- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: History Debate: Ulysses S. Grant vs. Robert E. Lee
Posted on 3/29/14 at 10:14 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 3/29/14 at 10:14 pm to RollTide1987
Also...I'm not saying that Lee was a steaming pile of shite. He was anything but. He won his fair share of victories but let's not pretend he was going up against the best of the best. McClellan, Pope and Burnside were three of the worst battlefield commanders in U.S. history.
All I'm saying is that Grant is probably the most underrated general in U.S. history and was, at least in my opinion, the best general of the American Civil War.
In summary, here's why:
- Grant's first major offensive at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson opened Alabama and Mississippi to Union invasion and produced the largest victory won on U.S. soil up to that time. It was also the first time in U.S. military history that an entire army surrendered to a single general.
- At Shiloh, he took a seemingly no-win situation and turned it into a resounding victory.
- At Vicksburg he masterfully deceived his enemies, defeated two separate forces numerically superior to his own, and captured both Vicksburg and the Confederate army defending it.
- At Chattanooga he came into another seemingly no-win situation and turned it into a near flawless victory.
- During the Overland Campaign, Lee tried to destroy Grant's army in the Wilderness and failed. Within a two month period, Grant moved the war south of the James River and besieged Lee's army at Petersburg.
- Once he became trapped at Petersburg, Lee's goose was cooked. Grant's grand design for 1864 cost the Confederacy its last major rail hub, its capital, as well as pinned in and systematically destroyed Lee's vaunted Army of Northern Virginia.
To summarize:
Grant never lost a campaign and had three different armies surrender to him. It would be 1945 before an enemy army surrendered to a U.S. general again. Not one army or general ever surrendered to Lee.
Grant had both Lee's audacity on the field and the better grasp of strategy. Lee was good, Grant was better.
All I'm saying is that Grant is probably the most underrated general in U.S. history and was, at least in my opinion, the best general of the American Civil War.
In summary, here's why:
- Grant's first major offensive at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson opened Alabama and Mississippi to Union invasion and produced the largest victory won on U.S. soil up to that time. It was also the first time in U.S. military history that an entire army surrendered to a single general.
- At Shiloh, he took a seemingly no-win situation and turned it into a resounding victory.
- At Vicksburg he masterfully deceived his enemies, defeated two separate forces numerically superior to his own, and captured both Vicksburg and the Confederate army defending it.
- At Chattanooga he came into another seemingly no-win situation and turned it into a near flawless victory.
- During the Overland Campaign, Lee tried to destroy Grant's army in the Wilderness and failed. Within a two month period, Grant moved the war south of the James River and besieged Lee's army at Petersburg.
- Once he became trapped at Petersburg, Lee's goose was cooked. Grant's grand design for 1864 cost the Confederacy its last major rail hub, its capital, as well as pinned in and systematically destroyed Lee's vaunted Army of Northern Virginia.
To summarize:
Grant never lost a campaign and had three different armies surrender to him. It would be 1945 before an enemy army surrendered to a U.S. general again. Not one army or general ever surrendered to Lee.
Grant had both Lee's audacity on the field and the better grasp of strategy. Lee was good, Grant was better.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 10:16 pm
3
Posted on 3/29/14 at 10:20 pm to RollTide1987
I think it's most clear that Lee was the better man and General.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 10:21 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Grant had both Lee's audacity on the field and the better grasp of strategy. Lee was good, Grant was better.
Damn it sounded so good til this last statement. I agree with the audacity but you are dreaming about the other. I am on the last beer of a case that I had when I sat down here and I have had enough. I need you to admit defeat so I can go to bed please.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 10:27 pm to RollTide1987
How much of your claim is due to the differences between the USA and CSA?
Give Grant Lee's resources and manpower and vice versa. Still think Grant is better?
Give Grant Lee's resources and manpower and vice versa. Still think Grant is better?
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 10:31 pm to weagle99
quote:
Give Grant Lee's resources and manpower and vice versa. Still think Grant is better?
Here is the difference, Switch places and Grant would have shite his pants.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 10:45 pm to RollTide1987
Hell of a point about Grant's superiority. Revisionist history is full of what ifs and switch positions etc... Fact is that Grant understood the strategy of what it took to defeat the Confederacy and then he executed it. Grant is I agree the most underrated American General in history. I do though think Lee was also brilliant on many levels but also his arrogance got him in trouble at times. Not just Gettysburg but his handling of the Maryland Campaign in 1862 nearly lead to a catastrophe. IF McClellan had even a semblance of balls he could have crushed Lee at Antietam or the days after Antietam.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 11:39 pm to bencoleman
quote:
Damn it sounded so good til this last statement. I agree with the audacity but you are dreaming about the other.
Really? When did Lee coordinate the advance of not one, not two, not three, not four, but five separate armies, scattered over hundreds of miles all at the same time? People focus on Grant's battle with Lee in Virginia and forget that he was overseeing the overall Union war effort, as far as land forces were concerned, at the same time.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 11:41 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 11:43 pm to Tackle74
quote:
Fact is that Grant understood the strategy of what it took to defeat the Confederacy and then he executed it.
It wasn't Grant's talent that won the war. He may have been a fine general but there were other things that had significant impact on the Unions victory.
Lincoln printed 400 million greenbacks in the treasury to fund the war. This was interest free because he didn't use a bank which charges interest for the creation of money. (Should make you wonder why we allow debt to be attached to each dollar created instead of using the treasury to create currency as Lincoln and JFK did).
The Union was giving foreigners uniforms as they got off the boat.
Blockades. Which is strategy, but it was another inherent advantage.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 11:45 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 11:44 pm to weagle99
quote:
Give Grant Lee's resources and manpower and vice versa. Still think Grant is better?
Grant more than likely wouldn't have fought the same way Lee did had the two generals switched places. Grant understood modern warfare better than any of his contemporaries, and that includes Lee. He more than likely would have entrenched and let Lee or whatever general he was facing come to him - just as Lee did against Grant in 1864.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 12:08 am to RollTide1987
Not gonna read all othe posts. Just gonna chime in:
Lee did an incredible job with the hand he had to play.
Grant was brought in after Vicksburg fell to beat him while Sherman's scorched Earth campaign cut off any help from the South and Lee still ran them ragged before having to finally give up.
Lee did an incredible job with the hand he had to play.
Grant was brought in after Vicksburg fell to beat him while Sherman's scorched Earth campaign cut off any help from the South and Lee still ran them ragged before having to finally give up.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 12:21 am to weagle99
quote:
believe had Jackson been alive Gettyburg could have ended differently
This, all of this
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 12:23 am
Posted on 3/30/14 at 12:31 am to FutureMikeVIII
Side note:
Shreveport gets a lot of hate on TD, some of it deserved.
Shreveport never fell.
The Union tried to take Shreveport and never did.
Shreveport gets a lot of hate on TD, some of it deserved.
Shreveport never fell.
The Union tried to take Shreveport and never did.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 12:39 am to Scoop
Did Shreveport have any strategic importance?
Posted on 3/30/14 at 12:44 am to FutureMikeVIII
It was the capital of the Confederacy when it was moved on. The Union came south over land from Little Rock and north along the Red River from South La.
They had their asses handed to them on both fronts and Shreveport stood.
They had their asses handed to them on both fronts and Shreveport stood.
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 12:47 am
Posted on 3/30/14 at 1:03 am to RollTide1987
Grant only had one year of decision making like many said, which puts his butcher tag into proper context.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 7:23 am to Scoop
Seven thousand Confederates ran forty thousand union troops out of NW LA.Was Grant overseeing that as well?
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 7:25 am
Posted on 3/30/14 at 7:40 am to RollTide1987
Nothing to add. I'm just very impressed with the history knowledge here. Great discussion
Posted on 3/30/14 at 8:21 am to bencoleman
quote:
Seven thousand Confederates ran forty thousand union troops out of NW LA.Was Grant overseeing that as well?
If you are referring to the Red River Campaign of 1864 then no, Grant did not oversee it. That plan was developed by Grant's predecessor, Major General Henry W. Halleck, a mediocre officer at best.
When Grant took command and was briefed upon it, he wanted to call the whole thing off and divert those forces to the much more important mission of capturing Mobile, Alabama. By that time, however, the forces of Nathaniel P. Banks were committed to the campaign and could not be stopped.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 8:23 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Grant more than likely wouldn't have fought the same way Lee did had the two generals switched places. Grant understood modern warfare better than any of his contemporaries, and that includes Lee. He more than likely would have entrenched and let Lee or whatever general he was facing come to him - just as Lee did against Grant in 1864.
Maginot line style or do you have a another idea. These armies were constantly on the move, Grant had a limitless supply of troops and materials. Lee had neither. Yet you insist on comparing the two. In military circles Lee is thought of as the greatest American general. These are people who know military tactics both tactical and strategic, not to mention logistics. I can only imagine the nightmare of supplying an army on the move in those days. Earlier you slammed Lee on logistics but he was constantly begging for materials from Richmond.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 8:36 am to bencoleman
quote:
Grant had a limitless supply of troops and materials. Lee had neither.
And what do you do when you face a 4-to-1 manpower deficiency, as well as a huge industrial output gap? Do you go on the offensive and attack the overwhelming superior force, thus more quickly depleting your reserves?
quote:
In military circles Lee is thought of as the greatest American general. These are people who know military tactics both tactical and strategic, not to mention logistics
Well since I am in the military circle, it's pretty obvious that there is no consensus on this debate. And while you will see military academia arguing for or against Grant or Lee's tactical superiority, you will rarely see them arguing over who the best at strategy was. Grant wins that by a mile. Why? Because all Lee cared about was Virginia while Ulysses S. Grant saw Lee's army as just one piece of a larger puzzle that needed to be solved.
Page 5 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News