Tweet
Grant better general then Lee?
MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. (AP) -- Ask most schoolchildren and they will tell you that Robert E. Lee was a military genius while Ulysses S. Grant was a butcher who simply used the North's advantage in men and material to bludgeon the Confederates into submission.
Not so, says historian Gordon Rhea, who has spent almost two decades researching and writing about the 1864 Overland Campaign in Virginia.
"There has been a shift in Grant's reputation in the past few years," Rhea says. "I think he has been painted into a corner of being a butcher, when in fact he was extremely thoughtful, very innovative and every bit the match of Lee."
Rhea, also an attorney who splits his time between South Carolina and St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands, has written four volumes of a projected five-book series on the pivotal Civil War campaign in which the two generals faced each other.
He started writing the series in 1986. The latest volume, "Cold Harbor: Grant and Lee May 26-June 3, 1864," was published in the fall by the Louisiana State University Press.
The Overland Campaign was a string of battles, lasting 46 days, from the Wilderness until the armies got to Petersburg where began what would become a 10-month siege.
School kids also might tell you the turning point of the war was Gettysburg. Again, not so, says Rhea. Although Union troops turned back the Southern invasion at Gettysburg, both armies had largely retooled by early 1864, Rhea says. The difference then was that Grant had come East to face Lee after his victories in the West.
"The turning point of the entire Civil War would be when Grant took command. He had a completely different way of doing things," said Rhea, who holds a master's degree in history from Harvard University.
'A master of maneuver'
Robert E. Lee
In the war's early years, armies fought, disengaged for weeks or months, then fought again. Grant kept fighting, even after some battles other generals would consider defeats.
"He realized you had to attack the Confederates and keep fighting so they can't refit and organize," says Rhea.
Grant also coordinated attacks in the East and West so the Confederates couldn't shift men between the two theaters. And he realized the object was not to conquer the South but to defeat Lee's army.
Much of Grant's reputation as a butcher stems from Cold Harbor, where Union troops repeatedly charged in unsuccessful attempts to dislodge heavily entrenched Confederates.
"The traditional picture is that he was a man who always made head-on attacks and didn't care how many men he lost," Rhea says. "He was actually a master of maneuver. He never made attacks unless he felt he had a reasonable chance of succeeding."
At Cold Harbor, Union forces were just seven miles from Richmond and Grant sensed Lee's army was quite weak. "There's a river behind Lee's army, so Grant realizes if he can break Lee at this point, that's the end of it," Rhea says.
The attack itself was handled by Grant's subordinate, Gen. George Meade, who won at Gettysburg but "botched" Cold Harbor. "Only about half the Union army moved forward. There was virtually no communication between units, and the ground was not reconnoitered," Rhea says.
The better general?
He said myths have grown up about the battle that don't bear close scrutiny. "One was that Grant launched a big attack, and in the first 10 minutes or 15 minutes or seven minutes, depending on what you read, he lost 7,000 men, 10,000 men -- I've seen 15,000 men."
Battlefield reports from the National Archives and Library of Congress show Grant lost at most 3,500 soldiers. "Lee was losing almost double that number in some of his big assaults at Gettysburg or Chancellorsville," Rhea says.
Lee lost more troops than any other general in the war and "if a general could be called a butcher, Lee is probably more of a butcher than Grant," says Rhea. "Because history has treated him (Lee) so kindly and because he got such good publicity from Southern writers just after the war, which glorified his image, he is never looked at that way."
Grant was considered a hero during the campaign, but his reputation, even as a general, suffered from his time as president, which is usually considered "pretty much a disaster," Rhea says.
In all, Grant and Lee were very similar generals. "They were both very aggressive. They both liked to maneuver, and each of them would do things that would leave more traditional generals aghast," Rhea says.
So was Grant the better general?
"Grant won," Rhea says. "If you're going to look at results, yes, definitely."
Not so, says historian Gordon Rhea, who has spent almost two decades researching and writing about the 1864 Overland Campaign in Virginia.
"There has been a shift in Grant's reputation in the past few years," Rhea says. "I think he has been painted into a corner of being a butcher, when in fact he was extremely thoughtful, very innovative and every bit the match of Lee."
Rhea, also an attorney who splits his time between South Carolina and St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands, has written four volumes of a projected five-book series on the pivotal Civil War campaign in which the two generals faced each other.
He started writing the series in 1986. The latest volume, "Cold Harbor: Grant and Lee May 26-June 3, 1864," was published in the fall by the Louisiana State University Press.
The Overland Campaign was a string of battles, lasting 46 days, from the Wilderness until the armies got to Petersburg where began what would become a 10-month siege.
School kids also might tell you the turning point of the war was Gettysburg. Again, not so, says Rhea. Although Union troops turned back the Southern invasion at Gettysburg, both armies had largely retooled by early 1864, Rhea says. The difference then was that Grant had come East to face Lee after his victories in the West.
"The turning point of the entire Civil War would be when Grant took command. He had a completely different way of doing things," said Rhea, who holds a master's degree in history from Harvard University.
'A master of maneuver'
Robert E. Lee
In the war's early years, armies fought, disengaged for weeks or months, then fought again. Grant kept fighting, even after some battles other generals would consider defeats.
"He realized you had to attack the Confederates and keep fighting so they can't refit and organize," says Rhea.
Grant also coordinated attacks in the East and West so the Confederates couldn't shift men between the two theaters. And he realized the object was not to conquer the South but to defeat Lee's army.
Much of Grant's reputation as a butcher stems from Cold Harbor, where Union troops repeatedly charged in unsuccessful attempts to dislodge heavily entrenched Confederates.
"The traditional picture is that he was a man who always made head-on attacks and didn't care how many men he lost," Rhea says. "He was actually a master of maneuver. He never made attacks unless he felt he had a reasonable chance of succeeding."
At Cold Harbor, Union forces were just seven miles from Richmond and Grant sensed Lee's army was quite weak. "There's a river behind Lee's army, so Grant realizes if he can break Lee at this point, that's the end of it," Rhea says.
The attack itself was handled by Grant's subordinate, Gen. George Meade, who won at Gettysburg but "botched" Cold Harbor. "Only about half the Union army moved forward. There was virtually no communication between units, and the ground was not reconnoitered," Rhea says.
The better general?
He said myths have grown up about the battle that don't bear close scrutiny. "One was that Grant launched a big attack, and in the first 10 minutes or 15 minutes or seven minutes, depending on what you read, he lost 7,000 men, 10,000 men -- I've seen 15,000 men."
Battlefield reports from the National Archives and Library of Congress show Grant lost at most 3,500 soldiers. "Lee was losing almost double that number in some of his big assaults at Gettysburg or Chancellorsville," Rhea says.
Lee lost more troops than any other general in the war and "if a general could be called a butcher, Lee is probably more of a butcher than Grant," says Rhea. "Because history has treated him (Lee) so kindly and because he got such good publicity from Southern writers just after the war, which glorified his image, he is never looked at that way."
Grant was considered a hero during the campaign, but his reputation, even as a general, suffered from his time as president, which is usually considered "pretty much a disaster," Rhea says.
In all, Grant and Lee were very similar generals. "They were both very aggressive. They both liked to maneuver, and each of them would do things that would leave more traditional generals aghast," Rhea says.
So was Grant the better general?
"Grant won," Rhea says. "If you're going to look at results, yes, definitely."
.
but he felt that that was the only way to break the spirit of the south. and it looked like it worked, althought Im not ready to say weather it was morally justified or not.
Comment