Grant better general then Lee?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Was that because of Pickett's charge though or because of a bad decision by Gen. Meade?

Had Lee not attacked on the 3rd, when the weather was suitable and the armies facing each other, it would have been a certain signal that his army was too badly hurt to attack directly. (It wasn't, but vacillation would achieve the same effect). Instead Lee attacked on the 3rd, moved out under cover of heavy rain on the 4th, and it wasn't until the 6th that Meade's army engaged a rear guard of the ANV (this was the engagement where Johnston Pettigrew was killed).

Meade probed, and when the ANV fought hard, Meade just stalled and waited. Had Lee not attacked on the 3rd, the Army of the Potomac could have forced an engagement on at least equal ground, or gone on an offensive of its own, or at the very least, maintained contact on the 4th and 5th, preventing the ANV from digging in on the 6th to protect their engineer crossing.

The South wasn't exactly in the best position in terms of manpower and so losing those forces had to a be tough sting to the South.

Any losses were hard to take, but you don't always have the luxury of avoiding decisive engagements.

Grant took control of forces that had seen a good deal of defeat and won the war with them.

Very few of them were left. Grant exercised control over an army in name which had been defeated, but which had such high casualties overall that the vast majority of personnel which froze in the trenches outside Petersburg were replacements of personnel who'd died somewhere else previously.

Lee had his chances to go up against some of the dumbest generals in American history and still couldn't put together a victory.

Yes, Lee's defeats at the Seven Days, when he set Jackson loose in the Valley, at Second Manassas, Harper's Ferry, the way his army was routed off the field at Sharpsburg, they way they broke and ran from Fredericksburg, and they way they "ingloriously flew" from Chancellorsville were just unconscionable.

In any case, Grant is rightly remembered as an American hero for defeating the Slaveocracy of the South, Lee is rightly remembered as a villain because of his defense of the Southern Slavocracy.

By who? Especially since Lee opposed slavery, but more opposed the invasion of sovereign states by military force to solve a then-political dispute.

UR - the Chinese revolution or Octavius / Marc Antony are irrelevant comparisons. Lee had fixed terrain he was obligated to secure, and a national capital immediately in his rear the entire war. He didn't have the luxury of fighting a guerilla war, but his conduct of the war from taking command just before the Seven Days through the invasion of Maryland was textbook.

He started with a vastly superior enemy force seven miles from the suburbs of his state's and nation's capital. That force had better than a two to one advantage in manpower, a four to one advantage in field artillery, and a huge amount of siege artillery awaiting deployment. Lee moved a majority of his forces away from the fixed defensive positions, attacked a geographically isolated portion of McClellan's army so strongly and forcefully that he convinced McClellan his position was untenable. Merely weeks later, Lee showed up with his army reorganized and with higher than ever morale (mind you, he'd taken command of someone else's army and staff in the middle of a fight) 50 miles in the enemy's rear, at one of his vital supply points. Lee then routed a larger Yankee army in a classic attack, then went on the offense in enemy territory less than three months from taking command of poorly led rabble on the verge of defeat in their own capital.

[TCO]

Besides he was a Virginian.

[TCO]

Well that looks to have settled the argument. Everybody's moved on...

[DanS]

"Especially since Lee opposed slavery"

Apparently, he didn't oppose it too much.

[TCO]

Dan, he had his fingers crossed while killing Yankees.

[DanS]

Touche.

[Agathon]

He started with a vastly superior enemy force seven miles from the suburbs of his state's and nation's capital. That force had better than a two to one advantage in manpower, a four to one advantage in field artillery, and a huge amount of siege artillery awaiting deployment. Lee moved a majority of his forces away from the fixed defensive positions, attacked a geographically isolated portion of McClellan's army so strongly and forcefully that he convinced McClellan his position was untenable. Merely weeks later, Lee showed up with his army reorganized and with higher than ever morale (mind you, he'd taken command of someone else's army and staff in the middle of a fight) 50 miles in the enemy's rear, at one of his vital supply points. Lee then routed a larger Yankee army in a classic attack, then went on the offense in enemy territory less than three months from taking command of poorly led rabble on the verge of defeat in their own capital.

Thanks.

That about says enough. I was going to write something similar myself.

[Zero]

Perhaps. Without having done a research myself, its kinda hard to disprove him ain't it?

It's true that Lee is glorified. I mean the guy could have stayed with the Union but he decided to defend his homeland. Obvioulsy he is going to be glorified.

We here on north also get taught Lee is better than grant

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
"Especially since Lee opposed slavery"

Apparently, he didn't oppose it too much.

As things stood in 1861, the Federal government had no right to regulate slavery. And Lee was killing Yankee invaders who intended to forcibly "preserve the Union." If anyone had his fingers crossed on slavery, it was ol' Abe with that lawyerly used snakeoil salesman wording in the Emancipation Proclamation.

[DanS]

If Lee's "oppostion" to slavery was so much, then I have greatly and systematically overestimated the vigor of Southern opposition. Or we could just insert "complicity with" and strike "opposition to" and be forthright about it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Lee stated publicly and privately that he felt slavery should be abolished, but that it was a state matter and each state should see to it in it's own way. Like it or not, that view is consistent with the structure of government created under the Constitution, and the limited powers of the Federal government at that time.

If you want to go the complicity route, you can include a majority of the US population, who certainly benefited from the economic results of slavery, and weren't terribly inclined to inconvenience themselves for it's removal. There were principled abolitionists about, but they were a distinct minority.

[DanS]

MtG: If I walk out my door, I could almost throw a stone and hit his wife's farm, where Lee "actively" managed a number of slaves. He also owned slaves himself. This is some of the most milquetoast opposition I've ever seen.

And no, most people did not own slaves.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Had Lee not attacked on the 3rd, when the weather was suitable and the armies facing each other, it would have been a certain signal that his army was too badly hurt to attack directly. (It wasn't, but vacillation would achieve the same effect). Instead Lee attacked on the 3rd, moved out under cover of heavy rain on the 4th, and it wasn't until the 6th that Meade's army engaged a rear guard of the ANV (this was the engagement where Johnston Pettigrew was killed)."

And instead of avoiding the apperance of being defeated, he actually went and made it a catastrophic defeat. If he felt a need to make some kind of an offensive, it should have been something other than "Duh, hey lets run up a big hill where our force will have to run for miles under heavy artillery file and attack the enemies most entrenched position!" That attack was devestating the Confederate Army and ordering such an attack hardly looks well for your case that Lee isn't a butcher.

"Very few of them were left. "

That makes Grant look even better then that he had to use forces that were new to the war against ANV veterans.

"Yes, Lee's defeats at the Seven Days, when he set Jackson loose in the Valley, at Second Manassas, Harper's Ferry, the way his army was routed off the field at Sharpsburg, they way they broke and ran from Fredericksburg, and they way they "ingloriously flew" from Chancellorsville were just unconscionable. "

You misunderstood what I said. I was talking about victory in the War of the Rebellion, not victory in the sense of a tactical engagement. He was able to wipe the floor with Union Troops, but all that amounted to was delaying his defeat at the hands of better Northern Generals. All the tactical genious in the world doesn't amount to anything if you can't put together a sucsseful grand strategy.

Lee was a fine tactician, sure. Hannibal is another good example of a great tactician who couldn't win a war. I would say both generals were over-rated however, because see I don't think you can call a general too good if he lost the war. Hannibal ran all over Italy and kicked Roman butt, however he was never able to occupy Rome and all he accomplished was prolonging the war until Scipio could come around to kick us. Similarly, Lee had the ability to crush Union Forces for a very long time early in the war, but what came out of that ability? Nothing. He fought hard in Virginia and defeated Union troops but was not able to do anything that would have given the CSA a victory. He then lost where it counted at Gettysburg, and from there on it was just more defeats for the CSA.

"Especially since Lee opposed slavery, but more opposed the invasion of sovereign states by military force to solve a then-political dispute."

Actions count more then words. If Lee had been sucsessful, slavery would continued for a while longer especially in places like Missisipi, and there would be no Northern politicians to force civil right down the South's throat. Because Lee's actions would have led to preservation of evil if they had been sucsessful, Lee should be remembered as one of history's bad guys.

"As things stood in 1861, the Federal government had no right to regulate slavery."

Legally no, but one could argue it is such a heinous moral evil you should act on it anyway.

"If anyone had his fingers crossed on slavery, it was ol' Abe with that lawyerly used snakeoil salesman wording in the Emancipation Proclamation."

Lincoln was a pragmatic leader who knew that to end slavery, victory over the Southern Slaveocracy would have to come first. Then Slavery could be ended, and it was.

[Arrian]

The short answer to this debate is that Lee is a bit overrated, and Grant a bit underrated.

IMO, Lee was brilliant at strategic defense. He wasn't very good on offense, though. One should probably cut him some slack for being outnumbered & outgunned all the time, though.

Grant I see kinda like Patton: he was a bulldog. He attacked, and never let the enemy go. The ANV didn't get to pull back and fix itself up: they had to keep fighting. The result of this was that the Union took hideous losses (Confed losses were high too, but significantly less, IIRC). However, given the military technology of the day, defense had the advantage over offense, which explains at least some of those higher Union losses.

Lee did some truely inspired things, whereas I see Grant as merely "solid" or "capable" who recognized that if he let Lee rest up & refit, the war would continue. I think he knew he was up against genious, and dealt with it accordingly. Wasn't his fault he was pitted against Lee and a very seasoned Army of North Virginia.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Had Lee not attacked on the 3rd, when the weather was suitable and the armies facing each other, it would have been a certain signal that his army was too badly hurt to attack directly. (It wasn't, but vacillation would achieve the same effect). Instead Lee attacked on the 3rd, moved out under cover of heavy rain on the 4th, and it wasn't until the 6th that Meade's army engaged a rear guard of the ANV (this was the engagement where Johnston Pettigrew was killed)."

And instead of avoiding the apperance of being defeated, he actually went and made it a catastrophic defeat. If he felt a need to make some kind of an offensive, it should have been something other than "Duh, hey lets run up a big hill where our force will have to run for miles under heavy artillery file and attack the enemies most entrenched position!" That attack was devestating the Confederate Army and ordering such an attack hardly looks well for your case that Lee isn't a butcher.

"The war will be over by Christmas!" Hardly turned out to be a catastrophic defeat, as Kilpatrick's and Farnsworth's charge against Law's division proved afterwords.

You apparently haven't been to the battlefield, or don't remember it well. The assault had to be in the center, because that's where the last fresh troops were (all other divisions besides Pickett had been engaged on the 1st or 2nd), and the Union center had been the softest part of the line on the assaults of the 2nd. It was the least dug in and defended part of the Union line, as Cemetery Ridge just ain't much, espcially in comparison with the round tops and Culp's and Cemetery hills. Lee's attack was preceded with a heavy artillery preparation, and despite the dramatization of the damage the ANV received, the overall casualty numbers on the third day were proportionate to those on the second day, when both armies were fully engaged.

The distance was barely a mile, and the simple facts of life are that you can't assault an enemy position without coming under fire. Sounds like you would have been another McClellan.

"Very few of them were left. "

That makes Grant look even better then that he had to use forces that were new to the war against ANV veterans.

Hardly - the numerical superiority of the Union armies, and their vastly superior supply late in the war overwhelmed the man for man superiority of underclothed, underfed, underarmed, half starved veterans.

"Yes, Lee's defeats at the Seven Days, when he set Jackson loose in the Valley, at Second Manassas, Harper's Ferry, the way his army was routed off the field at Sharpsburg, they way they broke and ran from Fredericksburg, and they way they "ingloriously flew" from Chancellorsville were just unconscionable. "

You misunderstood what I said. I was talking about victory in the War of the Rebellion, not victory in the sense of a tactical engagement. He was able to wipe the floor with Union Troops, but all that amounted to was delaying his defeat at the hands of better Northern Generals. All the tactical genious in the world doesn't amount to anything if you can't put together a sucsseful grand strategy.

Not at all. First, grand strategy is political. Lee had zero control over economic decisions, supply and manpower allocation, war preparedness, diplomacy, out of theater forces, naval forces, etc. - all components of grand strategy. Lee can only be judged in terms of the scope of his command and how he did with the resources he had available to him.

Lee was a fine tactician, sure. Hannibal is another good example of a great tactician who couldn't win a war. I would say both generals were over-rated however, because see I don't think you can call a general too good if he lost the war. Hannibal ran all over Italy and kicked Roman butt, however he was never able to occupy Rome and all he accomplished was prolonging the war until Scipio could come around to kick us. Similarly, Lee had the ability to crush Union Forces for a very long time early in the war, but what came out of that ability? Nothing. He fought hard in Virginia and defeated Union troops but was not able to do anything that would have given the CSA a victory. He then lost where it counted at Gettysburg, and from there on it was just more defeats for the CSA.

Some wars are simply unwinnable. Again, judging the quality of a general on the battlefield has to be limited to the scope of those things under that general's control, and the resources he had to work with. Given the overwhelming, win-at-all-costs determination of Lincoln, and the huge advantage in all resource areas the north had at the time, the war was simply unwinnable. The war should have been over and done with by the fall of 1862, but Lee managed to delay the inevitable for over two and a half years, despite the lack of support he had available to him.

"Especially since Lee opposed slavery, but more opposed the invasion of sovereign states by military force to solve a then-political dispute."

Actions count more then words. If Lee had been sucsessful, slavery would continued for a while longer especially in places like Missisipi, and there would be no Northern politicians to force civil right down the South's throat. Because Lee's actions would have led to preservation of evil if they had been sucsessful, Lee should be remembered as one of history's bad guys.

The so should all the founding fathers of the United States. Had we remained loyal colonists, slavery would have passed from the scene three decades earlier.

"As things stood in 1861, the Federal government had no right to regulate slavery."

Legally no, but one could argue it is such a heinous moral evil you should act on it anyway.

You could argue that, but that's not how the government was set up to work.

"If anyone had his fingers crossed on slavery, it was ol' Abe with that lawyerly used snakeoil salesman wording in the Emancipation Proclamation."

Lincoln was a pragmatic leader who knew that to end slavery, victory over the Southern Slaveocracy would have to come first. Then Slavery could be ended, and it was.

Nice touch of revisionism. Lincoln made clear his views that blacks could not function as equals in white society, and that his overriding concern was the preservation of the union. The emancipation proclamation was an offer to the seceded states that they could keep their slaves if they returned to big daddy like so many prodigal sons.