re: History Debate: Ulysses S. Grant vs. Robert E. Lee

quote:

---

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.

---

That is every General in the History of man. You are dealt a hand of cards and you either play it right or wrong. Grant unquestionably played his hand well.

quote:

---

Knowing the situation you have to stand in awe at Lee's accomplishments.

---

His accomplishments were admirable but his admirers tend to forget just who he was going up against his first year in command. From June 1, 1862 - June 28, 1863, roughly his first year on the job as the commanding officer of the Army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee faced the following Northern commanders: George McClellan, John Pope, McClellan again, Ambrose Burnside, and Joseph Hooker. Let's examine each one of these generals individually:

George McClellan - A brilliant administrator but one of the worst battlefield commanders in U.S. history. Timid. Cautious. He was constantly under the assumption that Lee outnumbered his army by 2-to-1 odds. Had he shown just an ounce of aggression at Antietam, the war would have ended in 1862 instead of 1865.

John Pope - An incompetent battlefield commander who was overly aggressive to the point of stupidity. It was Pope who had his army completely routed from the field at Second Manassas. He ignored every indication that Confederate reinforcements had arrived on his flank, instead sticking to the belief that if those forces were indeed there, they were there to support Stonewall Jackson's retreat from the field. Instead of supporting a non-existent retreat, those newly-arrived Confederates (30,000 troops under the command of Longstreet) plowed into Pope's left flank and drove his army completely from the field.

It also must be noted that 70,000 additional reinforcements under the command of McClellan were in the immediate vicinity but McClellan, who wanted to see Pope fail, decided to take his time in carrying out his orders to march to the aid of Pope's army.

Ambrose Burnside - The worst battlefield commander in U.S. Army history and one of the worst battlefield commanders in the history of warfare itself. Burnside took nearly 8 hours crossing Antietam Creek during the Battle of Antietam. He had 13,000 men attacking 500 Confederates. Nearly three months later, now as commander of the Army of the Potomac, Burnside ordered assault after assault on a near impregnable position at the Battle of Fredericksburg. The battle went down as the worst defeat in U.S. military history up to that time. It would not be surpassed until 1942 with the Battle of Bataan in the Philippines.

Joseph Hooker - The most competent of Lee's early opponents, "Fighting Joe" Hooker was regarded as an excellent corps commander and a no-brainer for the role as commander of the Army of the Potomac. Problem was, the leap from corps to army command isn't that simple. Hooker came up with a brilliant plan to entrap Lee's army, but completely froze up and lost his nerve when Lee advanced on him at Chancellorsville. He also ignored report after report of a large Confederate column moving through the forest in front of the Union lines on May 2, 1863. This was Stonewall Jackson's flanking column that would completely collapse the Union right flank that afternoon. He had a chance to salvage the situation numerous times on May 3. However, Hooker's heart was no longer in the fight and he ordered a retreat to the river despite more than half of his army having yet to participate in the battle.


But what did all of these successes give Lee or the Confederacy? Simply put: stalemate. The North still controlled much of northern Virginia and Lee continuously failed to push the Union army back from the Rapidan-Rappahanock River line. His two ventures into the North ended in unmitigated disasters. He lost 33% of his army during the Maryland Campaign of September 1862 and a further 25% of his army during the Pennsylvania Campaign of June/July 1863. When Grant went up against him in 1864, it took the Northern general just two months to completely immobilize Lee by pinning him within trenches around Petersburg.

quote:

---

While it is true the CSA outclassed the USA in every tangible way (except equipment and supply) probably all the way until the end of the war, the differences in '64 and '65 were getting to be negligible. The "screening" process that combat provides allowed the better Union generals to rise to the top. As their troops became more combat hardened, the overall esprit de corps, the elan, the fighting spirit - however you want to describe it - possessed by the confederates, particularly the Army of Northern Virginia, was insufficient to overcome the massive advantages in manpower and materiel enjoyed by the North.

---

Complete and utter bullshite!

The North won because the northern military came from an all around better stock that possessed a superior work ethic and overall health. Most southern troops were illiterate and impoverished, many of them malnourished and held into abject poverty by their aristocratic and exploitative elites.

Also, the narrative of world history is north over south in every case (see: Global North over Global South, Northern Ireland over the Republic, northern Europe over southern Europe, North Korea over South Korea, North Vietnam over South Vietnam, northern Italy over Sicily, northern France over south of France, Germanics/Norsemen over Romans and Greeks, Russians over Caucasians and Chechens, ad infinitum).

The South lost because the South was/is wrong regarding just about everything. In fact, the South today is the reason the GOP and conservatism no longer stands a realistic chance. Southerners have a self-defeating identity which favors the interest of their elites over their ordinary citizens, and this is why your demographics are gradually uprooting you all and replacing you with cheaper labor to serve the corporate interests at your expense in the region.

History continues to repeat itself over and over again.

quote:

---

In fact, the South today is the reason the GOP and conservatism no longer stands a realistic chance.

---

The midwest called and wants its geography back.

quote:

---

Yep. Sherman was really fortunate to have Grant providing him daily battlefield advice.

---

Sherman received his orders from Grant. And yes, Sherman kept in touch with Grant almost daily.

quote:

---

Burnside was actually an interesting case

---

I haven't checked it yet, but I am thinking that Burnside was in command of the union army of 40,000 that was run out of North La. by 7,000 confederates.

quote:

---

Many of them got their rank because, at the time of South Carolina's secession from the Union, there were only 16,000 men in the U.S. Army - officers included. Many of those officers and men went South once their native state seceded. To replace them, the Union army promoted these officers to positions of authority.

---

Same thing on the southern side. Longstreet was the highest-ranking officer from Alabama in the prewar army, and he was a major.

quote:

---

Burnside

---

Was the Union commander at Fredericksburg.

quote:

---

Good Lord that's just pathetic.

---

It is pathetic. Pathetic that you can't at least acknowledge that Sherman, while in independent command in Georgia, adhered to Grant's orders and overall strategy. Grant kept Sherman on a far looser leash than he did Meade to be sure, but Grant still received daily reports from Sherman as well as issued him daily instructions.

quote:

---

It's pathetic, period, as are your consistent machinations against Lee.

---

So because I believe Grant to be the superior general that automatically must mean I have something against Lee? Yeah...we've got a bright one right here.

I have acknowledged Lee's excellent generalship several times in this thread.