Grant better general then Lee?

[TCO]

MTG, play make-believe for a second with me. Say Lee gets away from Richmond/Petersburg and gets his forces to the railways to take them south. (At the end of the campaign.) And Grant is either delayed successfully or just chooses to consolidate Virginia. Lee (the master of maneuever) gets to the Carolinas and consolidates his forces with those of that dude (can't remember name) in the Carolinas (was a sizeable force) and attacks Sherman.

1. Any chance that he could defeat Sherman and capture his force?

2. Take one more leap and assume that he pulls off (1). What happens now?

[MichaeltheGreat]

BTW, I'm heading out of town for work for the rest of the week and into the weekend, so y'all will have to continue without me, or bump the thread Sunday for further volleys.

[TCO]

NOOOOOOO!

Answer me, airborne ranger!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GP
MTG, play make-believe for a second with me. LEt's say Lee is able to get away from Richmond/Petersburg and get his forces to the railways to take them south. (at the end of the campaign) And Grant is either delayed successfully or chooses to consolidate Virginia. Lee (the master of maneuever) gets to the Carolinas and consolidates his forces with those that that dude (can't remember name) had in the Carolinas and attacks Sherman.

1. Any chance that he could defeat Sherman and caputer his force?

2. Take one more leap and assume that he pulls off (1). What happends now?

The time to have broken out would have been late fall of 1864, before the winter set in. Grant was inclined then to pursue Lee's army, not go after Richmond (he went after Richmond and Petersburg because Lee was there). By the spring of 1865, the exhaustion and malnutrition in the southern ranks was such that there was simply no hope - men dropped exhausted and waited to be captured or to die of exposure at night, and nobody bothered with the stragglers, because everyone realized the men were at the limits of their endurance. They still had the will to resist, but not the means. Even had they made the link up with Johnston's forces, either Sherman or Grant's armies had a two to one advantage in infantry, a 15 to 1 advantage in cavalry, and control of the supply routes and local farms.

It was just over at that point, and any decisive fight would have been a slaughter.

The only late chance to win would have been Lincoln's defeat for reelection, because the casualty lists coming out of Grant's campaign, coupled with the lack of progress towards Atlanta when Sherman was up against Johnston brought northern war-weariness to it's high point. Then Davis cans Johnston, orders Hood to take command and attack, and four quick, sharp victories and the capture of Atlanta convince the northern populace that the CSA really was on the verge of collapse.

There's simply no way in hell the south could have defeated the north in an overall military sense - it had to be a breaking of the northern political and popular will for preserving the Union. That was the only chance the south ever had.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lee is the finest General that the American continent has yet produced.

Wrong. The finest general the American continent had yet produced is a tie between Stonewall Jackson and Winfield Scott (for Scott, his campaign in the Mexican-American War was brilliant).

Lee is tied with Longstreet IMO. Longstreet was studied for years for his defensive tactics. I'd put Winfield Scott Hancock up on the list as well. Grant and Sherman are right behind Lee and Longstreet. Sheridan, Patton, and McArthur are not far behind at all.

[TCO]

How does Benedict Arnold rate?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not bad... but the traitor thing always weighs against him .

Though I do believe Arnold was a better general than Washington.

[Arrian]

That's not too hard.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Grant first took Kentucky at fort Donelson: then he beat back (no matter how bloody) attacks against him at Shiloh. Then he executed the very difficult campaign to take Vicksburg, which supposedly was impregnable. Then he was given command of the Unionm armies, drove Lee back, bottled the army of Northern Virginia at Petersburg, where it begun to disintegrate, much as the Confederacy at that point, and then he simply chased Lee to Appamatox Courthouse. Of course Lee pulled of the great and brilliant victory at Chancellorsville, but he never made it past Gettysburg and spent most of his time trying to figth the army of the Potomack in his own turf, even when comanded by fools such as McClelan.

Lee was a tactical genius, but in the fnd, it was Grant, as a military leader, who won the Civil War, for one isde or the other. Was Grant a better tactician? Perhaps not, but as an overall commander (not just of single, but multiple armies) he was a greater General.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Hardly turned out to be a catastrophic defeat,"

Sure it was. It spelled the end of the invasion of Pennsylvania, sent Lee running, and made the CSA lose alot of troops. And had the Army of the Potomac had a better commander it could have been alot worse. I don't see how Pickett's charge stopped the Union's ability to persue they still had plenty of strong troops left and if they wanted to do so I think they could of. In fact Lincoln got very angry at Meade for not more agressively persuing.

"You apparently haven't been to the battlefield, or don't remember it well. "

I have been to the battlefield, and I remember it well enough to see why it is was a dumb manuever. They had to go a long stretch of field in open ground where US artillery had excellent shots and the climb up a large hill against entrenched Union fire. Some of the Confederate generals including Longstreet IIRC realized why this wouldn't work, and protested the idea. For all your rationalization of why the charge was a good idea, he reality of why it wouldn't work bore out in the assault- say goodbye to Pickett's division.

"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."

That's still very bad though, especially considering how if you combine 3 days Gettysburg was the bloodiest battle in the entire war(though Antietam was the bloodiest single day).

"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."

Right, and Grant made the best of what he had. But as Rhea points out in the article, both armies had been retooled by that point. But you had already brought up the point of US logisitical superiorites, I was bringing up that when Grant and Lee fought Lee had the advantage of elite veteran troops.

"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."

He still had control of his army. And what did he do with those resources? Delay defeat. And that hardly makes you a very good general IMNSHO.

"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."

Not really, because now you are bringing in alot of historical what ifs into play. Would there have been another rebellion during the Napoleonic wars that would have been a drag on British forces. Would the empire be so quick to abolish slavery if it would have controlled the US South? Even if it did, would it be abolished name only and would we simply see the practice of "forced labor" as had happened in Africa? Would there have been another revolt and some other point, maybe whenever they did get around to abolishing slavery, and if so would the South then just go on opressing blacks? I would imagine blacks might be loyal to the crown in the event of another revolt if it meant they would be free in the process- I would imagine Southerners would have unleashed their fury on them whenever they got the chance as a result. There are too many what ifs, as compared to a Republican dominated government waiting to abolish slavery when it became feasible.

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

Right, but the question is if the government should have done it anyway.

"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."

Most people interpert it as a political gesture aimed at avoiding Anglo/French intervention. As far as Lincoln saying blacks couldn't be equals, someone saying they could be would have made them an extreme radical at this point in the 19th century. Lincoln also had reason to put forth his main cause- there were plenty of whites in the North who would have opposed a war simply aimed at helping black people. Lincoln was simply being a pragmatist at a time when pragatism was very much needed.

[cavebear]

To judge between Grant and Lee, you have to consider more the tactics of the time. The attacking forces were always at a severe disadvantage. It very useful to compare battles fought by each army in similar circumstances.

The North (and Grant especially) was almost always forced into the attacking role, and the attacking army almost always lost more men. Yes Grant and the other Northern generals lost more men in most battles they fought. It is to be expected.

But what of Lee? On those occassions when Lee took on the attacking role, he fared no better than most of the Northern generals. He lost at Antietam and he lost at Gettysburg.

The discussion of Lee as a strategist confuses me. In my mind strategy is broader issues than individual battles. Taking the Mississippi to divide the South was a strategy, combining command of East and West theaters was a strategy. Encirclement and siege are strategies. Sherman's march to the sea was a strategy.

What Lee seemed good at was tactics. Identifying/creating local numerical superiority is a tactic. Manuvering is a tactic. In a way, keeping your army in defensive positions is a tactic.

Lee had another advantage that made him look (perhaps) better than he was. The South had the better group of top generals (because the South had a stronger tradition of and respect for) military service. The stronger group of subordinate generals that Lee had the advantage to command enabled him to engage in actions that the North could not match. It isn't just Lee, it is Jackson, Longstreet, Early, Stuart, etc.

It is fascinating to contemplate what would have happened had "all things been equal". But they weren't equal.

I think that Grant has to get the nod as the better overall general because he recognized and was able to exploit the advantages the North had. Other Northern generals had the same advantages available, but did not adapt to them. Grant did.

Just my opinion...

[TCO]

Its a semantic point. I think people often use tactics to mean things at the actual operational level of an individual soldier, ship, etc.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by GP
Dan, he had his fingers crossed while killing Yankees.

Is that how you guys outnavigated the Rooskies underwater?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Given that Grant never functioned under real adversity in terms of manpower, material, indirect support, or being absolutely tied to defending specific ground, there is no basis for comparison to Lee's performance under those conditions.

.

I beleive that there was a point in the Vicksburg campaign where Grant was manuevering a force through very difficult terrain around a larger force in order to close the ring around Vicksburg. Would that qualify?

I also recall that during th battle of Shiloh he pulled a victory out of a nearly complete defeat.

[Shi Huangdi]

BUMP