give to Sherman and his demoralization, guerilla style of war he brought to the Western front of the war. Grant's success in the west before he took over control was due to bickering, inept Confederate generals. All in all Grant fits the mold of it is better to be luck than good.

I agree with most who say if it was level playing field. Lee wins, if roles reversed Lee wins in less than 2 years time. IMHO
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#15
#15
I would say Lee, hands down, for operating as he did and keeping a generally outmanned and equipped army going as long as he did.

He won great victories on the Peninsula, 2nd Manassas, and Chancellorsville, but, looking back through the years, they were against poor competition, but they were great works nonetheless.

Grant, IMO, never won a "Great Victory", in the Austerlitz or Cannae , but he was nothing else other than effective. His Overland Campaign over the Rappahannock and the North Anna was just what the doctor ordered for the time, rather than trying to move an army across the rivers while trying to outflank an army on the other side, as Pope, Burnside, and Hooker had done.

Also, one must note, that Lee had several subordinates who belong in American Valhalla, Longstreet, Stuart, Jackson, John Gordon, Sam Hood(pre Gettysburg wound) and A.P. Hill. Good Sergeants make an inept Lieutenant look good.

Still, I lean towards Lee, he made mistakes, but all commanders do. Had he had Hill's Light Divison at Sharpsburg with the ANVa as opposed to capturing Harper's Ferry, he might well have bagged McClellan there.

Many things went wrong with the invasion of Pennsylvania, starting with the initial plan, and poor coordination, coupled with reorganizing the Army after Jackson's loss. If it were me, of course in retrospect, I'd have asked Davis to pull D.H. Hill from command of Richmond to take command of Jackson's old Corps, and kept the same format, where AP Hill's Divison was almost Corps size and operated often independently.
 
#16
#16
, inept Confederate generals.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Subtract Bragg from the equation, and put in place Joe Johnston, and the Union successes on the Tennessee River are likely gone, and perhaps, the surrender of the Army of the Tennessee and Army of the Cumberland in Chattanooga.
 
#18
#18
Subtract Bragg from the equation, and put in place Joe Johnston, and the Union successes on the Tennessee River are likely gone, and perhaps, the surrender of the Army of the Tennessee and Army of the Cumberland in Chattanooga.

Lol get out of my head. That is exactly what I was talking about.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#19
#19
Lol get out of my head. That is exactly what I was talking about.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Joe Johnston might well have kept Lincoln out of the White House on the retreat to Atlanta, he seemingly read and outmanouvered Sherman at every turn.

The Confederacy was likely doomed from the start, but Bragg failing to follow up on Chickamauga when he had Longstreet's Corps, and then Davis giving Hood the Army of Tennessee, was the last gasp.
 
#20
#20
Grant, IMO, never won a "Great Victory", in the Austerlitz or Cannae , but he was nothing else other than effective. His Overland Campaign over the Rappahannock and the North Anna was just what the doctor ordered for the time, rather than trying to move an army across the rivers while trying to outflank an army on the other side, as Pope, Burnside, and Hooker had done.

Grant realized that he could subdue Lee by the sheer force of numbers. Unlike earlier commanders of the Army of the Potomac, Grant pounded the Army of Norther Virginia until it was a shell of its former self.

Also, one must note, that Lee had several subordinates who belong in American Valhalla, Longstreet, Stuart, Jackson, John Gordon, Sam Hood(pre Gettysburg wound) and A.P. Hill. Good Sergeants make an inept Lieutenant look good.

I would have to say Hill was an excellent division commander but disappointing as a corps commander. Stuart, in my opinion, is vastly overrated. The Confederacy had at least two cavalry commanders that were superior to Stuart.

Still, I lean towards Lee, he made mistakes, but all commanders do. Had he had Hill's Light Divison at Sharpsburg with the ANVa as opposed to capturing Harper's Ferry, he might well have bagged McClellan there.

Can't see Lee doing any better at Sharpsburg than he did. If McClellan weren't such an overly-cautious commander, the ANV may well have been destroyed there.QUOTE]
 
#21
#21
Subtract Bragg from the equation, and put in place Joe Johnston, and the Union successes on the Tennessee River are likely gone, and perhaps, the surrender of the Army of the Tennessee and Army of the Cumberland in Chattanooga.


Johnston's handling of the Army of Tennessee in the Atlanta campaign was pretty bad, in my opinion.
 
#22
#22
Joe Johnston might well have kept Lincoln out of the White House on the retreat to Atlanta, he seemingly read and outmanouvered Sherman at every turn.

The Confederacy was likely doomed from the start, but Bragg failing to follow up on Chickamauga when he had Longstreet's Corps, and then Davis giving Hood the Army of Tennessee, was the last gasp.

Bragg could have destroyed Rosecrans going thru the narrow passes just south of Murfreesboro but chose to thin out line and covered way too much real estate. Had another chance as the union forces took over two weeks to cross Tennessee river in South Pittsburgh.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#23
#23
Grant realized that he could subdue Lee by the sheer force of numbers. Unlike earlier commanders of the Army of the Potomac, Grant pounded the Army of Norther Virginia until it was a shell of its former self.

With the Overland Campaign, he had the numbers, and saw it was the fastest way to victory. Ugly, heavy casualty battles, where both sides had moments that will go into history as some of the most gallant actions of the war.


I would have to say Hill was an excellent division commander but disappointing as a corps commander. Stuart, in my opinion, is vastly overrated. The Confederacy had at least two cavalry commanders that were superior to Stuart.
Until Brandy Station the CSA Cavalry had a nasty swagger to it, and deservedly. That was a bad moment, which likely hurt in the Pennsylvania Campaign, but he was a forerunner of the modern Cavalry as a screening force. The other great CSA Cavalrymen, like Forrest and Morgan, were most recognized for operating independently in the enemy rear. Apples and Oranges, but I see your point.

I assume you're talking about A.P. Hill, he was pretty mental from VD's, but I have a hard time thinking of anyone in the ANVa who would have filled the role, maybe JB Gordon or Rodes.

Can't see Lee doing any better at Sharpsburg than he did. If McClellan weren't such an overly-cautious commander, the ANV may well have been destroyed there.QUOTE]If he hadn't put a premium on taking Harpers Ferry, he'd have had the Light Division on the field in the morning. McClellan would have likely withdrawn, at which time a division could go take Harper's. I just think it unwise to detach your best division when the odds of the armies colliding were high, which he should have known the second guns starting firing at South Mountain. JMO.
 
#24
#24
Bragg could have destroyed Rosecrans going thru the narrow passes just south of Murfreesboro but chose to thin out line and covered way too much real estate. Had another chance as the union forces took over two weeks to cross Tennessee river in South Pittsburgh.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Never been to Stone's River, and sadly there isn't much written about it, I plan on going sooner rather than later.
 
#25
#25
Johnston's handling of the Army of Tennessee in the Atlanta campaign was pretty bad, in my opinion.

He made them work for yardage, which is better than any western theater general would have done, other than perhaps Cleburne, who never would have got a shot. The incompetence of the CSA High Command in the west is pretty massive.
 

VN Store



Back
Top